Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 545 of 830 (871169)
01-29-2020 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Faith
01-26-2020 12:55 PM


Re: Some ponderings on the Kind
\Why do they look alike Faith? Why does species A look like species B? Isn't that like a dog evolving into a cat
Neither you nor I think that. Nor do I think they must be the same species as you first absurdly suggested.
Just saying that if a population evolves to look like and behave like another population, that for all intents and purposes it has become a different kind, based on how "kind" is defined.
You call it convergent evolution, the idea being that they evolved separately. Which is pretty much what I''d say too. So there really isn't much of an issue here. But just calling it "convergent evolution" doesn't explain why "species A looks like species B" anyway, it just says it happens. I don't have an explanation either except that the same function can show up in different species, which doesn't explain it either, just says it happens, same as you say it happens. It's a wonderful mystery really.
Convergent evolution is explained by similar ecological pressures. This is why there are several differently evolved gliding tree frogs -- it's easier to get from tree to tree and to evade predators.
In fact there are a lot of wonderful mysteries to ponder in either theory. The strikingly specific kinds of animals that I'm imputing to the same genome is a great mystery. I don't think they were separately created which would easily solve the problem, I do think they "evolved" from the original, say, bird, or cat or dog genome, but they are such specifically designed creatures with such specifically different adaptations it's truly wonderful. I have to try to understand how the penguin came out of the bird genome, or the ostrich. The penguin with its peculiarly specific bodily structure and behaviors, the ostrich with its peculiarly specific bodily structure and behaviors, each perfectly adapted to its environment.
Evolution explains it quite well, adaptation to specific ecological habitats, over time becoming more and more adapted to those habitats.
Whether we are talking about evolution within a clade (biological/evolutionary) or within a "kind" (creationist) the result is the same -- adaptation to specific habitats brings out specific adaptations.
In my scenaio they evolved, just as they did in your scenario, but their specificity is too wonderful for that explanation. No I don't think they were separately created, I do think they evolved from the original Bird Kind, but it's hard to see how the random methods of evolution could have brought that about. And of course I mean microevolution, and of course so do you.
Their "specificity is too wonderful for that explanation" is easily explained by adaptation over many generations from the parent Clade/"Kind" population. This of course gets us into the question of how much time is involved: I have billions of years, you just a few thousand years, so they had to evolve at a much faster rate for your view than mine.
Same wonderful mystery with dogs. As I concluded from the Linnaean taxonomy, the Dog Kind includes wolves and foxes and coyotes and dingos and perhaps some other odd variations. If I believe they all came from an original Dog Kind then I believe they evolved, just as you believe they evolved.
Agreed, and again the issue of time is raised -- how fast they evolved generation by generation. Just as we saw with the mammal ear evolution.
Out of interest where do you put hyenas and thylacines? They appear similar to dogs imho, more convergent evolution? Did the thylacines evolve to be like dogs for all intents and purposes?
I could raise the question from my point of view whether such specific variations had already arisen before the Flood and were taken into the Ark as separate species, or evolved AFTER the Flood from the two chosen. I probably won't be able to answer that for sure but my feeling is that they must have been treated as separate species so each would have been brought in twos onto the Ark.
Which is irrelevant if there was not flood.
These very specific variations of birds or dogs or any other Kind or Class or Family seem very hard to explain on the basis of evolution which always suggests something piecemeal. ...
Like microevolution generation after generation after generation ... where I have plenty of time and you don't.
... But these creatures have an organized wholeness whose parts would have to have evolved all together it seems. I ran into this same issue when thinking aobut how apes could have evolved into humanity. ...
False assumptions lead to false conclusions.
... So many parts of the creature work together it's hard to figure out how they could have evolved one at a time through mutations. ...
Because they evolved to work together as they evolved.
... In the case of the Kind it's hard to imagine how even though they share a genome all the different functions they need that are built into the genome still have to be inherited as a unit rather than piecemeal by population splits. The penguins all have total body feather coverage, they all nurture their eggs between their feet, they are all supremely adapted to swimming in freezing water, how did all that adaptation come together by mere evolution, whether the ToE version or the Kind version? it's hard to explain either way. Oh I know it can be explained but I mean such adaptations defy the usual explanations and need a more satisfying explanation than the usual ones.
Again the issue comes down to time, which makes small steps over many generations over billions of years an adequate explanation, but limiting it to a few thousand years much more difficult. You need hyper-evolution and many lumps to get there, while evolution doesn't. That makes evolution the better explanation.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : finished

