-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?
- Thread starter Michie
- Start date
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,323
- 11,885
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
light sensitive cells that help worms avoid light - avoid the need of seeing objects etc - are the kind of anti-eye that meets the evolutionist's need for actual eyes that supposedly evolve since 514 million years is a pretty long time to have nothing but not-eyes.
Meanwhile our skin is also "light sensitive - turning darker with exposure to light -- also "not eyes".
When it comes to examples of light-sensitive not-eyes we have many examples.
In the case of skin that darkens over time with exposure to light --- not-eyes.
Meanwhile king, and queen termites possess small, weak compound eyes. These eyes help them navigate and communicate within their colonies, distinguishing sunlight from moonlight, and finding suitable locations for new colonies.
The idea that all you get after 514 million years of "evolution" is light-sensitive cells in worms --- is hard to swallow given that the entire human brain supposedly evolved in a fraction of that time.
Story telling in the system of evolutionism is hard to take seriously.
Upvote
0
AaronClaricus
Active Member
The predictions of the late 20th century and early 2000s held up pretty well for the present. Lots of scientific discovery and engineering. I'm planning a whole volume(about 300 pages) in my history book just for science that happens Feb 1978-now. Synthetic biology had it's first conference in 2004, in my graduate school experience(2011) it was one of the topics I studied independently. Simple Crispr and biological circuits. But experts were building fully synthetic organisms then. As of 2024 the first fully synthetic eukaryote was very close to completion. It will have practical uses in the production of better beers and wines.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,036
- 12,957
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Cupped cells that help to resolve light and dark areas. First stage in the evolution of complex eyes:
As you learned, each of these steps are useful to the organisms possessing them.
My tan doesn't really give me any information about my surroundings. But if I walk from shade to sun, my body is able to dectect infrared radiation. Your confusion is that eyes are a unique category. There are organisms that lack the light-detecting cells of earthworms, but can still react to light.
Because it's wrong. Earthworms, being burrowing animals, don't need complex eyes, such as are found in other worms in their phylum. And the very complex eyes of vertebrates and cephalopods show much greater complexity evolving over that time. As Darwin pointed out, evolution will proceed at different paces, depending on the specific population and its environment. You made up a story and want science to take responsibility for it.
Story telling in the system of creationism is hard to take seriously.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,036
- 12,957
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The list of predictions that have been confirmed is, as YECs like Kurt Wise admits, huge. Here are a few that were confirmed in my lifetime:
Transitionals between birds and other dinosaurs
Transitionals between stem amphibians and frogs
Transitionals between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Transitionsals between viruses and cellular life.
Reptiles with mammalian jaw joints.
Transitionals between hominids and other apes.
(Long list)
How many more would you like to see?
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,036
- 12,957
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
You're probably aware that there's at least one directly observed example of endosybiosis evolving.
Upvote
0
AaronClaricus
Active Member
It's particularly common in insects. The more we look the more we find. There's even a new hypothesis that some viruses may be evolved from symbiotic bacteria. Due to the existence of Candidatus Sukunaarchaeum mirabile(dinoflagellate symbiote), it has all the features of a virus but is clearly an archaeal bacteria.
Human blood has 3,000 genomes we don't know the source of.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
TruthInLight
Active Member
- Sep 28, 2018
- 85
- 41
- 38
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Even the most massive birds have never reached the sizes of their dinosaur relatives
Evolution has a fondness for big birds. During the past 66 million years, repeated on different continents and islands all over the world, avian dinosaurs have reached prodigious sizes and even become apex predators in their ancient habitats. Ten-foot-tall elephant birds strutted across Madagascar until a thousand years ago. The sharp-beaked “terror birds” of prehistoric South America were formidable carnivores for tens of millions of years. And the nearly seven-foot-tall, nut-cracking Diatrymastrutted through ancient forests of western North America in search of ripe fruit and nutritious seeds 45 million years ago. Such enormous birds almost seem like a return to the Mesozoic days of giant, feathery dinosaurs, which raises the question of whether such avians could ever reach Tyrannosaurus rex sizes.
