 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sartresue
Radical Aspergian
Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Posts: 4609
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| willa wrote: | | mgran wrote: | I'd like to see a working theory as to how a scale is alleged to have evolved into a feather.
Or what evolutionary advantage there was for dinosaurs (solid boned) to have become hollow boned as they were turning into birds.
The idea of evolution, as I understand it, is that each stage presents some advantage over the previous stage. I don't see that a hollow boned dinosaur would have had that much of an advantage, and I can't imagine that scales would have been much use at some point midway between scale and feather.
Feather's by the way are a triumph of engineering. Have you ever had a good look at them under a microscope? They're amazing! Sliding joints intricately intertwined, kept oiled by the bird's grooming (there is a sebacious gland on their backs, so when you see a bird preen they are actually oiling their feathers.) There are also three different kinds of feathers involved in flight...
I think they're amazing.
I'd like to see any evidence to show how a dinosaur turned into a bird, without dying out along the way. |
The dinosaurs evolution into birds has been somewhat glamorized by hollywood/discovery channel. The T-rex did not evolve into today's ostrich, more than likely anyways.
We generally believe that about 65 million years ago a meteor hit the Yukon peninsula nearly wiping out the dinosaur population, there is plenty of evidence to support it, it's at least moved beyond theory and is now considered scientific theory, and very arguably scientific fact(of course there is always the theory that smoking killed the dinosaur, but i think gary larsen has lost some ground with that argument in the last decade). The key word here is that it 'nearly' wiped off the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs consisted of wide variety of class/order. And the disaster wiped out the larger of them, obviously killing off vegetation and larger animals first. But smaller dinosaurs (and animals in general) are better equipped to survive, being able to survive off dead fauna, the quicker to grow back smaller plants/trees, insects etc etc.
We also know of dozens of dinosaurs that predate the meteor who were feathered. Feathers were a evolutionary trait that came before the 'extinction' of dinosaurs, and it was those smaller dinosaurs more capable of winged flight that were better equipped to survive. Those are the ones that evolved into today's modern bird.
To kind of compare here, when talking genetic ancestors, we compare humans to apes, which we are generally believed to be about 4-5 million years separated. When talking birds to dinosaurs, you're talking 65 million years separated.
As well, dinosaurs are not generally believed to have had scales, though we really cant tell exactly what their skin was like, we probably would have found evidence of scales in certain fossilization situations similar to how we've come across dinosaurs that were fossilized in what were soft muddy areas that preserved the indentations of the feathers. The whole 'lizard with scales' things is again a more hollywoodized visualization thing, and really 100+ years outdated. |
U-Con peninsula? topic
I think the correct name is Yucatan Peninsula, down Mexico way. Not Yukon. This is a territory in Northern Canada, and it borders Alaska. Apparently, though, dinosaurs did roam The Yukon millions of years ago, in the Dino Age, when the world was much warmer.
Those Yanks.  Even Yukoners do not see snow 12 months a year! 
At any rate, I would like Evolution to explain the above! 
_________________
Radical Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind
Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory |
|
| Back to top |
|
Izaak
Squeeky Bathtime Companion
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1285
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Evolution explain how someone confused Yukon with Yukatan peninsula? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Master_Pedant
Deinonychus
Joined: Mar 15, 2009
Posts: 360
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:54 pm Post subject: Scaly Feathers |
|
|
| mgran wrote: | I'd like to see a working theory as to how a scale is alleged to have evolved into a feather.
Or what evolutionary advantage there was for dinosaurs (solid boned) to have become hollow boned as they were turning into birds.
The idea of evolution, as I understand it, is that each stage presents some advantage over the previous stage. I don't see that a hollow boned dinosaur would have had that much of an advantage, and I can't imagine that scales would have been much use at some point midway between scale and feather.
Feather's by the way are a triumph of engineering. Have you ever had a good look at them under a microscope? They're amazing! Sliding joints intricately intertwined, kept oiled by the bird's grooming (there is a sebacious gland on their backs, so when you see a bird preen they are actually oiling their feathers.) There are also three different kinds of feathers involved in flight...
