Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Birds and Reptiles
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 31 of 135 (598185)
12-29-2010 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by faith24
09-23-2010 6:49 PM


the avian respiratory system
faith24 writes:
Birds cannot move their thigh bone so they must bend their knee while walking or running. Land creatures such as the theropods can move their thigh bone. Also birds required more oxygen than cold blooded animals and so to supply this need, birds have special lungs and supporting musculature. If birds have the same muscle structure as the dinosaurs and could move their thigh, their lungs would collapsed.
what a load of sensationalist birds-came-first nonsense! allow me to break this down, point by point.


1. femoral movement in birds


while it might be true that femoral movement must be restricted (note: restricted, not prevented) in some flying birds to prevent collapse of the abdominal air sacs, this wold simply be a trade-off aimed at keeping flight muscles highly oxygenated. if there is really anything particularly to this idea at all, and i'm not convinced that there is. however, i know that when a bird relies more on use of its legs to survive, this condition is simply not found.
quote:
The anatomy and kinematics of the rhea pelvis and hindlimb are straightforward. The femur is subhorizontally and slightly laterally oriented and its distal end moves up and down during locomotion, while the tibiotarsus moves parasagittally. The long tarsometatarsus also moves parasagittally because the metatarsal ankle, like the knee, allows movement in only the fore-and-aft plane.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/.../nbcp/padian_olsen_89_sm.pdf
rheas move their femora while running. this paper is a comparison between the gait and tracks of the modern rhea and theropod dinosaurs. it turns out that the ratite gait is very much like the dinosaurian one. further, here is a diagram of exactly how much an ostrich's femur rotates while running, from this article on ostrich locomotion.


2. the difference between the avian lung, and pneumatization


please note that i wrote "air sac" above, and not "lung". while it is common for creationist and birds-came-first-ist literature to group these two together, this would be a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. it does not work in an all-or-nothing fashion, spontaneous generating whole ("irreducibly complex") systems of organs or organelles. rather, these things come into place piecemeal, and often scaffold. it is quite possible to have a partially avian respiratory system, without abdominal air sacs, or any of the other peculiar skeletal formations tied to the respiratory systems of modern birds. want proof?


3. evolutionary links


here's another animal that swings its femora even more widely, and has a lung similar to birds.
quote:
Peculiar to the crocodilian lung, however, is the tendency for monopodal - as opposed to dichotomous - branching of the chambers, as well as the tendency for this branching to occur at the bases rather than at the tips of the chambers (Milani, 1897; Broman, 1939). The closest affinity in these respects is seen in the pattern of formation of the secondary bronchi of the avian lung (Locy & Larsell, 1916; Perry, 1987). Further similarities between crocodilian and foetal avian lungs are the small number of cranial chambers (secondary bronchi in birds), their tendency to occur in a spiral row or rows, the lack of a medial row of cranial chambers and the large number of relatively loosely ordered caudal chambers. Furthermore, the tendency of crocodilian lung chambers to form arching, tubular structures is reminiscent of developing avian secondary bronchi and parabronchi (Duncker, 1978a). It is possible to construct an approximation of the avian lungair-sac system from the crocodilian structural type: sac-like cranial, ventral and caudal chambers become air sacs, dorsal or medial chamber rows arch caudally (with shortening of the proto-avian thorax), their chamber walls deepen to parabronchi which meet terminally in the plane of anastomosis with their counterparts from the caudal lung regions, and the parabronchial lumina become contiguous through perforations. Only the blood-air-capillary net remains exclusively avian.
Functional Morphology of the Lungs of the Nile Crocodile, Crocodylus Niloticus: Non-Respiratory Parameters | Journal of Experimental Biology | The Company of Biologists
get that one? crocodiles, more or less, have the same respiratory system as birds. neither crocodiles nor ratite birds collapse a lung when they run, and crocodiles have a completely different method of locomotion and skeletal arrangement. rather, it seems that avian flight condition evolved around and already developed respiratory system, which then became more reliant on specific adaptions for flight. these have secondarily lost in some flightless birds, such as ratites.
in fact, we find that many theropod dinosaurs, specifically the maniraptors, do indeed have partially pneumatized bones, and to about the same degree as modern ratites. this means velociraptor and even t. rex had thoracic and abdominal airs sacs, like flying birds -- just in a reduced capacity.