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 12:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 548 of 830 (871178)
01-29-2020 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Faith
01-27-2020 2:28 PM


Re: re the Linnaean taxonomy for birds
... I don't see any need to get into the strictly scientific designations. If such designations are clearly needed in some discussion or other, that's another story. Otherwise the insistence on the strictly scientific terminology is just a way of obstructing communication.
No, it's a way to reduce confusion and promote communication.
Well I've many times shown that there is such a barrier and it's only a dogmatic blind adherence to the "science" that refuses to recognize it cuz it blows the ToE to smithereens. But I don't have to prove this at EvC, I can work it out for others elsewhere.
You THINK you have, but your "proof" relies on a hidden assumption -- that mutations are inadequate to increase genetic variation, when this is obviously not the case.
A "proof" based on false assumptions is not valid.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 2:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 01-29-2020 4:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 559 of 830 (871240)
01-30-2020 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Faith
01-29-2020 4:00 PM


Logic fails, proves nothing
It's not an assumption, I've worked it out. ...
... based on erroneous assumptions, as we shall see.
... First you can't maintain a species in ... a breed in artificial selection if you have any kind of increase in genetic diversity, wether through gene flow or mutation.
Because the goal of breeding is to maintain a species all changes in phenotype, whether through gene flow or mutation are intentionally culled. That makes this a false analogy, as this process is not analogous to natural selection & mutation producing new species.
First you can't maintain a species in the wild ... if you have any kind of increase in genetic diversity, wether through gene flow or mutation.
Natural selection is not concerned with maintaining a species, it is concerned with individual surviving to breed and pass on whatever gene combinations they have, whether through gene flow or mutation. If that means evolving into a new species so be it. It is the ecology that determines the survival/breeding fitness of the population, which mean adaptation to a changing system over each generation.
So your premise 1A is invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion.
Since ... breeds ... maintain an identifiable characteristics we know that neither of these sources of increase occur, or that they are extremely rare.
Because the goal of breeding is to maintain a species all changes in phenotype, whether through gene flow or mutation are intentionally culled. That makes this a false analogy, as this process is not analogous to natural selection & mutation producing new species.
Since ... species in the wild maintain an identifiable characteristics we know that neither of these sources of increase occur, or that they are extremely rare.
Except that they don't: there is variety within every species, and the frequency of alleles varies from generation to generation. If the ecology doesn't change then the selection will continue to be adapted to that ecology, culling out the outliers, but if the ecology changes then the focus of selection will shift towards varieties better suited to the new ecology. This has been observed.
Using a special case of apparent stasis in some populations while ignoring the documented changes in other populations means you are guilty of a logical fallacy of the part for the whole and of cherry picking only the evidence that suits your position.
So the premise 1B is also invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion. It is also distinct from premise 1A and should be listed as a second premise.
Second, if such increases do occur, ... from ... mutation, since mutation doesn't contribute much change in a short period of time ...
Actually premise 3.
This is an unsubstantiated assumption based only on your opinion and not on any facts, details, measurements or documentation.
Meanwhile we do have evidence of mutations causing speciation by polyploidy and other examples, mostly in plants, but animals are also involved.
In addition there is no requirement for evolution of a new species to occur "in a short period of time" so that means you are ignoring evolution over longer periods of time, again the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.
So the premise 2A (3) is also invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion.
Second, if such increases do occur, usually from resumed gene flow ...
While this is rare compared to actual mutational changes it is instructive to note what happens when this does occur.
When two populations are isolated from gene flow they will each accrue mutations that the other population does not have. When they rejoin these new mutations will be mixed into the general population, adding genetic diversity and you can get hybrids with some from population A and some from population B. Depending on the length of isolation, you can get (a) virtually no effect, (b) hybrid vigor (Heterosis), (c) Inbreeding depression - Wikipedia or (d) sterile offspring (eg mules).
There are observed cases where hybrid of such daughter population cross-breeding are more fit than either population and they then supplant the parent species.
See EvC Forum: Population Dynamics - the math behind the evolution of species
So you have that one backwards and ignore the larger picture.
... then if a population split occurs or any other kind of selection we will again have reduced genetic diversity which always occurs when new traits form a new composite phenotype. ...
This uses your premise as a conclusion, another logical fallacy of begging the question.
This also assumes this is always the case, when evidence shows it is not. Another case of the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.
And this also assumes that a temporary situation lasts, when the evidence again is that mutations add to the gene pool.
So the premise 2B (4) is also invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion.
Selection IS the driving force of evolution and it always decreases genetic diversity.
Ignoring the role of mutation, so again this is the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.
Selection is ONE of the driving forces, mutation is ANOTHER, and the ecology is a third major driving force.
This is also a non-sequitur fallacy introducing selection in the conclusion.
So your final conclusion is not supported by your premises AND none of the premises support a valid conclusion.
Epic fail.
You have not "proved" anything but ignorance.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 01-29-2020 4:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 2:26 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 567 by Faith, posted 02-01-2020 2:02 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 565 of 830 (871269)
01-30-2020 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Faith
01-30-2020 2:26 PM