I think they're amazing.
I'd like to see any evidence to show how a dinosaur turned into a bird, without dying out along the way. |
Orwell covered this topic already, but what the hell.
An actual chart of transitional forms between Theropod Dinosaurs and modern Birds.
As for your point on scale-feather transitions, it's times like these I'm glad I spent my childhood reading up on Evolutionary Biology. LINK
| Quote: | | The similarities between scales and feathers are extreme, actually. They're made of the same substance (keratin), they form from the same tissue during development. The most telling evidence of all, however, is that a single point mutation in chickens will turn their feathers into scales. If they aren't at all similar, why would that be the case? |
Or, if you want a more technical source:
| Quote: | | To test its function during feather development, we forced cDermo-1 expression in embryonic chicken dermis using a retroviral expression vector. In featherless (apteric) regions, cDermo-1 misexpression induced dense, thickened dermis normally observed in feathered skin (pterylae), and leads to the development of regularly spaced and normally shaped ectopic feather buds. In pterylae, cDermo-1 misexpression enhanced feather growth. In hindlimb skin, according to the local skin identity, misexpression of cDermo-1 induced ectopic scale formation. |
And, of course, you have to deal with all those ground dwelling theropod Dinosaurs which clearly have feathers.
Of course, there were many hollow-boned, non-flying, dinosaurs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Izaak
Squeeky Bathtime Companion
Joined: Jun 11, 2007
Posts: 1285
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just like the thought of a "jurassic park" velociraptor evolving to the point where they become a seagull, and are annoying you for a chip when you're down the beach!
Last edited by Izaak on Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Master_Pedant
Deinonychus
Joined: Mar 15, 2009
Posts: 360
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sartresue wrote: | | willa wrote: | | mgran wrote: | I'd like to see a working theory as to how a scale is alleged to have evolved into a feather.
Or what evolutionary advantage there was for dinosaurs (solid boned) to have become hollow boned as they were turning into birds.
The idea of evolution, as I understand it, is that each stage presents some advantage over the previous stage. I don't see that a hollow boned dinosaur would have had that much of an advantage, and I can't imagine that scales would have been much use at some point midway between scale and feather.
Feather's by the way are a triumph of engineering. Have you ever had a good look at them under a microscope? They're amazing! Sliding joints intricately intertwined, kept oiled by the bird's grooming (there is a sebacious gland on their backs, so when you see a bird preen they are actually oiling their feathers.) There are also three different kinds of feathers involved in flight...
I think they're amazing.
I'd like to see any evidence to show how a dinosaur turned into a bird, without dying out along the way. |
The dinosaurs evolution into birds has been somewhat glamorized by hollywood/discovery channel. The T-rex did not evolve into today's ostrich, more than likely anyways.
We generally believe that about 65 million years ago a meteor hit the Yukon peninsula nearly wiping out the dinosaur population, there is plenty of evidence to support it, it's at least moved beyond theory and is now considered scientific theory, and very arguably scientific fact(of course there is always the theory that smoking killed the dinosaur, but i think gary larsen has lost some ground with that argument in the last decade). The key word here is that it 'nearly' wiped off the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs consisted of wide variety of class/order. And the disaster wiped out the larger of them, obviously killing off vegetation and larger animals first. But smaller dinosaurs (and animals in general) are better equipped to survive, being able to survive off dead fauna, the quicker to grow back smaller plants/trees, insects etc etc.
We also know of dozens of dinosaurs that predate the meteor who were feathered. Feathers were a evolutionary trait that came before the 'extinction' of dinosaurs, and it was those smaller dinosaurs more capable of winged flight that were better equipped to survive. Those are the ones that evolved into today's modern bird.
To kind of compare here, when talking genetic ancestors, we compare humans to apes, which we are generally believed to be about 4-5 million years separated. When talking birds to dinosaurs, you're talking 65 million years separated.