4. so how did this happen?


simple enough. something like the crocodilian lung existed in all dinosaurs, and progressed towards the avian lung in theropods. in flying dinosaurs, the air sacs simply greatly expanded, co-evolving with greater and greater flight capability. the earliest flying dinosaurs were not capable of extended powered flight, due in large part to their small sternums. they simply lacked the musculature. as they began to gain this musculature, they made a trade-off: more focus on flight, less on the ground. this trade-off allowed greater expansion of the abdominal air sacs -- but might have limited locomotion on the ground.
this is not a problem for the dinosaurian evolution of birds. not in the slightest.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
Edited by arachnophilia, : additional article
Edited by arachnophilia, : sorry for the repeated and massive edits, but the more i look at this, the more the whole idea of the necessity of a restricted femur in any avian due to paradoxical collapse of the posterior air sacs.. is just a giant load of bullshit, all put forward by this one particular paper, quick & rubens (2009), with no real basis in anything. please see this blogpost for a strong critique: Page not found | ScienceBlogs

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by faith24, posted 09-23-2010 6:49 PM faith24 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 32 of 135 (598186)
12-29-2010 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by faith24
09-23-2010 6:17 PM


faith24 writes:
You know, people always thought that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
you have misunderstood. and so have perhaps a few members of this forum.
birds did not "evolve from" dinosaurs. birds are dinosaurs. in the same way that a lizard is a reptile, or a frog is an amphibian, or you are a mammal. birds are dinosaurs. they are a highly specialized sub-group, but not a separate group.
Some suggest that the Archeopteryx is just a perching bird.
picture time!
(source)
that should settle it, right? not just a bird, much more like a dinosaur.
There are huge differences between birds and dinosaurs that it is impossible for birds to evolved from dinosaurs.
no. birds are dinosaurs. birds are highly specialized, yes. most of that specialization is in the form of ossification between bones, such as the digits becoming the carpormetacarpus. but many birds, such as rarites, retain some of the dinosaurian digits, and some, like the hoatzin, are even born with perfect maniraptoran hands, that looks nearly identical to those of a velociraptor.
i'm still confused because there are a lot of misinformation out there you don;t know which one to believe.
i suggest reading anything by greg paul.
What do you think about these birds foot print?
Geotimes - June 2002 - Bird Fossil Feet
i think they're pretty fantastic, don't you?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by faith24, posted 09-23-2010 6:17 PM faith24 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 33 of 135 (598187)
12-29-2010 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taq
09-21-2010 4:57 PM


faith24 writes:
This article seem to say otherwise about dino-bird evolution. Maybe it was the other way around?
http://www.physorg.com/news184959295.html
Taq writes:
It is speaking of a single species, microraptor. This doesn't mean that the analysis of this single species applies to ALL dino-bird intermediates.
it's talking specifically about pretty much all of dromaeosauridae.
there's an interesting idea, and goes something like this: all evidence points to archaeopteryx as being not only the earliest bird known to science, but also the earliest dromaeosaurid. the hyperextensible 2nd digit on the foot is a dead give-away. so, some suggest, that the last common ancestor between archaeopteryx and modern birds was also likely the last common ancestor between archaeopteryx and say velociraptor -- and that something like velociraptor secondarily lost flight. this view is apparently not popular among paleontologists.
however, this is not what that article is talking about. it's more "birds came first" nonsense, ala feduccia and co. they basically claim that theropods are not dinosaurs, they're birds, and they've magically converged with dinosaurs to nearly 100% homology. and that's just plain stupid.
There is strong evidence that non-avian dinosaurs had the same type of lung:
"Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina"
this is actually old hat. a paper like this doesn't show that dinosaurs in general had avian air sacs. we know that they did, and have known for a long, long time. rather, it shows that this particular new find has them. even t. rex had air sacs.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taq, posted 09-21-2010 4:57 PM Taq has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 135 (598196)
12-29-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by faith24
09-23-2010 6:17 PM


Look at the feets!
There are huge differences between birds and dinosaurs that it is impossible for birds to evolved from dinosaurs.
Well I think there's huge similarities! Look at their feets:
quote:
And look how similiar their feet are:
The emu feet still have scales on them!
you can click on the above pictures to expand them
Taken from the OP in a thread I made: Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds
Have a look, I think its worth it, plus there's lots of pictures

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by faith24, posted 09-23-2010 6:17 PM faith24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 12-29-2010 6:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 135 (598245)
12-29-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2010 10:58 AM


Re: Look at the feets!
Catholic Scientist writes:
The emu feet still have scales on them!
so, birds have two kinds of scales on their feet: reticulae (on the bottoms, the round reptilian scales) and the scutellae (flat plate-like scales on the top).
it turns out that the scutes have a strong relationship to feathers, and lacking a certain protein in development, become feathers. this likely means that birds have one gene that controls feather development all over their bodies, including their feet (such as in microraptor), and another that turns them off in particular places.
ie: the dinosaurian scales evolved from feather, not vice-versa.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2010 10:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2010 10:59 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 44 by Blue Jay, posted 12-31-2010 3:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 135 (598325)
12-30-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by arachnophilia
12-29-2010 6:27 PM


