proteins link T-rex to birds

ThaG · Apr 13, 2007

HERESY said:

Let's see what we have:

18 Tbx genes
9 Pax genes
6 GATA genes
6 Irx genes
Nkx2.3, Nkx1.2, Nkx5.1, Nkx2.6, Nkx3.1, Nkx2.5, Nkx3.2, Nkx1.1
Lmx1, Lmx2
Tlx1, Tlx2, Tlx3
Msx1, Msx2
20 Sox genes

dozens of FOX transcription factors, a lot of them playing role in the nervous system (including one which when mutated causes inability to speak)

about 15 BMPs
17 Wnts
20 Fgfs
6 STATs

13 Toll-like receptors (as the name implies - these are similar to Toll and there is just one Toll in Drosophila)

11 HDACs
7 Sirtuins

12 Caspases

9 Smads

11 HoxA
9 HoxB
9 HoxC
9 HoxD

5 ADCKs
4 Brds
5 PHDKs

3 TIF1s

4 PLKs
3 Auroras
3 ULKs
11 NEKs
4 Wnks
4 MSTs
4 ZCs

multiple MKKs

9 PKCs
7 GPRK
5 MASTs
4 MLKs
12 Ephrin receptors
9 CDKs
5 DYRKs

5 MLLs

4 JHDMs
4 JMJc

about 17 myosins

and many others

and of course, the most striking example: more than a 1000 olfactory GPCR receptors

all these are a small sample of all the examples of duplication and divergence

if that's not an increase in information, I don't know what is

HERESY · Apr 14, 2007

Sure it does, and unless you explain the reason why it doesn't lets agree to disagree and move on.

No you can't test it. You are solely dependent on NEW bones being found to map out the course and support the theory. You CANNOT test fossils in the same way you can test a living organism or something in a controlled environment. You are SOLELY dependent on finding new fossils and what happens when you don't find any?

Again, what if you don't find any fossils? Does that mean the fossils don't exist? Because you didn't find them does that mean the evolution process (or whatever it is they are trying to prove or disprove) did not occur?

See above. You cannot duplicate a fossil. If you put rats in a skinner box and you are testing for different behavioral traits, you can test the rat, control its environment, control the color of the lights, control the food it will recieve and you can dictate what it will do over and over. You can't do the same thing with a fossil. You CANNOT duplicate the conditions that were present when the fossil was once a living creature, so how can you test it according to the scientific method of testing?

You have to make a HUGE leap from SCALES to FEATHERS, and why aren't reptiles becoming birds in this age? Is it because only dinosaurs were capable of doing it? Is it because all reptiles can do it but the gene is lost? Why aren't birds becoming new creatures instead of branching off into new species? Why did the reptiles NEED to fly to begin with? Where is teh transitional fossil needed to prove the theory? Why is it that birds have bones that are hollow (or damn near close to to) while the reptile bones are basically solid? I understand skeletal changes are possible but how many years would it take to make such a change and why would the change be needed anyway? To allow for flight? Again, why do they even need to fly?

I'm not the only one who believes new info can't be added.

Read the words in bold. I previously said that I see these as variations of the same thing, and you just said both are T-box (meaning they are the same type of genes) and you also admit that they do DIFFERENT things (which would make them a varient of what they originally are.) IMHO, the only new way new info is added is when something is genetically modified, or when mating occurs. However, this is just my opinion, and dna is your area of studies and not mind.

Are you claiming that I stated that or I implied that? Tell me which one you think I am doing and I'll explain myself.

No. Again, variations of the same thing.

example:

I'll look into this, and I'll pass this on to someone who is more knowledgable than me in this area. Again, I simply see this as a rearranging of what is already present, and I do not see how what you listed creates entirely new features within an organism, nor do you explain what happens when the threshold is reached and the process happens over and over. Does species become "weak" or prone to disease?

RULE #1 Dont answer questions with questions (unless you are being sarcastic.) Can you answer the original question?

Yet you don't want to explain why there is no change within living fossils.

I clicked it, now what info on that page answers my questions?

And all of this supports your position that new genetic material can be added? Again, I'll take a look and run it by someone who is more knowledgable than me in this area.

n9newunsixx5150 · Apr 14, 2007

This just in...

God links every living entity to each other.

ThaG · Apr 14, 2007

HERESY said:

Why is it so hard to understand???

