Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   What drove bird evolution?
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 46 of 145 (124592)
07-14-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by redwolf
07-14-2004 6:34 PM


redwolf
one of the directors of Los Alamos has told me that the topic is a now a safe one there, and when serious scholars went to put together a documentary on the topic last winter, they came to me and not to the geniuses at talk.origins
And where might we view this documentary? Do you know the name of the director at Los Alamos whom you spoke with? I am sure a man of your sincerity would share these things with us Hmm?

You see a book lying on a table. You know there's a force due to gravity acting on that book. If you take that force (on the book and due to gravity) as the "action," what then is the "reaction" as required by Newton's third law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 07-14-2004 6:34 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 1:23 AM sidelined has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 47 of 145 (124613)
07-15-2004 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by sidelined
07-14-2004 11:12 PM


quote:
And where might we view this documentary?
I've already posted a link to a few snapshots from it. Had you been in Tokyo last Feb 22 around 8 PM, you could have turned on your TV set and watched it.
quote:
Do you know the name of the director at Los Alamos whom you spoke with? I am sure a man of your sincerity would share these things with us Hmm?
The man doesn't really get anything out of talking to rude people or idiots, and I'm not going to send you to him asking questions, if that's what you had in mind. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by sidelined, posted 07-14-2004 11:12 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by sidelined, posted 07-15-2004 2:01 AM redwolf has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 145 (124632)
07-15-2004 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by redwolf
07-14-2004 6:34 PM


Basically, you've probably still got a handful of geniuses on talk.origins who would still tell you that the idea of a gravity change was ridiculous, nonetheless they've already lost the war on that one and they don't even know it. A google search on dinosaurs and gravity will turn up 40K hits or more, one of the directors of Los Alamos has told me that the topic is a now a safe one there, and when serious scholars went to put together a documentary on the topic last winter, they came to me and not to the geniuses at talk.origins. How about that?
Japanese Office Workers Viewing
i must say, those image captures were really informative! not.
but you're right, in some respect. at one point in the history of the earth, gravity here did in fact change. but only a little. the change was an indirect effect of acquiring more mass. at some point in the very early precambrian, an object the about size of mars collided with earth. we kept most of the mass, but it ejected a portion of the earth's mantle into orbit, forming the moon. we know this because it's the only model that fits all of the data on composition, mass, orbit, and shape of the moon.
while gravity may has increased a little, the fact that half the planet turned to liquid or maybe even broke up would have pretty mush killed everything. but not the dinosaurs, who lived a few billion years later.
we do however know what killed the dinosaurs. something that blanketted the planet in a thick layer of soot with a very abnormal percentage of iridium, which means it was probably from outer space. this object was significantly smaller than the one that made the moon (a good number of species survived). there's a crater in the yucatan that dates about right, and looks the right size for a 6-mile asteroid, which would be the size neccessary to cause mass extinction in this manner.
The basic reality is that the question is no longer even about whether or not gravity changed, but over what caused it. A lot of the web sites which discuss gravity change argue for an expanding earth theory of one stripe or another. My own little book argues against that.
http://www.bearfabrique.org/books/books.html
well, considering that the best fitting model is the one i described above, and there's no concievable mechanism to randomly change the earth's gravity, i'm gonna file this one in "crackpot claims" unless you can show me exactly what caused it, and then explain the k-t boundary.
[editted to add:]
oh, and btw. documentaries have been known to lie. look at fox's special on the moon landing hoax, and just about anything michael moore makes.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-15-2004 12:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 07-14-2004 6:34 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 2:59 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 49 of 145 (124634)
07-15-2004 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by redwolf
07-15-2004 1:23 AM


redwolf
The man doesn't really get anything out of talking to rude people or idiots, and I'm not going to send you to him asking questions, if that's what you had in mind. Sorry.
Not a problem as I am neither rude nor an idiot. I will simply accept that you are not capable of backing up your claims due to fear that you would upset the director at Los Alamos. That is also no problem as I am sure I can track down the indivuidual directors at Los Alamos and query them individually.Thank you for your time just the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 1:23 AM redwolf has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 145 (124639)
07-15-2004 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by redwolf
07-14-2004 2:39 PM


