Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman 205 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Coded Logic

  Well, I'm happy to see that we've once again made some mild progress. We've gone all the way from Archeopteryx being "just a bird" to a "bird with unique features" and now you've reached the threshold of calling it "truly unique".

  Except of course that Archeopteryx isn't "truly unique" is it? In fact, when we look at the Jurassic and Triassic period, there are many other Theropods with with both feathers and reptilian features. There are a huge number of these dinosaurs (or as you call them "birds") such as:

  1. Avimimus portentosus
  2. Sinosauropteryx prima
  3. Protarchaeopteryx robusta
  4. Caudipteryx zoui
  5. Rahonavis ostromi
  6. Shuvuuia deserti
  7. Beipiaosaurus inexpectus
  8. Sinornithosaurus millenii
  9. Caudipteryx dongi
  10. Caudipteryx
  11. Microraptor zhaoianus
  12. Nomingia gobiensis
  13. Psittacosaurus
  14. Scansoriopteryx heilmanni
  15. Yixianosaurus longimanus
  16. Dilong paradoxus
  17. Pedopenna daohugouensis
  18. Jinfengopteryx elegans
  19. Juravenator starki
  20. Sinocalliopteryx gigas
  21. Velociraptor mongoliensis
  22. Epidexipteryx hui
  23. Similicaudipteryx yixianensis
  24. Anchiornis huxleyi
  25. Tianyulong confuciusi
  26. Concavenator corcovatus
  27. Xiaotingia zhengi
  28. Yutyrannus huali
  29. Sciurumimus albersdoerferi
  30. Ornithomimus edmontonicus
  31. Ningyuansaurus wangi
  32. Eosinopteryx brevipenna
  33. Jianchangosaurus yixianensis
  34. Aurornis xui
  35. Changyuraptor yangi
  36. Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus
  37. Citipati osmolskae
  38. Conchoraptor gracilis
  39. Deinocheirus mirificus
  40. Yi qi
  41. Zhenyuanlong suni
  42. Dakotaraptor steini
  43. Apatoraptor pennatus

  . . .

  It's pretty awesome. When we look back to the Triassic and Jurassic periods we don't see ANY modern birds. And all the animals we see that have feathers also have extensive reptilian features. Why is that?

  It's simple. Because some of the dinosaurs were the precursors to modern day birds.

  You correctly pointed out that some of these dinosaurs we're quite likely capable of short flight (like the micro-raptor). But what you left out was that most of these feathered dinosaurs couldn't fly at all. Their arms were still arms. Not wings.

  Some of these animals - like the Sinosauropteryx - were thought to be ordinary dinosaurs . . . until we found imprints of their feathers. That is to say, outside of their feathers, there is nothing avian about them. Would you call Sinosauropteryx a "bird"? And if we call a Sinosauropteryx a bird - than what about other types of Compsognathidae that don't have feathers but are closely related? Are they all "birds" too? And if they are all birds too, should we also call all Coelurosauria "birds" as well? Does this mean that the mighty T-rex is a "bird"?

  
  

  There's a lot more here than you realize. And the Archeopteryx is by no means a one off. It's what birds used to look like - when they were still dinosaurs.

  On a separate note, I'd also like to point out that there is something between scales and feathers. They're called protofeathers. Check it out:

  http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm
• 

  Coded Logic

  Just out of curiosity, do you think something has to be EXACTLY halfway between two species to be considered "transitional"? Re-reading your last reply I almost get the feeling you think the Archeoptryx can't be considered transitional because it's too avian?

  I hope this isn't your position because - if it is - it's frankly a rather silly one. It'd be like saying your cousin can't be a retaliative of yours because he's not enough like your great-grandfather and is too much like your mother.

  Likewise, transitional species aren't the halfway point of any two groups. Rather, they're a species that are somewhere in the link between two other species.
• 

  Caedes

  Copying and pasting for the lord!

  https://jackspellblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/calculating-the-probability-of-abiogenesis/

  I wonder why it is that creationists can never be honest?
• 

  Finkelstein

  I wonder why it is that creationists can never be honest?

  Because creationists are intent to disrupt contravening knowledge that devolves their acceptance of their own grand supernatural creator, which to them could mean many valuable and appealing things such as having their own personal savior, a chance to live in on in eternity or their own subsequent power toward themselves as it may be.
  
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Coded logic

  Just out of curiosity, do you think something has to be EXACTLY halfway between two species to be considered "transitional"? Re-reading your last reply I almost get the feeling you think the Archeoptryx can't be considered transitional because it's too avian?

  It is just a bird with unique features, it has been classified as a bird. It disappears as it appears on the fossil record. No evidence of transition, it is just implied. Ever wonder, if fish evolved into amphibians [animals that live in sea and on land] as evolutionist teach, then there would be millions of fossils showing the gradual transition from fins into feet and legs. But we do not have any. How about Precambrian fossils, ‘why are there no transitional fossils in the geologic column. If life has been slowly evolving, there should be billions of fossils in the in between stages, there are none.

  I hope this isn't your position because - if it is - it's frankly a rather silly one. It'd be like saying your cousin can't be a retaliative of yours because he's not enough like your great-grandfather and is too much like your mother.

  But we are all the same species. Your argument should be me looking more like a chimp than my cousin.

  Likewise, transitional species aren't the halfway point of any two groups. Rather, they're a species that are somewhere in the link between two other species.

  I agree.
• 

  towerwatchman

  Caedes

  Copying and pasting for the lord!

  I get penalized for being prepared. Yes I copy and paste. Both my work and other. When other’s it is cited. Don’t you do the same by posting links. Does copy and paste equate to being wrong? Let's stop with the distractions and address the subject matter.
• 

  Finkelstein

  The creationist's logic ..... we accept biological adaptivity of evolving species but we dont accept evolution.
  
• 

  towerwatchman

  In “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, Darwin did not try to explain the origin of the first life. Instead, he sought to explain the origin of new forms of live from simpler preexisting forms, forms that already possessed the ability to reproduce. His theory assumed rather than explained the origin of the first living thing. His masterpiece contains neither a single mathematical equation nor any report of original experimental research. He developed his theory by drawing together desperate lines of observational evidence and presenting an argument from a novel interpretation of that evidence.

  Darwin read “Principles of Geology” by Charles Lyell, whose central methodological principle was. ‘To explain the former changes of the earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation.’ According to Lyell, our present experience of cause and effect should guide our reasoning about the causes of past events. Lyell argued that when historical scientist are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know, instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question.

  Darwin appealed to this principle to argue that presently observed micro evolutionary processes of change could be used to explain the origin of new forms of life in the past [macro evolution]. Since the observed process of natural selection can produce a small amount of change in a short time, Darwin argued that it was capable of producing a large amount of change over a long period of time. In that sense, natural selection was ‘casually adequate’.

  Yes Finkelstein I accept micro evolution, I profess by belief that the finches beaks did change but strongly disbelieve that a whale evolved from a mammal. [macro-evolution].
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  ????????????????
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "why are there no transitional fossils in the geologic column. If life has been slowly evolving, there should be billions of fossils in the in between stages, there are none" - TWM
  

  If someone showed you, from the fossil record, the species that was exactly intermediate between 2 other species you would complain that there was now 2 gaps instead of 1...
  

  Yet again what you are writing shows you do not understand the basic terminology of this subject; in this instance what it means to be a transitional fossil...

  "Yes Finkelstein I accept micro evolution, I profess by belief that the finches beaks did change but strongly disbelieve that a whale evolved from a mammal. [macro-evolution]. " - TWM

  So you believe I can take 1 step but cannot accept I can walk across town... That about sums up your comment.