The Theory of Evolution

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers: it's not a transitional form nor a feathered dinosaur.

On the contrary, Archaeopteryx has many features that are comon in reptiles but that no true bird has.

1. It doesn't have a bill.

2. Vertebrae in the trunk aren't fused as they are in birds.

3. Cervical vertebrae are shaped like those of some dinosaurs and aren't saddle-shaped as in birds.

4. The neck attaches to the rear of the skull as it does in dinosaurs, not the bottom as it does in birds.

5. The shape of the brain resembles the reptilian brain, not the bird's brain, with its enlarged cerebellum.

6. It has teeth.

In summary, the head and brain are those of older reptiles, not those of a bird.

I could go down the rest of the skeleton, discussing the differences in the ribs, the completely different pelvis, its reptilian sacrum, its lack of the fused wrist/hand bones that exist in all modern and all fossil birds, but it's already obvious that archaeopteryx is not a bird.



 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers: it's not a transitional form nor a feathered dinosaur.

In case the above contained too many words for you, here's a nice summary chart of archaeopteryx features, listing which ones are found in dinosaurs and which ones are found in birds.

Table of archaeopteryx features

1 = present; * = present in some; ? = possibly present; x = absent

Dinosaurs Archae Birds
1 * 1 1
2 x 1 1
3 * 1 1
4 * 1 1
5 x x 1
6 x x 1
7 * x 1
8 * 1 x
9 1 1 x
10 1 1 x
11 1 1 x
12 1 1 x
13 1 1 x
14 1 1 x
15 1 1 x
16 6 6 11-23
17 1 1 x
18 1 1 *
19 1 1 x
20 1 1 x
21 1 1 x
22 1 1 x
23 1 1 x

It's quite clearly more dinosaur-like than bird-like, though too different for either group to call it their own.

 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Why are you even bothering arguing with Rip. He's a broken record. Just ignore it and move on. You can't force ignorance and willful blindness away.

Rip doesn't comphrehend the fact that recognizing Evolution and Believing in God are not mutually exclusive.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers: it's not a transitional form nor a feathered dinosaur.

On the contrary, Archaeopteryx has many features that are comon in reptiles but that no true bird has.

1. It doesn't have a bill.

2. Vertebrae in the trunk aren't fused as they are in birds.

3. Cervical vertebrae are shaped like those of some dinosaurs and aren't saddle-shaped as in birds.

4. The neck attaches to the rear of the skull as it does in dinosaurs, not the bottom as it does in birds.

5. The shape of the brain resembles the reptilian brain, not the bird's brain, with its enlarged cerebellum.

6. It has teeth.

In summary, the head and brain are those of older reptiles, not those of a bird.

I could go down the rest of the skeleton, discussing the differences in the ribs, the completely different pelvis, its reptilian sacrum, its lack of the fused wrist/hand bones that exist in all modern and all fossil birds, but it's already obvious that archaeopteryx is not a bird.

5. "The crushed nature of the skull in one of the specimens may have caused the problem. The general consensus now is that the brain is essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex."

Also, in most vertebrates, including reptiles, the mandible (lower jaw) moves, but in birds (including Archaeopteryx) so does the maxilla (upper jaw).

6. "Archaeopteryx was not the only fossil bird to have had grasping teeth. Some fossil birds had teeth, some didn?t. But how can teeth prove a relationship to reptiles, when many reptiles don?t have teeth? Crocodiles are really the only group of reptiles that consistently have very well developed teeth. And of course even some mammals have teeth and some don?t."

Evolutionists point out that it does have some characteristics which are found in other classes, such as reptiles.

"This is true, but then it?s true of almost any vertebrate skeleton. There are also design similarities between reptiles, mammals and living birds too. Birds have a distinctive, specialized skeleton because, as one distinguished evolutionist who is also an ornithologist once said, ?Birds are formed to fly.? So was Archaeopteryx."

Evolutionists sometimes claim that the fossil creature Archaeopteryx is the link between reptiles and birds.

"In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs]."

What about the wishbone?

"Archaeopteryx has a robust wishbone [furcula]. Some recent fascinating studies using moving X-rays of birds as they fly show how the shoulder girdle has to be flexible to cope with the incredible forces of the power-stroke in flight. You can actually see the wishbone flex with each wing-beat."

Do the feet of Archaeopteryx support the view that it was a dinosaur that ran along the ground?

"No. Archaeopteryx, along with all perching birds, has what is called a grasping hallux, or hind toe, pointing backwards. Rearward-facing toes may be found in some of the dinosaurs but not a true grasping hallux with curved claws for perching."

Link





 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The theory of special creation is just as testable as the theory of evoluition.

Both are "historical sciences" since both occured in the distant past and neither theory can be directly tested.

Does the historical record, ie. the fossil record, support the theory of evolution or the theory of special creation?

Obviously, it supports the theory of special creation.

