|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2006 : 12:34:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Now Dave I agree, if we both do not hold the same meaning or definition for transitional fossil then the waters get muddied. After doing a little checking I will say that you were right. I was not using TF and true link with the commonly accepted meanings. Sorry for the confusion. I see your point and I think I understand the difference now when referring to a true link or a TF.
Accepted.quote:
I guess this raises another question for me. If the only requirement for a fossil to be considered a TF is for the piece to display the characteristics of two different known groups, such as bird and dino, then could not many fossils be considered TF, but yet that does not mean that they suggest a link between the two groups? A theoretical example would be if someone found the fossil of a bat, and had never seen or heard of bats before, would/could this be considered a TF by that person? It would have similar characteristics of bird and mammal.
No. If you'll look carefully at the skeleton of a bat, and the skeleton of a bird, you'll find that they share almost no characteristics at all which might define one group from the other. The characters they do share (having spines, skulls, ribs, etc.) come from both being descended from much earlier tetrapods. The thing I bet you're thinking about - that they've both got wings - could be considered a shared character only if the wings weren't built so differently (the "spars" in a bat's wings are its fingers, and birds don't have spars in their wings).quote:
So now do they start to investigate the possibility of mammals turning into birds or birds turning into mammals?
Neither, since the two are dramatically different.quote:
A dolphin would be another one that comes to mind. The thing looks and acts mostly like a fish yet it is 100% mammal.
You're only looking at the most-shallow characters again. Fish don't have rib cages, and their tails are primarily vertical. Porpoises (and other whales) have horizontal tails and pelvises (or the remnants thereof).quote:
Now if this dude says there are no intermediary links found to demonstrate that archaeopteryx is a true link then what other evidence will/would the evolutionist point to in order to make the case that archaeopteryx is strong evidence for a dino to bird transition. I mean yes, we have the fossil itself, which appears to have dino-bird characteristics, but so would a bat fossil (have two characteristics), if we found one of those. What makes the evolutionist think this is not just another critter such as a bat, which has characteristics of two different groups (bird and mammal), but in reality is fully mammal?
Archaeopteryx has lots of dinosaur characters and lots of bird characters. It's not a "true link" because it's believed to have not been in the direct line of descent between dinosaurs and birds, but nobody is claiming that it is a "true link" by saying that it's a transitional fossil.quote:
Many have concluded, including evolutionist, that this is fully bird.
That all depends on what one means by "fully bird." There are so many sorts of birds living today - from built-for-soaring albatrosses to can't-fly-at-all ostriches - that it seems difficult, at best, to determine what's "fully bird" and what isn't among just the living ones.quote:
Other then a fossil, that appears to show some characteristics seen in dinos and birds, and in light of the fact that no true link has been established, on what bases do evolutionists claim that this is a display of dino to bird transition and not just a bird that might have had some characteristics that look dinoistic? Or do the evolutionists hold dino to bird transition just as theory for the current moment? Thank you for your time.
I'm sure it's been posted before, but "All About Archaeopteryx" explains this quite well. Note that the author says that feathers are the diagnostic feature of birds - in other words, if it has feathers, then it's a bird (since no modern animal has feathers which is not a bird - and check your bat example again). But just read the conclusion:Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible. The entire article lists dozens of features of Archaeopteryx which aren't found at all in birds, but are found in reptiles and/or dinosaurs. It's not that it has features which "look dinoistic" which get paleontologists excited, it's got features which aren't found in any other birds at all! Do you know of any birds with long bony tails, for example? Of course you don't. None exist today. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 12:55:29 [Permalink]
|
Whoops. It appears I missed a line in that article I linked:It appears that feathers can no longer be used as a unique feature of birds. But, the author also states that systematists define birds as "Archaeopteryx plus living birds and all the descendants of their most recent common [ancestor]." So despite feathers not being unique to birds (well, they're unique to birds among living animals), Archaeopteryx is still defined as being a bird. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 14:21:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But, the author also states that systematists define birds as "Archaeopteryx plus living birds and all the descendants of their most recent common [ancestor]." So despite feathers not being unique to birds (well, they're unique to birds among living animals), Archaeopteryx is still defined as being a bird.