Continued below.
Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?
Even the most massive birds have never reached the sizes of their dinosaur relativeswww.smithsonianmag.com
Birds coming from dinosaurs or being related to them is a lie. Evolution has fallacies.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,036
- 12,957
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Actually, birds are dinosaurs. If you doubt this, let's test that.
Show me one feature in birds that is not found in at least some other dinosaurs. What do you have?
Neither evolution nor gravity nor any other natural phenomenon has fallacies. I think you're confusing the fact of evolution with the theory that explains it. So perhaps you'd like to show us some claim of evolutionary theory that is a fallacy. What do you have? (might be good to check what the theory says, before you answer)
Upvote
0
Actually, dinosaurs are simply the types of creatures that have been found to be the most similar to birds. They aren't really anymore dinosaurs than humans are fish.
Show me a feature in humans that is not found, at least in some basal or primitive form, in fish. What do you have?
You will always be disappointed if you try and pretend that Evolution is anything like a hard, precise science when in truth it is extremely creative and elaborate visual storytelling.
Evolution and gravity represent man's attempt to understand the natural world and have historically been laden with fallacies, and fallacies likely continue, especially in academic institutions that hold an almost religious commitment to 18th and 19th century ideas about the universe.
When all your theory really says is that "things change"... and "that which survives, survives" ... what is there really to discuss? What else do you have? You're not even claiming anything to dispute. You're doing philosophy and pretending it's something else.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,036
- 12,957
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Show me one feature in birds that is not found in at least some other dinosaurs. What do you have?
Hair. Four-chambered heart. Three-bone middle ear. Separate reproductive and excretory passages. Heterodont dentition.
How many would you like? It's true that since mammals evolved from tetrapods that evolved from fish, humans could be considered highly-evolved fish.
On the other hand, as you seem to realize, there is no feature in birds that is not found in at least some other dinosaurs. And that makes all the difference.
Your story is a comforting one that YECs tell each other. But it's false. The Hardy-Weinberg equation, used to detect selective pressure in populations, for example is a precise mathematical tool. Population genetics, is almost entirely mathematical. People are often down on things they aren't up on. Would you like some examples of these tools?
Neither evolution nor gravity nor any other natural phenomenon has fallacies.
Well, let's test that assumption. Of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory, or Newton's laws of motion, show us which of these have since been falsified. I'm guessing you don't know either of these, but you can look them up. Let us know. And you're still confusing natural phenomena with theories that explain them.
See, not knowing what the theory says, is holding you back from understanding anything about it. No wonder you hate science; if I thought science was like that, I'd hate it too.
So now you want me to teach you what evolutionary theory is actually about? Wouldn't it have been smarter to learn what it is, before presuming to tell us about it?
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between science and philosophy. Here's a good place to start your journey:
It's a very accessible, basic primer on biological evolution. Do some reading and then come back and tell us about it.
Upvote
0
This is actually quite comical, because you're basically implying that "birds and *some dinosaurs" are far more similar than "dinosaurs and other dinosaurs"
What does that say about the veracity of your classification system for dinosaurs generally?
Come now, Barbarian. You're being too particular. "Hair" is just an evolved form of skin, which itself is an adapation of the scales of fish. It's all just change over time. Natural selection baby.
as previously noted, that some dinosaurs share more differences between other dinosaurs than they do to birds, leading us to the conclusion that your evolutionary cladistics is rather a "make it up as you go" type of system.
lol... "i can prove selection pressures exist, therefore humans can evolve from fish"
all science.
A measured phenomenon cannot be a fallacy, by definition. It is your ontological beliefs that you attach to phenomenon that is likely riddled with fallacy.
As you already demonstrated, you equate the existence of environmental selection pressures with proof that fish will turn into people if you throw half a billion years at it. This is sloppy thinking.
Isn't one of Darwin's main points "that which survives... survives" ?
