proteins link T-rex to birds
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
Your bad.
Of course she did. She and I were too busy having sex.
I don't think you understand what I am saying, and maybe I should have clarified. When I used species I was talking about the class, phylum or kingdom. I do not believe REPTILES (cold blooded animals) made the leap to BIRDS (warm blooded animals.) I do not believe it is possible for an ant to become a preying mantis, and I do not believe it is possible for birds to become snakes (but I do believe it is possible to turn sticks into snakes.)
Does this clarify everything for you?
The misunderstanding comes from my misuse of the word.
Of course she did. She and I were too busy having sex.
I don't think you understand what I am saying, and maybe I should have clarified. When I used species I was talking about the class, phylum or kingdom. I do not believe REPTILES (cold blooded animals) made the leap to BIRDS (warm blooded animals.) I do not believe it is possible for an ant to become a preying mantis, and I do not believe it is possible for birds to become snakes (but I do believe it is possible to turn sticks into snakes.)
Does this clarify everything for you?
The misunderstanding comes from my misuse of the word.
This means you use the word incorrectly because species means species and nothing else
why don't you just use phylum, kingdom, genus, family, order, tribus etc.?
sorry, but you're wrong
all it takes is full separation of the left and right ventriculum, a trend observed among modern reptiles (the heart is almost entirely separated in Crocodilia)
moreover, dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded and birds are dinosairs
not only did reptiles make the leap from cold to warm blooded animals, they did it twice - when they gave rise to mammals and birds
yes, it isn't
what happened was the opposite (well, almost)
Mantodea are hemimetabolous insects while Hymenoptera are holometabolous and Holometabola arrived more recently at the scene
In fact, many recent classifications put Mantodea and Blattodea in the same order; these are some of the most ancient insects known (found in the fossil record as early as 350 Mya in the Carboniferous) while ants evolved from Vespids about 150 Mya
again, you're right
snakes and birds are groups that have common origin (early amniotes), it is not possible for a bird to become snake
it is not possible for any modern animal to become a bird or a snake
you clarified that you lack even the most basic understanding of how evolution works
I realize it's too much to ask from a religious (translated: ignorant) person to know the phylogeny of the animal kingdom, but everybody should at least understand the principles
stop misusing it then
why don't you just use phylum, kingdom, genus, family, order, tribus etc.?
sorry, but you're wrong
all it takes is full separation of the left and right ventriculum, a trend observed among modern reptiles (the heart is almost entirely separated in Crocodilia)
moreover, dinosaurs were probably warm-blooded and birds are dinosairs
not only did reptiles make the leap from cold to warm blooded animals, they did it twice - when they gave rise to mammals and birds
yes, it isn't
what happened was the opposite (well, almost)
Mantodea are hemimetabolous insects while Hymenoptera are holometabolous and Holometabola arrived more recently at the scene
In fact, many recent classifications put Mantodea and Blattodea in the same order; these are some of the most ancient insects known (found in the fossil record as early as 350 Mya in the Carboniferous) while ants evolved from Vespids about 150 Mya
again, you're right
snakes and birds are groups that have common origin (early amniotes), it is not possible for a bird to become snake
it is not possible for any modern animal to become a bird or a snake
you clarified that you lack even the most basic understanding of how evolution works
I realize it's too much to ask from a religious (translated: ignorant) person to know the phylogeny of the animal kingdom, but everybody should at least understand the principles
stop misusing it then
Duh 
aranoid: You use words incorrectly the majority of the times you post. Charge it to the game.
I used them when I provided clarification.
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/BIRD.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n3_v18/ai_19160825
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=16&id=161 (<--provides evidence for both sides)
?????????
ok.
See above bud.
Ok thanks for the unwarranted history lesson.
again, you're right
No, it's only possible for dinosaurs to become birds. Gotcha.
No, what I did was clarify that I do not believe animals can make one jump and land in an entirely new group. You have some people that believe animals evolve out of need, and I don't see a problem with this view--I believe microevolution is possible.
And everyone on an english board should at least understand proper english, but that doesn't stop you from making Tourette type posts and fucked off sentences.
Make me.
aranoid: You use words incorrectly the majority of the times you post. Charge it to the game.I used them when I provided clarification.
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/BIRD.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n3_v18/ai_19160825
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=16&id=161 (<--provides evidence for both sides)
?????????
ok.
See above bud.
Ok thanks for the unwarranted history lesson.
again, you're right
No, it's only possible for dinosaurs to become birds. Gotcha.
No, what I did was clarify that I do not believe animals can make one jump and land in an entirely new group. You have some people that believe animals evolve out of need, and I don't see a problem with this view--I believe microevolution is possible.
And everyone on an english board should at least understand proper english, but that doesn't stop you from making Tourette type posts and fucked off sentences.
Make me.
