|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9028 total) |
| |
Michael MD | |
Total: 884,163 Year: 1,809/14,102 Month: 177/624 Week: 61/95 Day: 5/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Lignin in red algae supports the Genesis days chronology? What about birds? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
Is a billion year revision of plant evolution needed?
I will reference a recent publication concerning plant biology. Billion Year Revision of Plant Evolution Timeline May Stem From Discovery of Lignin in Seaweed Wikipedia describes the 1813 mannaming Lignin: "He named the substance “lignine”, which is derived from the Latin word lignum,[4] meaning wood." (see post 901 http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=827290#m827290) Genesis chapter 1 has a description of wooden plants וְעֵ֧ץ "and the tree" in verse 12 can actually PROPERLY be translated "and wood". quote: Then day 3 ended. English spore comes from Greek sporos: a sowing, i.e. seed (sown) From a verb root speiro speiró: to sow (seed) The Hebrew word for fruit can mean sperm and yes it can actually mean spore. "with seed" can actually translate " which its spore(S)" Possible LITERAL translation AND WOOD MAKING A SPORE (SPORES) WHICH ITS SPORE(S) (is/are) IN IT Now the article. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127090723.htm This Science Daily article is discussing the paper by Martone et al. “Discovery of Lignin in Seaweed Reveals Convergent Evolution of Cell-Wall Architecture. Current Biology, 2009; 19 (2): 169.” The gist of the paper is that: All land plants evolved from aquatic green algae …Because red and green algae likely diverged more than a billion years ago, the discovery of lignin in red algae suggests that the basic machinery for producing lignin may have existed long before algae moved to land. Alternatively, algae and land plants may have evolved the identical compound independently, after they diverged. I wonder if this can count as "wooden" stalks existing when algae "stems" were clinging to rocks? Also. Can the birds on day 5 (before mammals on day 6) realistically be interpreted as actually existing before reptiles? Look at this complicated issue. The genetic information comes first. BEFORE THE ACTUAL ANIMAL. quote: Then an issue of mutations and genetic information coming before the actual creature. quote: Listen to Carl Sagan attempt to give a summary of evolutionary chronology. He narrowed the Universe's history into 365 days. The Cosmic Year. (brackets are my words) quote: Perhaps birds were a little earlier than mammals? I can find a scientist saying (in a Smithsonian article from 7 years ago I have) that birds probably first existed around 250 million years ago, and the article had a feathered dinosaur fossil that dated 190 mya. I will try to find it. I wonder if there are some possible translations that can have certain parts of scripture be more in line with history (especially with more recent discoveries)? Found article (and it is online!) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/...iving-descendants-69657706 quote: So perhaps 240-250 mya there were birdish creatures. Combine this issue with flying insects (which existed earlier), and then consider that most reptiles were sort of waterish creatures around the start of the 200 million century (that is to say just after 300 mya) quote: Casineria might be an amphibian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casineria Hylonomus was a reptile, but obviously most "reptiles" 300 million years ago were watery creatures. quote: Birds might not be so much later than the transition period from water creatures to land creatures. I wonder if birds before land creatures is so much of an absurd anachronism now? Creationism (especially young earth creationism) is dead as a doornail, when the evidence is taken to account, as a reasonable way of looking at the earth's history. Evolution is backed up rather strongly (and even the fossil record is pretty good at showing intermediates - especially when it comes to birds and reptiles and humans and transitional ancestors all the way back to chimp like ancestors) But, is a day age theory type of interpretation of Genesis 1 really so bad? Sagan did say "green plants" came before even the atmosphere (though there are other theories for the atmosphere like a "big belch" from rocks and BEFORE algae), so he called algae "green plants". I wonder if it is a good idea to trash Genesis 1 just because Genesis 2 might contradict it and just because YECs want to talk about Evolution and the Big Bang being "Satanic" while vocally and aggressively making very strong accusations against scientists (then there are the science classroom issues). Stephen Jay Gould said that Genesis 1 got the rough order of life correct. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12715 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Lignin in red algae supports the Genesis days chronology? What about birds? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16766 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
It should be obvious. To anyone with an ounce of sense.
Looking for stupid excuses to “find” “support” for the Genesis 1 account does nobody any good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2087 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Kelp forests are not yellowwood forests...
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
These 'birdish creatures' couldn't fly; and lived on land. And they would not have been birdish. All that is being discussed here is the idea that feathers, all of the various quills and things discovered on fossil dinosaurs, and the fuzzy stuff that covered some pterosaurs, are all evolved from the same thing. That's something palaeontologists argue about. Some think pterosaur fuzz evolved separately. Some think ornithischian quills evolved separately as well. But, if Xu Xing is right, all that means is that the common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs already possessed some kind of integument that later evolved into pterosaur fuzz and proto-feathers. It didn't have feathers, though, and wasn't a bird.