Re: Look at the feets!
Catholic Scientist writes:
The emu feet still have scales on them!
so, birds have two kinds of scales on their feet: reticulae (on the bottoms, the round reptilian scales) and the scutellae (flat plate-like scales on the top).
it turns out that the scutes have a strong relationship to feathers, and lacking a certain protein in development, become feathers. this likely means that birds have one gene that controls feather development all over their bodies, including their feet (such as in microraptor), and another that turns them off in particular places.
ie: the dinosaurian scales evolved from feather, not vice-versa.
Awesome information! Thank you.
Its not that hard to imagine scales and feathers as being a variation of the same "thing". I always thought that feathers were just elongated scales but I guess I'll have to change that to some scales just being shortened feathers.
I'm gonna add this link to my other thread, thanks again.
Where'd the reticulae come from? Fish have scales, but the amphibians don't, and then reptiles do again. Are there any semi-scaly amphibian fossils? I wonder how early the retiples split...
I suppose I have some reading to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 12-29-2010 6:27 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 12-30-2010 7:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 135 (598415)
12-30-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
12-30-2010 10:59 AM


Re: Look at the feets!
Catholic Scientist writes:
Its not that hard to imagine scales and feathers as being a variation of the same "thing". I always thought that feathers were just elongated scales but I guess I'll have to change that to some scales just being shortened feathers.
it's important to note that this is not more birds-came-first nonsense. it just shows that perhaps feathers are further down the dinosaurian family tree than previously thought. this has been confirmed recently, with the discovery of an ornithischian dinosaur with primitive feathers. the strong homology between tianyulong's feathers and theropod feathers indicates that feathers probably go back to before the divergence of saurischia and ornithischia. ie: the very earliest dinosaurs might have been walking around sporting similar proto-feathers, and feathers might even be a defining characteristic for dinosaurs (like hair for mammals). of course, they were probably lost secondarily in larger varieties.
in any case, i personally feel that feathers probably go back just slightly further than that, perhaps to basal archosaurs, and go hand-in-hand with the evolution of endotherms. for instance, pterosaurs sometimes have "hair" covering their bodies, and iirc, these "hairs" are strongly related to feathers -- they just didn't evolve into the flight surfaces and were strictly used for warmth.
also interesting is the fact that crocodiles have scutes. i'm not sure if these are related to feathers in any way, but wouldn't it be truly strange if the basal psuedosuchians were feathered, and the crocodiles lost their feathers secondarily to adapt better to an aquatic environment?
i am not a paleontologist, and at least some of these ideas would be very unpopular among actual paleontologists. i'm sure this is partly because they're generally used to support the aforementioned "birds came first" idea, which states that birds evolved in a separate lineage from basal archosaurs (something very lizard-like, actually), and theropods are not actually dinosaurs. which is so stupid, i can't even describe. see the links i posted above. i am very much not supporting this idea, because it stretches convergent evolution to the point of incredulity.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2010 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2011 11:32 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 135 (598466)
12-31-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by caffeine
09-24-2010 4:30 AM


What's Good For Goose Disallowed For Gander
caffeine writes:
People came up with the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs because of the many features that birds share with dinosaurs.........
I have long argued that dinos are the pre-fallen/cursed/changed longer legged modern serpent kinds, i.e. reptiles, as per the Genesis record.
I point out the many features that dinos share with modern reptiles.
My reference to the similarities is consistently rejected by you people. This is a good example of evidence which you consider legitimate in science but disallow as evidence for creationists.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2010 4:30 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-31-2010 9:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 40 by jar, posted 12-31-2010 9:27 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2010 10:34 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 135 (598467)
12-31-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
12-31-2010 9:07 AM


Re: What's Good For Goose Disallowed For Gander
I have long argued that dinos are the pre-fallen/cursed/changed longer legged modern serpent kinds, i.e. reptiles, as per the Genesis record.
I point out the many features that dinos share with modern reptiles.
My reference to the similarities is consistently rejected by you people. This is a good example of evidence which you consider legitimate in science but disallow as evidence for creationists.
We allow the similarities. But they are not evidence for the Book of Genesis because they are not predictions of that work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2010 9:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 135 (598468)
12-31-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
12-31-2010 9:07 AM


