Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 93 of 200 (308815)
05-03-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by EZscience
05-03-2006 1:41 PM


Re: What about the hoatzin ?
Coincidence?
Erm, yeah. Or rather, convergence. Only the chicks have wing claws. It's a defense mechanism. Hoatzin live in riverside/swamp trees and they're pretty lousy fliers. When threatened, chicks dive into the water to escape, then use the wing claws to climb back up. The only other significant trait "shared" with Archy is a reduced breastbone. This adaptation is a trait reduction - flight sacrificed (apparently) to accommodate a really large digestive pouch that functions exactly like a rumen (foregut fermentation). One of the only obligate folivores.
I know a lot of people have compared Archy and the Hoatzin, but "sharing many features" may be stretching it a bit. Us Evilutionists need to be more careful than most when it comes to streatching a point with the creos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by EZscience, posted 05-03-2006 1:41 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by EZscience, posted 05-03-2006 4:17 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 104 of 200 (308849)
05-03-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by EZscience
05-03-2006 4:17 PM


Re: What about the hoatzin ?
No prob. It actually IS a good argument for homology (the claws) and adaptive reduction (the sternum). We've got a family group (~flock) of hoatzin living on a river island in the reserve I'm working with on the Rio Napo. I love telling people, "If you squint your eyes a bit, you can briefly glimpse 100 million years ago the ancestors of the ancestors of modern birds." When I'm talking to folks in the field, I allow myself a bit of fancy now and then. When we're talking to our resident carpet-chewers, however, we have to be a bit more careful.
I owe THAT lesson to our very own Wounded King. And a painful lesson it was...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by EZscience, posted 05-03-2006 4:17 PM EZscience has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 114 of 200 (308947)
05-03-2006 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Coragyps
05-03-2006 10:33 PM


Re: Atavisms
You can't win Coragyps. He's got the Revised Quote Book and is already on the "H"'s.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2006 10:33 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 119 of 200 (309008)
05-04-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Coragyps
05-04-2006 7:40 AM


Apendix and Primates
I'd love to see a species-by-species breakdown of which primates have one and which don't. I'll bet that the distribution tracks lineages, just as you note that it does in the four anthropoids.
Guess what? You're right (doesn't it feel good to be justified?). Try Scott, GB 1980, "The primate caecum and appendix vermiformis: a comparative study.", J. of Anatomy 131:549-63
quote:
The examination of the caecum of two groups of cynomolgus and rhesus monkeys, two orang-utans and a chimpanzee, as well as an extensive review of the available literature, confirmed that the length of the caecum, relative to that of the colon, decreased as the position of the species in the primate scale rose. Although absent in prosimians and New World monkeys, there was evidence that the appendix vermiformis began to develop in certain Old World monkeys and became fully developed in the anthropoid apes, showing that, far from being a vestigial organ, it has actually developed progressively in primates.
I think it's very interesting that this author downplays the "vestigial" nature of the appendix in certain primates. However, I think he's using a misleading definition of vestigial. As you suggested, it depends on the lineage - and the diet to which they are adapted. For instance, colubine monkeys (old world), are primarily folivores and have developed a foregut digestive system - completely doing away with an appendix, which the lineage never developed (although it does have a caecum). Another major lineage of folivorous monkeys - the Cebidae (new world) - are hindgut fermenters and have only a caecum. Great apes appear to be the only lineage of primates that have developed an appendix. (see, for example, BANR 2003, "Nutrient Requirements of Non-Human Primates", NAP, ppg 22-26). In humans, out of all the hominins, the appendix is highly reduced, probably related to the change in diet when our ancestors left the forest for savannah in the Pliocene. Although still serving a dietary function in the great apes, the only apparent function in humans is as a small part of our immune system - IOW a coopted function, which is my definition of vestigial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Coragyps, posted 05-04-2006 7:40 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by AdminJar, posted 05-04-2006 10:23 AM AdminJar has not replied

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

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


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


Re: Topic Folk
I know. I was just trying to be a smart ass. Guess it didn't work.
This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-05-2006 08:55 AM

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

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 160 of 200 (347664)
09-08-2006 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Someone who cares
09-08-2006 9:31 PM


Re: the great Archaeopteryx hoax
Please understand, there are certain creatures with features of several groups of animals, like the platypus is a bird that feeds like a mammal, it has bird and mammal characteristics, that doesn't make it transitional.
You didn't really just claim that platypus are birds, did you?
abe: I see Dr. Jones beat me to this one. Hey, at least it shows people are reading your posts...
Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Someone who cares, posted 09-08-2006 9:31 PM Someone who cares 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