Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 2:57 PM
34 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,151 Year: 9,187/19,786 Month: 1,609/2,119 Week: 369/576 Day: 44/128 Hour: 6/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   "Archaeopteryx; bird or reptile, or both?"
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3065 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 34 (214417)
06-05-2005 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mark24
06-04-2005 10:04 AM


Let's keep the loaded semantics out of the picture, shall we?

Homologies are by definition shared traits from common descent. So you cannot theorize about homologies not being shared traits.

You can discuss similarities that are considered to stem from common ancestry.

Not trying to be picky, but think the whole discussion can proceed better if we keep such terms out of the discussion.

Otherwise, we really have to decide if similarities should be called homologies, homoplasies, or neither (which is of course what we are trying to do here, but just to make a point).

Moreover, for convergent evolution to take place similar selective pressures must be in evidence.

That seems logical except that convergent DNA sequencing suggests otherwise. But it's an interesting point. If environmental pressures must be applied to create convergency, and we find examples of convergency that do not seem driven by environmental pressure, would that be evidence of a hidden environmental pressure such as an intelligent agent?

Why do birds show so many homologies with therapods when their lifestyles are so different?

Good point except we need specifics, and I have a question, are not the homologies advantageous for both groups of species? Assuming they are, that they are due to natural selection, why could they not be an example of convergent evolution?

Can a trait not be selected for, even when the 2 species have different lifestyles? You are assuming that the trait can only evolve independently from one set of circumstances, and that's just an assumption.

Plus, what if it did not evolve from convergency from outside selective pressures, but from convergent DNA, or ID (an intelligent agent), or just by golly, the same trait worked for both and independently evolved.

Common descent is not the only answer here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:04 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 06-05-2005 12:03 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3065 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 34 (214419)
06-05-2005 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mark24
06-04-2005 10:04 AM


I just posted a long reply, but did not realize this was on this thread still.

If you want to respond more, why don't you quote my post with your response following and put it over on the new thread so we keep each thread topic clear?

Or not.

Either way is good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 06-04-2005 10:04 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 34 (214469)
06-05-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Palaeos
06-04-2005 1:25 AM


Re: Dromaeosaur
Could something like Archaeopteryx be the ancestor of later dromaeosaurs? I mean, maybe the dino-bird people see the whole thing backwards, assuming that because birds are with us here today and velociraptors are not, then it is concluded that birds are derived from the classic dromaeosaurs (Deinonychus, Velociraptor etal.) Which we all know imply a large gap in the dromaeosaurid fossil record back to the Jurassic.

My hunch on this is

primitive theropod/thecodont ---> pre-archaeopteryx (arboreal raptors, something like Microraptor gui) ---> Archaeopteryx ---> (dromaeosaurids) (modern birds)

in which an Archaeopteryx-like ancestor gave rise to two groups, modern birds (perfecting adaptations for flight) and dromaeosaurids (entering another niche as swift predators)

I know the dino-bird theory is more popular, but I still think the paleontologists need to look in the Jurassic for fossils earlier than Archy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Palaeos, posted 06-04-2005 1:25 AM Palaeos has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3361 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 19 of 34 (214492)
06-05-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
06-05-2005 3:44 AM


randman,

Response posted on correct forum as requested.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 06-05-2005 12:48 PM


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 06-05-2005 3:44 AM randman has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 20 of 34 (214499)
06-05-2005 12:40 PM


Heading to another topic
The convergent issue has it's own thread:

Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?

Do not persue it here. Thanks


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 21 of 34 (552058)
03-26-2010 8:03 AM


bump for JETZEN
JETZEN posted a new topic

this is a thread with the same general topic.

Also see http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=6...

Message 1: is archaeopteryx a...... valid example of a transitional fossil?

in a recent debate i was in. i was requested to provide a transitional fossil. and i used an archaeopteryx.

my creationist apponent was still unreasonable and without a clue.

This is normal. It's the problem with idee fixes.

Also see Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : added comment


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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) • • •

  
JETZEN
Junior Member (Idle past 3279 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 03-26-2010


Message 22 of 34 (552079)
03-26-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
03-30-2005 1:27 AM


thanks for answering my question....being that archaeopteryx has feathers and teeth i assumed that they would be a good transitional species between reptile and bird.
but unfortunatly my creationist apponet could'nt see it that way.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 03-30-2005 1:27 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Huntard, posted 03-26-2010 11:01 AM JETZEN has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 03-27-2010 1:41 AM JETZEN has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 23 of 34 (552081)
03-26-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by JETZEN
03-26-2010 10:54 AM


JETZEN writes:

but unfortunatly my creationist apponet could'nt see it that way.