To be able to predict what kind of fossil you can expect to find and where in the geological record you shoud find it is a prediction and a test

Evolution predicts that we can not expect to find bird fossils from 500Mya and we don't find them

Please, don't tell me that the fact we haven't found them is not a proof they didn't exist back then because you'll be only technically right. The number of bird fossils dating from the last 75My is so huge that it makes this possibility infinitessinally small

A number of transitional fossils were expected to be found long before they were found

This is a direct test of the theory

Are you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

In general Scales, feathers and hairs are related structures, even if the exact way they evolved is not completely clear

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/104556302/ABSTRACT
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2005.00471.x
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112099814/ABSTRACT

, and why aren't reptiles becoming birds in this age? [/quote]

only certain groups of reptiles are capable of evolving into birds and they are all extinct

anyway, we don't know what will evolve in the future, it is entirely possible that new groups that can fly will evolve, but they will not be birds

maybe

lol

which gene?

evolution on that level doesn't involve a single gene, it is rather the pattern of expression and the function of many genes that changes (often subtly)

why are you so sure they are not doing so?

we're speaking about processes that take place during millions of years, how do you expect to observe them in mere 200 years?

the answer is that they didn't need to fly

nothing in evolution has any purpose

once developed, even in rudimentary form (gliding) flight provides an enormous selective advantage

that's why it many different groups have acquired the ability to fly, among them the most successful animals on this planet - insects

What I want to point out is that there are:

mammals that can fly: bats (Chiroptera); or glide: colugo (Dermaptera, which evolved from the same lineage as primates)

modern reptiles that can glide (the Agamidae genus Draco)

you can consider these to be groups that are in early, primitive (Dermaptera, Draco) or more advanced (bats) stage of developing the ability to fly

ThaG · Apr 14, 2007

there is no such thing as a single transitional fossil

there were many species who were part of that lineage, most of them didn't leave any ancestors

we can start with feathered dinosaurs:

These don't look like anything close to a bird, I agree....

again, a world without flying organisms is entirely possible (and it existed for 4 billion years); once flight develops, it provides enormous seletive advantage, driving further evolution of the group into more and mroe diverese forms

BTW penguins and other flightless birds have solid bones

lol

they are both T-box but they are not the same; they are different proteins with similar sequence and structure, but their function is different

a beatiful example of duplication and divergence

and how the hell is mating "adding new info", it is just creating new combinations of already present genes (not counting de novo mutations)

you just don't want to admit divergence is possible

only in the beginning

when you have two copies of your genome, the selective pressure on mutations is releaved (because you have 4 copies of each gene, not 2 and no matter how many mutations you accumulate in one of them, the others are still there to do the job) and genes can diverge much faster and adopt new functions

that's what happened with vertebrates and it partially explains why they are so complex compared to invertebrates

it is not mere rearranging of what is already present, a new combination of different parts can create an entirely new functional unit

a very good, although rather destrucitve example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_chromosome

this is so easy to explain, I didn't think it's necessary, but I'll do it for you, if you want it so much

living fossils are those rare examples of organisms which were either living in relatively stable environment or happened to be well adapted to the changing conditions they faced during millions of years and were able to survive for long periods of time without having to change

Based on your posts I feel you have a serious misunderstanding of how evolution works and you probably think that whole groups transformed into other groups which is just not true, single populations of certain groups were able to evovle further while the vast majority of taxa just die because they're not able to adjust to the conditions

it is an "Evolve or die" dilemma, and very few taxa were happy enough not to have to face it

I will pass on that, the same way you do when you post links

Yes, because these are all examples of protein families which can be traced to a single precursos (very often found in Drosophila or C.elegans as a single copy)

in fact, if you look at the human kinome (I'm using it as an example because it's huge and well characterized), you will see that many of them consist of 3 or 4 members which cluster into groups of 2 which in turn cluster in another group of two clusters

http://kinase.com/human/kinome/groups/ck1.pdf
http://kinase.com/human/kinome/groups/tk.pdf

Recall that I told you the vertebrate genome duplicated twice

anyway, some more tables and pictures of protein organization into domainsx

http://kinase.com/mammalian/rtks.pdf
http://kinase.com/mammalian/ctks.pdf
http://kinase.com/mammalian/ptps.pdf

HERESY · Apr 14, 2007

Thats the question you should ask yourself.

Yet everything hinges on finding the fossil, and like I said before, you can't CONTROL the direction of the experiment.

Evolution also predicts that you won't find rock cocaine in 500mya either, and guess what? What I am telling you is that you cannot say that examining fossils is the same as observing macroevolution. We can see speciation in animals, we can use selective breeding to mutate or cause deformities (like the wingless fruit flies I feed to my mantids) We can see these things, observe them, place them in controlled environments, make predictions and present the results. You CANNOT do these things with a fossil.

Which transitional fossils were found?

First of all you probably shouldn't cite wikipedia as a source. Second of all, of the two fossils presented on that page only two have pics of actual skeletons. In addition, this guy says he is quite sure:

http://www.physorg.com/news7112.html

Instead, Feduccia -- a professor of avian evolution, paleobiology and systematics -- says the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree.