As well, dinosaurs are not generally believed to have had scales, though we really cant tell exactly what their skin was like, we probably would have found evidence of scales in certain fossilization situations similar to how we've come across dinosaurs that were fossilized in what were soft muddy areas that preserved the indentations of the feathers. The whole 'lizard with scales' things is again a more hollywoodized visualization thing, and really 100+ years outdated. |
U-Con peninsula? topic
I think the correct name is Yucatan Peninsula, down Mexico way. Not Yukon. This is a territory in Northern Canada, and it borders Alaska. Apparently, though, dinosaurs did roam The Yukon millions of years ago, in the Dino Age, when the world was much warmer.
Those Yanks. Even Yukoners do not see snow 12 months a year!
At any rate, I would like Evolution to explain the above! |
The human brain never evolved to work with written words and has not had sufficient type to adapt into an inerrant speller, especially since bad spellers are not killed off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
willa
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 16, 2008
Age: 27
Posts: 741
Location: between bannings.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sartresue wrote: | | At any rate, I would like Evolution to explain the above! |
haha, you can blame that on Google spell check. Knew it was Yucatan, but i think i spelled it with a k, and google spell check suggested yukon, and didnt pay attention, just clicked first option.
_________________
“It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies.” - El Che |
|
| Back to top |
|
Master_Pedant
Deinonychus
Joined: Mar 15, 2009
Posts: 360
Location: Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
anna-banana
indifferent peapod
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
Age: 26
Posts: 5370
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mgran wrote: |
The idea of evolution, as I understand it, is that each stage presents some advantage over the previous stage. |
you clearly don't understand the theory of evolution. it does not imply progress, or advantage of any kind, over previous generations. all it means is better adaptation to the environment.
for example- if somehow the environment where giraffes live in would change so that trees would not grow as tall as they do now, the giraffes with long necks would have lower chances of survival than giraffes with shorter necks. if the environment of the cheetah would change so that being the fastest animal on earth would become a waste of energy, the cheetah would evolve to be less fast and thus save it's energy for other things (like reproduction). if human environment changed to favour less intelligent people, the whole human population would get progressively less intelligent.
and so on.
species adapt to their environment and the "progress" goes only towards better chances of survival and not towards our idea of "advancing" (like longer neck, faster speed, higher intelligence). we could just as well end up as illiterate monkeys in a few hundreads of years and in the eyes of biology it would be an improvement as long as it would mean being better adapted to the environment.
| ThatRedHairedGrrl wrote: | I've never read a satisfactory evolutionary explanation of female sexual pleasure.
There seems to be huge reluctance to admit that for the majority of women, the greatest, if not the only sexual pleasure, comes from non-reproductive stimulation. The various convoluted arguments I've heard to 'prove' that this is nevertheless some kind of adaptation to a reproductive end don't seem logical. (They sound, in fact, a lot like guys attempting to suggest that the kind of sex they find most fun is the only 'proper' kind.) |
maybe the area of "non-reproductive" pleasure used to be in some other place of a female body? maybe females who had the erogenous zones closer to the reproductive organs were more likely to have sex more often and thus have more progeny? and finally, maybe once a female body developed an erogenous zone situated in direct proximity of the genitals (maybe by some genetic mutation), I think it all must have gone from there.
and anyway, human males are relatively non-agressive, and female consent for sex is desirable. there must have been some mechanism that favoured female consent for sex. otherwise human males would have evolved to be far more agressive than they are :p
_________________
not a bug - a feature.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
DentArthurDent
Well I did warn you!
Joined: Jul 27, 2008
Age: 44
Posts: 1872
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
Honestly, every challenge I see raised against evolution is mostly ignorance from people who are too lazy to check a simple Google search to see if their objection has already been answered. |
But then they would have to put down the 'book of truth' and actually learn something. Far better to approach the world and life with stupid, subjective, fallacies that fit into their narrow realm of ignorance.
Edit = spelling error, I do hope no one attempts using eugenics to improve the written word. 
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
Last edited by DentArthurDent on Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
sartresue
Radical Aspergian
Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Posts: 4609
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Master_Pedant wrote: | | sartresue wrote: | | willa wrote: | | mgran wrote: | I'd like to see a working theory as to how a scale is alleged to have evolved into a feather.
Or what evolutionary advantage there was for dinosaurs (solid boned) to have become hollow boned as they were turning into birds.