G, your "righteous crusader" yeasty vagina outlook regarding religion was cool at first but it's becoming extremely dated.
If you want to make a point relevant to the debate that is fine.
When you suffix every post with some sort of lame ass jab towards religious people in an attempt to mollify the pain of your obvious social ineptitude (how long do you spend looking at your little insect charts?) and still-plaguing virginity, you really turn anyone off to what you might want to say.
Unless of course, the sum total of your contribution to this board consists of essentially calling religious people "diahrrea faces" and "poopy heads".
If you want to make a point relevant to the debate that is fine.
When you suffix every post with some sort of lame ass jab towards religious people in an attempt to mollify the pain of your obvious social ineptitude (how long do you spend looking at your little insect charts?) and still-plaguing virginity, you really turn anyone off to what you might want to say.
Unless of course, the sum total of your contribution to this board consists of essentially calling religious people "diahrrea faces" and "poopy heads".
use them all the time
next time you argue about evolution, do not use links to pages that link you to other pages like " NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Scientists' Research and Darwinism"
since when have creationst-"scientists" from the Souther Univeristy of Georgia become an autohrity?
this was true 10 years ago and is still ture today
the article you posted (I am still wondering why) only supports this view
wow
somebody bothered to find Gilbert's textbook
I hope you have read the book (although I highly doubt it judging by your posts) and you didn't just posted the link
of course, the question is not 100% solved but the Science paper you posted strongly supports the view that birds are dinosaurs
you will see no credible scientist arguing that birds didn't evolve though
I know your christian soul doesn't want to admit that something so similar to angels have evolved from ugly nasty reptiles, but the reality is different
that's right
then you have to believe macroevolution is possible too
because they're one and the same
how do you distinguish between macro and microevolution?
what do you believe is possible- evolution from species to species, genuse to genus, family to family...
where do you draw the line and based on what?
because these categories are completely arbitrary and nature doesn't care about them
so are the terms macroevolution (defined as evolution on a level above species) and microevolution (defined as evolution of populations)
even "species" itself is a somewhat arbitrary term
macroevolution is just microevolution allowed to proceed for millions of years, the mechanisms are not fundamentally different
next time you argue about evolution, do not use links to pages that link you to other pages like " NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - Scientists' Research and Darwinism"
since when have creationst-"scientists" from the Souther Univeristy of Georgia become an autohrity?
this was true 10 years ago and is still ture today
the article you posted (I am still wondering why) only supports this view
wow
somebody bothered to find Gilbert's textbook
I hope you have read the book (although I highly doubt it judging by your posts) and you didn't just posted the link
of course, the question is not 100% solved but the Science paper you posted strongly supports the view that birds are dinosaurs
you will see no credible scientist arguing that birds didn't evolve though
I know your christian soul doesn't want to admit that something so similar to angels have evolved from ugly nasty reptiles, but the reality is different
that's right
then you have to believe macroevolution is possible too
because they're one and the same
how do you distinguish between macro and microevolution?
what do you believe is possible- evolution from species to species, genuse to genus, family to family...
where do you draw the line and based on what?
because these categories are completely arbitrary and nature doesn't care about them
so are the terms macroevolution (defined as evolution on a level above species) and microevolution (defined as evolution of populations)
even "species" itself is a somewhat arbitrary term
macroevolution is just microevolution allowed to proceed for millions of years, the mechanisms are not fundamentally different
When you pay me I will.
I provided more than one link, and be thankful that I didn't give you information directly from hardcore creationists.
Since when have you become an authority?
Because I have no problem posting info from BOTH SIDES. YOU DO. :dead:
Is that all you can come with? That was neither funny nor informative.
But that contradicts:
And look how you contradict yourself. You first say:
But now you're saying "of course the question is not 100% solved" and even quote something that clearly states BIRDS WERE NEVER DINOSAURS.
Evolve from what is the question.
Please remain on topic. You are a prime example of what I've been saying all along. Atheists are the first ones to ruin threads and fuck it up for others. Atheists are the firsts ones to claim creationists are biased and don't want to discuss evolution. Relax man, I know you're tired of having people call you ugly because your radio shack chemistry set blew up in your face when you were a kid, but don't try to take it out on me.
Someone doesn't understand sarcasm...
Some would agree with that, but I don't ascribe to that same belief.
see above.
1. One can be observed and the other is a theory.
2. I believe it is possible for species to adapt based on the need to keep the species alive. I believe it is possible for species of birds to develop different types of beaks in order to eat certain foods. (thats just one example.)
3. Refer to #1. I do not believe NEW information is added to lifeforms. I believe that when things evolve or mutate (two different things here) I believe they do so because they already have the genes to do it, and no, I do not ascribe to Jay Gould's theory.
See above.
I provided more than one link, and be thankful that I didn't give you information directly from hardcore creationists.