Do I need to post a gazillion more articles and links saying similar things? If so give me the word.

Only one of these links make reference to scales and feathers, and even then it talks more about a chimera type creature (the scales of a croc, the feathers of a four-winged creature, the feet of a turkey etc.) The other two links really don't explain the connection between scales and feathers and how they are or aren't the same thing.

But the birds we do have aren't evolving into anything remotely different, nor do we have any birds that are in the process of doing so. :dead:

Make the word plural and the question still stands.

If these processes take places during millions of years you have no way of observing it correct? If these processes were taking place where is the transitional lifeform that is STILL ALIVE? If you are claiming that different species came on the scene at different times certain animals would be further along in the evolutionary process than others. What that would mean is that would have something alive today that still resembles the bird dinosaur you believe existed, or we would have some life form that resembles a bird but is actually the first step in what the bird is going to later become (after a gazillion years.)

????????

WTF?!?!?!?!

Selective advantage for what? To glide from tree to tree to escape predators? To spread their limbs and attract mates based on the coloration of the skin in between the limbs? To catch fast flying insects? How is gliding an advantage?

see above.

And in each of these cases their "wings" are not new appendages that grew out their back or sides. They are skin and fur not scales and feathers.

See above.

Now on another note, you seemed to miss some of the questions I asked you, so I'd like to present them again.

1. Why is it that birds have bones that are hollow (or damn near close to to) while the reptile bones are basically solid? I understand skeletal changes are possible but how many years would it take to make such a change and why would the change be needed anyway? To allow for flight?

2. I do not see how what you listed creates entirely new features within an organism, nor do you explain what happens when the threshold is reached and the process happens over and over. Does a species become "weak" or prone to disease (at the point the threshold is reached)?

3. What is your take on "living fossils", and why haven't they changed over the course of time?

HERESY · Apr 14, 2007

LOL! So were are the MANY transitional fossils? How come they have only found one of each (that they CLAIM are transitional fossils?) So, there were many species that were part of that lineage, yet most of them didn't leave ancestors? So where are their fossils? Haven't found them yet? I predict someone will find one in my backyard.

Unproven artist redentions.

again, what is this selective advantage?

Yet these solid bones have a PURPOSE. In the case of the penguins it is to help them swim/glide underwater, and in the case of the ostrich and emu it possibly aids in faster running and defense (kicking.) But if we take your word, nothing in evolution has a purpose.

If they are both T-box, have similar sequence and structure how are they not varients? Explain this to me because I would like to know.

And now you are seeing the point I've been stating for pages now. It is just creating new combinations of already present genes.
As far as mating is concerned, I can see how it adds new info. A woman might not have certain physical traits in her makeup, yet if she had a child with a person from another race/ethnicity, the child would then have traits that she didn't have and would lack traits that it would have had if the father was the same race as the mother. Do you see black people being born with blonde hair and blue eyes? Only if their has been a white ancestor will you see such a thing. This is what I was alluding to.

No, if it is true I will have no problem admiting it, because I can once again admit that I have LEARNED SOMETHING NEW. This is a GOOD THING. However, I will NOT take your word for simply because you typed it and reserve the right to research it and validate it for myself.

I don't see how this response relates to what you actually quoted, but thanks for the info.

Due this being a defect should we even consider it as proof to what you claim is happening?

I didn't ask you what living fossils were. The reason why I asked you your opinion about living fossils was due to your claim that it is much harder to believe that genomes change over millions of years.

Thats exactly what I DON'T believe and what I said on page one. Go back and read it.

You can pass on it.You are not the only person involved with science that I can go to. I'm sure if I run the link by Hutch or Jason (someone I know from offline) both will do a more adequate job of presenting the information and explaining how it does or doesn't answer my question.

I will look into all of this. Thanks for the pdf files.

ThaG · Apr 14, 2007

HERESY said:

Did I mention the word experiment?

Testing a theory does not always require experiments, much of what we know about astrophysics and cosmology has come from observations of space which allowed testing hypotheses and theories, yet you don't fight against astrophysicists

It is exactly the same with evolutionary biology, nature has "done the experiment" for us, we observe the outcome

cite it

from a respected peer-reviewed journal

I can

How do you explain the transition from simpler to more complex life forms we see in the fossil record?

see several paragraphs above

I think extinct hominids are a good example to begin with

again, how can you prove they're not evolving and why should they evolve into something radically different?