It might be helpful to point out that there does not exist a designation in the nomenclature for transitionals. Archaeopteryx was going to be classified as a bird, or a dinosaur. Since it has more bird like features than dinosaur features, it got classified as a bird. That does not reduce its status as transitional from dinosaur to bird. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2006 : 14:59:54 [Permalink]
|
What are Feathers?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 11:28:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Now Dave I agree, if we both do not hold the same meaning or definition for transitional fossil then the waters get muddied. After doing a little checking I will say that you were right. I was not using TF and true link with the commonly accepted meanings. Sorry for the confusion. I see your point and I think I understand the difference now when referring to a true link or a TF.
Accepted.quote:
I guess this raises another question for me. If the only requirement for a fossil to be considered a TF is for the piece to display the characteristics of two different known groups, such as bird and dino, then could not many fossils be considered TF, but yet that does not mean that they suggest a link between the two groups? A theoretical example would be if someone found the fossil of a bat, and had never seen or heard of bats before, would/could this be considered a TF by that person? It would have similar characteristics of bird and mammal.
No. If you'll look carefully at the skeleton of a bat, and the skeleton of a bird, you'll find that they share almost no characteristics at all which might define one group from the other. The characters they do share (having spines, skulls, ribs, etc.) come from both being descended from much earlier tetrapods. The thing I bet you're thinking about - that they've both got wings - could be considered a shared character only if the wings weren't built so differently (the "spars" in a bat's wings are its fingers, and birds don't have spars in their wings).quote:
So now do they start to investigate the possibility of mammals turning into birds or birds turning into mammals?
Neither, since the two are dramatically different.quote:
A dolphin would be another one that comes to mind. The thing looks and acts mostly like a fish yet it is 100% mammal.
You're only looking at the most-shallow characters again. Fish don't have rib cages, and their tails are primarily vertical. Porpoises (and other whales) have horizontal tails and pelvises (or the remnants thereof).quote:
Now if this dude says there are no intermediary links found to demonstrate that archaeopteryx is a true link then what other evidence will/would the evolutionist point to in order to make the case that archaeopteryx is strong evidence for a dino to bird transition. I mean yes, we have the fossil itself, which appears to have dino-bird characteristics, but so would a bat fossil (have two characteristics), if we found one of those. What makes the evolutionist think this is not just another critter such as a bat, which has characteristics of two different groups (bird and mammal), but in reality is fully mammal?
Archaeopteryx has lots of dinosaur characters and lots of bird characters. It's not a "true link" because it's believed to have not been in the direct line of descent between dinosaurs and birds, but nobody is claiming that it is a "true link" by saying that it's a transitional fossil.quote:
Many have concluded, including evolutionist, that this is fully bird.
That all depends on what one means by "fully bird." There are so many sorts of birds living today - from built-for-soaring albatrosses to can't-fly-at-all ostriches - that it seems difficult, at best, to determine what's "fully bird" and what isn't among just the living ones.quote:
Other then a fossil, that appears to show some characteristics seen in dinos and birds, and in light of the fact that no true link has been established, on what bases do evolutionists claim that this is a display of dino to bird transition and not just a bird that might have had some characteristics that look dinoistic? Or do the evolutionists hold dino to bird transition just as theory for the current moment? Thank you for your time.
I'm sure it's been posted before, but "All About Archaeopteryx" explains this quite well. Note that the author says that feathers are the diagnostic feature of birds - in other words, if it has feathers, then it's a bird (since no modern animal has feathers which is not a bird - and check your bat example again). But just read the conclusion:Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible. The entire article lists dozens of features of Archaeopteryx which aren't found at all in birds, but are found in reptiles and/or dinosaurs. It's not that it has features which "look dinoistic" which get paleontologists excited, it's got features which aren't found in any other birds at all! Do you know of any birds with long bony tails, for example? Of course you don't. None exist today.
quote:
Accepted.