For someone that claims to have a degree in science you sure post some rich sh!t.

How old is the earth?
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The theory of special creation is just as testable as the theory of evoluition.

Both are "historical sciences" since both occured in the distant past and neither theory can be directly tested.

Does the historical record, ie. the fossil record, support the theory of evolution or the theory of special creation?

Obviously, it supports the theory of special creation.

For someone that claims to have a degree in science you sure post some rich sh!t.

How old is the earth?

I don't know. I don't think that it's possible to know to with a high degree of certainty.

 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: cquark
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers: it's not a transitional form nor a feathered dinosaur.

On the contrary, Archaeopteryx has many features that are comon in reptiles but that no true bird has.

1. It doesn't have a bill.

2. Vertebrae in the trunk aren't fused as they are in birds.

3. Cervical vertebrae are shaped like those of some dinosaurs and aren't saddle-shaped as in birds.

4. The neck attaches to the rear of the skull as it does in dinosaurs, not the bottom as it does in birds.

5. The shape of the brain resembles the reptilian brain, not the bird's brain, with its enlarged cerebellum.

6. It has teeth.

In summary, the head and brain are those of older reptiles, not those of a bird.

I could go down the rest of the skeleton, discussing the differences in the ribs, the completely different pelvis, its reptilian sacrum, its lack of the fused wrist/hand bones that exist in all modern and all fossil birds, but it's already obvious that archaeopteryx is not a bird.

5. "The crushed nature of the skull in one of the specimens may have caused the problem. The general consensus now is that the brain is essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex."

All existing specimens with skulls support the reptilian nature of the archaeopteryx brain, so even if you disqualify one, it's hardly a problem.

Also, in most vertebrates, including reptiles, the mandible (lower jaw) moves, but in birds (including Archaeopteryx) so does the maxilla (upper jaw).

This statement supports the fact that archaeopteryx has both reptile and bird characteristics as a transitional species should, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

6. "Archaeopteryx was not the only fossil bird to have had grasping teeth. Some fossil birds had teeth, some didn?t. But how can teeth prove a relationship to reptiles, when many reptiles don?t have teeth? Crocodiles are really the only group of reptiles that consistently have very well developed teeth. And of course even some mammals have teeth and some don?t."

No currently extant species of bird has teeth. All fossil birds that have teeth are the earliest species of birds from many millions of years ago and show many reptilian characteristics while lacking many bird characteristics as archaeopteryx does (some don't even have wings!), i.e. they're more intermediate forms, supporting the case for natural selection.

"This is true, but then it?s true of almost any vertebrate skeleton. There are also design similarities between reptiles, mammals and living birds too.

I'm surprised to see you supporting common descent, but thanks anyway.

Birds have a distinctive, specialized skeleton because, as one distinguished evolutionist who is also an ornithologist once said, ?Birds are formed to fly.? So was Archaeopteryx."

Unsupported assertion.

"In Eichstátt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs]."

False summary. Go read some of the papers to see that there was no such broad agreement.

What about the wishbone?

"Archaeopteryx has a robust wishbone [furcula]. Some recent fascinating studies using moving X-rays of birds as they fly show how the shoulder girdle has to be flexible to cope with the incredible forces of the power-stroke in flight. You can actually see the wishbone flex with each wing-beat."

Do the feet of Archaeopteryx support the view that it was a dinosaur that ran along the ground?

"No. Archaeopteryx, along with all perching birds, has what is called a grasping hallux, or hind toe, pointing backwards. Rearward-facing toes may be found in some of the dinosaurs but not a true grasping hallux with curved claws for perching."

No one's claiming it's a dinosaur, but a transitional fossil and the evidence above supports the fact that archaopteryx had qualities of both reptiles and birds
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I don't know. I don't think that it's possible to know to with a high degree of certainty.

If you can't know with "certainty", take a guess. Based on the scientific evidence, how old is the earth?
 

redhatlinux

Senior member
Oct 6, 2001
493
0
0
God laughs at you fools trying to figure out just what -- did. The name will never be known. He/she/it/whatever is dircting my fingers as I type.
See, its a binary world. Think about it, 1 or ZERO. I know that my soul is saved. You thers are obviously ZERO's, its a binary world. beep beep.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I don't know. I don't think that it's possible to know to with a high degree of certainty.

If you can't know with "certainty", take a guess. Based on the scientific evidence, how old is the earth?

There are problems with all of the dating techniques. I don't know how old the earth is.
 

redhatlinux

Senior member
Oct 6, 2001
493
0
0
Its a binary world the 1, and the zero's. If you don't understand, you don't believe that the internet actually exists.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
There are problems with all of the dating techniques. I don't know how old the earth is.

Maybe you missed the part where I said guess. How old do you think the earth is using whatever evidence you wish to use. Everyone has an opinion Rip, stop refusing to answer the question.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Riprorin
There are problems with all of the dating techniques. I don't know how old the earth is.

