Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 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
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 200 (248753)
10-04-2005 12:26 AM


Couldn't help but notice that none of the most active times are about Evolution, so I thought we should start a thread on a hot topic.
Additionally, I ran into this quote on one of the threads:
you evos assert birds descended from dinosaurs. This is counter-intuitive: very large animals (dinosaurs) evolving into predominantly small animals (birds) = nonsense.
So, while this topic has been covered in the past, it clearly needs to be gone over again.
Creationists / IDers frequently ask for "evidence of macro evolution" or "transitional species". For my money, archaeopteryx is hands down the prettiest, most glaringly obvious example of this.
Here is a particularly pretty example - one of several
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/...ids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
You'll notice even from a passing glance that this animal had feathers.
Feathers today are a feature completely unique to birds. All birds have feathers, and only birds have feathers.
And, yet, here is a creature which is certainly not a bird. If you couldn't see the feathers, you'ld think this was simply a small dinosaur. It has teeth, a lizards breastbone, a long lizard-like tail, claws on it's wings.
How creationists can look at this and still claim that there are "no transitionals" or that "there is no evidence of macro-evolution" is beyond me.
Perhaps they could explain here. Hopefully, at least, the original poster of the above argument can use this thread to make himself clearer.
{"Archie" changed to "Archaeopteryx" in topic title on 11/6/05) - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-06-2005 03:54 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2005 2:04 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 6 by Thor, posted 10-04-2005 4:23 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 14 by Springer, posted 10-10-2005 9:01 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 72 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 04-22-2006 1:52 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 11:20 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 129 by Someone who cares, posted 09-07-2006 10:28 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 197 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-23-2006 11:04 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 4 of 200 (248764)
10-04-2005 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by arachnophilia
10-04-2005 2:04 AM


Oh, I know
Yeah, I totally agree Arac
On an earlier thread I was talking with a creationist/IDer who shall remain unnamed. I went over all this stuff.
He proposed that Archie was good evidence for ID, since the fully formed feathers appeared suddenly in the fossil record, and that earlier forms wouldn't serve any purpose.
I pointed out that they were predated by more primative feathers (downy feathers for example) which serve uses other than flight. Warmth for example.
His quote after that - "I've never heard of such things, but if they did exist, that would be a good step toward me accepting evolution."
Excellent, I thought. Finally, evidence trumps ignorace.
I posted links to pictures and definitions, explainations, evidence. The whole boat.
The response "Well, those websites say that the fossils show "downy like" feathers, not downy feathers. How do we know they have downy feathers and not just hairs that look-like downy feathers."
Sigh, there is no winning.
But, for the veiwers who come here with an open mind, we can use this thread to once again expose the complete lack of logic utilitized by the YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2005 2:04 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2005 4:18 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 8 of 200 (248991)
10-04-2005 11:47 PM


Bump! Where are you Creationists?
Herep? Iano? David? Gene?
Where are all you guys? This is a big topic. Disprove Archie and you've won a major battle for YEC!
Here's your big chance!

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2005 11:52 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 11 of 200 (249347)
10-06-2005 1:59 AM


Hello? Creationists?
What's the matter? Scared of Archie?

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 10-06-2005 11:50 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 19 of 200 (250621)
10-11-2005 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Springer
10-10-2005 9:01 PM


Re: archaeopteryx is not transitional
So, let me get this straight. Your argument is that Archie had fully formed flight feathers, and therefore despite have lizard-like head, hips, tail, etc. It was a bird.
You must admit that it doesn't look much like a eagle.
Can you name me some birds with lizard heads? I can't think of any off hand.
Let's get back to transition, shall we? What would make you happy with dino-bird transition? A dino-lizard with symetrical (non-flight) feather? How about one with downy feather? How about one with flight feathers and a beak, but still lizard hips?
What is required for you to believe there is a transition? If Archie is too bird, set a mark, we'll hit it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Springer, posted 10-10-2005 9:01 PM Springer has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 84 of 200 (308786)
05-03-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 11:20 AM


Re: Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx
Well from the body of your post, I can tell you have little or no knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, it's predictions, evidence for it, or for that matter the field of general biology.
So, rational debate is pretty much out the window right at the get go.
I won't try to address your points, since you made none.
But I will comment on this --
We should see organisms that are a quarter of this, and a quarter of that, half-this, and half-that. Nothing has been discovered that is even remotely comparable to this very necessary evolvement.
While this statement is out and out ridiculous, and is a great demonstration of exactly how little the Fundies really understand about biology. I'll leave you to ponder this picture...
This is the recently extinct Quagga. Half horse, half zebra? Powned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 2:12 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 99 of 200 (308832)
05-03-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 4:07 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
Let me see if I've got your position down. And, believe me, you are far from the first to propose it here.
This is microevolution, and that is small adaptations which are so obvious.
So you believe in Microevolution. But you don't believe in macroevolution...
Okay, let's use an example from the world of math.
You understand that 1+1=2, the 2+1=3, and that 3+1=4. But in your world the number 1 and the number 4 are far too different to "both be numbers".
Small changes add up over time. You can't buy into Micro and disbelieve macro.
Pick a side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:51 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 108 of 200 (308857)
05-03-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 4:51 PM


Re: You confuse very well-known theories and splice conjecture into it
Is that really what's going on? If so, where is the overwhelming evidence that would definatley present itself if it were?
Umm, every single fossil... every single living thing on the planet... that's a lot of evidence.
Or are you asking for evidence which is neither fossil nor living?
Could you give us an example of exactly what it is you are looking for?
What, for you, would be proof of macro-evolution? Be realistic - not, "I want to see a pegasus."
Do you want more primative forms than Archie? Maybe more advanced forms? Would you be satified with dino-like lizard with downy feathers and no flight feather? Would you be satified with a flying, "modern" bird with a claw at the tip of its wing?
Before you jump up and down and proclaim that there is no evidence, pony up and explain exactly what you want to see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 4:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 10:29 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2601 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 115 of 200 (308949)
05-03-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Hyroglyphx
05-03-2006 10:29 PM


Let's be clear
it would have to be recognizable enough to know that it was directly related another specie, but that it now fits into a new genera or order
Okay, so let's nail this down. It sounds like you are looking for an organism which would show features which are specific to one group of animals, yet also show features specifically not present in that same group.
In other words - if we look at birds, there are a few key features. All birds have feathers for example. Also, only birds have feathers. So feathers is a very good indicator that something is a bird.
According to that, Archie is a bird.
However, all birds have beaks. Now, not only birds have beaks (for example turtles and squids have beaks and neither are related to birds), but if you have an example of a modern bird you can assume it has a beak.
Now, that's a little strange, because Archie - which because of it's feathers, we've already established is a bird - it doesn't have a beak. It has teeth. But there are no birds with teeth.
So... is it a bird? Is it not a bird?
If archie was a stand alone fossil, maybe we'd be left scratching our heads. But it's not alone. There are dozens (hundreds?) of examples of animal predating and postdating Archaeoptryx. The one's predating have less in common with modern birds. The one's post dating have more in common with modern birds.
I'd say that pretty much sums up what you are asking for.
Now, can you show me an example of a species which has suddenly popped into existance with absolutely no evidence of any earlier species being related to it at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-03-2006 10:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by arachnophilia, posted 05-05-2006 1:16 AM Nuggin 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