proteins link T-rex to birds

[HERESY]

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

Not in all cases, and the problems come when they say they will find fossils but find nothing.

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 are talking about the theory of macroevolution not just "evolution." Again, I do not believe macroevolution can be observed through fossils.

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

see above.

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

Again, if many lifeforms come from these transitional animals you would expect for the numbers to be higher than what you suggest. So in order for them to not completely go extinct you suggest they evolve into something else. However, let's say "X" represents a certain transitional species, what you're telling me is that X was limited in the first place, but you aren't telling me WHY X was limited. If X exists in numerous locations and something in the environment called for it, I don't see how a small number can all of a sudden become a larger or more well developed life form over a short period of time.

Did I say it started with bacteria?

No, and no one made the claim you did. Basically, you didn't clarify yourself (some people lump them all into the same group), and I am telling you that I don't believe life came from any one celled organism (bacteria or otherwise.)

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

But what isn't certain is how they supposedly got here. Do you agree with the concept of panspermia or do you have some other theory as to how they got here?

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???

What I am saying is the transitional forms should have paved the way for new tranistional forms. If transitional forms existed in 150Mya wouldn't they have evolved over time? Wouldn't these new creatures have volved into something else or into another transitional form that involved into something else? The process should not STOP, it should be an ongoing process, and things that were evolving 250MYA should be a certain stage, 150Mya should be in another stage of development, and things 25Mya should be in another stage of development.

Can you repeat back what it is you think I am saying (not if you agree with it or not) because I want to make sure you understand what I am trying to convey here.

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

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

Thanks for the link but I already have it.

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.

OK, but your earlier statements don't seem to imply that you agree. However, if you do thats one more point we don't need to go over and we can move on.

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

And guess what would happen if I relied on your method? Look at the several instances where you said, "X is Y", but I gave info from your own side of the fence, and you switched up your view point. I am telling you what I believe, and I am telling you what I believe based on what I know about science.

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?

Listen, STOP talking about what creationist believe and what creationists point out. So far, in this thread, I have presented little to no evidence pertaining to creationism. What I gave you was a direct quote from a person who specifically studies certain types of life forms and he claims those are not feathers. He is a evolutionists, not a creationists. Please, you are once again acting as if you have tunnel vision. No need to get personal and ask why creationists do XY and Z because we aren't talking about them.

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

Again, I already have this link.

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

Fossils of neanderthals or what you believe are transitional humans?

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

BOLD EMPHASIS MINE.

I see the bold as cause and effect. Environmental factors are the cause and evolution is the effect.

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

But we aren't seeing these complex structures and thats my point. We are still prone to sickness, we still mutate, etc.

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

And according to you this is random, and I don't buy it. But Like I previously said, I believe skeletal changes are possible.

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

Listen, you DIDN'T mention rabbits. What I am telling you is that the B cells in rabbits originate in a DIFFERENT location that other vertebrate (including mammals/humans.) What I am asking you, since you introduced B cells, is why do you think the B cells in rabbits originate in a different area, and if you think it is a function or trait created from evolution.

they are useful, read them

Trust me, when I tell you I iwll read something I will.

I'll address the cancer stuff tommorow.

 

[ThaG]

Not in all cases, and the problems come when they say they will find fossils but find nothing.



We are talking about the theory of macroevolution not just "evolution." Again, I do not believe macroevolution can be observed through fossils.

macorevolution, microevolution and evolution are one and the same, just different scales are used

Again, if many lifeforms come from these transitional animals you would expect for the numbers to be higher than what you suggest. So in order for them to not completely go extinct you suggest they evolve into something else. However, let's say "X" represents a certain transitional species, what you're telling me is that X was limited in the first place, but you aren't telling me WHY X was limited. If X exists in numerous locations and something in the environment called for it, I don't see how a small number can all of a sudden become a larger or more well developed life form over a short period of time.

Ok, the transitional form is not necessarily limited, but that is often the case. Anyway, it is easy to see how an organism that have acquired selective advantage would quickly spread (this is called adaptive radiation and is what happened with mammals after the Cretaceous mass extinction event)

Then they go extinct and other forms take their place

That's the way life is, there are very few examples of groups smaller than family that have survived for long periods of time

No, and no one made the claim you did. Basically, you didn't clarify yourself (some people lump them all into the same group), and I am telling you that I don't believe life came from any one celled organism (bacteria or otherwise.)

science thinks otherwise

I am curious what is your theory?

But what isn't certain is how they supposedly got here. Do you agree with the concept of panspermia or do you have some other theory as to how they got here?