Re: Logic fails, reasoning not encountered in msg 549
Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, ...
Sadly, for you, I did. Taking out every logical fallacy, errors of omission and bald assertion along the way (detailed in Message 559, the one you skipped over to make this lame one line post).
When I was done, there was nothing left. Nothing to follow.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : St

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 2:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 566 of 830 (871361)
02-01-2020 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Faith
01-30-2020 2:26 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing -- blind one liners are not replies
To add to what I said in Message 565 just for clarity
Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, ...
So what I did was follow your reasoning line by line in Message 559, checking them for accuracy, and logical validity.
What I found were numerous errors of logic that showed the basis for you conclusion was invalid.
Most errors concerned errors of omission, taking part of the evidence for the whole.
As I have often said, the best explanation covers ALL the evidence, not just select portions of it (ie -- cherry picking evidence to support a predetermined conclusion)
... should show you I'm right, but of course that isn't going to happen.
What it shows is errors you continue to make, and corrections you ignore: that is not a reasoned argument.
Just as you fluff off other corrections time and again with one-line replies that are just arrogant denial.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Faith, posted 01-30-2020 2:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 573 of 830 (871376)
02-01-2020 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by Faith
02-01-2020 2:02 PM


Re: Logic fails, proves nothing
What "natural selection" is "concerned with" is just evolutionist theory. In actual fact most selection is nothing more than the separation of a portion of a population that becomes geographically isolated, and that produces a new identifiable "composite phenotyps" or subpopulation. ...
NO NO NO
You do NOT get to redefine science terms to suit your delusions. This is the basics of evolution (once again):
The first box is breeding, including mutations in the population,
The second box is natural selection survival, some do, some don't,
Arrows from the first box are the results of breeding, including individuals with new mutations and
The Arrow from the second box is that portion of the population that survived to breed.
That is ALL natural selection is -- the survival and breeding of individuals in the population.
It is NOT population isolation and speciation, that is a different process.
... Nature doesn't "care" about anything, so what? ...
Nature and natural selection are not the same thing. Natural selection occurs within nature, but nature does not occur within natural selection.
... the fact is that this is probably the way new varieite sor subspecies develop in the wild, it's how you get a new populaton of a different color of bear from the parent population's color, a new type of wildebeest from ththat of the main population, new raccoom markings from those of the parent population, new markings on the salamanders of each new subpopu;aton in a ring species.
Mutation and natural selection within isolated populations will cause genetic divergence as new mutations in one population cannot be transmitted to the other population, because gene flow has ceased.
And it seems it takes at least two mutations for form genetic incompatibility:
quote:
Population Dynamics, Sexual Incompatibility
... how can we tell when this point has been reached?
quote:
The population genetics of speciation: the evolution of hybrid incompatibilities.
THE BASIC MODEL
The central assumption of the DOBZHANSKY-MULLER model of speciation is that alleles cause no sterility or inviability on their normal "pure species" genetic background. Instead, an allele can lower fitness only when brought together with genes from another species. Any particular hybrid incompatibility might cause partial or complete hybrid sterility or inviability. For most of this paper, I assume that hybrid incompatibilties involve interactions between pairs of genes, as in DOBZHANSKY and MULLER'S verbal models. Later, I consider three-locus and higher interactions. I also assume that multiple substitutions do not occur at the same locus, an assumption that is reasonable during the early divergence of taxa. I assume nothing about the evolutionary causes of substitutions. The DOBZHANSKY-MULLER model of speciation requires only that substitutions occur and assumes nothing about whether they are brought about by natural selection or genetic drift.
Because I consider the cumulative effects of interactions between many loci -- which quickly gets complicated -- it is useful to picture this process diagramatically. Figure 1 offers a simple way to picture the accumulation of complementary genes between two haploid populations. Each of the two heavy lines represents a lineage descended from a common ancestor. The two allopatric populations begin with identical "ancestral" lowercase genotypes at all loci (a b c . . .). Time runs upward, with the first substitution occurring at the a locus, the second at the b locus and so on.
The first substitution involves the replacement of the a allele by the A allele in population 1 (uppercase letters indicate only that an allele is "derived"; no dominance is implied). The A allele cannot cause any hybrid sterility or inviability: because A is obviously compatible with the genetic background of population 1, it must be compatible with the identical background of population 2. The second substitution, at the B locus (in population 2), could be incompatible with only one locus: A, as the B allele has not been "tested" for compatibility with A. The third substitution, at C, could be incompatible with the B or a alleles. As we continue this process, it is clear that we can identify all possible (i.e., evolutionarily allowed) incompatibilities by drawing an arrow from each derived allele to each "earlier" (lower) allele carried by the other species. Thus D can be incompatible with c, B, and a. This arrow-drawing device will repeatedly prove useful.
Note that the possibility of two ancestral alleles being involved in incompatibility is
... because they were the same allele in the parent population.
And it should be readily apparent that speciation -- defined as sexual incompatibility -- depends on mutations occurring in the sub-populations.
You are not following my reasoning as you claimed, you are as usual just insisting on the view of the ToE over anything I say..
Nope. I followed your "reasoning" into the garbage can of failed concepts because it was faulty. That failure of your "reasoning" has nothing to do with the ToE, rather it has everything to do with bad logic and failure on your part to include ALL the evidence.
What "natural selection" is "concerned with" is just evolutionist theory. ...
Nope. It is an observed biological process, a FACT, not theory.
The ToE is that natural selection (an observed process, FACT) and mutation (also an observed process, FACT) are enough to explain the diversity of life on earth. Theories build on facts, faith.
Maybe you should actually read Message 559 slowly and attempt to understand your errors detailed in paragraph after paragraph, and not cherry pick one you think is somehow wrong, but actually show it is wrong.
I could be sad I guess that you didn't do what I asked, but by now I know it's just standard operating procedure.
But I did, you just don't like the result. Sad? You should be glad that you just got some free education so that you can improve your arguments ... if you wanted to learn instead of just preach.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by Faith, posted 02-01-2020 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 641 of 830 (873854)
03-20-2020 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 623 by Faith
03-19-2020 4:01 PM


