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 12:18 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, Theodoric (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2283 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 226 of 302 (320217)
06-10-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ramoss
06-10-2006 4:28 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
The only time i've heard of anyone claiming that brain size effects intellegence on adverage seems to be white nationalists claiming the size of black peoples brains makes them stupid
brain size may differ between groups on adverage but no one seems to be able to equate intellence and brain size with evidence
i guess WN's like to conflate the difference to sway the ignorent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ramoss, posted 06-10-2006 4:28 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 227 of 302 (320220)
06-10-2006 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 7:28 PM


Re: "Macro"evolution still undefined.
Would you be willing to explain to me how tiny variations within the kind could accumulate to make a new kind?

Let's start with an example of simple speciation at a very basic level eh? One that I included in the post you replied to but didn't answer on:

RAZD writes:

Message 171Lets take an example -- A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see picture)



(click to enlarge)

(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)

I think we can agree that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?

Is there any reason these two species at the end cannot diversify further? What is it and how does it operate?

Is this any different than the variation we see in say dog varieties?

How have I been corected? I still repeat my claim, no one has yet shown me a transitional fossil that is undebatable, and no one can.

No one can keep you from denying evidence that is true. But what I was refering to specifically was you claim

SWC, msg 134 writes:

The fossil record shows that all of the creatures, taxons, families, etc. appear suddenly.

That has been refuted, whether you think so or not. Repeating this claim without providing any evidence that the previous appearance of fossils makes the claim invalid is not going to make you point any more valid, just more careless.

The other half that was quoted:

SWC, msg 134 writes:

It has no transitional forms to show us macroevolution.

Depends on you presenting a definition of "macro"evolution, which you have failed as yet to provide. Of course you are free to deny any evidence that does not fit your definition when you fail to provide a definition to work from. This is not 50 questions, it's science, so there is either evidence for your hypothesis or it is a groundless assertion of opinion. Again.

Because the fossil record does indeed have "sudden" appearances of all the kinds of creatures.

But there are also fossil records of cradual change in species over time so not ALL species appear suddenly as you claimed. I showed you one.

You are wrong, admit it and be honest.

You have also been told why we don't expect to see all transitions between species, that doesn't mean that there are NO examples of transitions between species, especially when that has been observed first hand.

Evolution happens. It is change in species over time. It has been observed.

Microevolution, what you just said about species changing is microevolution. But not the popular evolution belief, macroevolution. And yes, I have already gave my general definition from macroevolution, for what it WOULD be, please check back.

What is it? I can easily repeat and repeat that "evolution is the change in species over time" so you can easily debate my definition of evolution. Take the example of Pelycodus above -- they get bigger and bigger and bigger and then one group reverts back to the original size while another keeps getting bigger, the two groups separate, become different species.

You agree that this is what you call "micro"evolution yes?

I said I would support my claim later, in a more suitable thread, and you still attack me. Please, have patience. I have enough on my hands with only two threads! And the facts do support a young earth, I will show you later in the thread for it. As the administrator said, this thread has gone way off topic, you are promoting it to go even more off topic. Let us not do this. Specific topics will go to specific threads, as this young earth thing.

Fact: I directed you to a thread to discuss this matter at, so I am NOT trying to move this offtopic. Fact: you claim you have evidence but so far have failed to produce any. Fact: you have failed several times to subtantiate assertions you have made where the evidence is against you. Stop whining.

Evolution logic? No, evolution is not logical. A single cell, forming into a human, and everything else, by chance, randomly, unguided by a Higher Being, is not logical. It defies all logic.

How does it defy logic? Present the arguments, present the evidence. present SOMETHING other than bald repeated assertions.

And, btw, this " A single cell, forming into a human, and everything else, by chance, randomly, ..." is a strawman logical fallacy, so you are on the wrong side of a logical argument at the start.

The rest of the paragraph is an argument from incredulity, another logical fallacy.

To show that evolution is not logical you have to avoid logical fallacies or your argument is invalid before you even reach a conclusion. Like your "essay" is invalid because it is based on false information.

I didn't make an assertion. Please read over those posts. Someone said we cannot rely on AIG for information. I said, that I could use the same reasoning and say we cannot rely on TO.

Sorry, but until you actually show that this is the case it is nothing BUT an assertion. Ned offered to go one for one on it with you and you declined. AIG is unreliable because it has several errors on it's site, just as your "essay" is unreliable because of the many errors you have carelessly included.

Oh, right. I'm sure that those many sources I used mean nothing to you? The Bibliography, the Works Cited?

This is called the arguement from authority, another logical fallacy. Certainly you know the quote that the devil can cite scripture for his purpose eh?

