If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?

Hi Denisova,Sorry, no automatic copy facility exists. Yes, to post a copy of a message you can copy the text from the Edit box, or you can use the Peek button, which will display the raw text of any message.

Welcome to the fray Denisova, are you connected with denisovians discovery? See what I did in Message 204 and Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity Message 413 -- you can hide the message when you edit it to copy for the reposting on the other thread, and then one can look (peek) at it if they don't want to go to the other thread.Enjoyps -- when you |peek| a message the url line gives you f (forum) number, t (thread) number and m (message) number:EvC Forum: Message Peek

Hi Faith, I've had horrid headaches as well, hence my reduced posting ...Please continue on Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity and reply to Message 413 when you are able.Enjoy

Thanks for the tips! No, that would be too much credits!
Just a nice Avatar name I choose.

Ah well, you never know in a place like this. You realize by now that you are addicted yes? So I ran across this and thought it would be good to discuss in relation to the topic:Beijing to Boston: Chatting About Yi qi, Part 1 | National Center for Science Education

quote:

---

CS: Yi qi fits nicely among the Scansoriopterygidae, a somewhat enigmatic group of theropods close to the origin of birds. There are two other definite Jurassic scansoriopterygids, Epidendrosaurus and Epidexipteryx, and Zhongornis from the Cretaceous might be a third member of the group, so Yi qi is either number three or number four. All these animals, though, including Yi qi, are known from rather imperfect specimens, so some aspects of their anatomy are still unclear. However, we do know that scansoriopterygids are closely related to birdsthey’re either the closest relatives of birds among non-avian dinosaurs, or a couple of nodes further away from birds, depending on whose phylogenetic analysis you support.

​

A couple of months later, I was reading a lot of stuff about flying and gliding vertebrates for a totally unrelated project. I came across a passage in a textbook that said modern flying squirrels (which actually glide, of course) have a cartilaginous strut, which helps to support the membranous wing, extending from either the wrist or the elbow. At the mention of a strut extending from the wrist, my mind immediately jumped back to the strange little dinosaur I’d seen in Shandong. At first the analogy seemed very far-fetched, but as Xu Xing and I began looking into it more, we became convinced that it held some water. That was when Xu invited me to join the project.

​

Right rod-like bone (labelled) of the new dinosaur Yi qi, with membranous tissue preserved around the tip of the bone and filament-like feathers preserved elsewhere in the image. (Credit: Mr. Zang Hailong)

​

What we found was two critical, essentially independent pieces of evidence for a membranous wing in Yi qi: the rod-like bone coming out of each wrist, and the patches Right rod-like bone (labelled) of the new dinosaur Yi qi, with membranous tissue preserved around the tip of the bone and filament-like feathers preserved elsewhere in the image. (Credit: Mr. Zang Hailong) of sheet-like soft tissue preserved alongside the rod-like bone and the fingers. Xu Xing spotted the patches of sheet-like tissue, which certainly lend themselves to interpretation as pieces of a flight membrane.

---

Beijing to Boston: Chatting About Yi qi, Part 2 | National Center for Science Education

quote:

---

SK: With this discovery, you’ve really added a new wrinkle to the whole how-did-flight-evolve questionwhich I’ve always found a little silly, actually. I remember when we Microraptor gui, subject of a 2003 Nature cover story. (Gelweo via Wikimedia Commons) were in graduate school, and in the same week in 2003, Nature’s cover story was about the newly discovered dinosaur group known as microraptors from China, with four wings that suggested gliding, while Science’s cover story was about Ken Dial’s study suggesting that flapping underdeveloped wings helped baby birds run up hills. So it was trees-down in Nature and ground-up in Science. I remember thinking, Why does it have to be one or the other? Doesn’t it make sense that both happened? Are you surprised to have found this new category of flying dinosaur? Do you think there are other variations out there waiting to be found?

​

CS: I certainly think it’s plausible that different theropod species close to the origin of birds could have been in the trees, on the ground, and everywhere in between, and found feathers and other incipient flight-related structures to be useful in all these contexts. After all, it’s not uncommon for closely related species in the modern world to vary in their ability and inclination to climb trees. So yes, I agree that the ground-up and trees-down accounts of the origin of flight aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

​

... But what is surprising about Yi qi is the sheer starkness of the difference between its membranous wing, supported by a rod-like bone, and the feather-based wings that are typically present in birds and their close relatives. The wing of Yi qi seems less like a new variation on the usual theme than like a whole new theme of its own, and in that sense it’s a very exciting discovery indeed.

​

Artist’s impression of Yi qi, illustrating one possible wing structure, what the authors call "the bat model." Image may be used freely to accompany an article on the discovery of Yi qi (Credit: Dinostar Co. Ltd)

​

sK: ... What do we know about Yi’s flight abilities?