Taxonomic classification of BIRDS
Making the thrush into a separate family separates it from other birds that seem to have all the same morphological characteristics. If not, what is the difference?
There are more morphological differences between bird families that there are between human and chimp, which you insist are entirely different taxons.
From my Bird Book, Field Guide to Birds of North America, National Geographic Society:
quote:
Species
This guide includes all the species known to breed in North America ... Also included are ... seen in North America when they spend the winter or pass through on regular migration routes.
The sequence of this guide follows only generally that of the American Ornithologists' Union (A.O.U.) 1983 Check -list, which places species in the sequence of their presumed natural relationships. ...
The A.O.U. Check-list is the standard for species classification, scientific names and common name.
Families
Ornithologists organize the species into family groups that share certain structural characteristics. Some families have more than a hundred members; others have only one. Family resemblance is often helpful in identifying birds in the field. Members of the family Picidae (page 264), for example are quickly recognized as woodpeckers, narrowing the identification problem down from 800 possibilities to 21.
There are many morphological and structural differences between bird species that ornithologists identify.
Beaks for instance have many more differences than those between human and chimp ...
... then feet, legs and necks, wings, feathers, etc
To claim they are all one species is bull headed ignorance.
But that's not new for you.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by Faith, posted 03-19-2020 4:01 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 642 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2020 2:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 642 of 830 (873857)
03-20-2020 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 641 by RAZD
03-20-2020 1:37 PM


To the Taxonomic classification of BIRDS, add DINOSAURS
All Birds fall into a clade, within and descendant from dinosaurs ...
quote:
How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds - Scientific American
Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible
Modern birds descended from a group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods, whose members include the towering Tyrannosaurus rex and the smaller velociraptors. The theropods most closely related to avians generally weighed between 100 and 500 pounds giants compared to most modern birds and they had large snouts, big teeth, and not much between the ears. A velociraptor, for example, had a skull like a coyote’s and a brain roughly the size of a pigeon’s.
For decades, paleontologists’ only fossil link between birds and dinosaurs was archaeopteryx, a hybrid creature with feathered wings but with the teeth and long bony tail of a dinosaur. These animals appeared to have acquired their birdlike features feathers, wings and flight in just 10 million years, a mere flash in evolutionary time. Archaeopteryx seemed to emerge fully fledged with the characteristics of modern birds, said Michael Benton, a paleontologist at the University of Bristol in England.
But it has become increasingly clear that the story of how dinosaurs begat birds is much more subtle. Discoveries have shown that bird-specific features like feathers began to emerge long before the evolution of birds, indicating that birds simply adapted a number of pre-existing features to a new use. And recent research suggests that a few simple changeamong them the adoption of a more babylike skull shape into adulthoodlikely played essential roles in the final push to bird-hood. Not only are birds much smaller than their dinosaur ancestors, they closely resemble dinosaur embryos. Adaptations such as these may have paved the way for modern birds’ distinguishing features, namely their ability to fly and their remarkably agile beaks. The work demonstrates how huge evolutionary changes can result from a series of small evolutionary steps.
