|
2 registered members (7th_zorro, dr_panther),
1,211
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: zazang]
#123812
04/14/07 14:28
04/14/07 14:28
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
For two such widely independent species,it could even mean independent evolution of that collagen makeup
@zazang
Just to give you an idea:
Of all the organisms in the sequence database, the one that matched T. rex the closest was the chicken. Now, before assuming that this would be strong evidence that birds are related to dinosaurs, it must be put into perspective. The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58% ,while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows.
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123813
04/14/07 14:54
04/14/07 14:54
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
The entire dino to bird thing is stupid. Basically they have two un-explainable facts that they need to put together:
1)There is no account of the origin of birds
2)The dino's dissappeared all at once
Someone with very weak logical skills has tried to connect these two facts. If you can beleive that then they can pretty much get you to believe anything.
1.) That's not true at all, there are dozens of fossils of dinosaurs with birds traits, even right up to having feathers and being able to fly.
2.) Most dinosaur species went extinct indeed around that one moment (probably a meteor), others did probably follow soon after because of the global change of climates/habitats, but a lot of species actually survived. Wether this means the 'bird-dinos' were already enough steps evolved to survive loose from their dinosaur ancestors is very likely. If you're thinking about T-rex-sized birds, that's not what they were, infact after the meteor mostly mammal species and small species survived. A bird or rather a chicken-like species would almost have the best chance to survive in a post-meteor impact environment.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: PHeMoX]
#123814
04/14/07 15:23
04/14/07 15:23
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
That's not true at all, there are dozens of fossils of dinosaurs with birds traits,
First of all, these dozens that you refer to are full of doubtful or uncertain ambiguity, most of them debated from all points of researchers secular and creationist alike especially from obscure or indistinct morphology.
Secondly, of the 329 families of land vertebrates, 79% are represented in the fossil record-there are millions of fossils in museums representing over 250,000 species. telling me that you have "dozens" of intermediate fossils really doesnt seem to be plausible from a standpoint of proportions. i.e. you need thousands. Furthermore intermediates should be more plentiful than other types because if the selection/mutation theory was true(which it cannot possibly be) there would be all sorts of monstrosities around.
Quote:
even right up to having feathers and being able to fly.
let me let you in on a little biological secret: if they have feathers and can fly...they are probably birds.Shhh, dont tell anyone 
Quote:
Wether this means the 'bird-dinos' were already enough steps evolved to survive loose from their dinosaur ancestors is very likely. If you're thinking about T-rex-sized birds, that's not what they were, infact after the meteor mostly mammal species and small species survived
This is funny. Please elaborate on this fairy tale some more. So all the bunnys and chickens survived? Very good. Why? Because they were the most fit? How? And how does the turkey and the duck fit into all this? You have my curiosity. Why did the chicken decide that it would be better for it to not be able to fly worth a crap?
Oh and please tell me all about this meteor, where did it strike? What evidence do you have for it?
Plus you guys havent even begun to address my other objections, and what about about the issue at hand, this issue of chicken dna in trex?
Why did it preserve for what, 65 million years?
What did you suppose the temperature of fossil was? Wouldnt it make a difference if the fossil was frozen or in the rocks? I think you will find that the fossil's temperature will make a BIG difference. However, the difference will never make it great enough to have lasted 65 million years, or 120 million years...
Young earth creationists will be happy.
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123815
04/14/07 15:53
04/14/07 15:53
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
OP
Expert
|
OP
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
The entire dino to bird thing is stupid.
Oh sorry, I should have realized..
Just because something may not seem obvious or probable at first glance doesn't mean its not correct. What about the germ theory of disease? It doesnt seem likely that terrible diseases like plague and typhus are caused by tiny invisible creatures...how can a tiny animal hurt a big animal like that?
Quote:
Basically they have two un-explainable facts that they need to put together:
1)There is no account of the origin of birds
2)The dino's dissappeared all at once
Someone with very weak logical skills has tried to connect these two facts.
no account of bird origins? Maybe not in the Bible, but there is in the fossil record...