Maybe you missed the part where I said guess. How old do you think the earth is using whatever evidence you wish to use. Everyone has an opinion Rip, stop refusing to answer the question.

Why would I want to guess?
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why would I want to guess?

Why do you not want to? Do you honestly have absolutely no opinion or do you just refuse to provide your opinion because you are afraid?
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
ok i think this might be the fourth time:


answer these RIP:

my last comment, i'm directing this ar rip yet again, because i've asked 3 times and he has not had the balls to answer


about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third


how does the CCR5 mutation not show micro evolution?


ANYONE WHO POSTS AFTER ME, KEEP REITERATING MY QUESTIONS UNTIL HE ANSWERS THEM, I'D LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY HOW BRAIN WASHED HE IS.


people you need to help get him to answer this, keep posting it
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
he won't answer these questions because we already know how he will answer, making him look like the crazy wacko fundie he is:

here is what he will write, and i'm guessing here:

earth age: about 6000 year

humans have been arounds since the beginning of earth

dinosaurs walked with humans, they died during the massive flood that noah survived

so how'd i do rip?
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: sandorski
No, I don't "believe" in Evolution. I accept it as the best explanation based on Scientific Principles.

But I'll still vote for option 1 as to piss off the relifreaks :)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Why are you even bothering arguing with Rip. He's a broken record. Just ignore it and move on. You can't force ignorance and willful blindness away.

Rip doesn't comphrehend the fact that recognizing Evolution and Believing in God are not mutually exclusive.

jebb its totaly pointless, I'm out
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
ok i think this might be the fourth time:


answer these RIP:

my last comment, i'm directing this ar rip yet again, because i've asked 3 times and he has not had the balls to answer


about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third


how does the CCR5 mutation not show micro evolution?


ANYONE WHO POSTS AFTER ME, KEEP REITERATING MY QUESTIONS UNTIL HE ANSWERS THEM, I'D LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY HOW BRAIN WASHED HE IS.


people you need to help get him to answer this, keep posting it


Of course MICROevolution occurs. That's obvious.

For example, if you have a herd of deer and there's a natural predator, the fastest deer will survive and the slowest deer will perish.

You end up with a herd of fast deer - not a herd of gazelles.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
ok i think this might be the fourth time:


answer these RIP:

my last comment, i'm directing this ar rip yet again, because i've asked 3 times and he has not had the balls to answer


about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third


how does the CCR5 mutation not show micro evolution?


ANYONE WHO POSTS AFTER ME, KEEP REITERATING MY QUESTIONS UNTIL HE ANSWERS THEM, I'D LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY HOW BRAIN WASHED HE IS.


people you need to help get him to answer this, keep posting it

Topic Title: The Theory of Evolution
Topic Summary: Whaddya think?

The notion that all living things evolved from a incredibly complex single-cell organism that formed randomly from inanimate materials is proposterous and is unsupported by scientfic evidence and mathematical probabliity.

It's not surprising that you folks want to disengage from the topic of this thread.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
ok i think this might be the fourth time:


answer these RIP:

my last comment, i'm directing this ar rip yet again, because i've asked 3 times and he has not had the balls to answer


about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third


how does the CCR5 mutation not show micro evolution?


ANYONE WHO POSTS AFTER ME, KEEP REITERATING MY QUESTIONS UNTIL HE ANSWERS THEM, I'D LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY HOW BRAIN WASHED HE IS.


people you need to help get him to answer this, keep posting it


Of course MICROevolution occurs. That's obvious.

For example, if you have a herd of deer and there's a natural predator, the fastest deer will survive and the slowest deer will perish.

You end up with a herd of fast deer - not a herd of gazelles.

you missed answering questions nr

1.

2.

3.

 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why would I want to guess?

Why do you not want to? Do you honestly have absolutely no opinion or do you just refuse to provide your opinion because you are afraid?

Rip, I want to know your opinion. How old is the earth?
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
see he still won't answer this, he can't because when he does, we will see right through his projection of a semi-intelligent person, and will appear as a wacko fundie, keep reposting my questions

this pertains directly to evolution because it sets the basis for the timescale of evolution on earth, without acknowledging the time scale you cut yourself off from ever attempting to understand where us scientists stand on the theory

fifth time rip:

my last comment, i'm directing this ar rip yet again, because i've asked 3 times and he has not had the balls to answer


about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third





ANYONE WHO POSTS AFTER ME, KEEP REITERATING MY QUESTIONS UNTIL HE ANSWERS THEM, I'D LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY HOW BRAIN WASHED HE IS.


The notion that all living things evolved from a incredibly complex single-cell organism that formed randomly from inanimate materials is proposterous and is unsupported by scientfic evidence and mathematical probabliity.

keep repeating this, maybe someone will believe you on blind faith, too bad all you points have been proven wrong by just about every pro evolution poster on this thread, and the other two threads you have been posting on, but hey lets get back to my three questions up there