Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 38 of 302 (318485)
06-06-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 10:48 PM


No, but see, that is breeding artificially, what you brought up. I want to see something in nature, happening without humans intervening. And, it would have to be a reptilian scale evolving into a bird feather, like a fossil of this.
well, what we have is the proof that one gene alters a condition which must previously exist. birds had feathers on all four limbs prior to developing scutes. in fact, we see confirmation of this in the fossil record: we have some nice four-winged dinosaurs.
but your post makes an additional error. while scutes and feathers are very similar in composition, scutes/feathers and reptilian scales (such as the ones found on the bottom of a bird's foot) are not the same at all. feathers evolved from something else. all of the earliest feathers we have are more similar to hair than to scales.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typod


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:48 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 39 of 302 (318487)
06-06-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
06-06-2006 10:59 PM


there are examples of a variety of not-quite-feathers on dinosaurs
we have quite a lot of examples with stuff similar to down. we even have a tyrannosaurid (dilong paradoxus) now that has downy feathers.
added by edit:
bird-like dinosaur and dinosaur-like bird fossils
kind of a funny term. birds ARE dinosaurs. so you can have bird-like dinosaurs, but not dinosaur-like birds. more primitive, yes. more similar to non-avian dinosaurs, yes.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 44 of 302 (318506)
06-06-2006 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:13 PM


But see, if reptiles did indeed evolve into birds as evolutionists claim, then the scales would have to have evolved into feathers,
no. not at all. for starters, not all reptiles have scales in the manner that you are probably thinking. quite a lot are rather smooth skinned. and, we have a number reptiles, and things descended from sauropsids, that have hair. while early mammals/thecodonts are not the best example, pterosaurs are much more closely related. they are also archosaurs, reptiles, and many have hair.
feathers are hair-like structures, and simplest feathers (like down) are nearly analogous to hair in almost every way. first one strand per follicle, then many (down) and then twisting together into harder spines (the sorts of feathers chicken feet grow). as the spines continue to twist, you start seeing strands extend from them. from there it's just barbules to aid in rigidity, and assymetry to aid in flight. we have examples of many of these types of feathers.
and the one lung type would have to have evolved into the other one, and so on...
we have a whole thread on the avian lung. it's a little hard prove definitively, since internal organs fossilize so rarely. but one thing is actually somewhat certain: theropod dinosaurs had lungs VERY similar to modern birds, and long before they could fly. we know this because many had pneumatized bones, like birds. in a bird skeleton, the hollow bones are actually linked to the respiratory system, via the air sacs. so the fact that a dinosaur like velociraptor has hollow bones means it almost certainly had air sacs as well. the system as a whole appears to have gone from a normal reptilian lung (lacking diaphragm), to a single-cycle air sac system, which used the sacs somewhat like a diaphragm. from there, the process just becomes two-cycle, instead of one. the curious point of this that all the while, dinosaurs remain "rib breathers." and that includes modern birds -- which still use the motion of their chests to aid respiration.
you may want to look at my message 24 of that thread for a more complete explanation.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:13 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 46 of 302 (318509)
06-06-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:36 PM


Re: Great example
That does not show macroevolution. And, if it were true, it would not help evolution, it would show just the opposite, a whale losing legs.
so you have no problem with the fact that whales are even-toed ungulates? in the same "kind" with hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope?
While evolution requires GAINING them. This would only prove the point that creatures can't gain new body parts that are not of their kind.
ok. let's talk about tiktaalik, the fish with legs. i suppose he was "just created that way?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 302 (318533)
06-07-2006 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:01 AM


I think you missed something very important. REPTILES DO NOT HAVE HAIR FOLLICLES! Reptile Skin Basics Thus, they cannot have hair!
tell that to those crazy flying reptiles with hair.
But you cannot prove this. "Almost certainly" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it?
But not exactly proven? "Somewhat certain" doesn't cut it. Can you prove it?
Can you show me fossil forms leading to and from this creature, showing the slow progression of these changes?
internal organs are notoriously bad at fossilizing.
what we can do is compare the bones we have in the rock with the bones of living animals. a dinosaur like velociraptor has the rib structure similar to a crocodile, a hip similar to a bird's in position, and the hollow bones of a bird. what do you suppose his innards looked like? evidently, he'd have a crocodilian lung -- as birds still do. but because of the hollow bones, he'd have air sacs like a bird.
hard anatomy is a good hint at soft anatomy. you wouldn't seem a diaphragm and human lung inside a dinosaur skeleton. but you would see something related to both a crocodile and a bird.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:01 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 55 of 302 (318539)
06-07-2006 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:11 AM