You're expecting someone to falsify a tautology? Just seems silly.
not true, I don't hate it. I've found it a great source of amusement over the years. This ontological philosophy masquerading as revealed truth. People with a religious commitment to the belief that fish turned into humans. It's fascinating.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,036
- 12,957
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Show me one feature in birds that is not found in at least some other dinosaurs. What do you have?
(some ways humans differ from fish)
Hair. Four-chambered heart. Three-bone middle ear. Separate reproductive and excretory passages. Heterodont dentition.
How many would you like?
Your story is a comforting one that YECs tell each other. But it's false. The Hardy-Weinberg equation, used to detect selective pressure in populations, for example is a precise mathematical tool. Population genetics, is almost entirely mathematical. People are often down on things they aren't up on. Would you like some examples of these tools?
Well, let's test that assumption. Of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory, or Newton's laws of motion, show us which of these have since been falsified. I'm guessing you don't know either of these, but you can look them up. Let us know. And you're still confusing natural phenomena with theories that explain them.
"People are down on things they aren't up on." - Everette Dirkson
Your ontological beliefs prevent you from even looking at the evidence, which is a common issue with many YECs. Like the "authorities" who refused to even look in Galileo's telescope, your unwillingness to learn what evolutionary theory is, helps preserve your assumptions and holds the threat of learning at bay.
Not knowing what the theory says, is holding you back from understanding anything about it. No wonder you hate science; if I thought science was like that, I'd hate it too.
And of course, people didn't evolve from fish; they evolved from other primates. God is not neutral in this issue, you know. God is truth. If you're a Christian, you should never be afraid of the truth.
Worth a look at the real thing?
Perhaps you're not familiar with biology. For example, I could mention deer, which like at least some other mammals, have cloven hooves.
It says that birds are part of the maniraptoran group of dinosaurs, which have feathers, pneumatized bones, and other "avian" characters. Just as deer are part of the artiodactyl group of mammals which have cloven hooves. Doesn't seem like that difficult a concept. But then, you may not have been paying attention in 8th grade science.
(some ways humans differ from fish)
Hair. Four-chambered heart. Three-bone middle ear. Separate reproductive and excretory passages. Heterodont dentition.
How many would you like?
You asked for particulars. Now you don't want to know these things?
No. Might seem like that, but you're wrong. They are evolved (your support for evolution is appreciated) from placodes, structures that form teeth in fish. Would you like to learn about how that happened? It's some interesting genetics.
Yep. Evidence shows that it has always worked pretty much the way we see evolution proceeding to day. Directed evolution works under natural selection.
Your story is a comforting one that YECs tell each other. But it's false. The Hardy-Weinberg equation, used to detect selective pressure in populations, for example is a precise mathematical tool. Population genetics, is almost entirely mathematical. People are often down on things they aren't up on. Would you like some examples of these tools?
You're still buying all those fairy tales YECs tell about evolutionary theory. As honest YECs admit there is "very good evidence" for such evolution of fish to tetrapods, amphibians to amniotes, amniotes to mammals, mammals to primates (us). Which transition do you think lacks evidence? Name one, and we'll show you some details.
Well, let's test that assumption. Of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory, or Newton's laws of motion, show us which of these have since been falsified. I'm guessing you don't know either of these, but you can look them up. Let us know. And you're still confusing natural phenomena with theories that explain them.
No. And once again, your lack of knowledge blindsides you. You project a tautology on science, which is a rather silly thing to do. Why not look it up and learn what it is, before telling us about it?
And here's another one. Not part of the theory. For one thing, science is inductive. Logical certainty isn't part of the program, nor is the old "chain of being" orthogenetic assumptions.
"People are down on things they aren't up on." - Everette Dirkson
Your ontological beliefs prevent you from even looking at the evidence, which is a common issue with many YECs. Like the "authorities" who refused to even look in Galileo's telescope, your unwillingness to learn what evolutionary theory is, helps preserve your assumptions and holds the threat of learning at bay.
Not knowing what the theory says, is holding you back from understanding anything about it. No wonder you hate science; if I thought science was like that, I'd hate it too.