I hope you realize how ridiculous your arguments are

wrong, I have the fossil record

are you stupid?

why do you think the transitional lifeform should be still alive?

after 150 My....

see above

I have said this before:

The reason why people who reject evolution tend to be uneducated and/or having low I.Q. is that it requires several intelectual leaps forward to understand evolution. The realization that nobody owes you any purpose is one of them. If you desperately need to see a purpose in everything around you, that's your problem, nature doesn't care much

you listed some of the advantages

That's right

Bird wings are modifications of forelimbs too

Exactly what you would expect

Pterosaurs also had hollow bones

It is easy to see the advantage of having hollow bones and how this would be selected for in evolution

It is not that hard to imagine how this evolved because me and you also have hollow bones, but they're filled with bone marrow. Birds still have bone marrow but much less than us but they also have a Fabricius' bursa where B lymphocytes develop

We don't know the molecular mechanisms that are different between animals with hollow bones and animals with solid bones but there is no really fundamental difference

You don't see how what I listed creates new features because you don't know what the function of those proteins is

I already explained this

I will add that to use living fossils as evidence against evolution is not only a desperate attempt to save your claims but also something only a person with zero understanding of biology and evolutionary theory would say

ThaG · Apr 14, 2007

HERESY said:

again, are you stupid?

Do you know how rare fossilization is?

Do you know how rare it is to find a fossil

Do you know that transitional groups are often represented by small populations and they can not be expected to leave many fossils

Please, stop demonstrating your ignorance

that's what you think

again, are you too stupid not to see it yourself?

What is the selective advantage of aircraft compared to cavalry?

I used penguins to illustrate that the transition from hollow to solid bones and the opposite is not nearly as dramatic as you think

the term variant is used to describe isoforms resulting from alternative splicing

these are two different genes expressed at different sites with different, but analogous function, bearing significant sequence homology indicating common origin

Moreover, there are many more of them with various functions in development

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.genet.39.073003.105925?cookieSet=1

sigh...

you don't read what I am posting at all

Why do you think it's necessarily a defect?

It's a defect for the organism, but it provided selective advantage to the cell that acquired it

In fact, if you want to observe evolution in action, cancer is a very good illustration, on the cellular level

Anyway, I gave you an example of how rearrangements create new functional units, that's what you asked for. They can be beneficiary too

Nobody is telling you what libing fossils are, I explained you why they exist

The key word was "rare"

if that's the case, don't make posts making me believe the opposite

HERESY · Apr 14, 2007

No, and no one implied or stated that you did. Why/how is your use or lack of use of the word "experiment" remotely important to what has been presented? Did I say what you said I said pages ago? No. See, YOU are the one putting words in my mouth, but I'm going to continue to let your antics slide because every time I do you prove my point and I'll explain it a bit more later in this post.

So why denounce God and the possibility of a spiritual realm because it can't be tested?

IMHO, this is a cop out and clever way for some evolutionists to use so they don't have to admit they don't know.

Please tell me this reply is sarcastic in nature.

I don't believe such a thing has occurred. I do not believe that species change to entirely new life forms. IMO, the fossil records do not show what you are implying they show. If you had transitional forms in the past, you should have them NOW, and if you had them in the past, you would find a gazillion different fossils for different types of creatures.

Likewise.

They shouldn't evolve into something radically different because they CAN'T evolve into something radically different. The proof is in the fact that no transitional animals are alive today. Were is the animal in the middle of its transition? And no the argument is not ridiculous it is one that you want to dance around and one that evolutionists want to sweep under the rug.

Have you ever run across this book, "Neanderthal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans"? Do you believe Neanderthals are transitional forms?

First off, let’s end the insults here. If you pay attention the ONLY time I have insulted you in this thread is when you take jabs at me, and half the time I simply sweep it under the rug and press forward. If you want to continue this conversation, I ask that you maintain some degree of integrity. If you continue to go overboard, I’ll resort to using the same tactics you are using, or I will delete this thread. If you want to exchange ideas and share information that is fine, but I didn't create this thread to bash you, to promote God, to hammer atheists or to discredit anyone here.

So with that being said, play by the rules or don't play at all.

The reason for the question marks and face is because your statement actually contradicts what many evolunionists and atheists have typed in this forum. I do not see evolution as some random event. I believe microevolution and natural selection happen for a reason, and that reason is to keep the species alive by adapting to environmental changes or lack of food and to eliminate the weak species.

And these advantages all aid in the survival of the species. These advantages all serve a PURPOSE, so how are they random?

And this coincides with my belief that any evolution that occurs is simply a modification of what is already present and happens because of a need.

Yet there is some debate suggesting they were gliders and not flyers.

see above.

But other mammals such as rabbits develop in a different area, so what do you believe the reason for that is?

This doesn't answer the question I asked.

Fallacy, I am not using it as evidence against evolution. The reason why I asked you your opinion about living fossils was due to your claim that it is much harder to believe that genomes change over millions of years.

