Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Again, we're all wondering what your point is. Dr. Feduccia thinks the evidence shows birds evolved from basal archosaurs rather than from coelurosaurian theropods, therefore...........?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Humans Animals
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Again, we're all wondering what your point is. Dr. Feduccia thinks the evidence shows birds evolved from basal archosaurs rather than from coelurosaurian theropods, therefore...........?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
well there's another evolutionary paradox, independent evolution of symbiotic features
(We needed something to grab them with)
I mean, many people already have since the scientific consensus is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs and has been despite Alan's view for the last decade. And he has about as much chance of that changing as David Peters does with his alternative pterosaur morphology.
More importantly though, he still says they evolved directly from Archosaura, and had similar transitional stages as the standard theropod to aves line. He's wrong about the archosaur part, but the rest of it still clearly contradicts what you're trying to put in his mouth.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
A slow and gradual transitions spanning billions of years.
If you'd bothered to read everything he said and not just that little bit you cherry-picked for your argument, you'd notice that his argument is that birds & dinosaurs split further back from a common ancestor. Like how Humans, Chimps & Bonobos did. As in, dinosaurs & birds are still very closely related, he's just arguing birds did not spring from dinosaurs, rather birds & dinosaurs sprung from a common ancestor.
Try again.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I keep asking Guy what his point is, and he apparently can't say.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
[QUOTE="ADigitalArtist, post: 5083233, member: 56353"
A. Is not actually countering birds from dinosaurs, but calling for small theropod avian dinosaurs to be put in their own independent clade from other non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
B. Is one proposed change within dinosaur to bird taxonomy which is not accepted by the vast majority of biologists, and this biologist you are quoting, who still sees modern aves as descended from theropod dinosaurs.
C. Stop trying to quote mine material you're not invested in actually understanding.[/QUOTE]
one more time
A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs
Alan Feduccia, biology professor at the University of North Carolina: "It’s just not a dinosaur. In other words, there’s not anything about this creature that allows classifying it as a dinosaur," he said.
An I'm putting contradictory words in his mouth?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
right, he believes the evidence suggests that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, we agree 100% on this one Nietzsche, sorry I know that's not much fun!
But do me a favor and take this up with Digital artist for me, he disagrees with you me and Feduccia on this
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
And this I understand. But my point (poorly conveyed at 4 in the morning) is more that the Animal Kingdom is very large. Insects are as much a part of it as chimpanzees are, yet the later is undoubtedly more advanced in several factors.
Are we a part of the Animal Kingdom? Yes. But that could just as easily be called the "Neural Kingdom," as bacteria and fungus don't have brains or neural activity. We are also undoubtedly a part of nature - I'm certainly not suggesting that we were simply placed here by divine creation as superior. Our evolution is a natural one, but our evolution has arrived at a species that is so far above the others it even gives us the ability to question and devalue that significance. It's not something that's only suggested by religion or Social Darwinism, but by biology.
Yes, we are in the same Kingdom as the great apes, and the same family of hominidae. But that's where the distinction ends: our genus is Homo, orangutans Pongo, gorillas Gorilla, and chimpanzees Pan. Even within our own genus, we are more than homo erectus or homo neanderthalensis. We are undoubtedly evolved from them, but we are not them. We are homo sapiens sapiens.
Not really; ever watched an MLG game? There are people that can not only remember stark details like the chimp in the experiment, they can recall those memories decades later.
And fish can naturally breath underwater. Does that make them overall superior to us?
Yes. Humans - while we can be highly destructive - will go out of our way to preserve the weak and uplift the floundering. Nature is not so forgiving, and readily tramples the weak and failing into the dust.
Birds from the suborder Theropoda, to be specific. And more precise than that, theropods from the clade Coelurosauria. Sauropods, for example, did not evolve into birds.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Feduccia thinks birds are descended from basal archosaurs. What are archosaurs?
"Archosaurs are a group of diapsid amniotes whose living representatives consist of birds and crocodilians. This group also includes all extinct non-avian dinosaurs, extinct crocodilian relatives, and pterosaurs. Archosauria, the archosaur clade, is a crown group that includes the most recent common ancestor of living birds and crocodilians. It includes two main clades: Pseudosuchia, which includes crocodilians and their extinct relatives, and Ornithosuchia, which includes birds and their extinct relatives (such as non-avian dinosaurs and pterosaurs)."
So again, just what your point is with all this is a complete mystery. And apparently you can't be bothered to explain.
This is a good illustration of why creationists are not taken at all seriously in science, and continually lose court cases. While you can get away with this sort of evasive behavior in online forums, you can't in science or court.
I've never heard that before. I'll have to read more about it.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
No, not really.