Of course, if creationists could be persuaded by evidence, there wouldn't be any creationists. Be prepared to see this alot.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JETZEN, posted 03-26-2010 10:54 AM JETZEN has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3095 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 24 of 34 (552169)
03-27-2010 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by JETZEN
03-26-2010 10:54 AM


the biggest problem for evolutionists and Archaeopteryx is that it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period

if it was one of these so called 'transitional fossils' then it should have existed long before birds became a species, yes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JETZEN, posted 03-26-2010 10:54 AM JETZEN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by subbie, posted 03-27-2010 2:04 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 26 by bluescat48, posted 03-27-2010 10:49 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2010 12:40 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 28 by JETZEN, posted 03-28-2010 4:43 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2010 5:35 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 32 by misha, posted 03-31-2010 3:04 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 03-31-2010 3:21 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Fiver, posted 05-27-2010 12:07 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 25 of 34 (552174)
03-27-2010 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peg
03-27-2010 1:41 AM


if it was one of these so called 'transitional fossils' then it should have existed long before birds became a species, yes?

No.

You seem to think that the ToE calls for a straight line descent, with each previous species dying out as the next species comes along. This simply isn't the case. At one point in time in the past, there were reptiles. Eventually, some of them evolved into birds, but that process took millions of years. During that process, there was an extended period of time during which reptiles, birds and their transitional intermediates all co-existed.

In essence, your argument is no different from the familiar, "How could we have evolved from apes if there are still apes around?" The only real perplexing thing is why you think you can make the same arguments over and over that have been refuted a thousand times and expect them to eventually convince anyone.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 03-27-2010 1:41 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2355 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 26 of 34 (552203)
03-27-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peg
03-27-2010 1:41 AM


if it was one of these so called 'transitional fossils' then it should have existed long before birds became a species, yes?

Much of your problem is your definition of transition. To you, it appears that organism A becomes organism B through direct transition

A10 B0 to A5 B5 to A0 B10

Where in reality A10 B0 becomes a number of Ax B10-x some which lines continue, others become extinct. Archeopteryx is of the latter.

Edited by bluescat48, : missing<


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 03-27-2010 1:41 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 863 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 27 of 34 (552216)
03-27-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peg
03-27-2010 1:41 AM


Hi, Peg.

Peg writes:

the biggest problem for evolutionists and Archaeopteryx is that it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period

The biggest problem for you, Peg, is that this is not true.

The Protoavis remains are not preserved well enough for anybody to state with any certainty what the creature actually was.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 03-27-2010 1:41 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
JETZEN
Junior Member (Idle past 3279 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 03-26-2010


Message 28 of 34 (552391)
03-28-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peg
03-27-2010 1:41 AM


Peg,
a transitional fossil of a extinct animal has nothing to do with existing or extinction, it is merely evidence of evolution.

Edited by JETZEN, : added existing


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 03-27-2010 1:41 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 34 (552432)
03-29-2010 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peg
03-27-2010 1:41 AM


the biggest problem for evolutionists and Archaeopteryx is that it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period

if it was one of these so called 'transitional fossils' then it should have existed long before birds became a species, yes?

I have said before that one of the strange paradoxes of creationism is that creationists are obsessed with biology but not remotely interested in it.

This would be a case in point.

Leaving aside your gross and contemptible ignorance of the fossil record, you just wrote the words: "birds became a species".

This is the point at which you should hide your face in shame.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 03-27-2010 1:41 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 30 of 34 (552503)
03-29-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
03-29-2005 6:10 PM


quote:
Are you referring to Archaeopteryx? Hasn't it definitely, especially with recent research, been found to be a bird?

It has a jaw with reptillian teeth, absent beak, a long bony tail, a neck that attaches to skull from rear (like dinosaurs) instead of from below (like birds), a flat breastbone, stomach ribs, reptilian vertebrae, unfused wristbones (birds have fused ones), unfused ankle bones (ditto), sacrum occupies only 6 vertebrae (half the minimum for birds), and (my personal favorite) three bony claws jutting out from the middle of each wing. These are reptillian characteristics, not bird ones.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 6:10 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2010 3:32 PM rockondon has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019