What about the DNA evidence?

[stevevw]

Mmmm lets take a look at this. How do you not pay attention to things like this: From: wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

This has had a major impact on the study of evolution and is considered as strong evidence supporting it. Biologists think the studies are very important in relation to evolution. Why do you differ with their opinion, this, after all, is their field?.

To make your statement have any credence, you have to find a way to deal with these studies and the opinions of professional biologists.


Next let us look at Archaeopteryx

From the wiki site on Archeopteryx, Archaeopteryx is still very much considered as *a* transitional between feathered dinosaurs and birds, just not the only one nor the oldest. Paleontologists seem to be very convinced of this this is their field of expertise

The opinions of professional Paleontologists is something you again are going to have to deal with if your statements are to hold water.


Dizredux

latest thought is that Archaeopteryx is more like a dinosaur than a bird. Similar to the feathered dinosaurs. Though it has feathered wings most of its other features are similar to reptiles. Its feathers were more fluffy like Sinosauropteryx another feathered dinosaur and weren't suitable for flight.

It is strange that Archaeopteryx had wings like a bird but not many other features like them. It has more in common with a reptile that had feathers or wings. They have found another fossil of an early bird type creature recently that fits closer to being an early bird ancestor.

The analysis also suggested the earliest known avialan is currently a pigeon-size feathered creature known as Epidexipteryx hui recently discovered in Inner Mongolia, China.
Archaeopteryx: Facts about the Transitional Fossil | LiveScience

I think of the platypus which has some features of other animals and it seems to be more like a fully developed creature that happens to have complete working parts of another creature. Just seems to be made that way.

 

[sur]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg

.
.
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU

 

[Black Akuma]

I think of the platypus which has some features of other animals

The platypus does not have features of some other animals, it has features that bear a passing resemblance to other animals, but are in fact completely different. It's bill looks kind of like a duck bill, but it's made differently and works different. It's tail looks like a beaver's, but they're made of different things and they use them in a different way.

 

[stevevw]

The platypus does not have features of some other animals, it has features that bear a passing resemblance to other animals, but are in fact completely different. It's bill looks kind of like a duck bill, but it's made differently and works different. It's tail looks like a beaver's, but they're made of different things and they use them in a different way.

Well if thats the case which i agree with, then you have just made a case for some of the fossils that are found like the Archaeopteryx which evolutionist may misinterpret. They maybe like the platypus and have parts of other animals that just happen to look that way but are just how the creature was made. If the platypus can be that way then how do we know that evolutionist haven't wrongly claimed a transitional when they were just made that way.

 

[Heissonear]

Well if thats the case which i agree with, then you have just me a case for some of the fossils that are found like the Archaeopteryx which evolutionist may misinterpret. They maybe like the platypus and have parts of other animals that just happen to look that way but are just how the creature was made. If the platypus can be that way then how do we know that evolutionist haven't wrongly claimed a transitional when they were just made that way.

.


To further differentiate, where are the pre-Archaeopteryx and post-Archaeopteryx? No fossils to show? Not one or two of the finely-graduated transitional creatures leading to and from the Archaeopteryx?

And where are the pre-Platypus creatures in the fossil record?

When you cannot provide such pre, and post- creatures then where is the PROCESS OF EVOLUTION?

In the Tree of Evolution all you do is "interpret" how the creatures come from and go to - that is called mixed and match. Sorry, but Evolution is a joke. Where is your "evidence". Evidence please. No bias interpretations!

Same with the genetic code - if we see no pre- and post- creatures in life then who is "interpreting" the genes? They wouldn't be godless Naturalists would they?

.

 

[Heissonear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU

.


You may want to look up the word "conjecture". Your "science" is based too much on "interpretations".


.


.

 

[stevevw]

.


You may want to look up the word "conjecture". Your "science" is based too much on "interpretations".


.


.

I thought the video with David Berlinski made a lot of sense. He wasn't bias in my opinion and was balanced in his responses. He explained things in a way that were straight forward. What he poses is quite reasonable and are fair questions that should be asked and need to be answered. I have come to the same conclusions on some of these matters and so have many others.