​

CS: Well, we don’t know the shape or size of the membranous wing, or even the form of the tail (which could have an important impact on the animal’s aerodynamics), which makes it difficult to say very much about how Yi qi moved through the air. One argument we do make in the paper, although it’s not backed up by any kind of quantitative analysis, is that flapping flight requires rapid, fairly elaborate forelimb movements, whereas the rod-like bone coming out of the wrist must have been a fairly unwieldy structure. With that in mind, I suspect that Yi qi was mostly a glider, though it might have combined gliding with some awkward flapping. Gliders pretty well have to start from some kind of elevated perch, so I guess that implies trees down rather than ground up for Yi at least.

---

It's obviously a dragon Enjoy

Guess what, I just moved from Topix to here. On the Topix threads the level and quality of debating was so bad it urged me to move on, can you imagine?I don't smoke, hardly drink, do not play games until unseasonable hours so evcforum will be the only addiction I permit myself..... I like the way Keep describes the case. Animals like Scansoriopterygidae are very difficult to taxonomically classify.
Is it avian? Could it fly? Or did it just glide? Feathers all over or only on some spots? Pygostyle present? Hollow bones? Etc. etc.Often this mere difficulty is mentioned by creationists being yet another example how evolution theory fails. It would demonstrate how blurry and unreliable evolutionary definitions are and, therefore, how lousy the science behind it.But a taxonomically polysemic and ambiguous fossil record is exactly what evolution theory predicts. The more difficulty in taxonomically classifying a fossil, the better evidence it is. Fossils that blur the demarcation between, for instance, dinosaurs and birds are the hallmark of evolution.Moreover, creationists also demand evidence for evolution to be a mere genealogical lineage of species from ancestor all the way up to its identified descendant(s). Of course every single step must be provided. If you present one to fill the gap, they compare it with the very next one and now of course we have two gaps. Their hunger to fill the gaps is impossible to alleviate.It is as if they want prove for someone having been travelled from LA to NY by demanding an extensive list of photos taken of every mile marker covering the whole route, recorded on a detailed time table. For anyone else 3 or 4 photos will suffice of some cities on the route with the correct time stamp, corresponding with the time span normally needed to travel from LA to NY - maybe augmented by an ATM photo taken on a consistent moment en route.Evolution does even not need the exact genealogical lineage spelled out in absurd detail. It only demands a transitional sequence of relevant traits, in an correct temporal consistence. Creationists always cry victory when careful and more detailed study reveals that some species nonetheless turns out to be not the actual "genealogical" ancestor of the alleged descendant.Archaeopteryx is an example of this.Tiktaalik is even a more interesting one. Footprints and trackways in Poland were found to be of unambiguous tetrapod origin and turned out to be older than Tiktaalik. (BTW, it is always very funny and telling to see creationists accepting SUCH results of radiometric dating, as long as it proves their case - in other instances of course they will refute it)."Wow! In that case Tiktaalik can't be the ancestor of tetrapods!" they think. But it's all irrelevant. Say we have person A of whom we want to know whether he is the father of person B. But person B is dead. But we know for sure that person C was his son. In that case taking the DNA from A and C will be perfectly valid to 100% prove the relationship of A to B.Creationists often cry Pyrrhic victories, based upon a gross misunderstanding of evolution theory and of scientific methodology as well.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.Edited by Denisova, : Language issues.

Agreed with you on this point that science can answer many of question but still the science could not justify the death rate and birth rate, the milk phenomenon and many other things you might get the confusing answers from science but you will get firm answers from a true faith. Hope you got the answer.Edited by Belcher, : No reason given.Edited by Belcher, : No reason given.Edited by Belcher, : No reason given.Edited by Belcher, : No reason given.Edited by Belcher, : No reason given.Edited by Belcher, : No reason given.

What do you mean when you say "firm"? Unchanging? Accurate? How would you differentiate between two firm answers that were in opposition to each other?

I remember my dad one time giving me a 'firm' answer about how adding salt to an ice mixture helped ice cream freeze. 'See the salt encourages the ice to throw off its coldness..' he began.I had just a chemistry course talking about the phenomenon of freezing point depression and a physics course covering some thermodynamics, so I interrupted my dad during his first sentence. But Dad was quite firm in sticking with his answer, and I quickly dropped my misguided attempt to correct him. Firm answer wins! Luckily, I didn't need the answer for any real purpose.

Pretty much sums up the value of faith, that does.

