Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Birds and Reptiles
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 135 (582286)
09-20-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by faith24
09-17-2010 11:25 PM


How do scientists classify what a bird is and is not, particularly with regard to their possible evolution from dinosaurs?
Currently, a bird is Archaeopteryx or anything that is more like a modern bird than Archaeopteryx is.
Of course, this is very arbitrary, and will have to be rethought when someone finds something which is only very slightly less like a modern bird than Archaeopteryx is.
The problem with any system of classification is that nature doesn't make jumps. The current solution depends on the fact that our present knowledge of the fossil record does make jumps.
Some say that birds appear earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs.
And my, how very wrong they are. By about 70 million years.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by faith24, posted 09-17-2010 11:25 PM faith24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by caffeine, posted 09-21-2010 10:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 135 (582522)
09-21-2010 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by faith24
09-21-2010 4:44 PM


The study that your article refers to is that of Ruben and Quick:
But they also write:
Many of these skeletal specializations are not apparent in the earliest birds, including Archaeopteryx, confuciusornithine or enantiornithine birds (Hillenius and Ruben, 2004a). Their presence is also questionable in even Early Cretaceous ornithurines but well developed in the Late Cretaceous hesperornithiform birds (Hillenius and Ruben, 2004a). The femur most likely did not attain its subhorizontal position until the Late Cretaceous in ornithurines as indicated by the presence of the antitrochanter...
So according to the very scientists you're referencing, Archaeopteryx did not have a fixed femur. But it did have feathers and wings.
---
I should like to add --- don't ever look to journalists to tell you the state of play about evolution.
About any interesting fossil, they will tell you one of two things.
Either they will tell you:
(a) This is the final piece in the jigsaw that proves that evolution is true.
or ---
(b) This is a weird anomaly that turns the whole theory of evolution on its head.
And whichever one of those two things they say, they always turn out to be wrong. Journalists always over-sensationalize everything they write.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by faith24, posted 09-21-2010 4:44 PM faith24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 09-22-2010 11:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 135 (582881)
09-23-2010 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by faith24
09-23-2010 6:17 PM


You know, people always thought that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That's why we got the idea "then how come there are still birds"? So now, they changed it and say that they share a common ancestor.
No they didn't.
So the ancestor between modern birds and dinosaurs is the Archeopteryx right?
No.
Some suggest that the Archeopteryx is just a perching bird.
Yes, by definition it's a bird. But "just" a bird? No.
There are huge differences between birds and dinosaurs that it is impossible for birds to evolved from dinosaurs.
Perhaps you could mention some of these "huge differences" and demonstrate the impossibility.
Or perhaps you prefer to indulge in vacuous rhetoric.
The idea is so confusing even after looking on the subject for a while now i'm still confused because there are a lot of misinformation out there you don;t know which one to believe.
If you have really been "looking at the subject for a while", how is it possible for you to write nonsense like this? ---
You know, people always thought that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That's why we got the idea "then how come there are still birds"? So now, they changed it and say that they share a common ancestor. So the ancestor between modern birds and dinosaurs is the Archeopteryx right?
You evidently haven't even bothered to learn the ABC of the subject.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by faith24, posted 09-23-2010 6:17 PM faith24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by faith24, posted 09-23-2010 6:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 135 (582901)
09-23-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by faith24
09-23-2010 6:49 PM


So if birds didn't evolved from the dinosaurs, then birds have their own lineage apart from dinosaurs. So then evolution would say that they both share a common ancestor. So how did people came up with the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? That must be a misconception of what evolution says then.
You certainly seem to be laboring under some kind of misconception. But your writing is not clear enough for me to find out what it is.
Who are the ancestors? I'd like to know.
Dinosaurs, apparently.
How do you tell if it's a bird or not?
I told you --- birds are defined as being Archaeopterx and anything more like a modern bird than it is.
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.
As you have already been informed, Archaeopteryx has the same sort of legs as dinosaurs. And Archeopteryx is a bird. So this can't be a "huge difference" between dinosaurs and birds. It would have to be a "huge difference" between birds and ... other birds.
I notice you forgot to demonstrate the impossibility of one sort of leg evolving from another. Presumably because you can't.
Because people are saying different things.
That's because some people are idiots.
This is why you should get your information on fossils from paleontologists rather than from people who make stuff up.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 135 (598536)
12-31-2010 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
12-31-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Comparing Similarities And Differences
Dinos and most modern reptiles are oviparous, producing eggs that hatch outside of the body.
Like birds.
Crocodiles have similar abdominal ribs to dinosaurs.
Like Archaeopteryx.
no fur
Like birds.
both reptiles whereas birds are not.
That's debatable.
both land dwellers, unlike birds
Scuse me, this guy would like a word.
small similar appearing heads and swishy tails
Like Archaeopteryx.
See this?
The one on top is a dinosaur. The middle one is Archaeopteryx.
Note the similarities.
And here's the skull of a snake
Both cohabited whereas birds did not, according to conventional paleontology
Wrong. Conventional paleontology puts the first birds in the Jurassic period.
Both had teeth and more similar bone structures
Like Archaeopteryx.
Overall appearance of lizards, crocks, iguanas, etc more resemble dinos than birds.
* cough *
Archeopteryx.
Left, a dinosaur. Center, Archaeopteryx.
And here's the skeleton of a crocodile.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2010 9:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 135 (598540)
01-01-2011 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by arachnophilia
01-01-2011 12:01 AM


The Crocodile Bird
i'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. so here's a lovely picture of a bird and a crocodile cohabitating.
To be precise, that's a lovely photoshop of a bird and a crocodile cohabitating. The people who produced it acknowledge that it's a "digital reconstruction".
As a matter of fact, the crocodile bird does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 12:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 01-01-2011 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 135 (598550)
01-01-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
01-01-2011 9:05 AM


Re: Comparing Similarities And Differences
It would have been a major adjustment. Conclusion: there are not more similarities, by and large, of birds/dinos than reptiles/dinos.
Did you not see the pictures?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 01-01-2011 9:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 95 of 135 (599113)
01-04-2011 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by arachnophilia
01-04-2011 9:07 PM


Re: appeal to the masses
this, of course, is a basic logical fallacy.
It's a perfectly sensible reply to something which is itself an argument from authority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 9:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2011 12:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 97 of 135 (599117)
01-05-2011 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by arachnophilia
01-05-2011 12:13 AM


Re: appeal to the masses
perhaps -- but so is pointing out that his appeal to authority is a double standard.
Buzsaw appealed to authority. Nuggin pointed out what the authorities actually say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2011 12:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 01-05-2011 1:46 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 103 of 135 (610457)
03-30-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Robert Byers
03-29-2011 9:20 PM


For example I know placentals and marsupials are the same creatures with minor local area adaptations.
That's a funny use of the word "know".
The YEC can help here ...
That would be a first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Robert Byers, posted 03-29-2011 9:20 PM Robert Byers has 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