 

[Black Akuma]

They maybe like the platypus and have parts of other animals that just happen to look that way but are just how the creature was made.

But that's the thing - we can actually tell the difference when the thing is studied. The person who originally wrote about the platypus though it wasn't a real thing...until he sat down and studied it and determined what it actually was. He didn't just look at it and make a snap judgment, he analyzed it intensely.

 

[stevevw]

But that's the thing - we can actually tell the difference when the thing is studied. The person who originally wrote about the platypus though it wasn't a real thing...until he sat down and studied it and determined what it actually was. He didn't just look at it and make a snap judgment, he analyzed it intensely.

I think they are still studying it and finding out all about it.

 

[Black Akuma]

I think they are still studying it and finding out all about it.

Yes, the platypus - and many organisms - are under constant study. That doesn't mean the composition of the features that bear a passing resemblance to other organisms is in dispute. Nobody argues that the platypus' bill has any real similarity to a duck bill - if you compare the two beyond the way they look at a glance, it's obvious they're not the same thing.

 

[Dizredux]

latest thought is that Archaeopteryx is more like a dinosaur than a bird. Similar to the feathered dinosaurs. Though it has feathered wings most of its other features are similar to reptiles. Its feathers were more fluffy like Sinosauropteryx another feathered dinosaur and weren't suitable for flight.

Which makes it a classic example of a transitional fossil. There is scientific debate on the the question of it being a bird or a dinosaur. That could be expected on a transitional animal.

It is strange that Archaeopteryx had wings like a bird but not many other features like them. It has more in common with a reptile that had feathers or wings.

Or at least a dinosaur. The mixed features is part of being transitional.

They have found another fossil of an early bird type creature recently that fits closer to being an early bird ancestor.

By memory, several fossils have been found that are likely earlier than the Archaeopteryx. When it was first discovered around 1860 many presented it as the first bird. I don't think anyone has felt this in a number of years

The analysis also suggested the earliest known avialan is currently a pigeon-size feathered creature known as Epidexipteryx hui recently discovered in Inner Mongolia, China. Archaeopteryx: Facts about the Transitional Fossil | LiveScience

And they are likely to find earlier feathered fossils. Kind fun watching the new discoveries and how they fit into the picture.

I think of the platypus which has some features of other animals and it seems to be more like a fully developed creature that happens to have complete working parts of another creature. Just seems to be made that way.

You would have to let me know what features you are discussing before I could make any comment.

Interesting conversation,

Dizredux

 

[stevevw]

Yes, the platypus - and many organisms - are under constant study. That doesn't mean the composition of the features that bear a passing resemblance to other organisms is in dispute. Nobody argues that the platypus' bill has any real similarity to a duck bill - if you compare the two beyond the way they look at a glance, it's obvious they're not the same thing.

True but it has other features that are similar to other creatures such as the electroreceptors in its bill that find food through electro waves under the water similar to the shark. Lays eggs like a bird but has a uterus and feeds the babies with milk. Has webbed front feet like a duck and clawed back feet. Has a spur on its back legs that gives out venom similar to a snake. It is a very strange creature with a mosaic of features.

 

[stevevw]

Mmmm lets take a look at this. How do you not pay attention to things like this: From: wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

This has had a major impact on the study of evolution and is considered as strong evidence supporting it. Biologists think the studies are very important in relation to evolution. Why do you differ with their opinion, this, after all, is their field?.

To make your statement have any credence, you have to find a way to deal with these studies and the opinions of professional biologists.


Next let us look at Archaeopteryx

From the wiki site on Archeopteryx, Archaeopteryx is still very much considered as *a* transitional between feathered dinosaurs and birds, just not the only one nor the oldest. Paleontologists seem to be very convinced of this this is their field of expertise

The opinions of professional Paleontologists is something you again are going to have to deal with if your statements are to hold water.


Dizredux

The thing is its some of the experts that are saying Archaeopteryx is more of a dinosaur than a bird.

Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch as first bird - life - 27 July 2011 - New Scientist

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird : Nature News

 

[sfs]

The thing is its some of the experts that are saying Archaeopteryx is more of a dinosaur than a bird.

Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch as first bird - life - 27 July 2011 - New Scientist

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird : Nature News

That's the thing about transitional forms: deciding which taxon to put them in is hard, and ultimately arbitrary. That's expected from evolution, of course. But what is creationism's explanation for its position on the fence?

 

[stevevw]

That's the thing about transitional forms: deciding which taxon to put them in is hard, and ultimately arbitrary. That's expected from evolution, of course. But what is creationism's explanation for its position on the fence?

Well what do you think, you seem to be a bit on both sides of the fence. You believe in evolution and yet you believe in God which is not a common position. So even though you say you can show how evolution is true how do you show that God is real as well. If you believe in God then you would have to have faith and that will require that you will have no scientific explanation for that belief. How does that fit it with the science. So i would have thought you could answer that question yourself.

Its not just a case of deciding what taxon to put the Archaeopteryx in For years it has been held up as the star of the transitional sitting at the base of the Dino to birds. It wasn't arbitrary it was definite. It has been used as a definite example of how a Dino became a bird. People said hey wait a minute what about this and that. What about the other stages that are missing, what about some of the other features that dont fit. But all that was shot down and any opposition was held as almost sacrilege against the great example of transition. They have suspected something was not quite right for years and that some of the evidence didn't fit into definitely making that claim. But never did you hear well we think it is at the moment but there are a few problems with the fact that a lot of its features are more dinosaur like than bird so there is still question mark over it. That really basically the only thing that links it is that it has wings.

No it was said many times over this is definite and is proof that the Archaeopteryx is at the base of the bird to Dino transition when there was evidence that put that in doubt. This is because they are looking at a fossil that is millions of years old and its hard to get a clear picture. But they tended to err on the side of their belief in evolution and not err on the side of caution. Now the latest discoveries are putting it in with the group of Dino with feathers which there are quite a few. The latest discovery isn't a revelation it just confirms what some have been saying but were always shot down. Its not a case of its still definitely a transitional but that it could also be just a Dino that happened to have feathers.

As far as i am concerned i am not basing my belief on evidence alone. Because we can only be saved by faith and faith is the belief in things unseen. If we have evidence for God and that God created everything then it wouldn't be faith and faith would be pointless. If we had evidence then just about everyone would believe. I dont think it works that way. Yet my faith testifies to me that what i believe is just as real as what you think evolution is.

 

[Dizredux]

Some interesting points I think I may comment on a few of them.

Well what do you think, you seem to be a bit on both sides of the fence. You believe in evolution and yet you believe in God which is not a common position.

Actually it is quite common. Look at the latest Pew report on acceptance of evolution. The numbers indicate that about 60 percent believe in evolution in some form and about 33 percentile don't. About 24% appear to be theistic evolutionists so the number of theistic evolutionists is pretty large overall.

So even though you say you can show how evolution is true how do you show that God is real as well. If you believe in God then you would have to have faith and that will require that you will have no scientific explanation for that belief.

I have no problem with this. My belief in God is purely faith and I need no support from science to validate my faith.

On Archaeopteryx, I think you may be getting your ideas on popular literature, never the best of sources. You seem to be focused on the idea that Archaeopteryx is being presented as a definitive example of things other than a transitional fossil. Again, I don't think that Archaeopteryx is currently being presented as anything besides a very good example of a transitional fossil at least for not for quite a while. It is not promoted as considered as ancestral as this cannot be determined without DNA samples. It has also not been considered as the oldest bird for a long time.

It has been used as a definite example of how a Dino became a bird or anything other than a very good transitional fossil .

I have not seen it used this way in paleontology for a long time. Can you give an example or two?

That really basically the only thing that links it is that it has wings.

If you do the research, you will find that there is a lot more to it than that.

As far as i am concerned i am not basing my belief on evidence alone. Because we can only be saved by faith and faith is the belief in things unseen. If we have evidence for God and that God created everything then it wouldn't be faith and faith would be pointless.