Since when does science justify things?
Science is not to justify, it is to provide valid knowledge about observable phenomena.Science can EXPLAIN death and birth rates.
What do you mean with the "milk phenomenon"?
But milk production by mammals is also pretty much well understood.Which confusing answers by science? Why exactly confusing?No doubt you get "firm answers from true faith".
That's what always worries me about faith - "firm answers".
Because there ARE NO firm answers to our questions.Unfortunately nobody can tell which faith were to be "true".
How shall I put it? Well, maybe: you are a disguised atheist yourself. You disbelieve already the 4,200 other religions. So only 1 for you to go Or maybe "The invisible sky wizard made it, 6000 years before he miraculously impregnated a Jewish, probably not virgin (did she had no sex at all with her husband before?), so he let his child be killed, because the talking snake made the clay-man and the rib-woman eat an apple."Say, you are born in Russia, which happens to be a Christian nation since 863—69, when Cyril and Methodius spread "the word".If you had been born before 863 in Russia, you would believe the old Slavonic supreme god Rog or Svarog and any of the other, lower deities in the former Slavonic pantheon.When you were born in Iran before the Islamic conquest, you would have been a Zoroastrian. After the Islamic conquest you believe in Allah.Born in India, you either would be a Hinduist, a Buddhist, a Jainist or a Sikh. Or maybe you would worship any of the numerous minor ethnically-bound faiths.Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera (to be repeated ad finitum).Finally got the picture?
The PARTICULAR "eternal truth" you are believing, depends on the particular spot you were born and on the particular era you were living.The whole of language Christians talk, the arguments they use and the mindset are the very same when discussing a Muslim. If you leave away "Jesus" or "Allah", you hardly can't tell the difference. The same claims in the same words and with the same kind of reasoning.If I would follow the Christian claims, I inevitably STILL go to hell - the Muslim one, due to still being an infidel. Or any other hell of some other random religion. And if by splendid and delightful Benevolence by His Almighty Allah I was granted to leave the Muslim hell after 3 trillion years (be praised His Righteousness), I yet would be claimed by any other god to nonetheless serve my punishment in HIS hell. After thousands of Benevolences (that many religions mankind came up with) and quadrillions of years in numerous hells I would at last be reincarnated as a miserable bug - the Hinduist punishment for not fulfilling one's karma. And the shit starts all over again.You are an infidel like any atheist because you don't believe in any of the other few thousands of gods mankind came up with. The only difference with you is the atheist disbelieves ONE more.Doesn't it ring you a bell about the "eternal" claims of your "truth"?But, ANYWAY, this is a scientific thread.
Science does not believe in "firm" answers.
The reason for that it's based on observations under scrutiny of harsh methodology and fierce falsifiability. The latter means a scientific idea is deliberately prone to critics and attack. If a scientist says "must be true because the Book says so" he only will be mocked and asked for the OBSERVATIONAL evidence for his position.ANY MOMENT a "well established" scientific theory can be overthrown by new, contradicting observations. The ONLY final certainty scientists have about the validity of their ideas, are:

1. there is observational evidence for it
2. this evidence is established by applying austere methodology
3. despite decades (or more) of attacks by opponents the theory still stands
4. despite decades of observations in the field or lab experiments, the theory has not been falsified by counter evidence.

Evolution is such a theory that could withstand the ravages of 150 years of time.But, as said before:

• any time new evidence may spoil the fun
• any time another theory may be formulated that explains the observations better
• any time someone else may still find a methodological flaw or other severe problem
• any time someone may find new counter evidence.

Really, the only certainty science has is that even after decades a theory still holds - but always leaving a small chink, belatedly open to refutation.YET, science produces more valid knowledge and technology in any random decade than your religion in its entire 3,500 years history.And the very reason for that is because science is BASED on uncertainty.
As soon as you "find" "firm" answers, you just closed your mind.
And closing minds is fatal to science.Nobody expressed this better than deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist:
I just don’t mind when someone says ‘you don't understand that, so god did it’. That doesn’t even bother me. But what really bothers me is as if you were so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stopped looking because you content ‘god did it’, I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world. Neil deGrasse Tyson, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzjuSjJF9QY."Edited by Denisova, : dbCodes corrected.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

Yeah, funny. There are no transitional fossils only fossils that are difficult to classify because they have characteristics of two different groups.LOLHBD

Didn't want to start a new thread so dumped this here, while we're waiting for this thread to resume.The caterpiller, the pupa and the butterfly have totally (and impossibly) different phenotypes but identical DNA.Obvious but still amazing.

O ... kay. Well I asked "a true faith" about "the milk phenomenon", and it turns out creationists are wrong about everything ... according to "a true faith", which gave me "firm answers". Golly, that was easy. Why does this forum even exist when it's that easy to settle the question?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi Belcher, and welcome to the fray. Curiously I am not confused by what is not yet known but excited: science approximates reality by testing explanations against objective empirical evidence, if the explanation fails we toss it and try something else. This way the approximations constantly increase in accuracy. Question 1: how do you test\know the "firm answer" for accuracy?Question 2: how do you test\know which faith provides the best answer?It is fine to be skeptical of science, but you should equally be skeptical of faith, yes?btw -- if you are interested, we can find a better thread for your questions\answers, as the topic here is specifically about where flying creatures came from: keeping topics focussed helps everyone follow the thread.Enjoy