The idea of evolution, as I understand it, is that each stage presents some advantage over the previous stage. I don't see that a hollow boned dinosaur would have had that much of an advantage, and I can't imagine that scales would have been much use at some point midway between scale and feather.
Feather's by the way are a triumph of engineering. Have you ever had a good look at them under a microscope? They're amazing! Sliding joints intricately intertwined, kept oiled by the bird's grooming (there is a sebacious gland on their backs, so when you see a bird preen they are actually oiling their feathers.) There are also three different kinds of feathers involved in flight...
I think they're amazing.
I'd like to see any evidence to show how a dinosaur turned into a bird, without dying out along the way. |
The dinosaurs evolution into birds has been somewhat glamorized by hollywood/discovery channel. The T-rex did not evolve into today's ostrich, more than likely anyways.
We generally believe that about 65 million years ago a meteor hit the Yukon peninsula nearly wiping out the dinosaur population, there is plenty of evidence to support it, it's at least moved beyond theory and is now considered scientific theory, and very arguably scientific fact(of course there is always the theory that smoking killed the dinosaur, but i think gary larsen has lost some ground with that argument in the last decade). The key word here is that it 'nearly' wiped off the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs consisted of wide variety of class/order. And the disaster wiped out the larger of them, obviously killing off vegetation and larger animals first. But smaller dinosaurs (and animals in general) are better equipped to survive, being able to survive off dead fauna, the quicker to grow back smaller plants/trees, insects etc etc.
We also know of dozens of dinosaurs that predate the meteor who were feathered. Feathers were a evolutionary trait that came before the 'extinction' of dinosaurs, and it was those smaller dinosaurs more capable of winged flight that were better equipped to survive. Those are the ones that evolved into today's modern bird.
To kind of compare here, when talking genetic ancestors, we compare humans to apes, which we are generally believed to be about 4-5 million years separated. When talking birds to dinosaurs, you're talking 65 million years separated.
As well, dinosaurs are not generally believed to have had scales, though we really cant tell exactly what their skin was like, we probably would have found evidence of scales in certain fossilization situations similar to how we've come across dinosaurs that were fossilized in what were soft muddy areas that preserved the indentations of the feathers. The whole 'lizard with scales' things is again a more hollywoodized visualization thing, and really 100+ years outdated. |
U-Con peninsula? topic
I think the correct name is Yucatan Peninsula, down Mexico way. Not Yukon. This is a territory in Northern Canada, and it borders Alaska. Apparently, though, dinosaurs did roam The Yukon millions of years ago, in the Dino Age, when the world was much warmer.
Those Yanks. Even Yukoners do not see snow 12 months a year!
At any rate, I would like Evolution to explain the above! |
The human brain never evolved to work with written words and has not had sufficient type to adapt into an inerrant speller, especially since bad spellers are not killed off. |
In the beginning was not the word topic
Too bad. Where is evolution when you need it?
_________________
Radical Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind
Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory |
|
| Back to top |
|
ThatRedHairedGrrl
Phoenix
Joined: May 11, 2008
Posts: 798
Location: Walking through a shopping mall listening to Half Japanese on headphones
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="willa"] | MissConstrue wrote: | | You find it more pleasurable when the guy is marxing your neitzsche, then when he is baptizing his schoppenhaur in your lazarus chamber |
 'Marxing her Nietzsche' deserves to be spread as an internet meme.
anna-banana - it's kind of complicated (and because this isn't the Adult Forum, I don't want to get too explicit here!), but the female genital anatomy in mammals is actually accepted as the 'default' version. Male bits start to develop after the boy fetus gets a jolt of testosterone. While we can't know for certain whether our mammalian ancestors also developed this way - those kind of organs rarely fossilize! - it's possible that there was originally a similar arrangement in both genders, from which an adapted version was selected in males because it aided reproduction...whereas the female version generally wasn't (although, you might want to look up hyenas...now they're weird!).
