another forgery from EVOS

[Aggie]

There is no reason to doubt this was less true in the common ancestor of deinonychosaurs and Aves, since basal dromaeosaurids show essentially the same sorts of adaptations, sans the reserved hallux. From Archaeopteryx on, however, birds become increasingly specialized for life in high-places.

Since we seem to agree that flight in birds originated in arboreal animals (something like Microraptor), I'm confused by your claim that none of Archaeopteryx's ancestors since it split off from dromaeosaurs had this lifesyle. That would mean that they managed to evolve the degree of powered flight present in Archaeopteryx without an intermediate arboreal lifesyle.

Either that, or dromaeosaurs split off from this group after it had evolved flight (in an arboreal animal), which would make dromaeosaurs secondarily flightless. That theory seems quite popular nowadays--I guess this is one of the reasons why. Is that what you're suggesting?

I have Shipman's book, and, besides the little note on Ostrom's musing on pg. 255 (which are incorrect), I dont recall anything like what you're describing. What are you refering to here?

It was her evaluation of whether the "airplane" method would provide enough lift for Archaeopteryx to take off, based on its weight and wing area. Her calculation suggested that this method would be sufficient, but I don't have the book on hand (it was from the library) so I can't post the numbers to re-evaluate them at the moment.

It seems like you must have a problem with this calculation, since you said that you don't think a takeoff from the ground would have been possible. You can explain why if you like, but I think we've pretty much made our point about Archaeopteryx having reptilian features other than what Dragon mentioned.

I've noticed that once any of these threads gets into the physical details that creationists claim support them, the creationists stop posting in them. I would hope that they're still reading them and learning from them, but subsequent interactions suggest that they aren't, since they keep talking about there being "no evidence" for evolution.

 

[God Fearing Atheist]

Since we seem to agree that flight in birds originated in arboreal animals (something like Microraptor), I'm confused by your claim that none of Archaeopteryx's ancestors since it split off from dromaeosaurs had this lifesyle. That would mean that they managed to evolve the degree of powered flight present in Archaeopteryx without an intermediate arboreal lifesyle.

I probably should have explained myself better. What I meant to say was that the common ancestor of Deinonychosauria + Aves was a scansor in the style of Archaeopteryx -- at least at home in the trees, and probably a glider as well as a terrestrial forager.

Either that, or dromaeosaurs split off from this group after it had evolved flight (in an arboreal animal), which would make dromaeosaurs secondarily flightless. That theory seems quite popular nowadays--I guess this is one of the reasons why. Is that what you're suggesting?

Naw. Im a cladocultist of the sort Paul really hates, and his theory is really unparsimonious.

It was her evaluation of whether the "airplane" method would provide enough lift for Archaeopteryx to take off, based on its weight and wing area. Her calculation suggested that this method would be sufficient, but I don't have the book on hand (it was from the library) so I can't post the numbers to re-evaluate them at the moment.

Do you think there was a problem with the calculation she used? Or do you just think that launching itself out of a bush was a more likely method for it to take off?

If you're talking about Marden's research, i'd say two things: first of all, it depends on the development of the flight musculature, which was incipient in Archaeopteryx. Secondly, its insufficent. To briefly summarize Rayner's work, wingbeat kinematics have two "gaits", analogous to locomotory gaits of terrestrial creatures. In the "vortex ring gait", the upstroke is not used areodynamically and does not generate lift, creating a circular vortex ring. In the "continuous vortext gait", the upstroke is used, and does generate lift. The former is rampant in slow fliers because of the energy costs associated with the upstroke, but in faster flight, or those birds with higher aspect ratios, it becomes increasing efficent, avoding the costs of starting and stopping lift generation at the start and finish of each downstroke.

According to Rayner's extensive calculations, however, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for a cursor, particularly one adapted like Archaeopteryx, to run up to speeds fast enough to allow a continuous vortex gait (he estimates something on the order of 8 m/s). Vasquez (1992, 1994), has also argued that its semilunate carpal didnt allow a broad enough range of rotation to allow any sort of flight, but this is incorrect. It simply shows that Archaeopteryx, again, could not generate a *continuous* gait.

Takeoff from high-places, of course, rids us of this problem.