People are designed for communication. They have whites in their eyes so you can easily tell where their attention is. There are about three times as many muscles in the face for communications as an ape (i.e. monkey with no tail)
The brain of a person has a considerable amount devoted to language. Many monkeys can process simple things much faster than people, perhaps to let them swing through branches, but can't process higher level reasoning.
And about that DNA is 98% the same between monkeys with no tails and humans... well... no... that was never even close. That's based on cherry picked samples and even taking the human genome and using it as scaffolding to fit snippets of monkey against it... and surprise surprise .. the amount of claimed match steadily drops the more we know and there is even some reason to believe in the past there was human skin flake contamination with samples in labs bumping up the answers... 85% same is more realistic but a biologist might try claiming 95% not understanding all the assumptions leading to that
now... neanderthal? just a type of human that mostly died out in the ice age following the flood of Noah... same genetic hot spots as modern humans (a hot spot is a section of DNA with rapid changes compared to most)
Skwim
Veteran Member
If you agree 100%, then it's fair to presume you've examined all the evidence Feduccia has. Care to tell us when and where this took place?
.
Sure, sometimes, if they're human and members of OUR group...but if they're some other group, no rights and we can kill, enslave, persecute, oppress, etc. And if they're animals we've domesticated, we might take good care of them, or treat them poorly, so long as they give us what we want. And if they're wild animals, we might want to protect some of them, especially if they're cute...but really, if it costs much, or interferes with making a profit or keeping more and more humans alive, well, let's face it, they're screwed...hunted, habitat destroyed, hemmed in by mining and cities and farmland...
We humans, just like the nature we arose in, tend to do good and bad, for ourselves and others...but mostly I think we do bad...
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
The different estimates of similarity between humans and chimps has to do with how you enumerate the differences. For example, if we have an extra copy of a gene that chimps have only one of, exactly how do you quantify that? Do you do it by nucleotides, or do you count it as "one" (as in one = one extra copy)?
However, regardless of how one chooses to do it, the underlying fact remains the same.....not only are chimps most similar to us, we are most similar to chimps. By that, I mean that we are the chimps closest relative.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
A single article with zero sources does not good counter-evidence make.
Skwim
Veteran Member
OMG! Here, take a look at the following.
So far as we know the "the last common ancestor of old world monkeys and apes [,which] lived about 25 million years ago" were primates like Rukwapithecus fleaglei and Nsungwepithecus gunnelli, neither of which are called or even considered to be monkeys or apes, but simply "primates." Technically, those primates leading to Old World monkeys and apes are classified as parvorder Catarrhini, and those primates leading to the New World monkeys are classified as parvorder Platyrrhini. Those primates leading to both Catarrhini. and Platyrrhini are classified as infraorder Simiiformes. See below.
Order Primates
- Suborder Strepsirrhini: lemurs, lorises, etc.
- Suborder Haplorhini: tarsiers + monkeys, including apes
- Infraorder Tarsiiformes
- Family Tarsiidae: tarsiers
- Infraorder Simiiformes: simians, or higher primates
- Parvorder Catarrhini
- Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
- Family Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys
- Superfamily †Propliopithecoidea
- Family †Propliopithecidae (includes Aegyptopithecus)
- Superfamily †Saadanioidea
- Family †Saadaniidae
- Superfamily Hominoidea
- Family Hylobatidae: gibbons
- Family Hominidae: great apes (including humans)
- Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
- Parvorder Platyrrhini: New World monkeys
- Parvorder Catarrhini
Source: Wikipedia................†: extinct
.
.
Yep, you are. Because Alan isn't a creationist, he still says aves evolved from a basal archosaur, which means a reptilian to bird transition you deny for no particularly good reason.one more time
A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs
Alan Feduccia, biology professor at the University of North Carolina: "It’s just not a dinosaur. In other words, there’s not anything about this creature that allows classifying it as a dinosaur," he said.
An I'm putting contradictory words in his mouth?
Anyway, there's been plenty of evidence that aves descended from theropod dinosaurs and Alan has, despite numerous attempts, never demonstrated otherwise. He is one voice in a sea of biologists who can show the relationship:
Birds: The Late Evolution of Dinosaurs
How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds
The origin of birds
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off
Birds, Dinosaurs and Reptiles | ASU - Ask A Biologist
How birds really are dinosaurs
Birds are and descended from dinosaurs.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
another, shall you have then, Yoda!
A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.
Journal References:
- John Ruben. Paleobiology and the origins of avian flight. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0915099107
- David E. Alexander, Enpu Gong, Larry D. Martin, David A. Burnham, and Amanda R. Falk. Model tests of gliding with different hindwing configurations in the four-winged dromaeosaurid Microraptor gui. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0911852107