|
Post by Papsmearmycat on Dec 16, 2004 10:17:32 GMT -5
How does this adaptation occur? Do the birds just decide "Oh, look, I can't eat, I'd better hope for some punctuated equilibrium!"
Adaptation, in my opinion, is Gods way of ensuring his creations survival.
This isn't "evolution." The bird is still a bird. Birds make birds, and always will. They may be a differnt kind of bird, but a bird is a bird. Dogs make dogs, rabbits make rabbits. Never has any animal in recorded history given birth to anything but one of its own kind. Things do not evolve into other things.
Did you know that the evolution of the horse diagram in most textbooks is a myth? It was proven wrong. Do some research. Same thing with embryology. The person who first drew the pictures admitted to purposefully changing the actual shape of the embryos to support evolution theory, because of a lack of evidence. Ever wonder why they never show actual pictures of the embryos, only drawings?
One animal adapting to fit into its environment doesn't prove that that animal will eventually become anything else.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 16, 2004 13:14:31 GMT -5
I agree with you except about the accidental mutation part. I believe it is selective adaptation. Like take a species of birds for instance. if these birds lived in the forest and hand long hard beaks for digging for seeds, and then some of these birds moved to the rainforest... their beaks would become shorter and more broad because of the different choices of food they have... and depending on their new kinds of prey and predators, their colors may change as well... so this would be a new species of birds then. (and this would take a long time for this to happen) if you are "mutated" your features will not be passed down to offspring because your DNA is the same. so if i got mutated to grow an extra arm, i would not pass that feature down to my offspring. What you described it natural selection and adaptive radiation. As to the mutation part, I believe you have the wrong conception of what mutation means...mutations are not necessarily deleterious and is central to the speciation process. Also, one of the requirements to being a different species is usually to be reproductively isolated from other species...although, as with everything there are sometimes exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 16, 2004 13:34:40 GMT -5
How does this adaptation occur? Do the birds just decide "Oh, look, I can't eat, I'd better hope for some punctuated equilibrium!" And I'm sure you know all about Eldridge and Gould's theory... You have no idea how adaptation works or even what it is. The old antiquiated "kinds"...tell me, what kind was Archaeopteryx? Also, your view of speciation is wrong. The temporal factor is great and change even in punctuated equilibria is not even in the span of mere centuries...do some learning before you criticize. No, it's not. You show me this "research". I have texts with plenty of pictures of embryos, I've seen plenty of human embryos in my biology classes...yes they were actual human embryos. Also, Haekel's pictures matter not, at certain points in development, embryos are alike. www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html...want some photos? So tell me, which one is the human embryo? Again you have a backwards view of how this adaptation takes place, it is not initiated by the animal or is seen in individuals, evolution takes place through populations...read a book.
|
|
|
Post by Papsmearmycat on Dec 16, 2004 16:16:12 GMT -5
The 4th picture down is the human. The 2nd is a dog or wolf, and the last is obviously a pokemon. I know that speciation happens to populations, not individuals. The species with the most favorable traits survive to produce more young with favorable traits, I.E. Darwin's finches. They still remain birds. Birds make birds....birds with better traits for survival, but birds nonetheless Here is some basic information for you. Archaeopteryx is covered here. www.aboundingjoy.com/evolargs.htmI suggest you read a book, and the title is Icons of Evolution. GIYF: www.harunyahya.net/V2/Lang/en/Pg/WorkDetail/Number/1901
|
|
ToxicMoon
Seasoned Citizen
Delusional One
Posts: 129
|
Post by ToxicMoon on Dec 16, 2004 16:24:10 GMT -5
I think the dog-like one is kind of cute, in a strange way.
|
|
|
Post by A Souless Demon on Dec 16, 2004 16:45:56 GMT -5
you have twisted this forum from what you believe in, to what an embryo looks like.
gross
|
|
|
Post by Papsmearmycat on Dec 16, 2004 17:42:38 GMT -5
um...sorry, I guess...