Your right, Dave. If I want to have a meaningful conversation I should learn as much as I can about what both sides would hold to on each topic and why. I will try to have a firm understanding on the evolutionary position, before I criticize it from here on out. This also means I might ask a lot of questions as well as I truly am interested in understanding the evolutionists point of view.
quote:
No. If you'll look carefully at the skeleton of a bat <http://www.bioschoo |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 04/21/2006 12:42:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 13:03:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Your right, Dave. If I want to have a meaningful conversation I should learn as much as I can about what both sides would hold to on each topic and why. I will try to have a firm understanding on the evolutionary position, before I criticize it from here on out. This also means I might ask a lot of questions as well as I truly am interested in understanding the evolutionists point of view.
You should also try to leave the anti-evolution arguments out of your questions (see below).quote:
Speaking of tetrapods, it seems to me that the common position among the evolution camp is that the first tetrapods crawled up from the sea and then a few went back to life in the sea later on.
Tetrapods include all land-living vertebrates, such as frogs, turtles, hawks, and lions. The group also includes a number of animals that have returned to life in the water, such as sea turtles, sea snakes, whales and dolphins, seals and sea lions, and extinct groups such as plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and mosasaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetraintro.html
The early tetrapods were the first vertebrates to truly walk the land. Before tetrapods existed, vertebrates were all confined to living in aquatic habitats
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetrafr.html
Does this mean that evolutionists claim that life arose from the sea or is this just a theory?
"Just a theory." Sigh. You've also got an equivocation in there between "life" and "vertebrates."
The strength of the evidence suggests that vertebrate life arose in the sea, as jawless eel-like critters, which later developed jaws, paired fins, etc (in other words, fish evolved from them). Then the fish eventually left the sea as amphibians.quote:
Some tetrapods, like whales and snakes, have lost some or all of the four limbs that their ancestors had, but because of their ancestry they are still grouped as tetrapods.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetraintro.html
This statement caught my attention as well. So this would imply that a snake, or the tetrapod ancestor that would become a snake originally had no limbs and lived in the sea?
The earliest tetrapods (animals with four feet - tetra-pod) all lived primarily in water (not open seas, but in water).quote:
Over millions of years it evolved limbs, lungs and all the other necessities for life on land before it was able to prosper on land and could leave the water full time?
Sure.quote:
And then once it was on the land and surviving some of these tetrapods then began to evolve back to limbless critter such as snake or whale? And as for the whale it went back to a life at sea but this time it kept it's new lung system in tact rather then evolve back to gills etc...?
Yes and yes.quote:
Now for a tetrapods to evolve working limbs and a breathing system for land and then to evolve back to an aquatic critter again this would take millions and millions of years correct? To go from no limbs and lungs to limbs and lungs and then back to no limbs again that is.
Yes...quote:
And this process would have laid down the carnage of billions and billions of these tetrapods in all the different links of transformation that it went through to have no limbs or lungs to a state of having limbs and lungs back to a state of having no limbs but still lungs, correct?
Uh, sure.quote:
This is another question I have. To go from the first tetrapods who crawled out of the sea to all the modern day animals we have today, including man, this would take hundreds and hundreds of millions of years with natural selection guiding the controls of random mutations, correct?
Some 500 million years or so.quote:
Most modern day critters that we see today, such as man, have been in their current state of evolution for what, maybe a few 100,000 years?
No, all sorts of different amounts of time.quote:
So we have hundreds and hundreds of millions of years where critters and their carnage are being laid down in a transitional state between the first tetrapods up to the modern day critters that we see today. This compared to what, a few 100,000 years for many of the critters we see today in their current state of evolution? So why the big lopsided scale in the fossils found showing critters in current state over transitional fossil and true link finds? I understand that it is a complex process to get a fossil, but I am talking about those that did turn into fossil, of those the supreme majority all show modern-day critters. But why, if the transition stages would have infinitely out numbered the modern day critter in the amount of carnage that had been laid down over time?