Re: Great example
I never said that the whale was the same "kind" as hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope. You said that, not me, I do not believe in that.
you said that losing limbs was acceptable. and that must mean that a creature like pakicetus (the whale with legs) is still "just a whale." nevermind that he is an even-toed ungulate.
Ahem! Did you actually do research on Tiktaalik? Well, I did. And guess what, I wasn't satisfied. Tiktaalik is NOT a fish with legs, you are overstating the truth, read some science articles about it. Did you look at the actual find? I did, and those "stubs" don't make a leg in any way.
i see at least one leg bone (maybe two), some rudimentary digits, and something like a lobed fin on the end. what's it look like to you?
And did you think of the possibility that those stubs could be flexible flippers, like those of seals?
did you? seal flippers are limbs, with fully formed digits. above is one hindlimb of a seal.
Hmmm...? Maybe that's what they are, not fin-legs.
or, maybe they're more like the "limbs" of the coelacanth:
which is more or less the same, with less distinct digits.
And, they didn't find the rear end of Tiktaalik. I bet that when and if they do, they would put down Tiktaalik and forget about the whole matter, they would probably blush and hide the evidence. Because the rear end would contain much valuable information about how Tiktaalik really was. Like if the pelvis was connected to the rest of the body, to allow legs that would actually do something. If it had back legs, probably not. And other things.
its skull makes it a fish, if that's what you're trying to say. the neck connection, however, is more amphibian. however, he doesn't have enough of a leg to be a land creature. we was clearly something that lived in the shallows, and used his rudimentary limbs to scoot around ponds (and maybe from pond to pond as lungfish and even catfish today do) to greater advantage that just the lobe-finned fish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:11 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:02 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 58 of 302 (318543)
06-07-2006 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:23 AM


But not HAIR FOLLICLES! We all know reptiles have scales! But someone claimed some of them have hair. Yet reptiles do NOT have HAIR follicles, thus hair would NOT grow!
again, tell that to this reptile that has hair:
Just because God decided to use the same substance to make hair and scales, does not mean one evolved into the other one! It's just more effective! God knows what He's doing!
no, not the same SUBSTANCE. the same GENE. one gene produces both. by default, it produces feathers. with modifaction (addition of one gene) they become scutes in certain places. without the gene, they are feathers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:23 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 302 (318547)
06-07-2006 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:32 AM


tell that to those crazy flying reptiles with hair.
Where?!? I don't see any, I can't speak to something I can't see! Show me through your binoculars where you spotted them.
i pictured one above for you. his name is sordes pilosus, and he is a dimorphodon. which is a subdivision of pterosaurs, which alongside dinosaurs are archosaurs, which are sauropsids ("reptiles"). and it has hair, or at least something very, very similar to it.
I would understand why. So we cannot be completely sure of this matter, right?
we can be nearly certain.
What if the bones were hollow, but it didn't have air sacks?
an outside possibility, since one of the two features had to have developed first.
See, dinosaurs had big and heavy bones to support all that weight. How could a dinosaur turn into a bird with light bones?
no, see, that's the part i just went over. not all dinosaurs did, and the smaller theropods certainly did not. for instance, all deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs [velociraptor], troodons, archaeopteryx, and all modern birds) have hollow bones.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:32 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:21 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 65 of 302 (318558)
06-07-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:02 AM