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 16, 2004 19:19:27 GMT -5
The 4th picture down is the human. The 2nd is a dog or wolf, and the last is obviously a pokemon. Only the first two are not human. That's a very, very elementary view of natural selection...however, it is not the only mechanism of evolution...it is one of the central ones but not the only factor. Do you even know what constitutes a species? That's pure crap, paleontologists do not consider Archaeopteryx fully bird....see my next post. *sigh*I'm sick of seeing this site. I'll humor you and write a rebuttal to that article...I'll start tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 16, 2004 19:20:39 GMT -5
Part I:As to archaeopteryx: www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.htmlAll About ArchaeopteryxAnd as to the dinsosaur bird thing: Birds are descendants of small, carnivorous dinosaurs from the Cretaceous period. This conclusion is not just a “fanciful” jump, it is supported by not only fossil, but molecular, morphological and developmental biology evidence that all point towards such a conclusion. This isn’t a new item either, it was first proposed by T. H. Huxley. This (possibly presented before) gives an overview of the fossil evidence for the dinosaur-bird connection: www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.htmlAs noted by Audersirk et al., birds are: Other items of modern birds point to their dinosaurian ancestry: Also, recent fossil evidence of a rare item, behavioral inferences, is seen in a troodontid: Even new items are being found out about Archaeopteryx: Other finds outside of China point towards the connection as well: Another behavioral item is the discovery of dinosaurs to hover over their nests, like modern birds: And, continuing on with the Oviraptor, Drickamer comments:
|
|
|
Post by Papsmearmycat on Dec 16, 2004 19:22:17 GMT -5
making me correct about the embryos! except for the pokemon thing, that is actually kind of upsetting. Pika pika, pikachu.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 16, 2004 19:23:48 GMT -5
Part II:Other dinsosaurs (with feathers): Sinosauropteryx: www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDsino.html#AProtarchaeopteryx: www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDprot.htmlCaudipteryx: www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDcaud.htmlConfuciusorniswww.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDconfu.htmlThe resulting inhabitation more than likely sped evolution along through their radiation into other environments. As for feathers, they evolved in dinosaurs, which is shown in the fossil record, the utility of such is most likely several fold, including insulation, water repellency, courtship, camouflage and defense: As pointed at earlier, a recent find of a cousin of Tyrannosaurus rex had hairlike feathers upon it: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.htmlTrefil & Hazen comment on the insulation of feathers as a precursor to flight as well: Richard Prum has studied the specifics of feather evolution in dinosaurs and proposed a developmental theory. He has shown that two genes play a significant role in feather creation: Yu, Wu, Widelitz, & Chuong also delve into the molecular aspects of feathers and tie them to Sinornithosaurus: Also, heavily involved are keratins: The feather developmental hypotheses and other evidence is compounded by the fossils found in China: References:1) Futuyma, D. (1998). Evolutionary biology. (3rd ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. 2) Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G., & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on earth. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 3) Pojcta, J., & Springer, D. (2001). Evolution and the fossil record. Alexandria: American Geological Institute. 4) Xu, X. & Norell, M. (2004). A new troontid dinosaur from China with avian-like sleeping posture. Nature 431, 838-841. 5) Stokstad, E. (2004). Bird-brained Archaeopteryx. Science Now, August 4th. 6) Jurmain, R., Nelson, H., Kilgore, L., & Trevathan, W. (2000). Introduction to physical anthropology. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson. 7) Levin, H. (1999). The earth through time. (6th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace. 8) Drickamer, L., Vessey, S., & Jakob, E. (2002). Animal behavior: Mechanisms, ecology, evolution. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. 9) Alters, S. (2000). Biology: Understanding life. (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett. 10) Bunch, B., & Tesar, J. (2003). Discovery science almanac. New York: Hyperion. 11) Trefil, J., & Hazen, R. (2004). The sciences: An integrated approach. (4th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. 12) Prum, R. (2004). Which came first, the feather or the bird? Scientific American Special Edition 14(2). 13) Yu, M., Wu, P., Widelitz,R., & Chuong, C. (2002). The morphogenesis of feathers. Nature 420, 308-312. 14) Prum, R. (2002) The evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. The quarterly review of biology 77(3)., 261-295. 15) Zhou, Z., Barrett, P., & Hilton, J. (2003). An exceptionally preserved lower crutaceous ecosystem. Nature 421, 807-814.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 16, 2004 19:27:33 GMT -5
making me correct! except for the pokemon thing, that is actually kind of upsetting. pika pika, pikachu. 1 outta 4...my point was to show that it is difficult to tell embryos apart at certain stages...hence, Haekel's drawings have no bearing on comparative embryology.
|
|
|
Post by Sesshoumaru on Dec 16, 2004 19:29:12 GMT -5
I am a Christian. Plain and simple,i believe in God and I believe in Christ
|
|
|
Post by Papsmearmycat on Dec 16, 2004 19:50:17 GMT -5
I now offer the typical Christian reponse:
Perhaps they look the same because they have the same designer?
Perhaps not. I do agree with you on one point though, all I have to go on is feeling. Where logic fails, feeling and intuition thrive.
|
|
|
Post by A Souless Demon on Dec 16, 2004 20:45:40 GMT -5
perhaps they look the same because due to evolution, all embryos look almost the same, but we adapt and grow differently... because maybe at one point, all life was of the same species.
|
|