Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: How did feathers evolve? - Carl Zimmer

Expand Messages
  • Truman
    ... Darwinian view too. So? ... birds as living dinosaurs (which necessitates that they evolved from dinosaurs) and asked if there were any evidence casting
    Message 1 of 76 , Jul 3, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "gluadys" <g_turner@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Truman" <seekeththee@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Truman: "That birds did not evolve from dinosaurs is still a
      Darwinian view too. So?"
      > > >
      > > > Evidently you've missed the point of this thread. Stewart described
      birds as living dinosaurs (which necessitates that they evolved from
      dinosaurs) and asked if there were any evidence casting doubt on that
      description. And so I provided him with some.
      > > >
      > > > Jim in Missouri
      > > >
      > >
      > > If birds are living dinosaurs, then they are living dinosaurs, not
      evolved from them. They are part of the clade Dinosauria, so he is right,
      they are dinosaurs.
      > >
      > > It is pretty clear if you actually read the literature that the quotes
      are cherry picked from by the EN&V staff.
      > >
      > > Ruben is saying that he thinks birds should not be in the clade
      Therapoda, but should have a separate clade that includes Maniraptora. So
      right now there is the Sauriscian and Theropod clade He suggests that the
      Maniraptorans (which includes Aves) have their own clade separate from
      Theropods. The "problem" with his research is that his area of expertise
      is comparative anatomy, not systematics. The scientists that have a problem
      with his conclusions are systematists, and they say he is not using the
      same, or incorrect assumptions, and that his data set is too small.
      > >
      > > The point is not missed by me. That point is irrelevant to your
      response.
      > >
      >
      >
      > IOW whether or not birds are within the Therapod clade or have their own
      clade
      > within the Maniraptora, they are still within the Saurischian clade
      (which includes
      > both Therapods and Maniraptora) and which itself is a sub-clade of
      Dinosauria.
      > So while Ruben wants to rearrange some of the branches within Dinosauria,
      he is
      > agreeing that birds are living dinosaurs. He is just disagreeing as to
      which
      > dinosaurs they are most closely related to.
      >


      He and Feduccia are in agreement that flight in birds may have evolved from
      tree dwelling archosaurs, not ground dwelling theropods. Ruben was looking
      at the flight anatomy and concluding that birds could not have evolved from
      "ground dwelling theropod" dinosaurs. He is concluding that some theropod
      dinosaurs such as velociraptors are actually descendants of the first
      birds. He is not really trying to construct a phylogeny.

      It is Feduccia who is arguing that Aves and Maniraptora should have their
      own clade, which branches earlier in the Triassic at the base of, or even
      outside of the Dinosauria clade. So he is not really agreeing that they are
      living dinosaurs. But then what is a dinosaur? I am sure Jim would look at
      the fossils of something like Deinonychus and say that is a dinosaur, but
      in Feduccia's classification scheme, like birds, it would not be in the
      Dinosauria clade. In fact Ruben is saying that Deinonychus is a descendant
      of early birds.

      Just wait. It wont be long before the folks at Evolution News and Views
      start cherry picking quotes against Feduccia trying to claim that what was
      once thought a dinosaur is not a dinosaur. It will be the same type of
      pooh pooh they (Jim by proxy) use against whale and corbiculate bee
      evolution.

      Truman


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: gluadys To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 4:02 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How did feathers evolve? - Carl Zimmer ...
      Message 76 of 76 , Jul 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: gluadys
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 4:02 PM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How did feathers evolve? - Carl Zimmer




        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Truman
        > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:36 AM
        > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How did feathers evolve? - Carl Zimmer
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Darwin did not have his own definition and relied on what naturalists at the time called groups of organisms that closely resembled each other. Species were units that described variants of a continuous series in of descent with modification.
        >
        >
        >
        > LA> Your comment seems to show that you are not aware that Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" concluded that there is a LAW which he called "the law of Reversion". Speaking of pigeon breeding Darwin wrote;
        >
        > ------------------------------
        >
        > "We can understand these facts, on the well-known principle
        > of reversion to ancestral characters, if all domestic breeds
        > have descended from the rock pigeon."
        >
        > ". . . .Lastly, the hybrids or mongrels from between all
        > the domestic breeds of pigeons are perfectly fertile. I can
        > state this from my own observations, purposely made on the
        > most distinct breeds."
        >
        > (Origin of species, Charles Darwin, "Variation Under
        > Domestication", (Avenel Books, New York, 1979), p. 85)
        >
        > =======================
        >


        GLU: As you can see clearly from these paragraphs, Darwin was indeed speaking exclusively of domestic breeds of pigeons and notes that all domestic breeds are interfertile.

        So, unlike his contemporaries, he traced them all back to one common wild ancestral species.

        He is not disputing at all that there are also hundreds of wild species of pigeons in addition to the ancestor of the domesticated breeds. Species that are not interfertile.

        Noah would indeed need a pair (actually seven pairs) of each of them if all those species needed to be preserved separately.

        The other alternative is one species on the ark, evolving with super-rapidity into hundreds of different (not interfertile) species (of which one was the ancestor of domesticated breeds).



        LA> If you follow that concept then you are beginning to better understand Biology as well as the explanation of the reallity of Noah and the Flood. You will also begin to understand what the "Gould/Eldredge" "New and General Theory of Evolution" is all about and why atheists like Richard Dawkins and others have admitted that Punctuated Equilibrium has "delighted the creationists"!


        Laurie.

        "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
        (Niles Eldredge, 1995)

        ..

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.