But more to the point you can pad your bibliography with as many scientific papers and documents as you please, the arguement YOU make from them is still invalid if all you base it on is your personal incredulity, misunderstanding and ignorance.

Your first paragraph sets the tone of careless error and careless attention to detail.

So far you have not said one thing that is substantially different from your first few posts, and those were full of errors.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 7:28 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

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


Message 228 of 302 (320234)
06-10-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by arachnophilia
06-09-2006 11:19 AM


what mechanism prohibits change from compiling?

Variations can compile, I mean, look at the wolf and the poodle, they do look very different, but they're still the "dog" kind. Variations can compile, but they cannot produce different kinds!

many reptiles lack crocodilian-type scales. an early reptile might have grown hair (and the follicles it requires) during the shift to warm-blood. there were many adaptations that aided in this, but one -- bipedalism - required it.

"Might have?" But can we see proof that this happened?

all 7, faked in exactly the same, precisely accurate way? a way that's fooled paleontologists trained at spotting fakes? a way that lines up nicely with every other feathered dinosaur found?

Notice I said SOME, not all. I think at least two of them are faked.

bad logic. evolution is not a straight line, it's a forking tree. archaeopteryx is not a direct ancestor of modern birds, no. but it is closely related to the common ancestor of it, and modern birds.

"transitional" doesn't mean "exactly between in a direct line of ancestors." it means that it indicates the sorts of transitions that were going on.

But those transitions were supposed to happen slowly, bit by bit, right? So where are the fossils to show the slow transitions leading to archaeopteryx, and coming from it?

scales did not evolve into feathers.

and if if they did, what would you expect to see as a transition? tell me how you would represent a transition, with one species, frozen in time, in the rock? would you accept less advanced feathers? we have those too.

Oh? So you say that scales didn't slowly evolve into feathers? Instead they just jumped suddenly from one to the other, from reptile covering to bird covering? That's not how your theory goes. And no, "less advanced" feathers won't do.

birds have hollow bones as part of their respiratory system. they have hollow bones because they have air sacrs. actually, the hollow bones are the air sacs.

But why would non avian dinosaurs have air sacs? Would it benefit them in any way?

birds are reptiles too. they're warm blooded. remember that page you just looked up about archosaurs? birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are archosaurs, archosaurs are sauropsides ("reptiles").

but you failed to follow the logic here. cold blooded animals cannot be bipedal. period. they have to remain close to the ground for warmth. because dinosaurs walked with their legs under them, and often on two legs (the four legged ones, btw, all started off bipedal) they MUST have been warm-blooded in some degree.

Why "must?" I mean, say, what if the climate and atmosphere during dinosaurs was different than todays?


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 11:19 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 9:57 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

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


Message 229 of 302 (320235)
06-10-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:00 PM


Re: Great example
See, Gingerich probably did draw the picture with only two skull fragments.

You couldn't open the pdf of the 1983 paper, IIRC, but it said:
"Anatomically, Pakicetus is the best known genus, being represented by the posterior portion of an exceptionally well preserved cranium, two dentaries, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth."

More than "two skull fragments." And it was compared with another species in the same genus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:00 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

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


Message 230 of 302 (320238)
06-10-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
06-09-2006 8:41 PM


Re: define "Macro"evolution ... eh?
Your comment on Lucy with the knee is typical of the lack of any care or attempt to find the truth of the statements you included. This has already been dealt with on the Lucy - fact or fraud? (click) thread, so I expect you either to:

(1) Correct your essay accordingly (the honest thing to do) or
(2) Substantiate you claim -- on the linked thread, not here -- by providing actual evidence of professional misconduct by the scientists involved (the other honest thing to do) or
(3) Continue in your ignorance and incredulity to claim such falsehoods as if they were real (with some mistaken belief that you are somehow right to do so, no matter how dishonest it is)

Well, you know what? If you do indeed believe it is a false statement, then why don't you talk about it with the source of that statement? Because you see, I just gathered the information from many sources, and put it together. I was not the one digging the finds or recording them or making those statements. So, I suggest, you send a letter or email or make a phone call, or something, directly to the source: Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990, p.83. Ok? If they decide to change their books and change the statement, then I will have to change my essay. But if not, then you can just accept the fact that I used that source, and any problems you have with their information, should be directed to them, not me. Or, you could just do nothing about it. Your choice. I put a number after that statement in my essay, which tells you which source that information was from, so, problems would have to be directed to that source, not me. I didn't make up that statement.

So: you have not presented any evidence yet to show that an accumulation of small changes over time results in the 'remarkable' differences that we humans consider different enough to characterize as {family} or larger taxon groups.

Actually, you are the one who should be doing that, not me.

Do you or do you not agree that this is just normal speciation - that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?