What modern-day dinosaurs are you talking about, Bill? Seriously, the vast majority of the fossils we have are of animals which do not exist in today's world at all. Dinosaurs are all extinct. The earliest vertebrates are all extinct. None of the many "transitional" fossils we've got represent living species.quote:
Also, did the tetrapods develop limbs and lungs before they left the water or after they left the water?
It seems to be - again based on the available evidence - that limbs and lungs came before they left the water.quote:
Or was it a process where one tetrapod tried to move to land and made it only so far. Then, perhaps, the next tetrapod gave it his best shot and he got one nano millimeter farther then his brethren who tried first. The third tetrapod to try and make the move to land made it one nano millimeter farthe |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 14:20:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
And last but not least some evidence that would sugjest no dino-bird transition:
Birds wings and feet have digits 2-3-4, where as theropods had digits 1-2-3. This is another piece of evidence that demonstrates birds did not evolve from theropods.[18]
What does that even mean, Bill? Do you know, or are you cut-and-pasting stuff without a clue as to its veracity?
I'd guess Bill was.
The italics comes from Creation Science Movement. Their mission is: "Restoring faith in the Bible and Science"
quote:
Creation Science Movement writes:
Today society witnesses to the effect of atheistic humanism which belief in the theory of evolution has brought--fragmented family units, abortion, child abuse etc.
And that is just the start of it.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 20:19:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I'd guess Bill was.
Yeah, the question was mostly rhetorical.quote:
The italics comes from Creation Science Movement. Their mission is: "Restoring faith in the Bible and Science"
quote:
Creation Science Movement writes:
Today society witnesses to the effect of atheistic humanism which belief in the theory of evolution has brought--fragmented family units, abortion, child abuse etc.
And that is just the start of it.
A nasty bunch, indeed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2006 : 23:02:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Also, did the tetrapods develop limbs and lungs before they left the water or after they left the water? Or was it a process where one tetrapod tried to move to land and made it only so far. Then, perhaps, the next tetrapod gave it his best shot and he got one nano millimeter farther then his brethren who tried first. The third tetrapod to try and make the move to land made it one nano millimeter farther then the second etc... etc... And so after natural selection has a couple of a hundred million years to perfect it's craft the first tetrapods are able to walk up out of the primordial sea with limbs and lungs after a near infinite amount of generations of tetrapods have been attempting this feet?
If you had listened to the MP3 audio link on Tiktaalik roseae that I provided in my previous post on my favourite transitional fossil you would understand that it is not a matter of charging out of the water D-Day style, but a matter of adapting to life in shallow water (wading instead of swimming), possible with brief forays out onto dry land. There is a walking catfish in Indonesia that crawls between bodies of water. It drags itself long with it's front fins. Illustration of Evolution of Limbs from Lobe Fins
As for why whales don't have gills, natural selection has to work with what is available - it is a lot easier to go from a gill to a lung than the other way since gills work inefficiently out of water but lungs don't work at all in water. A fish doesn't suffocate immediatley when you take it out of the water. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2006 : 02:49:45 [Permalink]
|
Browsing through a another thread, I was reminded that we actually have a living transitional!
Anguis fragilis is a lizard which has lost its legs while adapting to life in long grassland.
It is a lizard that is evolving into a snake. It's not there yet, but getting close. The outer appearence is very much a snake, but it can still shed its tail as some lizards do, should a predator catch it, and there are other things that differs from snakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowworm
In Swedish it is known as both Copper-snake and Copper-lizard (the former usually by children as they are more often not aware that it's actually a lizard).
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 04/22/2006 02:53:49 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2006 : 15:14:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Scott
I am sure he does not think that we have discovered all the species of bird there is to discover, alive or extinct, does he?