Yes, it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
quote: There was also a mention of these types of things evolving more than once throughout history. (which seems a lot more possible than lignin evolving separately). We know that Pterosaurs had a lot in common with birds, and appeared suddenly. And before 200 million years ago.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur quote: The idea is that all birds came from big bulky dinosaurs and it might be true. But perhaps it was much smaller (and earlier) dinosaurs that also had these features? Most creatures (including the early amphibianish reptiles) during the 300/290 million years ago period were aquatic (or mixed aquatic/land), and I would remind you that sometimes things are found earlier than expected. There was a monkey type fossil found that dated to 47 million years ago, and before that discovery (roughly) a decade ago, nobody would have placed anything so old. 47 million year old monkey quote: I just love it when something really early is found. We should all be rooting for some really cool (and shockingly old) flying reptile discovery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16766 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: No it isn’t. The idea is that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Pterosaurs did stuff in common with birds; in the sense that they were also flying animals; and in that they appear to be the closest known relatives of dinosaurs (which birds, of course, are). Pterosaurs and dinosaurs both appear before 200 million years ago, but I'm not sure why you consider this significant. Both groups first appear during the Triassic (which lasted from about 250-200 million years). You seem to be assuming that 'amphibian' means an animal which lives in water; but even today we have amphibians that live in deserts. At a time when the only terrestrial vertebrates were 'amphibians' (which in this sense just means non-amniote - ie; not part of the group including reptiles, birds and mammals), there would be less competition in fully terrestrial ecosystems. Whether or not something is a 'reptile' does not tell us whether it lived in dry conditions. But in the Permian, there were lots of uncontroversial amniotes, and some of them lived in deserts.
There are several problems with this: First, it's not true to claim that "nobody would have placed anything so old". Algeripithecus was published in Nature as the oldest known monkey back in 1992; with a reported age between 46 and 50 million years. Now, that was controversial then and still is now, but the idea that a 47-million year old monkey was something no one had expected is simply media hype (more on that in a minute). In the 1992 paper, the authors wrote that their find "confirms predictions about the great antiquity of Simiiformes" - ie. people were expecting to find a monkey that old. Some models of primate evolution should have much older monkeys than this. Second, the find you're describing is not a monkey. The discoverers received a lot of criticism in the scientific community for the way they released their find via marketing to the media; creating a load of hyperbole and hype about a conclusion which, when it was eventually published, didn't stand up to criticism. Neither of those points were particularly important to this argument, but I had to make them because I'm a pedant. The key point is that, although fossils sometimes are indeed found which mean groups of animals must have been around longer than we thought, this is not relevant to your point. Birds evolved from terrestrial animals; so they could not have predated them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
Caffeine said:
quote: They had more in common with birds than you make it sound, and especially a lot more in common with archaeopteryx. See this: quote: see this: quote: And they had a common ancestor that predated the dinosaurs. quote: Birds have a 4 chambered heart like Crocodiles, which come from a line that predates dinosaurs. quote: quote: How much is known about this common ancestor that predates the dinosaur? How much has been found? How much can be said? quote: quote: Not a broad window. We are talking around 245 to 235 million years. Much is missing, and links galore from before and after ( not to mention endless horizontal links like a chin linked fence) Caffeine writes: quote: Look at the Carboniferous period, which had lots of acidic forests, in which bird-like bones would dissolve. quote: The Archaeothyris type (from 306 million years ago) is a point of interest, and birds might have evolved from a common ancestor, that dated much earlier. Crocodile teeth tell a story. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=909287&... brain clues: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(19991015)257:5%3C162::AID-AR5%3E3.0.CO;2-W/full Put into bing: bird lungs parallels ancestors fossil record dinosaurs crocodiles quote: also put into engines: archaeopteryx sac tubular lung Archaeopteryx has a sac lung like the dinosaurs commonly said to be in their direct line ( sauropod therapod). PaulK said: quote: This was a criticism of my comment which indicated that Dinosaurs weren't ancestors I said: quote: Here is an expert: quote: He also said: quote: I would ask about the heart issue. Can crocodiles hearts (which are like birds) be said to resemble the dinosaurs PaulK mentioned as ancestors? Can Crocodiles (I'm thinking of their ancestors) be said to be in a vertical line that dates AFTER the dinosaurs PaulK mentioned? Or. Can Crocodiles (ancestors) be said to be in a horizontal line with the dinosaurs PaulK mentioned? (They seem to be in a vertical line that pre-dates PaulK's theropod dinosaurs.) Parallel issues to help illustrate my point: (Butterfly issue) quote: What a difference some single discovery makes! caffeine said: quote: But flying reptiles might have been marine (or from the environment) And during a time when almost all non-insect life was still marine. quote: The jury is still out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
CROCODILES COMMON ANCESTOR DINOSAURS
like How does this relate to the Sauropod theory? quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16766 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Idiot.