In the 1990s, an influx of new dinosaur fossils from China revealed a feathery surprise. Though many of these fossils lacked wings, they had a panoply of plumage, from fuzzy bristles to fully articulated quills. The discovery of these new intermediary species, which filled in the spotty fossil record, triggered a change in how paleontologists conceived of the dinosaur-to-bird transition. Feathers, once thought unique to birds, must have evolved in dinosaurs long before birds developed.
Sophisticated new analyses of these fossils, which track structural changes and map how the specimens are related to each other, support the idea that avian features evolved over long stretches of time. In research published in Current Biology last fall, Stephen Brusatte, a paleontologist at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and collaborators examined fossils from coelurosaurs, the subgroup of theropods that produced archaeopteryx and modern birds. They tracked changes in a number of skeletal properties over time and found that there was no great jump that distinguished birds from other coelurosaurs.
A bird didn’t just evolve from a T. rex overnight, but rather the classic features of birds evolved one by one; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings, Brusatte said. The end result is a relatively seamless transition between dinosaurs and birds, so much so that you can’t just draw an easy line between these two groups.
Yet once those avian features were in place, birds took off. Brusatte’s study of coelurosaurs found that once archaeopteryx and other ancient birds emerged, they began evolving much more rapidly than other dinosaurs. The hopeful monster theory had it almost exactly backwards: A burst of evolution didn’t produce birds. Rather, birds produced a burst of evolution. It seems like birds had happened upon a very successful new body plan and new type of ecologyflying at small sizeand this led to an evolutionary explosion, Brusatte said.
Though most people might name feathers or wings as a key characteristic distinguishing birds from dinosaurs, the group’s small stature is also extremely important. New research suggests that bird ancestors shrank fast, indicating that the diminutive size was an important and advantageous trait, quite possibly an essential component in bird evolution.
Like other bird features, diminishing body size likely began long before the birds themselves evolved. A study published in Science last year found that the miniaturization process began much earlier than scientists had expected. Some coelurosaurs started shrinking as far back as 200 million years ago50 million years before archaeopteryx emerged. At that time, most other dinosaur lineages were growing larger. Miniaturization is unusual, especially among dinosaurs, Benton said.
There is no one common ancestor to birds known at this time, and it may well be that several branches of feathered dinosaurs developed flight independently ,but, they are still dinosaurs, still therapods, as those feathered dinosaurs are apparently descendant from theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era.
quote:
Origin of birds - Wikipedia
The scientific question of within which larger group of animals birds evolved, has traditionally been called the origin of birds. The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era. There could also be a mosaic of interbreeding, much as we see in Homo lineages.
A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. Birds and extinct non-avian dinosaurs share many unique skeletal traits.[1] Moreover, fossils of more than thirty species of non-avian dinosaur have been collected with preserved feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. Paleontologist Lawrence Witmer concluded in 2009 that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that avian evolution went through a four-winged stage.[2] Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors.
Birds evolved from dinosaurs, and were very successful in evolutionary terms at improving survival.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2020 1:37 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 643 by caffeine, posted 03-20-2020 2:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 644 of 830 (873863)
03-20-2020 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 643 by caffeine
03-20-2020 2:38 PM