I see the denial, but your behavior is more persuasive. You seem to be determined not to know anything about it, for reasons that seem obvious.
And of course, people didn't evolve from fish; they evolved from other primates. God is not neutral in this issue, you know. God is truth. If you're a Christian, you should never be afraid of the truth.
Worth a look at the real thing?
Upvote
0
Deer also like fish, are vertebrates. Deer must be advanced fish.
So you are deciding to call birds dinosaurs even though they are distinct from other dinosaurs. Why not just call them birds? Why do you have to call them dinosaurs at all?
Deer are also part of the vertebrate group along with fish. Vertebrate, like Invertebrate, (or artiodactyl) is merely a way of ordering animals based on similar traits.
It doesn't mean that artiodactyls evolved from non-artiodactyls or that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates, or that birds evolved from non-birds.
It is only your ontological belief system that demands these conceptual groupings "evolved" from something else.
And birds differ from "some" types of dinosaurs, e.g. those dinosaurs that lack feathers. Yet you still greatly desire to call them dinosaurs.
Just like I could arbitrarily designate humans as advanced-fish, or fish as proto-humans. Humans are just those fish that advanced beyond a certain level of fishiness, but since they still share some traits with fish, we can still call them fish.
It's arbitrary storytelling.
In your ontological system, they aren't particulars though. All vertebrate structures are part of one continuous chain of being, descended from a common source. A four-chambered heart is just a heart that has undergone different selection pressures.
Yep, they are different expressions of the same genetic pathways found in both groups. But you claimed it was something found in humans but not in fish. Do you really understand your own theory as well as you think?
"things change"
"that which survives, survives"
therefore
"fish can turn into humans over time"
That's a two-way street though. Your ontological tradition has demanded "Natural process" be the author of something whether or not there was actually evidence for it, even if the evidence points away from it.
Your biggest weakness is that you can't admit it and have to pretend your "just doing science"
Well, to be fair, the whole "Evolution" thing was always a bit of a dumb idea. Mutations and Natural selection kills things, it doesn't create.
Natural Process as Divine Providence was all the philosophical rage back in the 18th / 19th century academic circles when the institutions were being firmly established. It seemed really clever back then and nobody has really wanted to give up the franchise. Nobody wants to just admit that God created different types of creatures (or planets, or any structures), so we have to keep hearing about how everything evolved from something else.
"Nature did it" ... It's a philosophy that undergirds modernity, so we're stuck with it, I guess.
"humans could be considered highly-evolved fish." - The Barbarian
Amen to that.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,036
- 12,957
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Perhaps you're not familiar with biology. For example, I could mention deer, which like at least some other mammals, have cloven hooves.
Birds are part of the maniraptoran group of dinosaurs, which have feathers, pneumatized bones, and other "avian" characters.
(belief that hair derives from skin)
No. Might seem like that, but you're wrong. They are evolved (your support for evolution is appreciated) from placodes, structures that form teeth in fish. Would you like to learn about how that happened? It's some interesting genetics.
Yep. Evidence shows that it has always worked pretty much the way we see evolution proceeding to day. Directed evolution works under natural selection.
Your ontological beliefs prevent you from even looking at the evidence, which is a common issue with many YECs. Like the "authorities" who refused to even look in Galileo's telescope, your unwillingness to learn what evolutionary theory is, helps preserve your assumptions and holds the threat of learning at bay.
(denies hating science)
I see the denial, but your behavior is more persuasive. You seem to be determined not to know anything about it, for reasons that seem obvious.
And of course, people didn't evolve from fish; they evolved from other primates.
Vertebrates, which like at least some other animals have a notochord. But you slipped back into YEC with the "advanced" assumption. Not part of evolutionary theory.
Birds are part of the maniraptoran group of dinosaurs, which have feathers, pneumatized bones, and other "avian" characters.
For the same reason we call deer artiodactyls...
...even though they are distinct from other mammals. You're starting to catch on, maybe?
Actually, it does. Would you like to learn how we know?
