Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 8:14 AM
29 online now:
caffeine, Hyroglyphx, PaulK, RAZD, Stile, Theodoric (6 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,845 Year: 9,881/19,786 Month: 2,303/2,119 Week: 339/724 Day: 2/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Author Topic:   Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 136 of 200 (347485)
09-08-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Someone who cares
09-07-2006 10:28 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
welcome back. i thought'd you'd left.

AND, it could be just a bird. Some birds have teeth you know... And claws on thier wings...

yeah? name some. or rather, name some that have fully formed digits that make an actual hand, and a full set of teeth, in their adult life.

the fact that ontogeny (at least partially) recapitulates phylogeny does not prove that this bird is not special -- it's actually a good verification of the evolution.

And you don't have any fossils that are transitional leading to and from Archaeopteryx, to show evolution, and to show that Archaeopteryx was anywhere in the "line" of evolution.

sure we do. people just make a lot of fuss about archaeopteryx as if it's the only dinosaur with feathers. ask any competent paleontologist, and they'll tell the odds are that every theropod dinosaur had feathers. certainly all the ones we've found with skin impressions do.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Someone who cares, posted 09-07-2006 10:28 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Dr Jack, posted 09-08-2006 5:35 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 151 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:50 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 137 of 200 (347487)
09-08-2006 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Archer Opteryx
09-08-2006 1:45 AM


Re: the great Archaeopteryx hoax
Well, if the feathers on this Microraptor are real I want my money back. I paid for a genuine Liu.

there's a subtle irony in your post i feel like elaborating on. or, perhaps, spoiling the joke so as to inform people.

the first time your microraptor turned up was, indeed, as part of a forgery. it was the back half of the infamous archaeoraptor. at the time, it was an unknown species.

so the point here is that people do indeed make fakes for money. but they make them out of parts of real feathered dinosaurs.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-08-2006 1:45 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 138 of 200 (347488)
09-08-2006 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 12:12 AM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
Oh, and, by the way, what would make a reptile/bird die in the bottom of a lagoon instead of on land?

do you have a lake by your house? perhaps a beach. go down and sit by the water for a while. what kinds of animals do you see?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 12:12 AM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:58 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2289 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 139 of 200 (347499)
09-08-2006 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by arachnophilia
09-08-2006 2:37 AM


but the real question is how many have all of such features excluding the toe?

a specimen that has many traits of both birds and dinosaurs would suggest that it is transitional.

Btw, that wasn't my question. I asked how many have all. Given that your list doesn't include all of the features, my statement of none is correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2006 2:37 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2006 8:35 PM obvious Child has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 140 of 200 (347504)
09-08-2006 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by arachnophilia
09-08-2006 2:43 AM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
sure we do. people just make a lot of fuss about archaeopteryx as if it's the only dinosaur with feathers. ask any competent paleontologist, and they'll tell the odds are that every theropod dinosaur had feathers. certainly all the ones we've found with skin impressions do.

Sadly not so. q.v Juravenator.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2006 2:43 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2006 6:23 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 145 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2006 7:59 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 184 by Cthulhu, posted 09-11-2006 7:17 PM Dr Jack has responded

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


Message 141 of 200 (347506)
09-08-2006 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Dr Jack
09-08-2006 5:35 AM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
The wonderful thing about this one is summed up by, well...

Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional.

Yes. Those Evil Evilutionists fraudulently contrived a fossil which is not transitional and doesn't prove their point in the slightest, Because ... because ... well, because creationists like to wear belts and braces.

Sheesh. If the fossil is nothing special, why do creationists have to pretend that it's a fake? If it's a fake, why do creationists have to pretend that it's nothing special?

One falsehood would do --- couldn't they toss a coin?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Dr Jack, posted 09-08-2006 5:35 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5393
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 142 of 200 (347522)
09-08-2006 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 12:12 AM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
Excuse me? Did you just say fossils form in quiet, still lagoons?!!?

Yes, I did. Yesterday the Word of the Day was taphonomy: today it's Solnhofen. You will get behind if you don't start looking them up pretty quick. Google is your friend.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 12:12 AM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:05 PM Coragyps has responded

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


Message 143 of 200 (347600)
09-08-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Someone who cares
09-07-2006 10:28 PM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
And you don't have any fossils that are transitional leading to and from Archaeopteryx, to show evolution, and to show that Archaeopteryx was anywhere in the "line" of evolution.

I think this is my favorite creo argument of all time. Claim there are no transitional forms between A and Z, then, when one is produced, argue that there are no forms between A and L or between L and Z. The genius of this line is that it can be expanded ad infinitum.