Do you agree that this is no different than "dog is dog" variations? If no why not?

Once we have established the "micro"evolution aspects of the fossil record of events like this we can move on to the next level.

If your information is correct, then I can say, that the two species came about by variation within the kind. This is acceptable in my theory. As long as it is WITHIN the kind. Yes, variation does happen, within the kind.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 8:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Coragyps, posted 06-10-2006 8:58 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded
 Message 237 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 9:44 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

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


Message 231 of 302 (320240)
06-10-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by crashfrog
06-09-2006 11:11 PM


Re: Great example
Who said? That's what we observe. We see it happen.

It does stay one kind, though. One kind that contains an increasing number of kinds.

What if it remains the dog kind?

It will. But that kind contains a bunch more kinds. Is it just that you don't get the idea of a hierarcheal system of classification?

No, one kind doesn't give rise to other kinds. I have yet to see a dog evolving into a cat, or something to the sort, it hasn't been observed.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2006 11:11 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

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


Message 232 of 302 (320241)
06-10-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by jar
06-10-2006 12:09 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
Well, I think I responded to that back in on pairs and tells (Message 161).

The human is about average for the lower end of critterdom, having about the same amount as corn or chimps, but certainly not as much as a lungfish, or common toad or amoeba.

I didn't say the length of the genome. Just take the DNA content, which has more volume of DNA content?


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 12:09 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 9:06 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 9:53 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

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


Message 233 of 302 (320242)
06-10-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:52 PM


Re: define "Macro"evolution ... eh?
Yes, variation does happen, within the kind.

Whatever that pesky "kind" is. Most of us here will sign up immediately if "kind" encompasses "life on Earth." That's called evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:52 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

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


Message 234 of 302 (320243)
06-10-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by crashfrog
06-10-2006 12:17 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
You really need to look stuff up while you're typing it, because this sentence doesn't make a lick of sense. "Hydrogen molecules" don't contain oxygen.

Yes, thank you, not hydrogen molecules, WATER molecules. I will fix that.

And this? I mean, what are you talking about? Of course there's charts for how plants evolved. Plant evolution is a huge deal, particularly in agroscience, where it's super-important. There's a lot of work being done on plant evolution.

You really need to be checking your statements more carefully.

Really? Could you show me a plant evolution chart with all of the plant types in it? I haven't come across one yet.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 12:17 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Belfry, posted 06-10-2006 9:26 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2006 10:06 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 235 of 302 (320251)
06-10-2006 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:57 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
I didn't say the length of the genome. Just take the DNA content, which has more volume of DNA content?

What? LOL


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:57 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

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


Message 236 of 302 (320258)
06-10-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 9:00 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
SWC writes:

Really? Could you show me a plant evolution chart with all of the plant types in it? I haven't come across one yet.


ALL the plant types? It would be hard to fit everything on one chart. If you haven't come across a plant phylogeny, you haven't looked. Folks talk about animals in these debates more because they are easier to relate to, I suppose (or perhaps animal evolution is more threatening to creationists). Try doing a google image search on "plant phylogeny." Here are some that I found within a few minutes:

Phylogeny showing some major groups and relatedness to other kingdoms:


Click to enlarge

Charophytes to Seed Plants:


Click to enlarge

Vascular Plants


Click to enlarge

another one for bryophytes and vascular plants, includes more detail of angiosperm and gymnosperm clades:


Click to enlarge

These are, of course, very general. You can find finer detail of pretty much any group you wish; it is extensively studied.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 9:00 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 237 of 302 (320264)
06-10-2006 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:52 PM


Lucy's "knee" and Pelycodus "micro"evolution
Well, you know what? If you do indeed believe it is a false statement, then why don't you talk about it with the source of that statement? Because you see, I just gathered the information from many sources, and put it together.

In other words you admit to being careless in your assembling of information, and didn't bother to check the truth of the statements, but used the ones you liked.

So, I suggest, you send a letter or email or make a phone call, or something, directly to the source: Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990, p.83. Ok?

Because that is YOUR job when you are using the information to make sure it is valid. It is also relatively easy to look at the actual evidence of what the claims made by the scientists were and see that "Galloping" Gish is (once again) an invalid source of information.

You are making the claim that your essay conveys the truth, so it is YOUR job to ensure that all statements in it are as factual as you can possibly determine. Obviously, by your own admission no less, you have not done that. That shows a careless disregard for the truth.

Go to the thread {Lucy - fact or fraud?}
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=112&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=112&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=112&m=1

Look at the picture of the knee on message 15
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=112&m=15#15

and look the picture of the Lucy skeleton on message 6
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=112&m=6#6

Do you see the knee on the skeleton? Can you find a single scientific paper that describes it as being a part of the Lucy fossil?