This is the last post in this thread where you will behave in a disrespectful fashion. Other members have pointed out your methods and have stated that you leave much to be desired and turn people off. Again, I have said nothing insulting to you unless it was in response to insults you made. I am trying to have a civil discussion with you and everyone else which is why I didn't jump the gun when I was replying to SOMEONE ELSE.

If I read one more unwarranted outburst from you, I will post the rules of this forum and notify the moderator and ask that you be prohibited from posting in this thread, will resort to the same tactics you are using, or will simply delete the thread.

At this point in time you have TOTAL CONTROL of your behavior and TOTAL CONTROL on which way you want this convo to go. Normally I wouldn't give a damn if you insulted me, hell, I normally ENCOURAGE such behavior, but this is one thread that is going to stay on track and not be ruined by insults, personal gripes etc.

No, how rare is it? Are the odds of finding a fossil as rare as the odds of the world coming into existance because of an explosion?

Why use this as an excuse? You mean to tell me there have been entire skeletons found but to date no one has found what you claim they have? Whats your opinion on Darwins view about transitional life forms?

You are saying they can't be expected to leave many fossils, but surely if such creatures existed they would be largely represented. If they are represented by small populations, how then are the larger populations linked to them?

In the next reply you give I don't want to see any of that. If you ever become a scientist you will be expected to speak in a professional matter and to act accordingly. I can easily flip everything back on you and give you a witty reply as to why you think I am demonstrating ignorance, but I'm trying to help you out here, and I'm using this thread as a means to prove certain points (stated and unstated.)

Do you have any links to fossils that show the animals you posted?

The ability to drop nukes and less threat of being shot down. The downside is it is, more expensive to build and maintain aircraft, the price of fuel, the extensive training pilots (officers) have to undertake before piloting aircraft (and the cost of such training), the fact that aircraft can be shot down, technology recovered and backwards engineered, plus the environmental mishap caused by the fuel emmissions.

So are the advantages RANDOM? No, and neither are the disadvantages, and this is where you and I disagree.

But the fact that they serve a purpose is a clear indication that it is not random. And again, if we take your own words, nothing in evolution has a purpose.

The link doesn't work.

No, I'm reading it, I simply don't understand everything you are posting, and I'm explaining my beliefs to you as far as evolution is concerned. This is why I am asking you questions, why I said I will look into things and why I would ask others who are more knowledgable to explain the things I don't know. Do I disagree with some of the things you are saying? Yes, but there are areas where you are saying I am "correct" or "right" so that should be proof that I am reading what you are posting.

Basically the link you posted said it was a defect.

Does it help the organism in any way? What is the selective advantage that the cell now gains?

So do you believe cancer will be solved by the evolution process?

IMHO, that was more of a description of what they are and less of an explanation why they exist. However, lets move on.

Rare doesn't matter in this case. Would you agree that living fossils are an instance in which your statement cannot be applied? If not why use the word?

I haven't done such a thing. If I have done such a thing post it and I will clarify for you. If you can't do this don't accuse me of saying something that I haven't. You've done this several times now, there is no need to keep doing it.

ThaG · Apr 15, 2007

OK, sorry for the insults, but sometimes what is posted is just too much for me to stay calm

you'll get a detailed answer later because I don't have time right now

ThaG · Apr 15, 2007

HERESY said:

when you started talking about "You can't control fossils, bla-bla" you meant exactly experiments and nothing else

anyway, factual evidence can be just as important as experimental and I gave you examples of whole branches of science based almost entirely on observations

no, it's not

Peer-review is the way to ensure that only true findings are published and accepted as truth. It might not be perfect and it might not be the best possible way to od that but nothing better has been proposed and it is certainly better than having a holly book which claims to tell the whole truth (sorry for the digressing but the comparison comes naturally)

You deserve another insult but I promised I'll be good

the fossil record shows exactly that

you see only single-celled prokaryotes for the first 2.5 billions of years, then single-celled eukaryots appear, then around 700 to 800 Mya multicellular organisms appear, Porifera, Cnidaria, worms, arthropodes, molluscs, chordates, vertebrates, mammals, humans...

all this appears sequentially in the fossil record and you just can't deny it because it is a fact

You can not expect to see transitional forms still living today because:

1. 99.99% of the species that ever existed on this planet are already extinct

although every species is in a way a transitional form to something else, these transitional forms we care about (those between major taxa) were an infinitessimaly small fraction of those billions of species that existed

you can estimate the chance of one of them surviving

BTW the latimeria is an example of living transitional fossil (it is part of the lineage that links fish and amphibia)

2. I will illustrate it using birds: evolution was directed towards better flying forms because of obvious reasons. It is easy to see that modern birds would completely outcompete the transitional forms that gave rise to them who were not nearly as good at flying. To sum it up: transitional forms giving rise to more advanced groups are destined to go extinct because of competition with those same groups that evolved from them, if they do not find other ecological niches to occupy

see above

+

How do you define "something radically different"? You are absolutely right organisms can't evolve into something radically different. In fact, observing a frog becoming a cow will be a very sting evidence against evolution.