Or maniraptorans or corvids, or whatever. Perhaps you should learn about Linnaeus. He didn't have a clue about evolution in his time, but he did discover a key clue to the truth. Worth a look.
Pretty much like deer differ from "some" types of mammals, e.g. those mammals that lack cloven hooves. And yes, we still call them mammals.
But of course, mammals have them, and fish do not. I think we're finding another YEC misconception in your mind here. You see, evolution produces nothing from scratch. New features are always modifications of previous things. This is one more of the ways we know that evolution is behind common descent.
(belief that hair derives from skin)
No. Might seem like that, but you're wrong. They are evolved (your support for evolution is appreciated) from placodes, structures that form teeth in fish. Would you like to learn about how that happened? It's some interesting genetics.
No. There are different genetic pathways. New ones are produced by modifying old ones. We still have teeth, but a modification of that gene is now present and produces hair. Other vertebrates have only placodes that produce teeth. Feathers, btw, are modified reptilian scutes, and particular form of scale. Would you like to learn about those?
Yep. Fish don't have hair. They only have placodes for teeth.
Yep. Evidence shows that it has always worked pretty much the way we see evolution proceeding to day. Directed evolution works under natural selection.
Remember, you just learned "that which survives, survives" is not part of evolutionary theory. And here you are again making the same mistake.
Your ontological beliefs prevent you from even looking at the evidence, which is a common issue with many YECs. Like the "authorities" who refused to even look in Galileo's telescope, your unwillingness to learn what evolutionary theory is, helps preserve your assumptions and holds the threat of learning at bay.
Don't see that. Did you not realize that science doesn't deny the possibility of miracles? It's just that the evidence repeatedly confirms evolutionary theory. Can you show us even one case where the evidence points away from it? Neither can anyone else.
That's another YEC error. For example, evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things, as he wrote in On the Origin of Species. But science can't consider or deny the supernatural, so it couldn't be part of his theory. Yes, he was just doing science. Pretty much as Newton believed God created natural laws, even if he didn't include God in his theory.
(denies hating science)
I see the denial, but your behavior is more persuasive. You seem to be determined not to know anything about it, for reasons that seem obvious.
God doesn't seem to think so. We see it happening in all populations in the world. And engineers have come to realize that evolution works better than design for very complex problems. They are now solving these problems using genetic algorithms that copy God's methods. Turns out He knew best, after all.
Those engineers would laugh at your belief. They are getting things done with those processes that produce useful new solutions.
God telling us that the Earth brought forth life, was sort of a tip-off. He does most things by nature in this world.
Pretty much everyone accepts that; it's just that some YECs don't approve of the way He does it.
And of course, people didn't evolve from fish; they evolved from other primates.
Or highly-evolved chordates. Or highly-evolved eukaryotes, or... This will cease to puzzle you if you learn about Linnaeus and his discovery.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,036
- 12,957
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Yes. When you scale up an organism, the strength of bones increases with the square of the length, but the mass increases as the cube of the length. And complications develop for the delivery of oxygen and nutrients to cells, as well as the removal of waste products. And yes, that has a huge effect on the way larger organisms evolve.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,036
- 12,957
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
And we're back to the T-rex thing. Oxygen levels were higher in the Cretaceous.
At a meeting of the Geological Society of America held last Fall in Phoenix, Robert Brenner of Yale University and Gary Landis of the U. S. Geological Survey reported the results of a QMS analysis of ancient air bubbles trapped in amber. They obtained a remarkable result. The atmosphere of the Earth 80 million years ago was discovered to have 50% more oxygen than modern air. Brenner and Landis found that for all gas samples taken from amber 80 million years old the oxygen content ranged between 25% to 35% and averaged about 30% oxygen. Cretaceous air was supercharged with oxygen.
Alternate View Column AV-27
John G. Cramer Analog Alternate View Column 27 Dinosaur Breath
www.npl.washington.edu
If, as you suggest, oxygen was the limiting factor to large size, it all fits together nicely.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