Although you already proved that by trying to argue that where Genesis talked about trees springing up in land it really meant seaweed. So crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than lizards and snakes are. How is that relevant ? It doesn’t change anything. Stop trying to bury the conversation in irrelevancies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 16766 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Why ? It won’t tell you anything useful about when birds appeared.
quote: What “Sauropod theory” ? And how is it relevant ? Sauropods don’t have anything to do with bird evolution, other than being dinosaurs. But to go back to the actual topic, if you just pick pairs of things out of context Genesis ought to be right nearly half the time by pure chance. Without indulging in creative reinterpretations. So really you are arguing that Genesis is remarkably inaccurate. Thinking beats googling for irrelevancies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2087 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I'm not really too sure what you're trying to say here. Modern birds evolved from relatively big brained dino's. Dino's which also had feathers. I'm not too sure why you think that it's a problem for evolutionary theory.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
That's a lot of copy and paste to say the same as I did. The features you mention like hollow bones are common to dinosaurs - it's not something birds specifically share with pterosaurs. I'm unsure of the point of the rest of what you write. Birds do share features with crocodiles through common ancestry, but I don't really get why that is significant. It's not like they share things with crocodiles that they don't share with other dinosaurs; in case you were trying to use this to suggest that they weren't dinosaurs. We don't have any extinct dinosaur hearts, of course, but there's no reason to assume they wouldn't be four-chambered.
So what you're getting at is that birds may have been around for more than 300 million years; and simply left no fossil evidence for most of that time. Thing is, this doesn't only require birds to have been around for such a long time without leaving any evidence. Birds are not a sister group to dinosaurs, or anything - though even that would pose problems. Birds are deeply nested within dinosaurs; and your scenario requires all sorts of dinosaur lineages to also have been around since the Carboniferous without leaving a hint of a trace anywhere; along, of course, with the ancestors of crocodiles and mammal. Basically, you need most terrestrial vertebrates to be living in secret for tens of millions of years, before suddenly all deciding to start being fossilised in the Late Permian. This is unlikely. Now, you posted some comments from Alan Feduccia suggesting that birds may not be dinosaurs. Feduccia is wrong - his claim that "the issue will never be laid to rest" is laughable and a bit sad; since it was already laid to rest long ago. He, for some reason, refused to accept the fact that he was wrong and has sadly gone totally off the rails in trying to defend an indefensible position. Birds [i]are[i/] theropod dinosaurs - the similarities are not few or suggestive; they are conclusive.; and cladistic analyses always find birds to be nestled deeply within theropods. Feduccia's sad derailment from reality when it comes to his blind spot can be seen in his changing view of paravians - dinosaurs most closely related to modern birds. He has at different times insisted that Microraptor was clearly a dinosaur and disputed the obvious similarities to birds; and then later that it's clearly a bird and not a theropod dinosaur. You'd think the fact that even he finds it hard to tell the difference would be a clue, but no. Thing is, though, even if Feduccia was not obviously wrong; or even if these long ghost lineages of every group of amniotes existed, this would not really help you. If Feduccia's interpretation of bird origins is correct - they still evolved from terrestrial animals. If we simply move evolution back a hundred million years or so, hiding somewhere, birds still evolved from terrestrial animals. I am at a loss to understand how you think birds evolved from swimming animals. and don't get the relevance of the fact that we no longer consider pterodactyls to be seabird analogues.
No, it's not. I'm not sure what your point is about the pterodactyls; unless you're just trying to make the general point that we don't know everything and interpretations change. That is, of course, true, but that doesn't mean every absurdist scenario someone can dream up is plausible. You're not defending a controversial interpretation of the evidence. You're defending a wild, half-baked idea which you haven't clearly articulated, that is not supported by anyone anywhere; on account of the fact that there is no hint of any evidence suggesting it may be true. With regards to this:
We don't have any dinosaur hearts (excluding those of birds, of course), and I don't understand what the rest of this means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
quote: So what about the theropoda theory? It isn't my fault you said birds came from theropods. And the point that it seems to be, perhaps, a falsified theory, isn't an "irrelevancie". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theropoda The theropods came AFTER the 245-235 million "common ancestor". And I deny that this 240 million year old (Dinosauriformes) "common ancestor" really dated BEFORE birds (and the line that led to Crocodiles). I think there is a major issue with the Crocodile heart (which is like birds), and there was, I suspect, common ancestor to both (300 million years ago?) which had hearts like birds/crocodiles on the one hand while it would later split off into other lines (with typical reptile hearts) like the LATER (in my opinion and speculation) "240 million year old common ancestor", which is only a "so-called common ancestor" birds. Dinosauriformes came AFTER birds and crocodiles already existed. Birds branched off (around 275 million years ago) and BECAME the line that would lead to bigger Dinosauriformes. The birds and the ancestor of the Dinosauriformes went in different directions. Dinosauriformes (ended 235 million years ago in the record) DID LEAD TO THEROPOD DINOSAURS. Theropod dinosaurs (which started 230 million years ago) did not lead to birds (not the ones today anyway and not Archaeopteryx). The Theropod dinosaurs maintained the EARLIER sac type lung (which reptiles later all had tubular lungs") as did the Sauropod dinosaurs. Birds did not get anything from Theropod dinosaurs. THEY DID NOT EVEN POST DATE THE DINOSAURIFORMES (which is the current view I guess) Sauropods started 231 million years ago. Dinosauriformes was 245-335 million years ago (though probably a fair ways earlier in date ACTUALLY). The PaulK views is what?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021