I personally would not reject panspermia as a possibility. Why?

1. The first fossils of prokaryotes we have date from 3.7-3.8 Bya. The Earth is 4.57 By old and it certainly wasn't suitable even for the earlies stages of chemical evolution for the first several hundred million years. This leaves a short window of time (between 100 and 200 My) for chemical evolution and the RNA world to take place and give rise to the first cells. Right now this looks too short of period, it might have been the case that for some reason chemical evolution was very fast and cells developed very quickly

Nobody knows what happened and probably nobody will know by the time we invent time travelling (if ever do it) and actually go there and see what happened; this is not happening anytime soon though

2. There is another wrinkle and it is called Deinococcus radioindurance. This is bacteria that lives in nuclear reactors and is capable of survivng 500Gy radiation (for comparison eukaryotes are all dead at 15Gy and not many bacteria would survive 15Gy either)

The point is that there is no way selective pressure towards such resistance to radiation could have existed on Earth. There is no reason an organism capable of surviving 500Gy would exist unless it is some freaky mutant. The thing is that it isn't and its ability to survive high doses of radiation is due to very elaborate mechanisms for repair of damaged DNA (Radiation causes breaks in DNA) which could not have evolved in the short 30-40 years since nuclear reactors were introduced

But it is easy to see how such durability would be necessary for travel in space and how Deinococcus radioindurans might be an organism that came from space after the appearance of life on Earth which would argue that panspermy is possible and is rather frequent (because Deinococcus isn't biochemically different from other ogranisms on Earth) or that Deionococcus is an ancestor of those first organisms that came 4 billions years ago. The second explanation does not explain why it retained its ability to survive radiation.

Anyway, these are just speculations with no hard evidence but is a curious fatc that deserves to be mentioned and panspermy should not be thrown out the window

Of course, the question how life evolved doesn't change and the answer will be mos certainly the same on any planet that has DNA and protein based organisms

 

[ThaG]

What I am saying is the transitional forms should have paved the way for new tranistional forms. If transitional forms existed in 150Mya wouldn't they have evolved over time?

Yes, and they did

Wouldn't these new creatures have volved into something else or into another transitional form that involved into something else?

Yes

The process should not STOP, it should be an ongoing process,

it is

and things that were evolving 250MYA should be a certain stage, 150Mya should be in another stage of development, and things 25Mya should be in another stage of development.

No, the speed of evolution is not constant, it depends on the stability of the conditions present and the directionality and the strentgh of selective pressure

Can you repeat back what it is you think I am saying (not if you agree with it or not) because I want to make sure you understand what I am trying to convey here.

I was saying that you will find only a handful of modern species that are present in fossil strata form 20Mya (if I recall right there were some snails and some foraminifera) and even fossils of modern species from 5Mya are rare

The average lifespan of a species is between 500,000 and a million years, after that it goes extinct

And guess what would happen if I relied on your method? Look at the several instances where you said, "X is Y", but I gave info from your own side of the fence, and you switched up your view point. I am telling you what I believe, and I am telling you what I believe based on what I know about science.

OK, but that's the good thing about science - it can revisit itself until it reaches high-confidence conclusions. And those examples you gave were more for clarifying purposes, rather than changing my opinion because I admit I do not express perfectly what I want to say

Listen, STOP talking about what creationist believe and what creationists point out. So far, in this thread, I have presented little to no evidence pertaining to creationism. What I gave you was a direct quote from a person who specifically studies certain types of life forms and he claims those are not feathers. He is a evolutionists, not a creationists. Please, you are once again acting as if you have tunnel vision. No need to get personal and ask why creationists do XY and Z because we aren't talking about them.

OK

Fossils of neanderthals or what you believe are transitional humans?

I don't care about neanderthals, I mean all those millions of fossils of all kinds of weird creatures that are not here anymore, starting from 3.8 Bya. How do you explain them?

BOLD EMPHASIS MINE.

I see the bold as cause and effect. Environmental factors are the cause and evolution is the effect.

OK, that is a valid interpretation. But keep in mind there is no evident conscious purpose behind the whole process

But we aren't seeing these complex structures and thats my point. We are still prone to sickness, we still mutate, etc.

Yes, because these are limitations inherent to the system. If anything these are strong arguments against design. We are seeing complex strucutres, human brain is one of them and it is just an upgrade of primates brain without much increase in macroscopic complexity

Listen, you DIDN'T mention rabbits. What I am telling you is that the B cells in rabbits originate in a DIFFERENT location that other vertebrate (including mammals/humans.) What I am asking you, since you introduced B cells, is why do you think the B cells in rabbits originate in a different area, and if you think it is a function or trait created from evolution.