Because we're speaking about birds, I will tell you that birds and reptiles are not different at all, in fact they are so similar that a lot of scientists speak about birds and "non-avian dinosaurs".

All organisms are similar on the biochemical level

What is the "radically different"?

ThaG · Apr 15, 2007

No, I haven't read it

And I didn't mean neanderthals.

Darwin predicted that fossils of transitional forms between man and apes should be found in Africa and they were in fact found.

You wanted an example of such prediction

Evolution is not a random event, it is a complex function of the dynamic properties of the environment and the just as dynamic genetic material in organisms. The problem is that the dynamics of these two components is so stochastic and the function itself is so complex that we are not able to predict the outcome. So it is random in that sense.

There is no reason behind evolution. Nobody owes you any reason and purpose and nobody is purposedly eliminating "weak species" and selecting for better adapted ones. This is what happens as a consequence to organisms dying and reproducing in a dynamic environment.

They do not serve any purpose

They are selected for because they are there and provide selective advantage. Once you get the idea of "the purpose behind everything" out of your head, you will relaize no purpose is needed for anything.

It doesn't happen because of need, phenotypic changes are selected for due to selective pressure in certain direction and these changes are modifications of what is already present. Accumulation of such chnages over vast periods of time leads to the appearance of structures that might look like something entirely new but they are in fact a product of slow and gradual evolution.

This is irrelevant, your point was that it was impossible to evolve hollow bones from solid ones. I demonstrated you that that happened once in reptiles and at least once in birds and there are birds who have solid bones, either primary or secondary ones.

???????????????

Develop what?

And who's talking about mammals

very rare

the odds of the world coming to existence because of an explosion are close to 1, this is what the avaliable evidence shows

See, I have no idea what Darwin's view about transitional fossils was, and I feel realy pissed when people use what Darwin said as an evidence against evolution.

We live 150 years later, in an era of molecular biology and know so much more that it Darwin's view is completely irrelevant.

The fact is that very small percentage of the total Earth surface has been searched for fossils (and of course we can't dig holes all over the Earth to find what fossils we can find) and paleontologists are not that numerous to expecte them to have found everything in mere 150 years. What they have found so far is more than enough to be sure macroevolution is real (and it is not even needed in order to be sure about that I would add)

more on the topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

more specifically:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

OK, read carefully what you typed and think about wheter it makes sense

I told you these were often small populations with limited distribuion and number (for example most feathered dinosaur fossils are found in Northern China and nowhere else) and you say they would be "largely represented"

by the fundamental property of all living ogranisms to reproduce and multiply

I guess that's the reason why all armies today use airplanes....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16285859&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

as lons as selective pressure in that direction exists

right now it doesn't and the evidence points that it had never existed

Why? Because cancer is a disease of the elders who have already successfuly reproduced

no, the existence of living fossils fits the theory of evolution perfectly well

Cmoke · Apr 15, 2007

surgurliman said:

Why is it that when it comes to believers of god they think they cant be wrong?

there are two sides to the coin. flip it around a bit and it might invoke some thought.

ThaG · Apr 16, 2007

surgurliman said:

1. Because nobody else is more qualified to speak about evolution than scientists. The chance of thousands of scientists being wrong for a 100 years with all the evidence we have is close to zero and is constantly diminishing

2. When somebody says that global warming isn't man made, the idea that he's a "government agent" is not far fetched at all, because huge financial interests are involved. When your government is so connected to big oil business it is easy to imagine they will do something about it. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real and it is man-made ans that's what matters

JLMACN · Apr 16, 2007

ThaG...

you are dropping some knowledge..

many thanks for the links..

Ive ran across those fossile pictures before when I looked up some pictures of fossils...
its crazy...some of the things they have found.

5000

HERESY · Apr 16, 2007

I think you need to go back and read where those statements came from. You originally asked, "how do you distinguish between macro and microevolution?" to which I replied, "One can be observed and the other is a theory." After this you say, "macroevolution can be observed (fossils)". After that I replied with, "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?"

What I am saying is you are dependant on finding the bones to confirm your theory, but you run into problems when you don't find fossils or you find fossils in areas where you said there would be no fossils. What I am saying is you cannot directly test the fossils (based on the scientific method) because you cannot observe the changes of that fossil and are limited to quantitative evidence (other fossils) to support the claim.