-GFA

 

[God Fearing Atheist]

You can explain why if you like, but I think we've pretty much made our point about Archaeopteryx having reptilian features other than what Dragon mentioned.

Yeah, but sometimes its nice to talk real science without those cornballs mucking it up.

 

[kenneth558]

Evolution is Not against christianity.
Have you visited www.pubmed.com or www.talkorigins.org?
Do a search for evidence there, its amazing how much there is.

Evolution IS against reality and mathmatics and thermodynamics, etc. Why do you suppose Sir Francis Crick himself says that life could not have possibly arisen on this planet naturally?

 

[kenneth558]

Good thing you are not being fooled! I hope you will not be fooled during the test time either!! . May I suggest dropping the class now since "fooling" you is pointless and while you can still get a partial refund. When you drop, the Biology faculty will probably gather and reflect on your withdrawl by saying, "Drat, another one that could not be fooled by the evidence!" You must be one shrewd student!

Thank you, LorentzHA, but have you ever been employed where you were required to do or say things you didn't agree with? It's part of life sometimes, and God made us fairly flexible. All these evolutionists talk about "evidence", but a single proof outweighs billions of "evidences". The proof against a natural origin of life on earth was seen by Sir Francis Crick, et. al. For any counter-evidence to be worth my attention, that evidence must DEMONSTRATE EXPERIMENTALLY which natural processes can SPONTANEOUSLY make DNA AND the proteins required for replication that the DNA encodes for AND the cell metabolic pathways required to sustain that replication that the DNA encodes for AND bring those items together (against entropy!) in proper proportions into a protective shell that the DNA also encodes for! Crick says it can't happen. Anyone who says it did happen will have a hard time convincing me they're not a fool.

 

[Jet Black]

Evolution IS against reality and mathmatics and thermodynamics, etc. Why do you suppose Sir Francis Crick himself says that life could not have possibly arisen on this planet naturally?

becaues francis crick is a cosmologist, and made a load of false assumptions. In short he was flat out wrong. Evolution is not against reality and mathematics. If you had studied any of the three things then you would know this.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Thank you, LorentzHA, but have you ever been employed where you were required to do or say things you didn't agree with? It's part of life sometimes, and God made us fairly flexible. All these evolutionists talk about "evidence", but a single proof outweighs billions of "evidences". The proof against a natural origin of life on earth was seen by Sir Francis Crick, et. al. For any counter-evidence to be worth my attention, that evidence must DEMONSTRATE EXPERIMENTALLY which natural processes can SPONTANEOUSLY make DNA AND the proteins required for replication that the DNA encodes for AND the cell metabolic pathways required to sustain that replication that the DNA encodes for AND bring those items together (against entropy!) in proper proportions into a protective shell that the DNA also encodes for! Crick says it can't happen. Anyone who says it did happen will have a hard time convincing me they're not a fool.

And, of course, York cannot possibly have developed from Roman Eboracum via Viking Jorvik because the bus network is totally dependent on the correct functioning of the traffic lights.

 

[Aggie]

Evolution IS against reality and mathmatics and thermodynamics, etc. Why do you suppose Sir Francis Crick himself says that life could not have possibly arisen on this planet naturally?

...And when they DO post in thread like these, it's with unsupported generalizations.

The "contradicting thermodynamics" argument is B.S., as explained here: http://www.christianforums.com/t86624&page=2 . I have never seen anyone here or elsewhere say that mathematics disproves evolution, which means that either you've discovered something truly astounding, or you're just spouting nonsense off the top of your head. If you don't provide some support for this assertion, I'll conclude the latter.

You're also equating abiogenesis to evolution even though they are two completely separate theories, which is another mistake someone who reads this forum should be informed enough to avoid. The theory of evolution says nothing about how life first arose, but only how it changed over time once it already existed.

If you actually wish to learn more about these topics rather than just pester us, I suggest that you read the other threads about them. For the sake of everyone here, don't start a new thread or redirect an existing one unless you have something to say that hasn't already been disproven at this site.

 

[Physics_guy]

becaues francis crick is a cosmologist, and made a load of false assumptions. In short he was flat out wrong. Evolution is not against reality and mathematics. If you had studied any of the three things then you would know this.

Francis Crick is no cosmologist - he was the co-discoverer of DNA. Think you are thinking of Fred Hoyle.