I put a number after that statement in my essay, which tells you which source that information was from, so, problems would have to be directed to that source, not me. I didn't make up that statement.

That does not absolve you of the need to ensure that the source is valid information. That you "didn't make up the statement" is no excuse for repeating it.

What is the difference between making up a lie and repeating a lie as if it were true? Especially when your whole thesis is about telling the truth?

So: you have not presented any evidence yet ...

Actually, you are the one who should be doing that, not me.

ROFLOL. You don't have any. Thanks for admitting it. Now we can move on to the next item.

If your information is correct, then I can say, that the two species came about by variation within the kind. This is acceptable in my theory. As long as it is WITHIN the kind. Yes, variation does happen, within the kind.

Yes or no, stop equivocating.

As long as it is WITHIN the kind.

Can't you tell that from the evidence? They came from the same species: how can the NOT be "within the kind" eh? Or are you saying it is only evidence as long as they stay "within the kind" but if they change to be outside "the kind" it suddenly is no longer evidence? That would be a ridiculous logical howler eh?

The evidence is there, it is not fictional, but a real record of fossil evidence. This is what the fossil record shows, a gradual transition from one species into two similar related species that share the characteristics of their ancestors. The two end species are descendants of Pelycodus ralstoni based on the fossil evidence, they evolved from the same parent species.

Do you agree that this is an example of "micro"evloution:? Yes or no?

ps -- if you use {peek mode} for your replies you can copy the text with the formating for italics etcetera.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:52 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 238 of 302 (320267)
06-10-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:57 PM


DNA "content" and the length of the genome
I didn't say the length of the genome. Just take the DNA content, which has more volume of DNA content?

Let me share jars amusement:

The length of the genome is from the listing of all the base pairs of all the DNA. The genome IS the content.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:57 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

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


Message 239 of 302 (320269)
06-10-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:36 PM


Variations can compile, I mean, look at the wolf and the poodle, they do look very different, but they're still the "dog" kind. Variations can compile, but they cannot produce different kinds!

you have not given a good reason why not. you say variations can compile, but then say there's a limit -- one you have neither defined, nor given a reason for.

many reptiles lack crocodilian-type scales. an early reptile might have grown hair (and the follicles it requires) during the shift to warm-blood. there were many adaptations that aided in this, but one -- bipedalism - required it.

"Might have?" But can we see proof that this happened?

i already showed you a reptile with hair.

all 7, faked in exactly the same, precisely accurate way? a way that's fooled paleontologists trained at spotting fakes? a way that lines up nicely with every other feathered dinosaur found?

Notice I said SOME, not all. I think at least two of them are faked.

based on what, exactly?

But those transitions were supposed to happen slowly, bit by bit, right? So where are the fossils to show the slow transitions leading to archaeopteryx, and coming from it?

obviously not in the books you're reading. i'll give you a hint, i already posted one of them, microraptor. some other fun examples include (but are not limited to) sinornis, claudipteryx, protarchaeopteryx, sinornithosaurus, and sinosauropteryx on the dinosaur side, and a whole range birds like the enantiornethes and icthyornithes on the bird side.

do you seriously think we have only ONE feathered dinosaur/early bird?

Oh? So you say that scales didn't slowly evolve into feathers? Instead they just jumped suddenly from one to the other, from reptile covering to bird covering? That's not how your theory goes.

no. one more time:

reptilian scales did not evolve into bird feathers.

period. at all. ever. didn't happen.

And no, "less advanced" feathers won't do.

because you totally reject the idea of evolution in general, i know. so you discard the evidence completely out of hand.

But why would non avian dinosaurs have air sacs? Would it benefit them in any way?

because of the point you bring up next. air sacs in birds today are what allows high-altitude flight. they are perfectly adapted for thinner air. one particular theory (not guess -- it's supported by evidence) regards the oxygen content of mesozoic air.

besides that, they also aid in respiration, acting like our diaphragms in some capacity.

Why "must?" I mean, say, what if the climate and atmosphere during dinosaurs was different than todays?

because those are the rules. cold-blooded animals are incapable of maintaining body temperature, and so they stick close to things that are warm. like the ground.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:36 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2268 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 240 of 302 (320272)
06-10-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 9:00 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
Really? Could you show me a plant evolution chart with all of the plant types in it? I haven't come across one yet.

I'm not sure if this

http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/TreeofLife/hyperbolic.php

is the sort of thing you are looking for, it is a hyperbolic phylogenetic tree, it doesn't give any timescale information though. The different nodes also offer links to the Tree of life website which is a fantastic resource if you are interested in phylogenies.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 9:00 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 10:11 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019