Re: Great example
That is trying to tie Mesonychids with whales, but it's not true.
read more closely. mesonychus was the proposed ancestor to whales (differing very obviously in the teeth). pakicetus was the was find that overturned that hypothesis.
The whale is the fully developed creature we know to be a whale now. The creatures above it are not whales, those are walking creatures that couldn't have evolved into whales.
have a look at the skulls again. pakicetus's skull is almost passable for a modern whale's skull, except for the location of the nostrils and eyes.
Check out this site to see why. Fossils | Answers in Genesis
we have all seen aig, i promise. i find them particularly dishonest on biblical matter, btw.
A bunch of pieces of some kind of bones. We must see different, but those bones do not resemble a fin-leg to me.
we must have taken different anatomy and biology classes.
I don't see the ball and socket joint required for a leg, I don't see the knee joint required for a leg,
and you won't in amphibians, either. (because those are PECTORAL fins -- forelimbs. not hind legs)
I don't see a foot and the bones connecting it to the leg, and neither do I see fins, which would look like a bunch of small stick like bones close together, kind of branching out.
yes. it's oddly between the two, isn't it?
So it's not a fin-leg! There! It's probably a flipper. Problem solved! So that whole find can be put down. It's not a fish with legs. It's probably some kind of creature like a seal!
fish don't have flippers. they have fins. this one has exceptionally long lobed fins. that end in well definied digits.
did you catch that? it has hands and fingers.
Maybe. But not fin-legs. So they shouldn't claim it to be that. They should call them flipper like limbs.
no, they are not homologous to flippers. they are extended lobed fins.
But it's not a fish with legs, as the original claim was.
yes, it is. the distance between the "fin" and the body is two great to call it anything but a limb. it has a jointed apendage protruding from its torso, that ends in fingers. what would you call it?
and it's not a flipper.
Maybe the head doesn't make it a fish. Maybe the neck doesn't make it amphibian.
maybe you don't know anything about biology?
How can we be sure without the rear end? The part with much needed information.
i made no claims about the rear end.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:02 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 7:52 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 67 of 302 (318560)
06-07-2006 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:09 AM


What is that? How can you be sure if it's a reptile
it's an archosaur. it's a reptile. do you doubt that pterosaurs are reptiles?
and how can you be sure that is hair?
what does it look like to you?
The same substance, as it was in the site: "Epidermis: characterized by complete covering of keratin (the same stuff that makes up mammalian hair and mammalian, avian, and reptilian nails/claws also makes up the plates we call "scales")." Reptile Skin Basics
they are actually mistaken. the chemical makeup of reptilian scales and bird feathers differ. if you don't believe me, well, check any creationist site on the question. they like to herrald that piece of evidence as proving that bird feathers couldn't have come from reptilian scales. which actually proves very little.
See, that site said the same "stuff", not gene. I was going off that site.
yes, and refer to scutes, it is the same gene. that's the point i was making -- not only are those chemical compositions the same, but so are the genes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:09 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 71 of 302 (318567)
06-07-2006 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:21 AM


You forgot the possibility that God created those creatures, so no evolution was needed, and nothing needed to come first.
if god created creatures, he did so in such a way that would change over time. that much, we have evidence for.
Hey, that site said reptiles do not have hair follicles. So tell me, if that was a real reptile, how could it get hair without hair follicles.
by evolving follicles.
It could also be a fake... Like Archaeopteryx...
i'm not sure i should even entertain this. it was a ridiculous idea when it was proposed in the 1850's, and it's even more ridiculous today. to fake all 7 specimens the same way, so that they all produce perfect replicas of perfectly aerodynamic feathers would literally require the hand of god. we are finding more and more features in archaeopteryx even today that they had no idea about in the 1850's -- and all new specimens match the first one. read all about it, here.
we can be nearly certain.
But not completely.
only in the regard that new evidence is always being introduced, and that science doesn't actually PROVE anything.
But what about the other differences between reptiles and birds? How could evolution do that? Check out this site for more on that: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_02.html
yeah, let's look at those.
quote:
These so-called differences exist between dinosaurs classified as Saurischian (reptile-like, hip-girdled species) and Ornithischian (bird-like, hip-girdled species). This concept of dinosaurs having hip girdles similar to those of birds is now and then taken as evidence for the alleged dinosaur-bird link. However, the difference in hip girdles is no evidence at all for the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That is because Ornithischian dinosaurs do not resemble birds with respect to other anatomical features. For instance, Ankylosaurus is a dinosaur classified as Ornithischian, with short legs, a giant body, and skin covered with scales resembling armor. On the other hand, Struthiomimus, which resembles birds in some of its anatomical features (long legs, short forelegs, and thin structure), is actually a Saurischian.110
huge fallacy. this is going to sound weird, but guess which kind of hip bones modern birds have? if you guessed "ornithstician" you just lost. the ornithstician dinosaurs were so named because the people who first found them thought the hips looked like those of birds. in fact, modern birds are actually saurischian dinosaurs.
in ornithsticians, the pubis has a forward projection. saurischians (including birds) lack this projection. the original distinction was made based on whether the pubis was parallel or perpendicular to the ischum. in reptiles, it is perpendicular. in birds, it is parallel. the problem is that we have many "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs with pubi in various stages of turning backwards. that velociraptor i keep mentioning is a good example. not suprisingly, so is archaeopteryx.
this page has some nice illustrations for you.
quote:
Dinosaur bones are thick and solid because of their massive structure, whereas the bones of living and extinct birds are hollow, and thus very light.
as previously mentioned, many non-avian dinosaurs have hollow bones.
quote:
Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.)
it's not speculation. it's reasonable inference. name me a cold-blooded animal that walks on two legs? i bet you can't do it. in fact, name me a cold blooded animal that walks on four legs, but with its legs fully underneath its body. there's a REASON you can't do it: none exist, because none CAN exist. cold-blooded animals have to stick close to the ground for warmth.
any animal that walks upright has to be warm-blooded, otherwise it dies of heat loss.
quote:
One of the best-known ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself.
of all the names to drop, feduccia is the worst. in the paleontology community, people LAUGH at him. i'll look and see if i can find you an example of his proposed ancestor for birds -- but they look something like chameleons. he even alleges that archaeopteryx is a true bird, but not at all related to dinosaurs (even though it's skeleton is identical to every other maniraptoran dinosaurs in almost every way).
added by edit: you might want to have a look at this thread on archaeopteryx and avian dinosaurs for more information.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:21 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 73 of 302 (318584)
06-07-2006 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rob
06-07-2006 2:33 AM