The main thrust of your argument here seems to be that since we don't have all the facts, we can't draw any conclusions at all. This would of course apply to anything being studied. For example, since we don't know all the intricacies of photosynthesis, we can't draw the conclusion that plants "eat" carbon-dioxide. This is obviously silly.
In science, it is realised that we can't have all the facts and that it also possible that we may have misinterpreted the evidence making us draw faulty conclusions. This is why all scientific "theories" are subject to revision. The best scientific theory is the one that that best explains the current evidence (and not all possible forms of evidence that might appear sometime in the future).
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W
Oh? Can you source some information about a modern-day bird species in which the adults have teeth?
Well, it does happen. Not that it supports Bills position.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It is a lizard that is evolving into a snake. It's not there yet, but getting close.
It is a lizard that has evolved into something that looks like a snake. It might never get there. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2006 : 15:23:05 [Permalink]
|
Hawks stated: quote:
Well, it does happen. Not that it supports Bills position.
This makes the old phrase, "As rare as hen's teeth" appear to be literally true. Meaning, "exceedingly rare, but it sometimes happens." Whoever coined that phrase knew what they were talking about.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/22/2006 15:24:55 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2006 : 16:22:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
It is a lizard that is evolving into a snake. It's not there yet, but getting close.
It is a lizard that has evolved into something that looks like a snake. It might never get there.
Yes, but Bill doesn't make that distinction.
Archaeopteryx has feathers and looks like a bird, then it is a bird. If it looks like a snake, then it is a snake. Regardless of what is beneath the skin scales.
The bat has wings, and can fly, that's why the bible says it's a bird.
The simple answer served on a platter is what appeals to religious litteralists, be they Christian, Muslim, or otherwise.
But Bill's post is encouraging when he declares that he needs to learn more about our viewpoint before he can honestly criticise the theory of evolution.
What he has left to learn is that Creationist sites cannot be expected to relay an accurate description of evolution, because of its bias against it.
Can I trust representatives of the Democratic Party to accurately and correctly tell me what the Republican stands for?
Bill should realise that it's in the Creationist Movement's "best" interest to misrepresent evolution, and because of that, isn't the source of unbiased information.
Ok, my political example isn't really accurate, because science and religion isn't truly in opposition. Science ask how while religion ask why. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 04/23/2006 13:28:54 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 11:38:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Your right, Dave. If I want to have a meaningful conversation I should learn as much as I can about what both sides would hold to on each topic and why. I will try to have a firm understanding on the evolutionary position, before I criticize it from here on out. This also means I might ask a lot of questions as well as I truly am interested in understanding the evolutionists point of view.
You should also try to leave the anti-evolution arguments out of your questions (see below).quote:
Speaking of tetrapods, it seems to me that the common position among the evolution camp is that the first tetrapods crawled up from the sea and then a few went back to life in the sea later on.
Tetrapods include all land-living vertebrates, such as frogs, turtles, hawks, and lions. The group also includes a number of animals that have returned to life in the water, such as sea turtles, sea snakes, whales and dolphins, seals and sea lions, and extinct groups such as plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and mosasaurs.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetraintro.html
The early tetrapods were the first vertebrates to truly walk the land. Before tetrapods existed, vertebrates were all confined to living in aquatic habitats
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetrafr.html
Does this mean that evolutionists claim that life arose from the sea or is this just a theory?
"Just a theory." Sigh. You've also got an equivocation in there between "life" and "vertebrates."
The strength of the evidence suggests that vertebrate life arose in the sea, as jawless eel-like critters, which later developed jaws, paired fins, etc (in other words, fish evolved from them). Then the fish eventually left the sea as amphibians.quote:
Some tetrapods, like whales and snakes, have lost some or all of the four limbs that their ancestors had, but because of their ancestry they are still grouped as tetrapods.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetraintro.html
This statement caught my attention as well. So this would imply that a snake, or the tetrapod ancestor that would become a snake originally had no limbs and lived in the sea?