Re: What's Good For Goose Disallowed For Gander
Buz writes:
I have long argued that dinos are the pre-fallen/cursed/changed longer legged modern serpent kinds, i.e. reptiles, as per the Genesis record.
I point out the many features that dinos share with modern reptiles.
My reference to the similarities is consistently rejected by you people. This is a good example of evidence which you consider legitimate in science but disallow as evidence for creationists.
As pointed out in Message 24 many years ago, there is additional support for the GOE Fallen Serpent loosing its voice saga.
quote:
It looks like there may be additional information coming out.
Associated Scientific Press 11-05-06 16:42 Patagonia, Argentina: Historia Compuesta
It's been reported that scientists working on the newly discovered species, Najash rionegrina, used an MRI on the remains. Early indications show a completely developed larynx of surprising sophistication, far more mammalian than any seen in any serpents.
Dr Jesus Me'Deocre Falsificado said, off the record, that the one thing that was most surprising was that it was almost as though the mucosa had been removed. "Without the mucosa the creature would have been unable to utter even a sound. However, we are planning additional MRI and Cat Scans and there may be indications of a vestigial mucosa."
The findings will be published in a future edition of Historia Compuesta.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2010 9:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 41 of 135 (598472)
12-31-2010 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
12-31-2010 9:07 AM


Re: What's Good For Goose Disallowed For Gander
quote:
I have long argued that dinos are the pre-fallen/cursed/changed longer legged modern serpent kinds, i.e. reptiles, as per the Genesis record.
By which you mean according to your OWN version of the Eden myth, since the actual story places the curse on a single individual and its descendants and does not include a partial version of the curse being placed on anyone, let alone hundreds or thousands of species.
quote:
I point out the many features that dinos share with modern reptiles.

But not the differences which convince taxonomists that snakes are NOT descended from dinosaurs at all. Nor do we ignore the fossil evidence contradicting your hypothesis - as you do.
quote:
My reference to the similarities is consistently rejected by you people. This is a good example of evidence which you consider legitimate in science but disallow as evidence for creationists.
Of course you are wrong here. The evidence of a relationship IS accepted as evidence of a relationship. It is NOT however accepted as evidence sufficient to establish snakes as descendants of dinosaurs - and I have no doubt that you would be quick to agree with that assessment if it were convenient for you. And that's on top of the evidence you ignore - or the fact that you have needed to make ad hoc additions to the myth to even accommodate the fossil evidence that you have accepted.
So be honest Buz and accept the fact that your evidence is hopelessly weak and the evidence against your hypothesis is very strong. And THAT is why your silly hypothesis is rejected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2010 9:07 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2010 1:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 135 (598488)
12-31-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
12-31-2010 10:34 AM


Re: Comparing Similarities
PaulK writes:
But not the differences which convince taxonomists that snakes are NOT descended from dinosaurs at all. Nor do we ignore the fossil evidence contradicting your hypothesis - as you do.
There you go, obfuscating my position. I've explained this before more than once, but I'll explain it again.
Dinos are reptiles.
Snakes are reptiles.
Serpents are reptiles
The only word in the manuscripts of the Genesis record for snakes, dinos, lizards, iguanas, alligators etc is serpent.
Appearances of heads, tails etc share a common appearance.
Bottom line; the similarities of modern reptiles and dino reptiles are extremely more numerous than the similarities of birds and dinos, yet (abe: the conventional science world disallows the more similar types). This is why the less likely hypotheses are funded, taught, peered and researched in the science arena.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Noted in context.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2010 10:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by DrJones*, posted 12-31-2010 1:58 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 12-31-2010 3:49 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2010 4:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 43 of 135 (598489)
12-31-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
12-31-2010 1:52 PM


Re: Comparing Similarities
yet the SM allows for the less similar but disallows the more similar.
Buz, what is "the SM"?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2010 1:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Blue Jay, posted 12-31-2010 3:46 PM DrJones* has replied
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2010 3:54 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 44 of 135 (598495)
12-31-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by arachnophilia
12-29-2010 6:27 PM


Re: Look at the feets!
Hi, Arachnophilia.
arachnophilia writes:
the dinosaurian scales evolved from feather, not vice-versa.
This seems highly unrealistic. Scutes clearly predate feathers in the fossil record. I think they even predate the diapsid-synapsid split, so it seems unlikely that feathers predated that.
I'm also highly skeptical because apparently none of the cited work by Alan Brush demonstrating that scutes happen when feather development is suppressed were published or peer-reviewed.
Also, I'm not sure that a developmental pathway defaulting to a certain end product is really evidence that that end product is the primitive condition. I'm no geneticist, though, so I could be wrong.
I could be convinced, however, if they could cause crocodilians to develop feathers instead of scutes using the same techniques.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 12-29-2010 6:27 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 12-31-2010 9:10 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 45 of 135 (598496)
12-31-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by DrJones*
12-31-2010 1:58 PM


Re: Comparing Similarities
Hi, DrJones.
"SM" stands for "scientific method": I'm not sure where it started, but people were using it in Does ID follow the scientific method?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by DrJones*, posted 12-31-2010 1:58 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DrJones*, posted 12-31-2010 3:49 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024