Flightless birds have evolved/devolved from flying birds. That is microevolution, which nobody disputes. (Micro) Evolution is good at LOSING features and complex capabilities; it is not good at producing them.
sounds like a macroevolutionary change to me.
in reality, there's no difference between gaining and loosing features (as they are often correlated). the difference between evo and devo is that evo is a legitimate scientific theory discribing the directionless adaptation of animals and plants (etc), and devo was a one hit wonder new wave band in the 80's.
there is no such thing as devolution. only adaptation.
Sort of like cutting hair; it's easy to cut it off, and much harder to put it back on if you cut off too much
hair grows back. i've had lots of bad haircuts.
but wait! what good is half a wing anyways?
Thus in the case of the domestic chicken we observe a 2-lb forest bird having been bred into a 6 - 8 lb domestic bird which still has the wings for a 2-lb bird, and can fly just well enough to hop up into trees and over fences.
well, that's certainly more useful than no wings in evading predators, isn't it? it's not perfect, and it could be better, but that's teh same case with anything else. for instance, lots of animals have better eyes than we do. but we do just fine.
"good enough" is fine with evolution, but intelligent design kind of requires perfection, doesn't it? otherwise, it's not very intelligent.
Now, the coelurosaur/bird ancestor needed flight feathers, wings, and a baker's dozen things he didn't have, while the escaped chicken HAS all of those things and lacks only the tiniest iota of whatever is involved in full flying capabilities.
whoever said coelosaurs wanted to fly? lots of birds use feathers as sexual displays. that could be one reason the DESCENDENTS of coelosaurs started along that path. over time, this could have taken on other uses. catching insects. gliding. and eventually flight. it's gradual adaptation and change, not just of the systems, but of the purposes of those systems.
If the chicken can't make it that final quarter inch, how is the "bird ancestor" supposed to make it the thousand miles??
given 100 million years, less than a quarter of an inch a generation goes a long way. especially if the characteristic that's being selected is used for attracting mates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by redwolf, posted 07-14-2004 2:39 PM redwolf has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 51 of 145 (124640)
07-15-2004 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
07-14-2004 3:49 PM


How about that beak thing? You keep ignoring the fact that not all birds had beaks.
ouy of curiosity, what bird lacks a beak? i wasn't especially aware of any, but i'm not really into ornithology.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-15-2004 01:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 07-14-2004 3:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2004 11:39 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 52 of 145 (124651)
07-15-2004 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by arachnophilia
07-15-2004 1:57 AM


quote:
but you're right, in some respect. at one point in the history of the earth, gravity here did in fact change. but only a little.
It's provable that you'd need something like a 3-1 attenuation of the acceleration due to gravity for the largest sauropods and that's just from the weight requirements. When you look at the torque requirement for holding their necks outwards, it's probably more than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 07-15-2004 1:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 07-15-2004 3:09 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 07-15-2004 9:04 AM redwolf has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 53 of 145 (124656)
07-15-2004 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by redwolf
07-15-2004 2:59 AM


It's provable that you'd need something like a 3-1 attenuation of the acceleration due to gravity for the largest sauropods and that's just from the weight requirements. When you look at the torque requirement for holding their necks outwards, it's probably more than that.
really? prove it then.
be careful not to disprove giraffes while you're at it.
science, used poorly and misunderstood, can be used to "prove" all kind of silly things. did you know it was once proved that bumblebees were incapable of flight? even though it's plainly observable to everytone that they can, indeed, fly? it came from a poor understanding aerodynamics, without actual study of the wing function.
but, perhaps, i know what you're talking about. it was common belief a long time ago that sauropods lived in water, to help support their weight. bracchiosaurus was the example used. they talked about the nostrils on top of its head being used a snorkel.
in any case, that was simply disproved about a hundred years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 2:59 AM redwolf has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 54 of 145 (124679)
07-15-2004 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by redwolf
07-14-2004 6:34 PM


redwolf writes:
Kind of sounds like there might have originally been flightless versions and flying versions. It's not obvous how fossils could show the difference.
It is just as well then that this research was not based on fossil evidence. The paper
Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003)
Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects
MICHAEL F. WHITING*, SVEN BRADLER” & TAYLOR MAXWELL”
is based on phylogenies derived from molecular data.
Admittedly this appears to be a case of 're-evolving' wings only in as much as it probably represents the loss of one or two key genes in the pathway which were then functionally recapitulated not the de novo re-evolution of the entire system, the rest of the developmental mechanism haviong been maintained during the gap due to their roles in other organs, i.e. limb development.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 07-14-2004 6:34 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 55 of 145 (124683)
07-15-2004 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by redwolf
07-15-2004 2:59 AM