1. DNA is a language for life, as an operating system is a language for a computer. It doesn't make the hardware, or itself,
actually, that's dna's primary function. replication. it's one of the few things that DOES make itself.
If SETI reasearchers could find even a simple pattern of information coming from outer space they would jump for joy. But show them God's calling card (DNA) and as Francis Crick the nobel lauriate and geneticist said, "I can only conclude that it came in missile form from somewhere else (paraphrased)."
poor cyrptology. some combinatorists i know would be appalled. there is a difference between a string of data, and a message. now, if the human genome could be decoded into a message that contained all five books of the torah -- i'd jump right on the id bandwagon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 2:33 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 9:18 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 91 of 302 (318805)
06-07-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rob
06-07-2006 9:18 AM


Not without the rest of the cell components. DNA is not alive my friend. Even almost whole organisms are not alive.
technically, we are just tools to facilitate the replication of dna.
But again, data is information.
in the same way that static in between the radio stations is data. it is, btw. we can actually tell something about our own sun with it, too.
presence of data does not indicate intelligent origin. otherwise, seti would make headlines every other day when they discover a new pulsar.
Evolution is a theory that is testable. The testing and evidence just don't support it.
on the contrary, the evidence and testing cannot support anything else. observation confirms it. genetics confirms it. paleontology confirms it. cladistics confirms it. any competing theory has to now explain all of the confirmed predictions, and predict something new that differs from evolution, and confirm that prediction.
an "last thursdayism" doesn't count as an explanation.
Here's a sample of quotes:
when the titles of the sources are "evolution" "the case against creationism" etc, and the authors are some of the biggest voices in evolutionary biology, and paleontology, and they're being quoted as saying things against evolution, you can bet your whiskey jar, hat, and suspenders that they're being quotemined in extreme.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 9:18 AM Rob has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 179 of 302 (319507)
06-09-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 7:52 PM