There we agree as that is my religious stance also.

Anyway interesting points.

Take care,

Dizredux

 

[USincognito]

True but it has other features that are similar to other creatures such as the electroreceptors in its bill that find food through electro waves under the water similar to the shark. Lays eggs like a bird but has a uterus and feeds the babies with milk. Has webbed front feet like a duck and clawed back feet. Has a spur on its back legs that gives out venom similar to a snake. It is a very strange creature with a mosaic of features.

Steve (I'm Bret by the way), this is nothing personal, but I've seen this quite frequently in the 20 years I've been debating Crevo, and I have to ask - whatever gave you the impression that others were unfamiliar with platypus physiology and that you needed to list it in detail as if we'd never heard of these beings before?

As far as your list of attributes go, there are some problems.
- Electroreceptors or any other "supersense" are not unique to the platypus. It is found in a number of fish including the paddlefish and it is found in the other extant Monotreme family Echidnas. It's also been discovered in one species of dolphin.
Guiana Dolphins Can Use Electric Signals to Locate Prey | Science/AAAS | News
- Monotremes do not lay eggs like birds. They lay eggs that are leathery and reptilian. It does have a uterus, but that's not where the young develop into full blown fetuses, that's where the egg finishes its formation.
Monotreme Reproductive Physiology and Behavior

When the egg leaves the ovary, it is 10 times smaller than a hen’s egg at this stage, but 25 times the size of a placental egg. At this point the egg contains a yolk enclosed by two primary membranes, along with the embryo. Secondary membranes arise from the ovarian follicle cells and tertiary membranes are added in the oviduct and uterus. The majority of the nutrients in the egg come from the oviduct. The egg continues to grow in size in the uterus due to a unique eggshell which allows for expansion. The final shell layer is added once the egg has reached about 15 x 17mm in size. The egg spends about 28 days in the uterus, and only 10 days in external incubation (Dawson, 1983). In contrast, a chicken egg spends about 1 day in the tract and 21 days in external incubation (Brant, 2003).​

Here's the irony of your assertion though - chickens have uteruses that function pretty similarly to that of the platypus.
Poultry

•UTERUS - also referred to as the "shell gland", this is where the egg shell is formed. Most of the transit time from ovulation until the egg is laid is spent in the uterus.​

But wait! There's more. The details of Monotreme anatomy and the reproductive process means that both the term uterus and oviduct can be used interchangeably.
Uterus

Most animals that lay eggs, such as birds and reptiles, have an oviduct instead of a uterus. In monotremes, mammals which lay eggs and include the platypus, either the term uterus or oviduct is used to describe the same organ, but the egg does not develop a placenta within the mother and thus does not receive further nourishment after formation and fertilization.​

- You do realize that "mammal" comes from "mammary glands", right?
- The webbing of platypus feet is not like a duck. In ducks it's more akin to a piece of rubber stretched over a framework. In the platypus it's more akin to a flaccid balloon. And there are other mammals with similar webbed feet such as otters and some breeds of dogs.
- Your mention of claws is ironic because stripped of skin, the feet of the platypus looks like that of a reptile.
- The venom is not similar to a snake.
Platypus venom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike snake venom, there appears to be no necrotic component in the Platypus' venom...​

Everything you have claimed about the platypus is a misunderstanding or wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Some interesting points I think I may comment on a few of them.

Actually it is quite common. Look at the latest Pew report on acceptance of evolution. The numbers indicate that about 60 percent believe in evolution in some form and about 33 percentile don't. About 24% appear to be theistic evolutionists so the number of theistic evolutionists is pretty large overall.

I have no problem with this. My belief in God is purely faith and I need no support from science to validate my faith.

I agree i think there is some form of evolution happening. It is just to what extent. Variation within a species can be greater than we think and there is also HGT that can have an effect. But as we Darwin's finches there was a form of transformation happening with the beaks and shapes of the birds but were they going to turn into another creature eventually is the question or did they transform from another creature.