I warned you earlier, and I'm not going to sit and argue with you about holy books, creationism vs evolution, the reality of god, the reality of the flying spaghetti monster whatever. If I am telling you they are going to find ROCK COCAINE why would I have to cite a source for that? It should be OBVIOUS that evolustionists and scientists WON'T find it because it didn't hit the scene until the late 70's-early 80's. PLEASE, go back and read the statement again, and if need be I'll explain it in more detail.

You don't tell me what I deserve.

In my opinion I don't believe so.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html

I don't believe life on earth started as bacteria, and I previously said I don't endorse Goulds perspective:http://brembs.net/gould.html

99.99% of all species that ever existed are extinct should not equate to all transitional life being wiped out.

This site is designed to keep I.D. and creationism out of schools. Here is an excerpt from the site:

The two modern Coelacanths are not claimed to be transitional species. They will only become transitional if new species evolve from them.

and

As far as I am aware, nobody claims that amphibians evolved from Coelacanths. That may have been the case in 1938 but it isn’t now. According to Dawkins amphibians probably evolved from an extinct group of lobefins called Osteolepiforms, some time in the late Devonian period (there is still a lot of scientific debate about this). These would have had common ancestry with Coelacanths but that does not mean amphibians evolved from Coelacanths. Basically amphibians evolved from lungfish not Ceolacanths. The Coelacanthimorpha order is a separate side-branch of the fish group that gave rise to the amphibians (and, in turn, reptiles, birds and mammals).

http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/FAQs

The only living relatives of Gogonasus are Latimeria (photo bellow), two species of living fossils discovered late, during the XX century on the Indian Ocean. But Latimeria is not from the lineage that led to terrestrial vertebrates.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Our-...estrial-Traits-While-Still-Marine-38314.shtml

Destined to go extinct yet their fossils are disputed? If all modern birds came from ONE thing (a certain dinosaur) there would be more evidence of these creatures. The only thing we have are fossils and these fossils are disputed amongst the science community (refer to my last two posts.) So what you're implying is natural selection killed off the transitional forms, but I still believe the numbers should be a bit higher than suggested.

Well, something radically different would be reptiles becoming mammals. I do not believe this is possible, nor do I believe reptiles becoming birds are possible. I do nto believe that out of nescessity, a fish left the water, became an amphibian, which later became something else etc.

But you posted this form an article:

I might still have it on PDF file. If so I'll post it. And this is where we go back to observing macroevolution. You cannot "observe" these fossils, because EVERYTHING hinges on your prediction of WHERE they will be found and IF they will be found, and in my opinion thats placing too many eggs in one basket.

Ok, we both agree that it is not a random event and both agree that no one is able to predict the outcome. Thankyou for clarifying because when you implied that it was not random you had me worried.

If there is no reason that would imply it is random. IMHO, your position would be more clear if you suggested that in some/most cases there is no reason behind evolution. When you say, "This is what happens as a consequence to organisms dying and reproducing in a dynamic environment" you eliminate the fact that a dynamic environment plays a role and creates the need to survive.

I do not agree with this, and I believe natural selection refutes your position. And again, what is this "selective advantage" you speak of?

A birds beak evolving and changing shape over time to eat a certain type of snail happens because of a need, and that need is survival, but I'm glad that you agree that these changes are modifications of what is already present, and this is what I was saying pages ago.

FALSE, that is not my point. I specifically said, "Why is it that birds have bones that are hollow (or damn near close to to) while the reptile bones are basically solid? I understand skeletal changes are possible but how many years would it take to make such a change and why would the change be needed anyway?", and that does NOT imply it is impossible to go from hollow to solid (or solid to hollow.)

If you do NOT understand where a person is coming from it is BEST to ask them to CLARIFY, or REPEAT their statement and ask questions based on that statement. And gain, the article from the professor I posted suggested that birds

YOU are talking about mammals! Did you not say, "It is not that hard to imagine how this evolved because me and you also have hollow bones, but they're filled with bone marrow. Birds still have bone marrow but much less than us but they also have a Fabricius' bursa where B lymphocytes develop ? You are talking about where B-cells develop, and from what I understand, B cells in mammals (INCLUDING HUMANS) develop in the same area, EXCEPT for in rabbits. Why do you believe this is different for rabbits? Do you see this as some evolutionary event that benefits the rabbit? Do you understand why I mentioned rabbits or do I need to clarify a bit more for you?

ok.

You feel pissed for no reason. I know we know more than we did over the last 150 years, but understand that when someone is asking you aquestion they are not always asking you in a confrontational way. Many times people ask questions to get opinions, to learn more information or to create thinking (rhetorical). Now if you don't feel Darwins view is relevant thats all you have to say. Maybe I would have shown how it is relevant and how it leads to certain beliefs that are still held tday, but at least I would have had the chance to do so.

two words for you:

CONFRIMATION BIAS

FUNCTIONAL FIXEDNESS

Please, do NOT make a reply about them. Just look them up and understand their meaning.

