• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The ART of evolution revisited

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
  Souljah: Fully adapted to their enviroment. This is, for some reason, a rather difficult concept for some people to grasp.

  A transitional species is not some "hopeful monster". It would, in fact, be as well-adjusted and fit for it's enviroment as modern day hippos, or birds, or rats.

  You keep using the phrase "mutant genetics". What on earth do you mean by that? It conjurs images of Godzilla-esque biologies. Mutant lizards conquering the earth and all that jazz.

   Admittedly, dinosaurs with feathers looked a little odd, but they were quite a bit warmer. Is that "mutant genetics"?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Two problems, Nick:
1. Patterson was talking about the problem of determining an exact lineage for a species in particular, and not the problem of testing evolution in general.

It's still a great description of evolution theory in general, which is how I was applying it.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
2. Like all arguments from authority, you are dismissing the possibility that your authority just might be wrong.

I'm not dismissing it at all. I believe the point he was making was dead on, though. And I also believe my application of it to all of evolution theory is also dead on.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley


It's still a great description of evolution theory in general, which is how I was applying it.



I'm not dismissing it at all. I believe the point he was making was dead on, though. And I also believe my application of it to all of evolution theory is also dead on.

So you do admit that this is just your application of his words, something that the author you quoted did not intend. That's good. It would have been good to make a similar note in the post where you quoted him.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley
I'm not dismissing it at all. I believe the point he was making was dead on, though. And I also believe my application of it to all of evolution theory is also dead on.

So what? You also believe people get a third set of teeth when they get old enough. Clearly logic and reason don't play a big part in what you believe.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
Souljah: Then Archy should be an excellent example of a transitional fossil. It's got mostly reptillian features, but also has some of the unique characteristics of birds.

  It's famous because it's such an obvious example. The whale sequence is good, as is the horse sequence. And the hominid skull sequence is fairly undeniable, especially when you see that the "middle" (time-wise) skulls are so intermediate that half the famous YEC's call them apes, the other half call them humans.

 
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Morat
Souljah: Then Archy should be an excellent example of a transitional fossil. It's got mostly reptillian features, but also has some of the unique characteristics of birds.

  It's famous because it's such an obvious example. The whale sequence is good, as is the horse sequence. And the hominid skull sequence is fairly undeniable, especially when you see that the "middle" (time-wise) skulls are so intermediate that half the famous YEC's call them apes, the other half call them humans.

 

Couldnt archy just be some freak of nature?  If it is a transition, shouldn't there be many examples of them?  Or are there?
 
Upvote 0
Coelophysis (late Triassic) -- One of the first theropod dinosaurs. Theropods in general show clear general skeletal affinities with birds (long limbs, hollow bones, foot with 3 toes in front and 1 reversed toe behind, long ilium). Jurassic theropods like Compsognathus are particularly similar to birds.
Deinonychus, Oviraptor, and other advanced theropods (late Jurassic, Cretaceous) -- Predatory bipedal advanced theropods, larger, with more bird-like skeletal features: semilunate carpal, bony sternum, long arms, reversed pubis. Clearly runners, though, not fliers. These advanced theropods even had clavicles, sometimes fused as in birds. Says Clark (1992): "The detailed similarity between birds and theropod dinosaurs such as Deinonychus is so striking and so pervasive throughout the skeleton that a considerable amount of special pleading is needed to come to any conclusion other than that the sister-group of birds among fossils is one of several theropod dinosaurs." The particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx.
Lisboasaurus estesi & other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" (mid-Jurassic) -- A bird-like theropod reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds, since modern birds have no teeth). These really could be ancestral.
GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible.

One possible ancestor of Archeopteryx is Protoavis (Triassic, ~225 Ma) -- A highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Unfortunately, not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds.
Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993)
Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992).
"Las Hoyas bird" or "Spanish bird" [not yet named; early Cretaceous, 131 Ma) -- Another recently found "little forest flier". It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip. A fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird, indicating homeothermy. (Sanz et al., 1992)
Ambiortus dementjevi (early Cretaceous, 125 Ma) -- The third known "little forest flier", found in 1985. Very fragmentary fossil.
Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, and other Cretaceous diving birds -- This line of birds became specialized for diving, like modern cormorants. As they lived along saltwater coasts, there are many fossils known. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, a reptilian trait.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
I lost a big post when my machine ate it. However, to recap.

  First off, there are eight Archy fossils. Secondly, there are a large number of other dino->bird (and here) transitionals (old list, many more have been discovered in the last decade). Archy does not exist in a vacuum, far from it. The debate these days is not whether birds came from reptiles, but which particular group of reptiles. Most cladists will admit to seeing theropods out their window every morning. :)

  Thirdly, think about what you're implying as a "Freak of nature". First off, Archy has many qualities only found in birds: feathers, oppusable hallux, fused wishbone, backwards facing pubis elongate and several found in reptiles (but no birds): no bill, (premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered), truck vertebrate free, pneumatic bones, public shafts with plate-like crosssections, some specific cranial stuff (see link for more info on all these), skull/neck attached from the rear (like dinos), not the bottom (birds), long bony tail with free vetebrae, teeth (as an adult), the way the ribs and the pelvic girdle are shaped, claws....

    Archy is used so often because it's such a clear transitional between dinosaurs and birds. It's higher order, so that the features most easily recognized by laymen (like feathers) are easily seen.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
So what? You also believe people get a third set of teeth when they get old enough. Clearly logic and reason don't play a big part in what you believe.

Huh? But some people DO get a third set of teeth when they get old. So clearly reality doesn't play any part at all in what YOU believe.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
  Interesting link. A lot of it seems to be (amusingly) arguing that Archy couldn't be a true transitional because it's not in the directly link between reptiles and birds.

   Which is, as best I remember, rather true. Archy is considered a "cousin", a branch off the dino->bird line. Gish's claims (actually the more detailed ones he makes elsewhere) can be found here.

  For the most part, it smacks of desperate handwaving. However, if there is a particular claim or two Gish makes that you feel wasn't fully covered in that link, please let me know. I've not got the time to research and deal with every claim Gish makes (I don't do this for a living), but I can certainly research a single claim (or two) that you might find compelling.

 
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Doh! I stand corrected. Thanks, Jerry. :D

I already posted several links to people getting a third set of teeth in old age -- and they WERE NOT implants, or false teeth. So you can poke fun - I do it all the time. But you're still living in a world of fantasy if you say it doesn't happen. Which is to be expected, since that's the world where evolution exists.
 
Upvote 0
But you're still living in a world of fantasy if you say it doesn't happen. Which is to be expected, since that's the world where evolution exists.

Chuang Tzu dreamt he was a butterfly. Upon awaking, he remembered the dream. Am I a man who dreamt that I was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that I am a man.

There is a world where we look at evidence and examine it critically. In that world, evolution is well accepted and no one grows a third set of teeth.

There is a world where hair-brained ideas are accepted uncritically, but anything that threatens our theology is dismissed out of hand - no amount of evidence can convince. Here, people can grow teeth from their armpits if it helps the cause of Creationism, and science is just something to rail against.

One world is a fantasy world. We each believe the other lives there.
 
Upvote 0