|
>Response: Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but I am
>moving right now and my internete will be down for awhile.
>However, back to the subject there are certain differances
>that Archeopteryx has that dinasoures do not. And it does
>have qualities that are similar to both, but the problem is
>that their are certain charecteristics of it,that cannot be
>reptillian at all. Futhermore, simply illustrating
>similarities is not enough to overide it's differences.
Yeah, I've been pretty busy too. Anyway, yes, there are certain characteristics of Archaeopteryx that are not reptilian - there are also certain characteristics that are not avian. That is exactly why it is an excellent example of a transitional form.
>Response: First of all many people do not regard it as a
>transitonal form, because it has no transitional structure.
>Even though it does share chareteristics of both bird and
>dinasour, scales and feathers are entirely different. Here
>is a link comparing scales verses feathers in detail.
First of all, almost every paleontologist in the world regards it as a transitional form. And what do you mean "it has no transitional structure"? Besides the fact that the whole organism is a transitional structure exhibiting a mixture of reptilian and avian features, there are plenty of independent transitional structures:
"There are also some features present in Archaeopteryx which are present in primitive form in the therapods but in more advanced form in the birds. In the therapods, for instance, the hallux, or big toe, is located on the back of the foot and forms a short claw that doesn't reach the ground. In birds, this toe is greatly elongated and is used for perching. In Archaeopteryx, the hallux is reversed, but is elongated to an extent midway between the therapods and the birds. In therapods, the fingers of the front arms are long; in birds, the fingers are reduced to tiny nubbins. Archaeopteryx is midway between these conditions, In birds, the wings are supported by the furcula, or wishbone, which is composed of the two fused clavicles, and Archaeopteryx also possesses a fused furcula (though not as strong as that in modern birds). A few of the therapods had clavicles, including such birdlike species as Velociraptor. And a therapod species known as Oviraptor is believed to have possessed a fused furcula, as in birds." www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm
- As I said in the last post, if it is not a transitional form, then how do you explain all of the obviously reptilian characteristics which it exibits, as well as the transitional structures listed above?
>One cannot simply say that scales of a reptile can transform
>into wings due to some sort of chemical chance.
That is not what I or anyone else said. You have avoided my whole discussion of the feathered dinosaurs and dinosaurs with filamentous feather-like structures, and the evidence that these structures are proto-feathers that evolved into true feathers. And there is no need for "some sort of chemical chance" bc as I already said, scales and feathers are both composed of keratin.
(as for feathered dinosaurs, you brought up Archaeoraptor, but the ones I was discussing are Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx, which are not fakes and are dinosaurs with true feathers.)
>This is inexcapable evidence that dinasours cannot evolve
>into birds.
"inexcapable evidence"? Hardly. University of California Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian points to the lack of convincing evidence for the embryonic thumb structure argument: "Their embryonic argument is weak because they have no evidence of a first finger forming at all." - i.e., they have no evidence that the structure they are discussing actually corresponds to a thumb. Padian adds that their argument is based on assumptions that they admit don't apply to theropod dinosaur fingers. Thus they do not have substantial evidence on which to base their claims.
Padian also explains that the evidence for radical differences in lung structure is equally suspect: "There are no fossil lungs," he says. "Their interpretation of hard and soft tissues in these fossils is strongly contested by paleontologists." - i.e., they are inferring the structure of soft and hard tissue solely from skeletal structure, and thus it is only speculation that is not backed up by hard evidence.
As for the anatomy for developing flight, that argument is contradicted by the anatomy of Unenlagia comahuensis, a dinosaur that could flap its arms like a bird:
"The structure of the forelimb suggests that the avian mode of the forelimb folding, and the extensive forelimb elevation necesssary for powered, flapping flight, was already present in cursorial, non-flying theropod dinosaurs. Unenlagia does resemble Archaeopteryx in important details of its forelimb and hip. Foremost among these is the structure of the shoulder joint, which indicates that the animal could hold its arm directly outward, like a bird, as well as fold it against its body. This posture suggests that it could flap its arm, although Unenlagia was much too heavy to fly with such a short wing." - www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/Tabu/U012.htm
As for the dating, all that shows is that those specific species of feathered dinosaurs did not directly evolve into those specific species of birds, it in no way suggests that dinosaurs could not evolve into birds. On the contrary, they provide strongly compelling evidence that birds did evolve from dinosaurs, since the dino-feathers are so structurally similar to feathers of modern birds, as the Nature article explained: "Finally, the presence of remiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feathers on non-avian theropods provides unambiguous evidence supporting the theory that birds are the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs."
