Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 4:15 AM
132 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 131 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,449 Year: 3,486/19,786 Month: 481/1,087 Week: 71/212 Day: 1/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3945 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 121 of 200 (309024)
05-04-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by AdminJar
05-04-2006 10:23 AM


Re: Topic Folk
Sorry. How about I add, "Unlike the anthropoids noted above, folivorous birds like the hoatzin have never developed an appendix. Hoatzin digestive systems use a fermentation sack in the foregut similar to the rumen of even-toed ungulates. Although fossil evidence of archosaurian herbivore digestion is limited to non-existent, modern folivorous reptiles such as the iguanids and a few turtles are all hind-gut fermenters relying on a cecum for digestion. Since the vast majority of modern birds, whether fructivores, insectivores, nectarvores or opportunistic omnivores do not posess either appendix or caecum, we can probably conclude that if birds developed from dinosaurs, then they derived from a non-herbivore lineage rather than an archosaur. This lends some further evidence to the dromaeosaur origin of birds - a lineage which includes Archeopteryx." :p
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by AdminJar, posted 05-04-2006 10:23 AM AdminJar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 05-05-2006 1:19 AM Quetzal has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 122 of 200 (309269)
05-05-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Nuggin
05-03-2006 11:40 PM


Re: Let's be clear
In other words - if we look at birds, there are a few key features. All birds have feathers for example. Also, only birds have feathers. So feathers is a very good indicator that something is a bird.

According to that, Archie is a bird.

in my (educated) opinion, this is a bad argument. birds are the only LIVING animals with feathers -- but are find more and more extinct ones that have them.

for instance, dilong paradoxus -- a chinese tyrannosaur -- has feathers. i would even go as far as to argue that flight feathers are not a good argument, either. looking at only the skeleton, there is almost nothing to place archaeopteryx as a bird. there many, many signs that he is related to birds. but the development of these signs are rather gradual through out theropod dinosaurs. and in my opinion, archie is still very much on the dinosaur side of the line.

but the line is a fine and debatable one. i'm not sure where i'd put sinornis, for instance. he has some of the fused bones i'm looking for as markers, if i recall.

So... is it a bird? Is it not a bird?

i say "not a bird."

but this is not an excuse for a creationist to misrepresent my argument. he's clearly related to birds, and closely related to the ancestor of all birds. there are many, many things that indicate a transition from dinosaurs to birds, and archaeopteryx is a rather obvious one.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Nuggin, posted 05-03-2006 11:40 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 05-05-2006 1:32 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 123 of 200 (309270)
05-05-2006 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Quetzal
05-04-2006 11:27 AM


Re: Topic Folk
we can probably conclude that if birds developed from dinosaurs, then they derived from a non-herbivore lineage rather than an archosaur.

what?

all dinosaurs are archosaurs, and all BIRDS are archosaurs (because all birds are dinosaurs). we know birds came from bipedal meat-eating theropods -- but this is also kind of a silly point too. so did the bigger plant eaters.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Quetzal, posted 05-04-2006 11:27 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 05-05-2006 8:54 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 124 of 200 (309271)
05-05-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by arachnophilia
05-05-2006 1:16 AM


The line between birds and dinos
but the line is a fine and debatable one.

I think the line is not "fine" it is wide, very wide. There were many species (but we have only a few) that were "in the line". Those that we have to argue over which side they are on.

That is the whole point. Today we have only birds and not-birds. That is the result of the ongoing branching and pruning of living things. Archy is neither; if you take defining characteristics of birds but ONLY stick to what we need to separate them TODAY then archy is, (I think -- not a taxonimist) a bird. However, when we want to separate archy from dinos then we run into the wide grey fuzzy line.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by arachnophilia, posted 05-05-2006 1:16 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by arachnophilia, posted 05-05-2006 1:52 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 125 of 200 (309274)
05-05-2006 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by NosyNed
05-05-2006 1:32 AM


STILL not a bird
I think the line is not "fine" it is wide, very wide.

that's a good way to look at it. really, the line is artificial anyways. birds ARE dinosaurs, just a highly specialized group.

Archy is neither; if you take defining characteristics of birds but ONLY stick to what we need to separate them TODAY then archy is, (I think -- not a taxonimist) a bird.

archaeopteryx is NOT alive today, and grouping him with today's creatures would be anachronistic and silly.

if a velociraptor were alive today, we'd be just as forced to group him with birds. he'd have (i'd imagine) feathers, including wings, he'd be bipedal and warm-blooded, and his overall skeletal structure would a lot more similar to a bird's than it would be a to a crocodile's.

if we put him next to another large flightless bird, like an ostrich, we'd see alot in common. the feathers, the posture, the leg structure, the neck curve. they'd all be a little off, but we'd all agree that he's a flightless bird.

the things that group archaeopteryx with birds are features that are quite general and common to nearly all theropod dinosaurs, post-late-jurassice. wishbones, semi-lunate carpals, air-sac innards, hollow bones, hips, etc.

birds, in my opinion, do not start until the second and third digits are fully fused, the tarsels are fused, the halux is reverted, the tail ends in a pygostyle, the breast bone is large and keeled, and the snout is billed. those are the specific features i look for. and they are not present in archaeopteryx, who's anatomy is far, far more similar to velociraptor's.

people get so caught on the feathers. lots of dinosaurs had feathers. is dilong a bird? (is t. rex?)

archaeopteryx, like velociraptor, is an avian (and feathered) dinosaur, closely related (possibly ancestral) to birds.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 05-05-2006 1:32 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 4347 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 126 of 200 (309317)
05-05-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 11:20 AM


Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
quote:
The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur; Archaeopteryx was a bird –a perching bird. Period.