That's assuming that the pleasure is an inevitable byproduct of the anatomical setup, which we don't know for certain. On the one hand, we can't tell for sure if other mammals enjoy sex; on the other hand, what looks like a straightforward process often seems to be messed up in humans (especially women) by our big complicated brains and our cultural baggage. It's fun speculating, but I think the really interesting thing is what studies like this show about people's current attitudes.
_________________
Our little tribe has always been, and always will until the end... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jono
Toucan
Joined: Jul 11, 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 280
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ThatRedHairedGrrl wrote: |
That's assuming that the pleasure is an inevitable byproduct of the anatomical setup, which we don't know for certain. On the one hand, we can't tell for sure if other mammals enjoy sex; on the other hand, what looks like a straightforward process often seems to be messed up in humans (especially women) by our big complicated brains and our cultural baggage. It's fun speculating, but I think the really interesting thing is what studies like this show about people's current attitudes. |
Actually, we do know that other mammals enjoy sex. We know that dolphins do. Also, if you wanting an example of an animal closer to humans, especially for the specific subject you are talking about, look up bonobos. Here is a link on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior |
|
| Back to top |
|
0hanrahan
Raven
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Posts: 109
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Origins via evolution has not been sufficiently proven not to mention the immense Cambrian explosion.
All that has been proven thanks to Mendel and geneticists is micro-evolution. It is generational alterations in genetic coding. Recombination and mutations produce evolutionary changes.
Macroevolution, or evolution that explains the origins of the first multicellular life forms cannot be proven. The About.com Atheist article plays semantics games by claiming that this criticism is invalid since the two terms have interchangeable meanings. It works as a diversion but changes one problem for another. As far as I am concerned, no one has a corner on cosmology or origins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 20
Posts: 8369
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 0hanrahan wrote: | Origins via evolution has not been sufficiently proven not to mention the immense Cambrian explosion.
All that has been proven thanks to Mendel and geneticists is micro-evolution. It is generational alterations in genetic coding. Recombination and mutations produce evolutionary changes.
Macroevolution, or evolution that explains the origins of the first multicellular life forms cannot be proven. The About.com Atheist article plays semantics games by claiming that this criticism is invalid since the two terms have interchangeable meanings. It works as a diversion but changes one problem for another. As far as I am concerned, no one has a corner on cosmology or origins. |
Luckily for evolution it doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life- only its proliferation and diversification. It actually does have quite sufficient explanations of the development of multicellular life (from preceding unicellular organisms). Macroevolution has immense evidence behind it, and we have observed speciation directly, so we obviously know that it does occur. We've seen one species diverge into two, and we've seen new traits develop. These two combined are all of macroevolution, given enough time for the cumulative effect to make greater differences. Microevolution and macroevolution are, as the article you mentioned claims, essentially interchangeable terms. We introduce an arbitrary distinction to make it easier to conceptualize, but micro- and macro- evolution are really the same thing.
You are correct that evolution does not explain the origin of life. However, it does not attempt to. You may as well fault atomic theory for not explaining plate tectonics.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 4795
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 0hanrahan wrote: | Origins via evolution has not been sufficiently proven not to mention the immense Cambrian explosion.
All that has been proven thanks to Mendel and geneticists is micro-evolution. It is generational alterations in genetic coding. Recombination and mutations produce evolutionary changes.
Macroevolution, or evolution that explains the origins of the first multicellular life forms cannot be proven. The About.com Atheist article plays semantics games by claiming that this criticism is invalid since the two terms have interchangeable meanings. It works as a diversion but changes one problem for another. As far as I am concerned, no one has a corner on cosmology or origins. |
For the first two billion and a half years only single celled organisms existed on this planet. We have the traces of them, the stromatolites. These archea become prokyrites ane eukyrites until may three billion years ago. We finally get to multi-celled orgnaisms may 700,000,000 years ago. The fossils of vary ancient life forms clearly indicate that modification took place. This is macro-evolution - the fact. Then there is evolution -the theory. Darwin's hypothesis is that variation happens and natural selection determines what survives and transmits it characteristics to future generations. Modern genetics and molecular biology, a rigorous scientific field strongly integrated with physics and chemistry backs up Darwin's hypothesis (so far) to the hilt.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