Did you forget we are the same people you argued this with before? That in this thread you attempted to defend the idea and failed (miserably)? Did you think we would forget?
In any case the whole gravity 'idea' is off-topic here, so perhaps you'd care to take it to the above thread and return to the topic at hand here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 2:59 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 11:50 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 56 of 145 (124692)
07-15-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by redwolf
07-14-2004 10:45 PM


redwolf writes:
Humans never bred chickens to "stay put:. We bred them to lay eggs and taste good Until very recently they were never kept in cages....
The byproduct of breeding chickens to taste good as you say increased the size of the birds which in turn minimized they're ability to fly, which was advantageous in keeping these birds from roaming to far. Edit to add: How do you explain humans ability to select for traits in domesticated birds; if natural selection and random mutation in birds is false then how is it humans can drive bird evolution artificially? If it is possible to select traits in breeding birds then it is possible for the process to take place naturally as well, IMO. If you do not believe that the TOE is valid then you are neglecting knowlege simply because it does not agree with your religious beliefs . Not because it is not an accurate model. This is what is known as being dogmatic Red Wolf.
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 07-15-2004 10:24 AM

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by redwolf, posted 07-14-2004 10:45 PM redwolf has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 145 (124697)
07-15-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by redwolf
07-14-2004 6:34 PM


Sorry, but I never saw one that didn't and google searches on "beakless bird" don't turn up anything meaningful or anything indicating that such actually exist.
Remind me not to hire you in any research capacity.
You're telling me you've never heard of Archaeopteryx, the most famous prehistoric bird? Here's a link you can go to you rectify your most unfortunate ignorance:
All About Archaeopteryx
As you can see, Archaeopteryx has no bill.
The basic reality is that the question is no longer even about whether or not gravity changed, but over what caused it.
Then why were you so woefully impotent when it came to substantiating your claims in the other thread? Hell, I'm no expert, but I single-handedly rebutted your sauropod arguments. I note that my rebuttal has recieved no substantial response from you to date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by redwolf, posted 07-14-2004 6:34 PM redwolf has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 145 (124698)
07-15-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by arachnophilia
07-15-2004 2:11 AM


ouy of curiosity, what bird lacks a beak?
Archaeopteryx, of course.
Moreover, every fetal bird lacks a beak; first they grow tooth buds. These buds have no connection to any beak feature in any bird but are present, prenatally, nonetheless.
The simplest explanation for them is the evolutionary one; i.e. that birds are descended from organisms who had teeth and not bills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 07-15-2004 2:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 11:54 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2004 5:31 AM crashfrog has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 59 of 145 (124701)
07-15-2004 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Jack
07-15-2004 9:04 AM


quote:
Did you forget we are the same people you argued this with before? That in this thread you attempted to defend the idea and failed (miserably)? Did you think we would forget?
All you're remembering is your own failure to deal with reality.
Like I say, you can do your own google search on dinosaurs and gravity, and see the results. I caught every sort of grief for this one at first but, basically, everybody who's ever come along since then and done the numbers has come to the same basic conclusion, at least as far as large dinosaurs being possible in present gravity.
I am no longer the only person on Earth claiming that sauropods would not be possible in present gravity.
My own original papers on the topic are at:
Dinosaurs
Snapshots from the Japanese documentary on the topic are at:
Japanese Office Workers Viewing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 07-15-2004 9:04 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Jack, posted 07-15-2004 12:00 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 85 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2004 5:36 AM redwolf has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5790 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 60 of 145 (124702)
07-15-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
07-15-2004 11:39 AM


quote:
The simplest explanation for them is the evolutionary one; i.e. that birds are descended from organisms who had teeth and not bills.
The simplest explaination for them is the possible one, i.e. that birds were genetically re-engineered from some previous creature, in such a way as to have the whole basic plan for a flying bird in place from day one as would in fact be necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2004 11:39 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2004 12:15 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 80 by biochem_geek, posted 07-16-2004 12:00 AM redwolf 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