On Archaeopteryx, I think you may be getting your ideas on popular literature, never the best of sources. You seem to be focused on the idea that Archaeopteryx is being presented as a definitive example of things other than a transitional fossil. Again, I don't think that Archaeopteryx is currently being presented as anything besides a very good example of a transitional fossil at least for not for quite a while. It is not promoted as considered as ancestral as this cannot be determined without DNA samples. It has also not been considered as the oldest bird for a long time.

I have not seen it used this way in paleontology for a long time. Can you give an example or two?

Well i was mainly speaking about some on this site, i can go back and find them. Plus i constantly see it on other forum sites. Whenever someone says there are no transitionals, Archaeopteryx is presented and defended straight away. I do see it used on the more fringe sites that are not religious. The reason it has come up is because someone touted it as a good example of a transitional a few pages back. You have to remember that people who dont know much about the subject will take that at face value. And it is also done with other creatures. They will have drawings and stories that are really not based on fact.

If you do the research, you will find that there is a lot more to it than that.

There we agree as that is my religious stance also.

Anyway interesting points.

Take care,

Dizredux

You make some good points and it is a pity that people cant find more common ground. What i see sometimes is it becomes a emotional subject and people take sides like its a footy match.

 

[sfs]

Well what do you think, you seem to be a bit on both sides of the fence. You believe in evolution and yet you believe in God which is not a common position.

I'm not on both sides of the fence; they're two different fences.

 

[46AND2]

Well what do you think, you seem to be a bit on both sides of the fence. You believe in evolution and yet you believe in God which is not a common position.

Actually it is FAR more common than your position. First of all, worldwide, you are among the minority JUST IN CHRISTIANITY. When you add Jewish, Catholic, Mormons, and many other religions, you are a small minority along with SOME Islamic people.

So even though you say you can show how evolution is true how do you show that God is real as well. If you believe in God then you would have to have faith and that will require that you will have no scientific explanation for that belief. How does that fit it with the science. So i would have thought you could answer that question yourself.

Its not just a case of deciding what taxon to put the Archaeopteryx in For years it has been held up as the star of the transitional sitting at the base of the Dino to birds. It wasn't arbitrary it was definite. It has been used as a definite example of how a Dino became a bird. People said hey wait a minute what about this and that. What about the other stages that are missing, what about some of the other features that dont fit. But all that was shot down and any opposition was held as almost sacrilege against the great example of transition. They have suspected something was not quite right for years and that some of the evidence didn't fit into definitely making that claim. But never did you hear well we think it is at the moment but there are a few problems with the fact that a lot of its features are more dinosaur like than bird so there is still question mark over it. That really basically the only thing that links it is that it has wings.

No it was said many times over this is definite and is proof that the Archaeopteryx is at the base of the bird to Dino transition when there was evidence that put that in doubt. This is because they are looking at a fossil that is millions of years old and its hard to get a clear picture. But they tended to err on the side of their belief in evolution and not err on the side of caution. Now the latest discoveries are putting it in with the group of Dino with feathers which there are quite a few. The latest discovery isn't a revelation it just confirms what some have been saying but were always shot down. Its not a case of its still definitely a transitional but that it could also be just a Dino that happened to have feathers.

As far as i am concerned i am not basing my belief on evidence alone. Because we can only be saved by faith and faith is the belief in things unseen. If we have evidence for God and that God created everything then it wouldn't be faith and faith would be pointless. If we had evidence then just about everyone would believe. I dont think it works that way. Yet my faith testifies to me that what i believe is just as real as what you think evolution is.

Nothing has changed in the minds of scientists concerning the importance of the Archaeopteryx find. It IS still near the base of the bird/dino transition. It absolutely has bird AND dino features.

I think one of the things that you are struggling with is believing that transitional fossils must be in a sequential, ancestral order. But we can't determine, for certain, whether one species was an ancestor of another from that long ago. We never have claimed to. In fact, it is argued by some that a large percentage of fossils found represent an extinct branch. But that doesn't mean they aren't transitional. Transitional does not equal ancestral.