Since when have you become an authority?
Because I have no problem posting info from BOTH SIDES. YOU DO. :dead:
Is that all you can come with? That was neither funny nor informative.
But that contradicts:
And look how you contradict yourself. You first say:
But now you're saying "of course the question is not 100% solved" and even quote something that clearly states BIRDS WERE NEVER DINOSAURS.
Evolve from what is the question.
Please remain on topic. You are a prime example of what I've been saying all along. Atheists are the first ones to ruin threads and fuck it up for others. Atheists are the firsts ones to claim creationists are biased and don't want to discuss evolution. Relax man, I know you're tired of having people call you ugly because your radio shack chemistry set blew up in your face when you were a kid, but don't try to take it out on me.
Someone doesn't understand sarcasm...
Some would agree with that, but I don't ascribe to that same belief.
see above.
1. One can be observed and the other is a theory.
2. I believe it is possible for species to adapt based on the need to keep the species alive. I believe it is possible for species of birds to develop different types of beaks in order to eat certain foods. (thats just one example.)
3. Refer to #1. I do not believe NEW information is added to lifeforms. I believe that when things evolve or mutate (two different things here) I believe they do so because they already have the genes to do it, and no, I do not ascribe to Jay Gould's theory.
See above.
No, it doesn't contradict anything
Reptiles are a paraphyletic group and since birds probably evolved from dinosaurs, they are technically dinosaurs
Again, classification and phylogeny are different things because the former came first and we're stuck with it
reptiles for sure, the question is whether it was directly dinosaurs or dinosaurs and birds split from a common ancestor
right now the evidence points to the former
1. macroevolution can be observed (fossils)
2. Why can't you believe that animals can develop different types of skeleton or which is even easier to imagine - fully close their heart ventricles, if you can beieve they can develop different beaks?
OK, you want me to be respectful and not call you ignorant...
and then you say you can't believe new information can be added to species.....
I've said this 1000 times: genes duplicate all the time, then accumulate mutations and diverge => new information is added
Moreover, the whole genome can duplicate and this has happened twice in vertebrate evolution (that's why we have 4 Hox clusters)
then you have exon shuffling, horizontal gene transfer, transposition and many other mechanims that increase genetic information
It is much harder to believe that genomes will remain the same over millions of years
if you want examples, I can give you hundreds of them
the best thing you can do is to go to this website:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=gene&cmd=retrieve&dopt=full_report&list_uids=7293
and start chromosome walking
you will see a a lot of pseudogenes, and a lot of clusters of genes of similar function, which arose by tandem duplications of an ancestral gene
Reptiles are a paraphyletic group and since birds probably evolved from dinosaurs, they are technically dinosaurs
Again, classification and phylogeny are different things because the former came first and we're stuck with it
reptiles for sure, the question is whether it was directly dinosaurs or dinosaurs and birds split from a common ancestor
right now the evidence points to the former
1. macroevolution can be observed (fossils)
2. Why can't you believe that animals can develop different types of skeleton or which is even easier to imagine - fully close their heart ventricles, if you can beieve they can develop different beaks?
OK, you want me to be respectful and not call you ignorant...
and then you say you can't believe new information can be added to species.....
I've said this 1000 times: genes duplicate all the time, then accumulate mutations and diverge => new information is added
Moreover, the whole genome can duplicate and this has happened twice in vertebrate evolution (that's why we have 4 Hox clusters)
then you have exon shuffling, horizontal gene transfer, transposition and many other mechanims that increase genetic information
It is much harder to believe that genomes will remain the same over millions of years
if you want examples, I can give you hundreds of them
the best thing you can do is to go to this website:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=gene&cmd=retrieve&dopt=full_report&list_uids=7293
and start chromosome walking
you will see a a lot of pseudogenes, and a lot of clusters of genes of similar function, which arose by tandem duplications of an ancestral gene
Yes it does.
Probably evolved from dinosaurs? Either they did or they didn't which do you believe? Again, what YOU quoted says birds were NEVER dinosaurs. It doesn't say they probably evolved from them.
Bottle spinning.
It is not "for sure". Have you seen such a thing occur?
How do you observe fossils? Are you going to watch a hip bone evolve into a skull? How can you observe macroevolution? Can you test it?
I explained this already. I see evolution as a survival mechanism that keeps the species alive. Animals probably can develop different types of skeleton, but this is already because the means to do so are within them from the jump and most likely cut "off" until they need to be cut "on". I see this more as natural selection where as you see it as macroevolution or whatever you see it as.
No, you can do whatever floats your boat.
No, I do not believe new information can be added.
No, this is not new information. I see these as variations of the same thing and not as something entirely new (for example, like a pair of wings on a dog)
SEE ABOVE.
So are you implying when this happens completely new genes that bare no resemblence to the former are created? If that is what you're claiming what happens when the threshold is hit?