There are no transitional forms between A and G, between G and L, between L and S or between S and Z. The more forms that are produced, the worse our problem gets. In the end, after A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z have been produced, we don't have a complete lineage, we have 25 gaps that we haven't filled. Simple mathematics would prove that it's much more unlikely that we will find 25 transitional forms than just 1. Therefore, logic dictates that evolution is impossible.

Q.E.D.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Someone who cares, posted 09-07-2006 10:28 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:12 PM subbie has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 144 of 200 (347603)
09-08-2006 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Someone who cares
09-07-2006 10:28 PM


Taphonomy, lagerstatte
I mean, imagine a force strong enough to fossilize feathers, ( hmmm...) and what the creature's feathers would be like from such a tremendous force

You later invite us to imagine fossilization as being as if some force pumelling the organism against semi-hard rock/mud and leaving an imprint. This is not how fossils are formed. Solnhofen is actually quite interesting:

quote:
This included placid lagoons that had limited access to the open sea and where salinity rose high enough that the resulting brine could not support life. Since the lowest water was devoid of oxygen, many ordinary scavengers were absent. Any organism that fell, drifted, or was washed into the lagoons from the ocean or the land became buried in soft carbonate mud. Thus, many delicate creatures avoided consumption by scavengers or being torn apart by currents...

The fine-grained texture of the mud silt forming the limestone from the Solnhofen area (which is composed mainly of the towns of Solnhofen and Eichstätt)is ideal for making lithographic plates...


The remains settle, and more silt is deposited on top of them. The silt continues to build and eventually hardens embedding the remains within. The remains degrade over time leaving a detailed cast of the remains that were once contained.

Its a simplification, and it misses out the permineralization that can occur to this 'cast', more details can be found here. Read around, you might find it interesting...though you might not. Take care,

Mod


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Someone who cares, posted 09-07-2006 10:28 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:20 PM Modulous has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 145 of 200 (347614)
09-08-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Dr Jack
09-08-2006 5:35 AM


Re: Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
sure we do. people just make a lot of fuss about archaeopteryx as if it's the only dinosaur with feathers. ask any competent paleontologist, and they'll tell the odds are that every theropod dinosaur had feathers. certainly all the ones we've found with skin impressions do.

Sadly not so. q.v Juravenator.

wow, that's news to me.

quote:
What it suggests is that feather evolution was complicated (no surprise there, actually), and that some lineages secondarily lost their feathery covering, or that there were seasonal or age-related or regional variations in feather expression.

we actually know there had to have been some secondary feather-loss, as some feathered dinosaurs actually have more feathers than modern birds, particularly on their feet. some postulate that the earliest dinosaurs had feathers, and when groups like the saurapods evolved (and got bigger) they lost the need for feathers. it's also curious that this is a small theropod.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Dr Jack, posted 09-08-2006 5:35 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 146 of 200 (347623)
09-08-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by obvious Child
09-08-2006 4:00 AM


but the real question is how many have all of such features excluding the toe?

i was just pointing out that you had your information a little mixed up. the things that make archaeopteryx a bird are relatively minute and easy for the casual observer to miss. you can go back and see my counter-argument for why archaeopteryx is definitally a dinosaur, in response to the standard "it's just a bird" creationist argument. i can make that argument quite easily, because all of those features are obvious. the things that make it a bird are a little more technical.

a specimen that has many traits of both birds and dinosaurs would suggest that it is transitional.

modern birds have many dinosaurian traits, because birds are dinosaurs. what you're looking at as "dinosaur" traits are actually very ancient ancestral reptilian traits that many later dinosaurs lack. and "reptile" is not a very good definition of dinosaurs (nor a term used by the scientific community anymore). theropoda as a whole has many, many features that tie it very closely to birds, and dromaeosauridae as a whole has even more. there's a bit of debate about this, but some classify archaeopteryx as a basal dienonychosaur (it has the hyper-extendible second toe), and some as a kind of sister lineage.

Btw, that wasn't my question. I asked how many have all. Given that your list doesn't include all of the features, my statement of none is correct.

i just meant to point out that some of the factors on your lists were innaccurate. we can some up with a list of "bird features" and "dinosaur features" but when we get into feathered theropods, the line gets fuzzy -- and that's what indicates the transition. but transitions don't just happen with a single species. we can say archaeopteryx is (probably) ancestral to modern species, but there are a score of other very, very similar dinosaurs. so, how many birds have all these reptile features? and how many dinosaurs have all these bird features? very, very, many avian dinosaurs in the late jurassic and cretaceous, and very very many early birds.

the line between birds and other dinosaurs is so fine and made on such minute characteristics that, imho, it's rather abitrary. for instance, let's look at another dinosaur, v. mongolensis, and classify it according to your list. i'm not gonna waste your time, i'll asume that you realize it has all the "reptilian" features. here are the "bird" ones:

  • Feathers (probably check)
  • Furcula (wishbone) formed of two clavicles fused together in the midline. (check)
  • Pubis elongate and directed backward
so how many "reptiles" have all these features? i found another one. shall we do dienonychus? dromaeosaurus? utahraptor? microraptor? are these birds?

talk.origin's list is simple not all that accurate. pneumatic bones, for instance, is in totally the wrong list. name another reptile, besides theropod dinosaurs, that have them? none do. it's a feature that belongs strictly the birds, and their earliest relatives. if the plate-like, backwards pubis and furcula is on the "bird" list, pneumatized bones should be as well. all of t.o's "bird" features are found on other dinosaurs, while the REAL important classifying features on which the decision to group archie with birds are totally missing.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by obvious Child, posted 09-08-2006 4:00 AM obvious Child has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 147 of 200 (347636)
09-08-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by obvious Child
09-08-2006 1:01 AM


Right!
Exactly! That's why I hold to the position that the more distinct specimens with feather imprints are fruad! My point! Reptiles don't have feathers! But engraving them wouldn't be too hard, and it pays well in the museums for a "transitional fossil."


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by obvious Child, posted 09-08-2006 1:01 AM obvious Child has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by subbie, posted 09-08-2006 9:18 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 195 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-22-2006 8:35 AM Someone who cares has not yet responded

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


Message 148 of 200 (347637)
09-08-2006 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 9:09 PM


Re: Right!
If you are insisting that reptilian fossils with feathers must be frauds, does that mean that you concede that such fossils, if genuine, would be transitional fossils that support evolution?


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:09 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:22 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 149 of 200 (347642)
09-08-2006 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Archer Opteryx
09-08-2006 1:45 AM


Re: the great Archaeopteryx hoax
quote:
And a lot of work to boot. You have no idea how hard it is to imprint a feather on limestone without damaging the adjacent reptile bones, and then getting the bubbles and grain to match so no one can tell under museum lighting. This kind of thing really keeps us busy.

No, they most likely made the feather imprint seperately, then combined the two fossils. And the grain DIDN'T match, and the bubbles were left as proof of fraud work, and using some kind of camera you could see the two different colors of the pieces.

quote:
Has anyone ever told you you have an amazing eye for art?

Actually, yeah, in web design class. My mom can draw well, and has a good artistic eye, I think it was passed on to me. :)

quote:
We have Hesperornis by William Henry Rinehart and Compsognathus by Evelyn Beatrice Longman. We're especially proud of our Velociraptor, an original by Camille Claudel.

The museum recently acquired a number of new pieces, of course, including a Microraptor and Protoavis by the renowned Chinese sculptor Liu Zhengde.


Hesperornis is a toothed marine bird, it's not anything like a reptile/bird. There are birds with teeth, and there are birds that can dive under water, a combo is nothing special and is definitely not any transitional.

As for Compsognathus, that's just a dinosaur like creature. I don't see any evolving bird parts. Please understand, there are certain creatures with features of several groups of animals, like the platypus is a bird that feeds like a mammal, it has bird and mammal characteristics, that doesn't make it transitional. A transitional is to have evolving parts from one group to the other, with some becoming vestigial, and yet we do NOT find this anywhere!

Same with Velociraptor, just a dinosaur, I don't see any evolving parts there, and I don't think it leads to archaeopteryx in any way, because no creatures evolved into different creatures in the first place, they were all created, and they have variations within their kinds. Putting a few similar creatures on a chart and saying they evolved one into the other, without showing ANY transitional fossils does not make evolution any more plausible! You can't even prove that any of those creatures even had offspring! It's just a few fossils! And they don't tell you which ones they evolved into!

quote:
You're telling me it's a dinosaur with fake feathers.... unless the feathers are real, and then it's just a bird?

I'm only offering all the possibilities, it could be just a reptile, just a bird, or a fraud, which is what I think it is. But there are just as many arguments for it being just a bird or just a reptile. BUT NOT BOTH! That's the point. It could be one of the three, but not a transitional as evolutionists claim.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-08-2006 1:45 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Belfry, posted 09-08-2006 9:44 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 152 by DrJones*, posted 09-08-2006 9:54 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 160 by Quetzal, posted 09-08-2006 10:23 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded
 Message 174 by arachnophilia, posted 09-09-2006 2:51 AM Someone who cares has not yet responded
 Message 179 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-09-2006 4:41 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded
 Message 196 by arachnophilia, posted 09-23-2006 4:27 AM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 150 of 200 (347646)
09-08-2006 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 9:31 PM


Re: the great Archaeopteryx hoax
SWC writes:

There are birds with teeth...


Such as?

And I mean teeth with proper enamel, like Hesperornis and Archeopteryx?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:31 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 10:24 PM Belfry has responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019