I have no idea why rabbits have different sites of production of B-cells

Rabbits generate their antibody repertoire in three stages. First, a neonatal repertoire is generated by B lymphopoiesis in fetal liver and bone marrow and is limited by preferential V(H) gene segment usage. Between 4 and 8 weeks after birth a complex primary antibody repertoire is developed by somatically diversifying the neonatal repertoire through somatic hypermutation and a somatic gene conversion-like mechanism in gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT). In rabbits, unlike other species, the development of the primary antibody repertoire through somatic diversification of Ig genes appears to be dependent on intestinal microbial flora

As early as 1963, it was proposed that the rabbit appendix was a homologue of the chicken bursa of Fabricius (ARCHER et al. 1963). The finding that the young rabbit appendix was thymus independent contributed to the concept of central primary lymphoid tissue. Today we know that appendix is a site that generates the high copy number primary repertoire through diversification of rearranged VH genes by gene conversion-like and somatic hypermutation mechanisms. Thus the appendix of young rabbits functions as a mammalian bursal equivalent. In the appendix, newly generated B cells also undergo selection processes involving self and foreign antigens and superantigens. Preferential expansion and survival of B cells in normal and mutant ali rabbits based on FR1 and FR3 expression may involve "superantigen"-like interactions with endogenous and exogenous ligands. One endogenous ligand appears to be CD5. Additional ligands may be produced by gut flora. Further studies in the rabbit model are needed to determine the fates of emigrants from primary GALT, their sites of postulated self-renewal in the periphery, and the nature of secondary diversification in secondary germinal centers where populations of B lymphocyte memory cells may develop. These data may also be helpful in understanding how the repertoire of human B cells is formed and how this repertoire might be manipulated for clinical benefit.

Still, it seems that the fetal B-cells develop in the liver and bone marrow as in all other mammals, I can't answer the question why rabbits develop their b-lymphocytes in their appendix and what's the advantage, because I don't know much about rabbits (I'm a molecular biologist after all :ermm: )

 

[B-Buzz]

I saw a thing on Discovery Science a couple of weeks ago that was saying they think T-Rex's had feathers as adolescents and eventually lost them into adulthood. If I see it on again I'll let you guys know the name, the cgi sucked but they had some new stuff I had never heard before that was pretty good. It was about the early mammals interacting with the dinoasurs.

 

[Home-E]

Bump

 

[Ethereal]

Bump?


Though old, lmao @ WD's post.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

Bump

???

 

[marty50]

i can dig it, i always her them blue jays shrieking hella loud in the morning and the sound they make sounds reptilian like. i can imagine those tiny dinos millions of years ago like a small raptor sounding like todays blue jay. i understand, not that hard to see.

 

[HERESY]

He probably bumped because there was recently something in the news about T-Rex samples and birds.

 

[Home-E]

I bumped it because I felt like the thread was unfinished. Anyone else care to chime in? Also, I'd really like to see H address some of the things thaG said in his last post.

 

[HERESY]

I bumped it because I felt like the thread was unfinished. Anyone else care to chime in? Also, I'd really like to see H address some of the things thaG said in his last post.

Everything he said in his last post was covered in my previous posts. You can set yourself for loop playback if you want but I'm not.

UPDATE:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/731/1?rss=1

http://www.genomeweb.com/proteomics/reanalysis-t-rex-spectra-confirms-findings-2007-study

 

[MrDiamondFDC]

Reptilians are behind everything like Credo Mutwa has been saying. I'll believe in The Agenda before evolution.

 

[HERESY]

H...

My box is full fam, as soon as I clear it out I'll give you the update!

 

[COPIUM]

for those that believe in evolution and we came from monkeys or whatever.... why dont we see the different stages of human walking around today? shouldnt we see big foot almost everywhere we go?

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

for those that believe in evolution and we came from monkeys or whatever.... why dont we see the different stages of human walking around today? shouldnt we see big foot almost everywhere we go?

Uh oh, NOW you've done it.

 

[COPIUM]

hey im just sayin

 

[swoop187]

Its strange, humans came out of no where and there is no proof of human evolution anywhere.

If you look and the geological records it would seem as if humans or homo sapiens just appeared out of no were.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

Its strange, humans came out of no where and there is no proof of human evolution anywhere.

If you look and the geological records it would seem as if humans or homo sapiens just appeared out of no were.

LOL...this statement isnt going to go over well with, well, anyone.

Good luck, dukes.