Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, Heathen, PaulK, ssope, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (6 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,625 Year: 18,661/19,786 Month: 1,081/1,705 Week: 333/518 Day: 9/88 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 22 of 210 (524159)
09-14-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by greyseal
09-14-2009 3:34 PM


In fact, some palaeontologists are moving to the view that some theropods should be classified as birds

quote:
Birds are now all classified as living dinosaurs, but some palaeontologists argue that there is a case for classifying dromaeosaurs as birds. As Norell himself says, "If animals like Velociraptor were alive today our first impression would be that they were just very unusual looking birds."

- reference


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by greyseal, posted 09-14-2009 3:34 PM greyseal has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 56 of 210 (524571)
09-17-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NosyNed
09-17-2009 2:44 PM


Re: Micro Macro
The micro/macro is not referring to the size of any changes.

Yup.

My understanding is that there is a recognition that to cross the species boundary requires something more than just the gradual steps.

Not really, speciation requires nothing more than gradual steps (although this point was debated quite heavily in the past, the consensus view now is that: no, it doesn't), but macro does cover factors which are not evident or relevant on the micro-scale: e.g. the founder Effect, geographic speciation, niche seperation, etc.

Still, it's pretty much fallen into disuse; we're taught it as a "this was how it used to be divided - it wasn't found to be useful but you may still see it kicking around" kind of thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 09-17-2009 2:44 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-17-2009 3:09 PM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 178 of 210 (532569)
10-24-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Arphy
10-24-2009 2:51 AM


Fedducia remains not a credible source
Arphy writes:


http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119%5B1187:BADSAT%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Ah.... Fedducia. Why am I not surprised? I refer you to Richard Prum's response (Are Current Critiques of the Theropod Origin of Birds Science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002) Richard O. Prum The Auk, Vol. 120, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 550-56) and in particular to this:

quote:
Feduccia's (2002) entire discussions of teeth morphology and replacement, cranial morphology, wrist bone homologies (plus three figures and a table) are completely moot and irrelevant given his acceptance of pennaceous feathers on dromaeosaurs with those serrate teeth, patterns of tooth replacement, cranial morphology, and wrist bones.

In other words, Fedducia's table of comparison is based on the wrong theropods! We have already found teeth like those of Archaeopteryx in theropods and those teeth are found in the group closest to Archaeopteryx which also share other anatomical features with Archaeopteryx including feathers.

Edited by Mr Jack, : Removed errant carriage return.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Arphy, posted 10-24-2009 2:51 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 4:38 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 181 of 210 (532596)
10-24-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Arphy
10-24-2009 2:51 AM


Sure you can use this argument to try and harmonise evidence with the evolutionary view but it is not direct evidence for evolution.
Anyway even this does not work in this case, so the researchers reassigned the Jehol Group (rock where fossils were found) from the jurassic to the early Cretaceous because of the birds present. i.e. this was not done because there was any evidence placing it there but rather because it did not fit the evolutionary story and therefore had to be changed.

Hmm... source please?

Also, could you explain that to He, Wang, Zhou, Wang, Boven, Shi and Zhu so that they can avoid embarassing themselves by actually radiodating it rather than partaking of the evil evolution-atheist alliance conspiracy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Arphy, posted 10-24-2009 2:51 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 5:25 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 192 of 210 (532677)
10-25-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Arphy
10-25-2009 5:25 AM


I know they radiodated it. My argument is with the revisions.

Which revisions, by whom? And when?

Note the first sentence in the article you cite.
The timing of the Jiufotang Formation remains speculative despite recent progress in the study of the Jehol Biota.
(emphasise added)

And? What exactly is your point here?

They're setting the scene in that sentence. Telling you why their work is important. At no point in the paper do they make any indication that the organisms present have been used to redate the formations; instead, they refer directly to radiodating.

This does not support your quoted source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 5:25 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 11:20 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 210 of 210 (532819)
10-26-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Arphy
10-25-2009 11:20 PM


I thought the point was quite obvious.
I'll try putting more words in bold to see if that helps

Why did you just ignore what I wrote? Once again: the sentence you quoted is setting the scene. They are telling you why their paper is important; not telling you how they dated anything. The article which I, unlike you, have read does not make any reference to dating by biota; it is using a radiodating method.

Now do you want to respond to this objection, or do you just want to keep misrepresenting them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 11:20 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019