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.
We don't just get change in species, we get change outside. Speciation happens.
That is the bird kind or family producing more variety of
the bird kind or family. Do you have anything more relevant?
. Or a pigeon to a pelican. Or Darwin's finches.
Yes, everyone knows this.
Wait, stop.
Just noticed - you're saying pigeons and pelicans share a common ancestor? They're the same kind? And they've come about through just a few thousand years of evolution.
Have you seen a pelican?
I was thinking and typing fast. I should have said pigeon to
dodo bird. Sorry about that. Pelicans are a water bird family.
That's not really much better. Firstly, who ever said dodos were descended frok pigeons? Check out the skeleton of a dodo. It's quite a bit different from pigeon.
Second, what is the 'water bird' family?
That is the bird kind or family producing more variety of
the bird kind or family. Do you have anything more relevant?
The science of genetics says that.
The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) is an extinct flightless bird that was endemic to the island of Mauritius, east of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Its closest genetic relative was the also extinct Rodrigues solitaire, the two forming the subfamily Raphinae of the family of pigeons and doves. The closest extant relative of the dodo is the Nicobar pigeon.
Dodo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I figured since you spotted my error that you knew what
Ciconiiformes were and thought we were finally getting somewhere.
I guess not.
They're related to pigeons. They didn't come from pigeons. There's a difference.
In what sense are they related, if not from common ancestry?
Science can't find a missing link between us and apes or lower species because there is no link.
The term "missing link" refers back to the originally static pre-evolutionary concept of the great chain of being, a deist idea that all existence is linked, from the lowest dirt, through the living kingdoms to angels and finally to God.[49] The idea of all living things being linked through some sort of transmutation process predates Darwin's theory of evolution. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck envisioned that life is generated in the form of the simplest creatures constantly, and then strive towards complexity and perfection (i.e. humans) through a series of lower forms.[50] In his view, lower animals were simply newcomers on the evolutionary scene.[51]
After On the Origin of Species, the idea of "lower animals" representing earlier stages in evolution lingered, as demonstrated in Ernst Haeckel's figure of the human pedigree.[52] While the vertebrates were then seen as forming a sort of evolutionary sequence, the various classes were distinct, the undiscovered intermediate forms being called "missing links".
The term was first used in a scientific context by Charles Lyell in the third edition (1851) of his book Elements of Geology in relation to missing parts of the geological column, but it was popularized in its present meaning by its appearance on page xi of his book Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man of 1863. By that time it was generally thought that the end of the last glacial period marked the first appearance of humanity, but Lyell drew on new findings in his Antiquity of Man to put the origin of human beings much further back in the deep geological past. Lyell wrote that it remained a profound mystery how the huge gulf between man and beast could be bridged.[53] Lyell's vivid writing fired the public imagination, inspiring Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth and Louis Figuier's 1867 second edition of La Terre avant le déluge ("Earth before the Flood"), which included dramatic illustrations of savage men and women wearing animal skins and wielding stone axes, in place of the Garden of Eden shown in the 1863 edition.[54]
The idea of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals remains lodged in the public imagination.[55] The search for a fossil showing transitional traits between apes and humans, however, was fruitless until the young Dutch geologist Eugène Dubois found a skullcap, a molar and a femur on the banks of Solo River, Java in 1891. The find combined a low, ape-like skull roof with a brain estimated at around 1000 cc, midway between that of a chimpanzee and an adult human. The single molar was larger than any modern human tooth, but the femur was long and straight, with a knee angle showing that "Java man" had walked upright.[56] Given the name Pithecanthropus erectus ("erect ape-man"), it became the first in what is now a long list of human evolution fossils. At the time it was hailed by many as the "missing link", helping set the term as primarily used for human fossils, though it is sometimes used for other intermediates, like the dinosaur-bird intermediary Archaeopteryx.[57][58]
"Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media. It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[59] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.[4][60]
They're part of the same family, columbidae, which includes pigeons and doves, so I guess it would boil down to what the earliest member of the family was called.
Interesting, though, to compare what's all in that family. ED seems to be saying that any development within a family is acceptable, so I'm curious how he can allow that the dodo, which is about three feet tall, is related to the pigeon, which is considerably smaller. Also keeping in mind that there are some 310 species in this family. That's a lot of evolution for the short time he's allowing.
Not to mention how easily he seems to accept this, even though he and other creationists usually say that similarities don't prove ancestry. I'm pretty sure no one was around to see dodos evolve. Everything we know about their history comes from studying fossils and their DNA.
Also curious to learn about the 'swimming bird' family he mentioned. I assume it's just birds that can swim, but since that applies to ducks and penguins (among other things) I doubt he means to say they're the same kind.
What short time am I allowing? I don't think I ever said any time frame.
Is 10,000 years too short for some slight changes? 20,000 years?
The average dodo was about three feet tall and weighed 50 pounds.
The average pigeon is about 33cm tall and weighs about 2kg.
That's a pretty big difference, ED.
A Great Dane can reach 34 inches in height and weigh 200 lbs.
A chihuahua is 10 inches tall and 6 lbs.
There are many man made breeds of dogs that differ greatly as well.
What about it?
Nobody bred dodos, ED. And they were a distinct species. Chihuahuas and Great Danes are the same species.
And you never answered the question - how do you know dodos and pigeons are related? Youve stated before, emphatically, that similarities don't prove ancestry. If you're not using similarities to determine that dodos and other pigeons are related, what are you using?
Incorrect. Dodo's are a subfamily of the family of pigeons and doves.
They are in the same family.
And scientists are using bone structures and other features to show
they are related. That's what I am using. What scientists have
determined.
For many years the dodo and the Rodrigues solitaire were placed in a family of their own, the Raphidae (formerly Dididae), because their exact relationships with other pigeons were unresolved. Each was also placed in its own monotypic family (Raphidae and Pezophapidae, respectively), as it was thought that they had evolved their similar features independently.[22] Osteological and molecular data has since led to the dissolution of the family Raphidae, and the dodo and solitaire are now placed in their own subfamily, Raphinae, in the family Columbidae.[23]
Comparison of mitochondrial cytochrome b and 12S rRNA sequences isolated from a dodo tarsal and a Rodrigues solitaire femur confirmed their close relationship and their placement within the Columbidae.[24] The genetic evidence was interpreted as showing the Southeast Asian Nicobar pigeon to be their closest living relative, followed by the crowned pigeons of New Guinea and the superficially dodo-like tooth-billed pigeon from Samoa.[25] The generic name of the latter is Didunculus ("little dodo"), and it was called "Dodlet" by Richard Owen.[26] The following cladogram, from Shapiro and colleagues (2002), shows the dodo's closest relationships within the Columbidae, a clade consisting of generally ground-dwelling island endemics.[24]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?