Archaeopteryx was NOT a perching bird, but this is an understandible being that it comes from a recent specimen which shows that it does not have a reversed hallux, which is the opposing talon feature allows birds to perch. Since it wasn't a perching bird, it was probably a runner like dromeosaurids (velociraptor) which is the dinosaur group to which archaeopteryx is most closely aligned. There are several features of archaeopteryx that place it with dromeosaurids, among them is the hyperextendible second toe, which is only found in dromeosaurids. If archaeopteryx fossils didn't show feathers we would have thought they were just another small dinosaur, that's how much like a dinosaur it is. If archaeopteryx isn't transitional then there is no such thing, since it is a near perfect mosaic of dinosaur and avian traits.

The fossil evidence for several transitions is very good; fish-amphibian (eusthenopteron, tiktaalik, acanthostega), reptile-mammal (dimetrodon, thrinaxodon, probainognathus), whale (pakicetus, rodhocetus, basilosaurus), horse (hyracotherium, mesohippus, miohippus), and last but not least we have an excellent fossil record (australopithecus afarensis, homo erectus, paranthropus boisei).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 05-05-2006 6:09 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3945 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 127 of 200 (309335)
05-05-2006 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by arachnophilia
05-05-2006 1:19 AM


Re: Topic Folk
I know. I was just trying to be a smart ass. Guess it didn't work.

This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-05-2006 08:55 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 05-05-2006 1:19 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 51 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 128 of 200 (309488)
05-05-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by CACTUSJACKmankin
05-05-2006 7:56 AM


Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
...a recent specimen which shows that it does not have a reversed hallux, which is the opposing talon feature allows birds to perch.

let's not get carried away. there are plenty of arboreal dinosaurs that do not have reversed halluxes. there are also plenty of animals that can climb trees without them -- goats come to mind.

the hallux does not solve the ground-up v. trees-down debate.

Since it wasn't a perching bird, it was probably a runner like dromeosaurids (velociraptor) which is the dinosaur group to which archaeopteryx is most closely aligned.

indeed, archaeopteryx IS a dromeosaur. but that doesn't neccessarily mean he was a runner. while much of the anatomy is the same, his build is considerably lighter than that of velociraptor.

There are several features of archaeopteryx that place it with dromeosaurids, among them is the hyperextendible second toe, which is only found in dromeosaurids.

and troodons, i believe.

If archaeopteryx isn't transitional then there is no such thing, since it is a near perfect mosaic of dinosaur and avian traits.

i would argue that your velociraptor is almost as "transitional." the transition is indicated by the WHOLE of late-jurassive early-cretaceous theropods, most of which began to take on these sets of avian traits. i think it's a rather safe bet now that all maniraptors had feathers, if not all theropods of the cretaceous.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-05-2006 7:56 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3824 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 129 of 200 (347401)
09-07-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
10-04-2005 12:26 AM


Archaeopteryx- most likely fraud, if not, still not transitional
quote:
And, yet, here is a creature which is certainly not a bird. If you couldn't see the feathers, you'ld think this was simply a small dinosaur.

Exactly! That is what this specimen of Archaeopteryx most likely was, just a dinosaur, and engravings of feathers in the rock! Oh, and look at how straight and almost perfect like those feathers are, nicely spaced apart, rarely overlapping, OOOPS! The engraver was soooo busy making it perfect, that he/she forgot to make it REALISTIC! If that fossil was formed, there must have been a great force that did it, and if there was a great force, we would expect to see the feathers all overlapping and some broken and bent, etc, but this specimen doesn't seem to show this, does it? 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... This looks like a nice fraud done by some evolutionists desperately seeking for "proof" and wanting to get some big bucks from a museum...

As for another specimen, the one with the reptile like fossil, and a feather next to it: That feather was most likely imprinited in rock and then put together with the reptile like fossil, as the slab grade and bubbles and color, etc, show. Most likely this was a fraud as well.

AND, even if it was a genuine fossil, it's still not a transitional fossil! I don't see any developing structures here... 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.

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


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 10-04-2005 12:26 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Coragyps, posted 09-07-2006 11:13 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 133 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-08-2006 1:45 AM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 136 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2006 2:43 AM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 143 by subbie, posted 09-08-2006 4:57 PM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 144 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2006 5:50 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 130 of 200 (347423)
09-07-2006 11:13 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
If that fossil was formed, there must have been a great force that did it....