Furthermore the original complaint had nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution but with the so far non-existant Theory of Abiogenesis. Even on that however, our creationist friend is painfully wrong - most of the reactions to form large organic molecules are actually thermodynamically downhill, i.e. large organic molecules can form spontaneously.

 

[Physics_guy]

Evolution IS against reality and mathmatics and thermodynamics, etc. Why do you suppose Sir Francis Crick himself says that life could not have possibly arisen on this planet naturally?

No evolution is not against thermodynamics or mathematics - your creationist handlers have been lying to you.

As for the comment about Dr. Crick, well one that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution but is actually an attack on a so far non-existant theory of abiogenesis, and two I would be really surprised if you could find the original quote in context where Crick said this. As I recall, Crick is like Hoyle in that he believes that primodial organic molecules actually formed elsewhere and were brought to Earth by meteors. Of course, he is still talking about naturalistic methods of life formation - not God putting it there.

 

[Saviourmachine]

most of the reactions to form large organic molecules are actually thermodynamically downhill

Why? They don't need energy for forming?

 

[PhantomLlama]

Why? They don't need energy for forming?

I believe Physics Guy means that the total energy released by the new bonds forming is greater than that used up to break the previous bonds in the original molecules.

 

[Physics_guy]

Why? They don't need energy for forming?

Many organic molecule formation reactions do not need any energy other than a minimal activation energy and release energy upon formation - they are exothermic.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The proof against a natural origin of life on earth was seen by Sir Francis Crick, et. al. For any counter-evidence to be worth my attention, that evidence must DEMONSTRATE EXPERIMENTALLY which natural processes can SPONTANEOUSLY make DNA AND the proteins required for replication that the DNA encodes for AND the cell metabolic pathways required to sustain that replication that the DNA encodes for AND bring those items together (against entropy!) in proper proportions into a protective shell that the DNA also encodes for! Crick says it can't happen.

Sir Francis Crick was one of the 72 Nobel Laureates who signed the "Friend of the Court" brief in support of evolution in the Edwards v. Aguillard case

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

so I am very sceptical about the claim the he said that life couldn't have arisen on this planet naturally. Can we get an exact reference with this quotation please?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[napajohn]

No evolution is not against thermodynamics or mathematics - your creationist handlers have been lying to you.

As for the comment about Dr. Crick, well one that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution but is actually an attack on a so far non-existant theory of abiogenesis, and two I would be really surprised if you could find the original quote in context where Crick said this. As I recall, Crick is like Hoyle in that he believes that primodial organic molecules actually formed elsewhere and were brought to Earth by meteors. Of course, he is still talking about naturalistic methods of life formation - not God putting it there.

Dude, if you can't answer or acknowledge that God or a god did it and based on your own experiences and authority that it can't happen as described by conventional evolution..what else are you left with?..origin outside terra firma.

 

[Physics_guy]

Dude, if you can't answer or acknowledge that God or a god did it and based on your own experiences and authority that it can't happen as described by conventional evolution..what else are you left with?..origin outside terra firma.

You are left with a lot of other things - dude. For one, you are left with simply saying we do not understand how it could happen. That is actually an appropriate answer - far more intellectually honest than throwing up you arms and saying "Goddidit!" Luckily for the state of scientific progress, anti-intellectuals like you are not deciding when to give up and stop looking for solutions to problems.

 

[Dragondrawer]

Sorry for my last post, guys.X3 I didn't realize that question was already answered..; heh..^^;
Really? Not into higher lifeforms? I guess I'll stop listening to the Discovery channel.o_o;

 

[Saviourmachine]

most of the reactions to form large organic molecules are actually thermodynamically downhill
...
Many organic molecule formation reactions do not need any energy other than a minimal activation energy and release energy upon formation - they are exothermic.

Can you prove that most of them are exothermic?

 

[Tomas K]

Can you prove that most of them are exothermic?

Um it's pretty easy to calculate that. All you need is some basic chemistry training, your lack of understanding merely proves that your not educated enough to be suitable for trying to overthrow such deep matters (and no post modernistic arguements doesn't work very well in a science forum).

 

[Saviourmachine]

Um it's pretty easy to calculate that

Do it for me please.

I know there are exothermic processes. I didn't know that most of the large organic molecules are exotherm.