While it is true that most dinosaurs do disappear at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, this doesnt mean much for the bird evolution question as the development/evolution of the avian line had already taken place by the time of the K-T boundary.
One question I have for you: the notion of dinosaur mass extinction comes only from the fossil record...don't you and other creationists reject the fossil record? If not, why are some parts reliable and not others? Are only those parts of the record that go against your narrow interpretations of history wrong?
If that's what you believe, then you are not one to talk about weak logic--that being a prime example of bad argument. You reason from a priore knowledge: i.e. since you dont believe in evolution, the fossils record that contradicts your belief must be wrong.
And dont try to throw it back at me and say the reverse, that since I believe in evolution I dismiss other parts of the fossil record. I dont dismiss any of the fossil record, and each fact or implication must be dealt with in a coherent thoery. Nothing in the fossil record contradicts the main lines of evolutionary thoery.
On the contrary, Darwinian evolutionary thoery seems to be only explanation for the trends observable in the fossils.
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#123816
04/14/07 16:37
04/14/07 16:37
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
the notion of dinosaur mass extinction comes only from the fossil record...don't you and other creationists reject the fossil record? If not, why are some parts reliable and not others? Are only those parts of the record that go against your narrow interpretations of history wrong?
We are trying to understand it just like you BUt we wont make absolute_truth out of speculation.
Quote:
don't you and other creationists reject the fossil record?
Christianity (and other religions) is a faith which has nothing to do with physical observation. I dont believe in God because of my knowledge of the fossil record. I beleive in God because of "ideas" which are observable, yet not directly observable. 'Ideas' can only be observed through the actions they produce in people and events. That is the Christian's science. Faith itself is one of these 'ideas'. Within Christianity there are 'ideas' which are so strong that they are 'alive', God is one of these ideas. That is about the best explanation I can give to someone with a purely naturalistic, materialistic, deterministic viewpoint such as yourself. I dont think you will ever understand Christianity otherwise. Of course I could elaborate on this much further but it seems to be the topic of another thread.
Quote:
It doesnt seem likely that terrible diseases like plague and typhus are caused by tiny invisible creatures...how can a tiny animal hurt a big animal like that?
Pretty easy to observe those little baddies, just use a microscope. I have never had a problem with this likelihood.
Quote:
While it is true that most dinosaurs do disappear at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, this doesnt mean much for the bird evolution question as the development/evolution of the avian line had already taken place by the time of the K-T boundary.
Actually that is contradictory to Phemox's idea of catacylsmic environment changes which bring cataclysmic changes, you are back to square one with gradualism again and the pervading question of why the trex would need to evolve to a bird? If there is no reason for selection to occur it does not occur. However, Phemox is giving an accurate reflection of Neo-Darwinism, and a phenomena called punctuated equilibrium.
The dinosaurs dissappeared quickly? Why? There is one theory which Phemox is reflecting which seems to at least show an evolutionary result.
With your avian line being evolved before the dissappearence of the dinosaur there becomes no reason for the dinos to evolve into birds.
You see the problem? It is kind of a tautology at this point.
Of course this all presupposes that mutation can even cause this kind of changes which clearly it cannot. Natural selection can only select for genes which exist in it's gene pool. How did the genes get there to begin with?
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123817
04/14/07 16:45
04/14/07 16:45
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
The fact that there is such a little gap in the protein similarities between such varying orders of organisms, magnifies the fact that we simply cannot make ANY claims to certainty. 58% or 51%? Any honest person will admit that there is no way to extrapolate ANYTHING mildly certain from evidence like that. This is especially true when you note that their comparisons were largely incomplete. How do we know that we won't find another animal that's closer? Its ok. Your creation myth doesn't have to have ALL the answers, guys. I just think this whole deal is being so overhyped that it kind of adds credence (as far as I'm concerned) to my personal theory that evolution is a psychological replacement for other creation myths. Even if the theory is true, a good portion of it has been allowed to become mythology.  That's all.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/14/07 16:48.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