The earliest tetrapods (animals with four feet - tetra-pod) all lived primarily in water (not open seas, but in water).quote:
Over millions of years it evolved limbs, lungs and all the other necessities for life on land before it was able to prosper on land and could leave the water full time?
Sure.quote:
And then once it was on the land and surviving some of these tetrapods then began to evolve back to limbless critter such as snake or whale? And as for the whale it went back to a life at sea but this time it kept it's new lung system in tact rather then evolve back to gills etc...?
Yes and yes.quote:
Now for a tetrapods to evolve working limbs and a breathing system for land and then to evolve back to an aquatic critter again this would take millions and millions of years correct? To go from no limbs and lungs to limbs and lungs and then back to no limbs again that is.
Yes...quote:
And this process would have laid down the carnage of billions and billions of these tetrapods in all the different links of transformation that it went through to have no limbs or lungs to a state of having limbs and lungs back to a state of having no limbs but still lungs, correct?
Uh, sure.quote:
This is another question I have. To go from the first tetrapods who crawled out of the sea to all the modern day animals we have today, including man, this would take hundreds and hundreds of millions of years with natural selection guiding the controls of random mutations, correct?
Some 500 million years or so.quote:
Most modern day critters that we see today, such as man, have been in their current state of evolution for what, maybe a few 100,000 years?
No, all sorts of different amounts of time.quote:
So we have hundreds and hundreds of millions of years where critters and their carnage are being laid down in a transitional state between the first tetrapods up to the modern day critters that we see today. This compared to what, a few 100,000 years for many of the critters we see today in their current state of evolution? So why the big lopsided scale in the fossils found showing critters in current state over transitional fossil and true link finds? I understand that it is a complex process to get a fossil, but I am talking about those that did turn into fossil, of those the supreme majority all show modern-day critters. But why, if the transition stages would have infinitely out numbered the modern day critter in the amount of carnage that had been laid down over time?
What modern-day dinosaurs are you talking about, Bill? Seriously, the vast majority of the fossils we have are of animals which do not exist in today's world at all. Dinosaurs are all extinct. The earliest vertebrates are all extinct. None of the many "transitional" fossils we've got represent living species.quote:
Also, did the tetrapods develop limbs and lungs before they left the water or after they left the water?
It seems to be - again based on the available evidence - that limbs and lungs came before they left the water.quote:
Or was it a process where one tetrapod tried to move to land and made it only so far. Then, perhaps, the next tetrapod gave it his best sh |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2006 : 12:49:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
+ The dinosaur to bird evolutionary dating is full of contradictions as well. Archaeopteryx is acknowledged as a full bird and dated by evolutionists to 150m years ago, a full 20 million years older than Microraptor gui. Yanornis martini, also recognised as a fully-fledged bird, is allegedly the same age as Microraptor gui, which allegedly is still evolving into birds. It is perverse to suggest that dinosaurs were still evolving into birds when birds were already present.
No, it's only perverse to argue against what you've got little knowledge of, as is obviously the case with the author you picked, Bill.
(bill) If the author has made a fraudulent or incorrect statement that you can point out then I have no problem explaining it or removing the quote.
OK here is some information about the Class Aves (birds)
Birds are vertebrates with feathers, modified for flight and for active metabolism. Birds are a monophyletic lineage, evolved once from a common ancestor, and all birds are related through that common origin. There are a few kinds of birds that don't fly, but their ancestors did, and these birds have secondarily lost the ability to fly. Modern birds have traits related to hot metabolism, and to flight:
horny beak, no teeth
large muscular stomach
feathers
large yolked, hard-shelled eggs. The parent bird provides extensive care of the young until it is grown, or gets some other bird to look after the young.
strong skeleton
Please note that birds have peckers and no teeth. Archaeopteryx had teeth therefore it was not a bird. I think what the author was trying to say is that the Archaeopteryx was fully capable of flight and therefore was a bird - of course using that definition an Ostrich is not a bird.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