Re: Great example
Oh, I just want to tell you guys, I wrote a whole essay on the topic of evolution. So if you could read it, I won't have to repeat many of those things here. Here is where you will find it: Page Not Found - Webs
as your posts here have illustrated, you have been completely mislead about evolution and biology in general, and you keep repeating common low-level creationist pratts -- points refuted a thousand times.
Are you referring to the Pakicetus skull FRAGMENTS? Or do you have the whole skull?
Because Gingerich constructed a picture of the skull and Pakicetus with just 2 skull fragments!
false, and also a bad picture of what paleontology is. you're thinking of this lie by aig:
yet as even aig shows in another graphic, there is considerably more of the pakicetus skeleton than that:
the reason it's a bad representation of palenontology is that it completely misrepresents the science behind a skeletal reconstruction. we do not have pakicetus in isolation, and they are not just making stuff up out of thin air.
rather, we have another animal that looks nearly exactly like pakicetus: ambulocetus. the bones are homologous to a high enough degree that a reasonable guess at the missing segments can be made.
this is not circular logic. if evolution were not true, scientists would not be able to do this.
and you won't in amphibians, either. (because those are PECTORAL fins -- forelimbs. not hind legs)
So you said it, those are pectoral fins. Nothing else?! Not a transition? Not a leg? So is Tiktaliik invalid as a transitional form? Have you reached that conclusion?
no, i emphasized a word for a reason. it's the important word. they are PECTORAL, not HIND limbs. they do not have ball and socket joints or kneecaps. no tetrapod -- including you -- has a ball and socket joint for your shoulder, and a kneecap in your elbow.
No, it's only one. Not between anything. I don't see anything of a fin there.
so it's a fish, with a leg?
Of course fish don't have flippers! That's what I'm saying, it's probably not a fish or transition at all! Probably some kind of seal like creature with flippers.
this is what i mean about having no knowledge about biology in general. it's not a seal-like creature. seals are mammals. this is something with a skull showing both fish and amphibian anatomy, an amphibian neck joint, gill structurs, and stubby legs that highly resemble lobed fins (as in a coelacanth) that would have been largely incapable of walking on land.
Hand? Fingers? Could you show me? I didn't see that.
i did. there's a picture a few pages back.
But how can you be so sure? They look more like flippers to me than some super sized fin-legs.
i can be sure, because i know what a flipper, a hand, and a fin are. just because you know very little about anatomy doesn't mean the scientists don't either.
No, actually, I know a little more about biology than other science topics.
i'll remember not to bring up chemistry or physics then.
But the rear end holds much needed information to tell us what Tiktaliik really is!
if you found half a fish, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half a newt, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half something that looked like both a newt and a fish, would the rest of it be important to telling you it was something similar to both a fish and a newt?
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 7:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 182 of 302 (319513)
06-09-2006 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 8:07 PM


Hey, guess what. I did a google define search for the word archosaur, and here is one of the definitions: archosaur: "Ruling Reptile'. The group of animals that included dinosaurs, crocodiles, birds, and pterosaurs" define:archosaur - Google Search
Notice that "birds" was included in the definition. That's what we have here with your creature, a bird.
*sigh* no. it's not a bird. it's a pterosaur.
all birds are archosaurs. but not all archosaur are birds. archosauria is the group that includes dinosaurs, crocodiles, pterosaurs, and (maybe) marine reptiles. "birds" is actually redundant, because dinosauria is a group that includes birds.
the animal we were looking at is not a bird at all.
Some lines sticking out from the creature. You know, they could have been faked, it's a possibility. It's not that hard to carve out some lines in a fossil.
actually, it is. it's hard to do it an be convincing. one, maybe, could be faked. but *all* the pterosaurs we have with hair? and all of the dinosaurs with feathers?
I mean, how would hair fossilize? Have you ever thought of that?
the same way anything else fossilized. by making an impression that fills with minerals.
Inner organs don't fossilize too well, how would hair have fossilized? It's so thin and soft...
hair (and feathers) don't fossilize very well either. it doesn't mean they DON'T.
If it's a mistake, why don't you tell them about it, so they can fix it?
because it's such a minor one, and it's not my job to go around correcting every herpetology website about tiny errors.
Even so, how would you know if the feathers and scales came from the same gene? Can you prove it?
yes.
Dinosauria On-Line
if you remove a single gene from the chicken genome, the scutes on their feet are replaced by feathers. this gene is the one that modifies feathers into scutes. one gene.
Scutes? Scutes are scales, not anything to do with feathers!
except, of course, for the fact that they do have a lot to do with feathers, if we can fairly easily turn them into feathers. we also have some dinosaurs, like microraptor gui, that have flight feathers on their feet, growing from where modern birds have scutes:
Wait, you just said it was a mistake, they aren't of the same composition, now you say there are? Which is it?
no, please try to follow along.
the reptilian scales on a bird's feet, which are located on the bottom of the foot, are not the same chemical composition as feathers. the bird scales on a bird's feet, SCUTES, which are located on the top of the foot, ARE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:07 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:18 PM arachnophilia has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024