The word of the day is taphonomy. Look it up. The "great force" is a few hundreds/thousands of years in the very calm, quiet, oxygen-free ooze at the bottom of a lagoon.


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 131 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 12:12 AM Coragyps has responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3824 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 131 of 200 (347454)
09-08-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Coragyps
09-07-2006 11:13 PM


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

I don't think so! It takes a lot more force to leave an imprint of a creature in rock or mud! Do this experiment: Find some semi hard mud, take a tennis ball, set it in the mud and leave it there, then remove it, did it leave a noticeable imprint? Now throw the tennis ball into the mud, and take out your hose, set it to full throttle, and spray at the tennis ball. Now remove it, did it leave an imprint? See?

A creature has to be covered quickly in order to fossilize, otherwise scavengers, bacteria, weather erosion, etc, will destroy any remains of the creature. A universal flood is perfect for this, the creature gets trapped in sediments. But a bunch of dying creatures in peace and quiet are not going to last more than a few months or years! How many buffalo were killed in Western America? Yeah, now tell me how many fossils you find of them... Hmmm...

Oh, and, by the way, what would make a reptile/bird die in the bottom of a lagoon instead of on land?


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Coragyps, posted 09-07-2006 11:13 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2006 2:50 AM Someone who cares has responded
 Message 142 by Coragyps, posted 09-08-2006 9:30 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 132 of 200 (347469)
09-08-2006 1:01 AM


How many birds have:

Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.
Trunk region vertebra are free.
Bones are pneumatic.
Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.

How many reptiles have:
Feathers
Opposable hallux (big toe).
Furcula (wishbone) formed of two clavicles fused together in the midline.
Pubis elongate and directed backward

Answer: None
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#avian-features


Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2006 2:37 AM obvious Child has responded
 Message 147 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:09 PM obvious Child has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1671 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 133 of 200 (347475)
09-08-2006 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Someone who cares
09-07-2006 10:28 PM


the great Archaeopteryx hoax
I feel so loved...

Someone who cares:

Exactly! That is what this specimen of Archaeopteryx most likely was, just a dinosaur, and engravings of feathers in the rock! Oh, and look at how straight and almost perfect like those feathers are, nicely spaced apart, rarely overlapping, OOOPS! The engraver was soooo busy making it perfect, that he/she forgot to make it REALISTIC!

And such a loss to art history, too.

If Rodin had been in town the museum wouldn't have had to hire that grad student.

If that fossil was formed, there must have been a great force that did it, and if there was a great force, we would expect to see the feathers all overlapping and some broken and bent, etc, but this specimen doesn't seem to show this, does it? 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... This looks like a nice fraud done by some evolutionists desperately seeking for "proof" and wanting to get some big bucks from a museum...

Everyone knows about the big bucks to be made in paleontology.

What they don't realize is that we really do need the money. Professional sculptors are expensive.

As for another specimen, the one with the reptile like fossil, and a feather next to it: That feather was most likely imprinited in rock and then put together with the reptile like fossil, as the slab grade and bubbles and color, etc, show. Most likely this was a fraud as well.

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.

And we're talking about a small fossil. I thought I'd never get those otter legs attached to our whale skeleton...

AND, even if it was a genuine fossil, it's still not a transitional fossil! I don't see any developing structures here...

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

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.

Actually we do.

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.

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

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

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


Archer

All species are transitional.


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 134 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2006 2:06 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 137 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2006 2:48 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:31 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3308
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 134 of 200 (347477)
09-08-2006 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Archer Opteryx
09-08-2006 1:45 AM


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

[chuckle] Yeah, ain't they cute when they pull **** like that? (Sorry, I saw Harlem Nights again the other day). I remember Gish doing the same thing, going on for pages claiming that Archy was nothing but a dinosaur with fake feathers, only to switch at the end and revert to their claim that Archy was 100% bird and not the least bit dinosaur.

But what's really amazing is how their public just eat that **** up! Without ever gagging on it! Their talents are being wasted; they're desperately needed in the fast-food and frozen-dinner industries.

PS
I just remembered that one of the PhDs that creation science boasts (as listed in Kitchner's Abusing Science) is in "Food Technology". Now I'm starting to see where that fits in.

Edited by dwise1, : HTML cleanup

Edited by dwise1, : PS


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 51 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 135 of 200 (347483)
09-08-2006 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by obvious Child
09-08-2006 1:01 AM


How many birds have:

Bones are pneumatic.
Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section

um. all of them.

How many reptiles have:

Opposable hallux (big toe).

first toe, not big toe. and not archaeopteryx. recent studies have shown that the hallux was not opposed.

Furcula (wishbone) formed of two clavicles fused together in the midline.

allosaurus had one. so did just about every theropod dinosaur afterward.

Pubis elongate and directed backward

classifying feature of dromaeosaurids. velociraptor has a nearly identically hip structure to archie.

Edited by arachnophilia, : forgot the sig!

Edited by arachnophilia, : (technical error corrected before anyone else caught it)


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by obvious Child, posted 09-08-2006 1:01 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by obvious Child, posted 09-08-2006 4:00 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019