If there is no need to change why is that hard to believe? Just curious, what is your take on "living fossils"?
List them.
Do you have any links or evidence that states new genetic data is added and that it is different from re arranging or manipulating what was already present to begin with or do I have to find that out from hitting the link you gave me?
see above.
Probably evolved from dinosaurs? Either they did or they didn't which do you believe? Again, what YOU quoted says birds were NEVER dinosaurs. It doesn't say they probably evolved from them.
Bottle spinning.
It is not "for sure". Have you seen such a thing occur?
How do you observe fossils? Are you going to watch a hip bone evolve into a skull? How can you observe macroevolution? Can you test it?
I explained this already. I see evolution as a survival mechanism that keeps the species alive. Animals probably can develop different types of skeleton, but this is already because the means to do so are within them from the jump and most likely cut "off" until they need to be cut "on". I see this more as natural selection where as you see it as macroevolution or whatever you see it as.
No, you can do whatever floats your boat.
No, I do not believe new information can be added.
No, this is not new information. I see these as variations of the same thing and not as something entirely new (for example, like a pair of wings on a dog)
SEE ABOVE.
So are you implying when this happens completely new genes that bare no resemblence to the former are created? If that is what you're claiming what happens when the threshold is hit?
If there is no need to change why is that hard to believe? Just curious, what is your take on "living fossils"?
List them.
Do you have any links or evidence that states new genetic data is added and that it is different from re arranging or manipulating what was already present to begin with or do I have to find that out from hitting the link you gave me?
see above.
No, it doesn't
Yes, we can test it
The theory of evolution makes prediction about what fossils we can expect to find to fill the gaps between taxa
and we find them
which confirms the validity of the theory
technically you're right, you're conclusions are wrong
the reason why birds could have evolved only from reptiles and nothing else is that only retiles have the features allwoing for evolution of birds
I can't help you then
it is new information
if a transcription factor like duplicates and diverges and starts bindign different set of promotes, this is new information
example:
forelimbs are specifed by Tbx5, hindlimbs by Tbx4
both are T-box containing homeodomain transcription factors but they do different things (well, nobody has done ChIP-Chip for them so we don't know what exactly, but the outcome is different)
you just said that if I add a genome to a genome, this is not an increase in information
do you mean 1 genome is equal to no information?
Yes, completely new genes are created
example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...HPRD=32&ef_STS=64&ef_tRNA=128&ef_microRNA=256
Zap70 is a kinase that has two SH2 domains
SH2 domains are found in hundreds of other proteins but the presence of two of them in Zap70 ensures it is recruited to phosphorylated ITAMs of TCR-zeta chains in T-cells; after it binds it phosphorlyates dozens of other proteins which transduce the signal downstream
you can easily see how Zap70 (and the closely related Syk which plays an analogous role in B-cell signaling) and the whole Syk family (which consists of Zap70 and Syk) evolved by domain shuffling
why do you think their genome didn't change?
what's your take on the percentage of living fossils out of all other today living species?
what makes you think there is no need to change?
My point was that with all the processes remodelling the genome that aare constantly going on, it hard to imagine how genomes will remain (genomes, not phenotypes)
links are given to be clicked on
Yes, we can test it
The theory of evolution makes prediction about what fossils we can expect to find to fill the gaps between taxa
and we find them
which confirms the validity of the theory
technically you're right, you're conclusions are wrong
the reason why birds could have evolved only from reptiles and nothing else is that only retiles have the features allwoing for evolution of birds
I can't help you then
it is new information
if a transcription factor like duplicates and diverges and starts bindign different set of promotes, this is new information
example:
forelimbs are specifed by Tbx5, hindlimbs by Tbx4
both are T-box containing homeodomain transcription factors but they do different things (well, nobody has done ChIP-Chip for them so we don't know what exactly, but the outcome is different)
you just said that if I add a genome to a genome, this is not an increase in information
do you mean 1 genome is equal to no information?
Yes, completely new genes are created
example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...HPRD=32&ef_STS=64&ef_tRNA=128&ef_microRNA=256
Zap70 is a kinase that has two SH2 domains
SH2 domains are found in hundreds of other proteins but the presence of two of them in Zap70 ensures it is recruited to phosphorylated ITAMs of TCR-zeta chains in T-cells; after it binds it phosphorlyates dozens of other proteins which transduce the signal downstream
you can easily see how Zap70 (and the closely related Syk which plays an analogous role in B-cell signaling) and the whole Syk family (which consists of Zap70 and Syk) evolved by domain shuffling
why do you think their genome didn't change?
what's your take on the percentage of living fossils out of all other today living species?
what makes you think there is no need to change?
My point was that with all the processes remodelling the genome that aare constantly going on, it hard to imagine how genomes will remain (genomes, not phenotypes)
links are given to be clicked on