I disagree about macroevolution and when this headache stops I'll peep the links.

There is debate about the validity of the bones, some are suggetsing that they are FAKE because there is a "fake" fossil site in the area (in China near where the majority of these bones are found.) And yes, what I'm saying makes sense to me.

see above.

As far as the pics go, I provided an article from a respected scientist and he claims they are skin and not feathers.

Can you explain the last sentence you made?

Go back and read the original statement you made.

I AM · Apr 16, 2007

HERESY said:

lol....you never know....i dont think because a protein is similar that it means a t-rex became a bird. that's like saying because humans have the same protein as another mammal, say dolphins, that we should be able to hold our breath under water for 5 minutes...bad example, but hopefully you see my point.

ThaG · Apr 16, 2007

HERESY What I am saying is you are dependant on finding the bones to confirm your theory said:

OK, we are finding the fossils, what's the problem?

We don't need to find every single fossil to validate the theory of evolution because fossils are only part of the whole enormous amount of evidence in support of evolution and what we have found so far is more than enough

We need more fossils to understand how evolution happened, not whether it happened

Did I say it started with bacteria?

I was explaining in another thread how eukaryotes came from archaea-like ancestors and that even those were probably not clearly defined because of horizontal gene transfer

What is certain is that prokaryotes came first because eukaryotes are too much more complex to have evolved first

That's what you think, I presented you arguments why the already scarce transitional forms should be expected to inevitably go extinct

BTW do you know fossils of how many of today's living species are found in rocks from 5Mya? Very few? From 10Mya? Even fewer? From 20Mya? None

The destiny of every species is to go extinct and the average life of a species is about 500 000 years. How do you expect transittional forms from 250Mya ago to be alive today???

I will finish this discussion with another quote from the Talkorigns archive:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

I agree with everything written there, I gave coelocanths as an examples of a group you might consider a "living transitional fossil" because they are a branch of the group that gave rise to amphibians which I explaines saying they are part of the same lineage.

You use the phrase "I believe" a bit too often IMO

We are just starting to find fossils of feathered dinosaurs (the first one was discovered abotu 15 years ago)

Give paleontologists some time to finish their work

I notice that creationists are always quick to point out "These fossils are disputed" everytime a fossil is found. Why is that? Does that mean that all fossils we've found are fake?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

OK, what is your interpretation of the fossils we have if you think scientists are wrong?

There is no purpose, natural selection samples the available variation adn selects for the "adaptive" phenotypes. Natural selection is an abstract term to describe all the environmental factors that determine whether an organisms will survive and reproduce or not

But you are not willing to make the next step and realize that accumulation of smaller or bigger modifications of what is already present over millions of years can lead to much more complex strucutres

Birds have hollow bones because those ancient birds that started developing lighter bones had selective advantage being better adjusted to flying/gliding

This was selected for and developed further in evolution

I said that me and you and every other vertebrate (OK, I admit I don't know what's the case with amphibia and fish, I have to check) have hollow bones because the bone marrow is there and this is a cavity in the bone. Replace the bone marrow with air and you have hollow bones. That's what I meant. I don't know what's the case with rabbits either if you mean something and I don't rememebr mentioning them

they are useful, read them

there was one fake fossil there, the other ones are authentic

ThaG · Apr 16, 2007

Yes, I probably should have elaborated more on that:

"Because cancer is a disease of the elders who have already successfuly reproduced"

The idea is that cancer is a slowly progressing disease (often takes more than 10-15 years to develop) and it usually affects people in postreproductive age. This has several important implications:

1. It explains why cancer was so rare in the past and became so common in 20th century - people just started living longer, up to an age when they will develop cancer

2. It explains why we're so susceptible to cancer: in the wild animals rarely live long, they die because of parasites, predators, hunger, natural disaster etc., they don't reach the age when they can develop cancer and this will affect the viability of the population. That's why no stronger defense mechanisms than the ones we have right now have been established in evolution.

3. It explains why so many people (basically everybody) have mutations that predispose to cancer (there are hundreds of genes implicated in cancer so you can be pretty sure you have some nasty allele here and there in your genome). You will ask: "Why don't these alleles get eliminated" and the reason for that is that you will develop cancer because of them when you're 50 or over and by that time you will have already passed them to your children. This means there is no selection against these alleles because they act in postreproductive age when they are already transmitted to the next generation.

proteins link T-rex to birds

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Anti-feminist

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

JLMACN

THE HIDDEN HAND...

Some Random Asshole

Sicc OG

Sicc OG