So much for your "inexcapable evidence."
Furthermore, you should know that even the people you are referencing who are making these arguments (Feduccia and Ruben, the lung guy) fully believe in evolution - they just don't think that birds evolved directly from therapod dinosaurs, but instead likely evolved from other kinds of reptiles or early dinosaurs that pre-dated therapods. Here's a quote from your boy Feduccia:
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. , and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing."
>Response: Yes, I can. Even National Geographic recanted
>its view on Archeopteryx. Note the following.
The recant in National Geographic is about Archaeoraptor, not Archaeopteryx.
>Response: Because they all looked like horses, and even you
>called them horses, and the article called them horses. And
>I never said they were the same.
No, I referred to horse evolution in general, but both the article and I clearly stated that only the modern genus Equus contains the species that can be identified as a true "horse", Equus caballus. And you said that they seemed to you to be in the same species, which is what I was referring to.
>Response: And that is absolutely fine, God told Noah to all
>the animals of their KIND on the Ark.
LOL - yeah, great scientific evidence there.
What we want is some
>sort of transitional form, between two entirely different
>species (outside of family).
First of all, transition between species in the same family still represents macroevolution - it doesn't have to be outside of family. Secondly, you have a transitional form between two entirely different CLASSES in Archaeopteryx - reptiles and birds... that is two stages of difference beyond family. Of course you don't believe this, but that is irrelevant.
>Response: LOL, define science. Be careful how you do it,
>because science has a hard time defining itself.
Briefly, following scientific methodology. Therefore, your statement "those horses seemed to be in the same species to me, but I did not look very closely" has no scientific validity, bc "they kinda looks the same" is invalid methodology upon which to base a scientific conclusion that they are the same species.
> This
>should be good, most of what is classified as science self
>refutes itself.
LOL, most of what is classified as religion refutes itself.
>If I showed you
>>the skeletal fossils of a dog and a fox, you would make the
>>same argument - that it just looks like fossils of different
>>dogs found in different parts of the world who had gone
>>through some sort of adaptation as a result of the climate,
>>not some jump between species - and you would be wrong for
>>the same reason.
>
>Response: And what reason would that be?
Basing your conclusion on a cursory glance at outward appearance instead of deeper investigation of form, structure, etc.
>Futhermore, you
>should be able to provide a half rat,half dog or something.
>Since, that would be macro evolution.
Why do you keep bringing up this dumb shit? As I already explained, that is not necessary to prove macroevolution - the fact that *you* want such a proof is completely irrelevant.
>Response; LOL, define science. And be careful not to wipe
>out most of the other fields that are called science but by
>definition are not.
As I said, "those horses seemed to be in the same species to me, but I did not look very closely" is not an argument grounded on valid scientific principles.
>Response: Now, I did not know that one. Sure I'll check that
>out. by the way I never said there were no dinasoures with
>no feathers. I am saying that scales do not evolve into
>feathers.
Then how did dinosaurs get feathers? And why are there dinosaurs with filamentous proto-feather structures? And why are the dino-feathers so structurally similar to bird feathers? And why is it only the birdlike therapod dinosaurs with feathers, instead of big monster dinos like Brontosaurus and Stegosaurus and such?
This is what I'm talking about, you make these claims based on no scientific principles or evidence whatsoever, just your personal opinion. If that is your personal opinion based on your religious beliefs, then fine - but the fact remains that they have no scientific validity, so stick to the religion and leave the science alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude
___________________
Mar-A-Lago delenda est
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Activist Archives