Re: To the Taxonomic classification of BIRDS, add DINOSAURS
The first is a Scientific American article By Emily Singer, Quanta Magazine on June 12, 2015.
The second is what came up on search ... last edited march 4 2020.
What changes would you make? I was only looking at the broad stroke picture of dinosaur → bird evolution.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 643 by caffeine, posted 03-20-2020 2:38 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 645 by caffeine, posted 03-20-2020 5:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 651 of 830 (873919)
03-21-2020 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 645 by caffeine
03-20-2020 5:55 PM


Re: To the Taxonomic classification of BIRDS, add DINOSAURS
That's part of my comment on the evolution of birds.
I'd like to know why you think it is meaningless.

Getting back to the thread topic, the fact that birds fall into nested taxonomic hierarchies is strong evidence for evolution, both through analysis of morphology of fossils and through genetics/DNA analysis.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : topic

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by caffeine, posted 03-20-2020 5:55 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 652 by caffeine, posted 03-21-2020 6:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 661 of 830 (874872)
04-11-2020 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 660 by Faith
04-10-2020 11:20 PM


mosquitos
Dogs wolves and coyotes can be identified as the same species by morphology. ...
There are two populations of morphological identical mosquitoes, one carries malaria and the other doesn't. They don't interbreed
They're call cryptic species in biology.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added missing criteria

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 660 by Faith, posted 04-10-2020 11:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 3:31 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 684 of 830 (874955)
04-12-2020 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by Faith
04-11-2020 7:08 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
I looked at the Linnaean chart. But I think it's fair enough to work out my own observations.
Do you have access to actual specimens like Linnaeus had?
Just wondering what data you are using.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by Faith, posted 04-11-2020 7:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 3:47 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 758 of 830 (875173)
04-15-2020 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 699 by Faith
04-12-2020 3:31 PM


Re: mosquitoes
I'd probably classify them as a Kind, or perhaps within a larger group of insects if I ever got into that area. Morphologically they are the same, that's the main criterion for the Kind/Species for me. Shape of body, form and number of legs, shape and function of proboscis.
Sorry, I edited my post to add the morphologial data that I forgot to include: they are identical morphologically.
Why don't they interbreed? This is important to the control of malaria.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 3:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 759 of 830 (875175)
04-15-2020 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 701 by Faith
04-12-2020 3:47 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
All I have is Google Image. Linnaeus' specimens were more useful but on the other hand the internet is jjust about miraculous for such purposes. ... .
Mostly my own memory of course. ...
Google won't show you the differences between placental and marsupial mammals, for starters.
No wonder you lump things in nonsense manners.
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by Faith, posted 04-12-2020 3:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024