AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Evolution

779 182522
stormwolf722
offline
stormwolf722
227 posts
Nomad

Well a lot of people have been telling me evolution is real. They give me the most craziest surreal 'facts'. Has anyone discovered any fish with legs? Any humans with gills or fins? If you put all the pieces of a watch into you're pocket and shake it around for trillions of years, will it ever become a watch? Is there but one possibility? Or if you completely dismantle a chicken and a fish, and put it into a box, shaking it around for trillions of years. Will it ever become a fish with wings? or a chicken with fins? :l

  • 779 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I think you guys should also read The Case For A Creator, by Lee Strobel.


lee Strobel is an idiot and a lair. Not worth the time and effort I have put into his ridiculous bs in the past.

Reptiles in the triassic period were generally dinosaurs. Ipsofacto, pterodactyls are dinos. U even seen jurassic parK???


Them showing up in Jurassic Park doesn't mean a thing. In the movie and book they resurrected other lifeforms besides dinosaurs.

Anyway dinosaurs are classified by the superorder dinosauria, which pterodactyls did not belong to.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Dinosaurs are reptiles not birds. Birds have feathers and air sacs whereas dinosaurs don't. They have scaly skin. Therefore they are reptiles. Dinosaurs aren't direct ancestors to birds.

As mentioned already, birds evolved from a certain group of dinosaurs, a group which the T-Rex was pretty close to. Birds' feathers developed from dinosaur scales, so saying birds are not dinosaurs because they have no scales makes no sense. Archaeopteryx may be the first to have started this whole thing, but you should search more about the Microraptor, and that whole group of small feathered dinosaurs; the true ancestors of birds.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Of which taxonomic hierachy?

Look for the family of the Dromaeosauridae, at least for the microraptor.

Like I said, they may be of a different phylum, but they are of the same class. i.e. reptilian chordata.

Is this even possible? Phylum is a higher order than class, so if they're the same class, they're atomatically the same phylum too.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Dinosaurs are reptiles not birds. Birds have feathers and air sacs whereas dinosaurs don't. They have scaly skin.


As I've already pointed out there are dinosaurs with such features. In fact every feature you can think of that makes a bird, a bird can be found on one dinosaur or another.

The archeopteryx or whatever I saw was the one between the two, not dinosaurs because, like my biology teacher said, fossils of common ancestors are rare, yet dinosaur fossils are really common. Therefore there's no way that they could be both.


Yes archeopteryx is a transitional form dinosauria to modern birds.
No that doesn't mean they can't be both. Over all yes fossils are rare especially ones of common ancestry. Though that doesn't mean we can find lots of particular fossils such as dinosaurs or fossils for the human linage. Another thing transitional form doesn't necessarily mean direct common ancestor. We can find loads of transitions (technically they all are) and find very few that are direct common ancestors.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

The feathery reptiles might be what I saw and thence they are the tru common ancestor of birds, no the T-rexes.

That's what I said, the feathered dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, and T-Rex was just a close relative of said feathered dinosaurs. Never said they evolved into birds..
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Have you seen a bird lately? They look nothing lie a dinosaur! And they skeletal systems are different...


Their skeletal structure is actually pretty similar.
Dinosaur Bird Bones

They even both have wishbones.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/Evolution/dinosaur-wishbones.jpg

On the left is a turkey wishbone, on the right are sever wishbones from different dinosaurs.

oh, okay. So the T-Rexes evolved into pterodactyls who evolved into feathured birds who evolved into modern birds, then? Gotcha...


NO T-Rex did not evolve into pterodactyl. Pterodactyls aren't a part of the dinosaruia superorder, they are on there own unique branch. T-Rex did not evolve into birds, they were just close relatives to the dinosaurs that did.

That makes no sense whatsoever...


Pick any feature that you usually regard as being unique to a bird. We can find a dinosaur with that feature as well.

yes I know they are called analagous characteristics, please pay attention...


Given your replys I don't think I'm the one that needs to be paying attention here.

It almost sounds to me like your repeating what you've heard but don't actually understand what your saying.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Family? Oh, that taxonomic group is the one that the dromaeosauride is. What is the binomial name for it? Are you sure that it isn't its class or order? Do you even understand taxonomy?

It can't be it's class since we're in the class of the reptilia right now... do you understand taxonomy?
Look, we don't know exactly what family is really the one that gave birth to birds, we still lack important fossils to determinte that definitely. But we are definitely sure that birds came from the suborder of the theropoda. T-Rex is also classified as theropod by the way.

oh, okay. So the T-Rexes evolved into pterodactyls who evolved into feathured birds who evolved into modern birds, then? Gotcha...

Oh gawd, no, NO! *sigh* Not at all.

Diapsida contains, among others, pterosauria and dinosauria. Now we zoom into the dinosauria (and leave pterosauria be). There we skip to the Saurischia, and from there to the Theropoda. There we find the T-Rex, velociraptor and other neat bipedial raptors. In there somewhere, one or two systematic levels lower (not the same level than the one in which TRex is classified!), we find the feathered dinosaurs, who later became the birds.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Oh gawd, no, NO! *sigh* Not at all.

Sorry if I got carried a way a bit...
skittlezareAWESOME
offline
skittlezareAWESOME
54 posts
Nomad

OH! We just talked about this in my science class! Anyway, one of the major clues that there was evolution is embryos. Our young embryos actually have the formation of gills, which do grow into ear bones. And fossils! Ohmy. Bats have our hands in their wings; Whales have our hands in their flippers; and many other animals have similar structures. There are tons of different clues about evolution. Back when Darwin, or the person who "discovered" evolution, was alive, he couldn't look at DNA. Now we can. We actually have the same number of genes as a chicken, which is 23,000 genes.

But to be honest, I really don't know what to think about evolution. I mean, there are facts that we can see, but it is kinda weird to think that our ancestors were monkeys!

thaboss
offline
thaboss
1,649 posts
Nomad

[walks in again]

but it is kinda weird to think that our ancestors were monkeys!


Thaboss thinks it's already been established that humans did NOT descend from monkeys, it is simply that we share a common ancestor.

[walks out again, hopefully for the last time]
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

So basically dinosaurs are birds, is that what you're saying?

No, the other way: birds are dinosaurs.

Well that's not true because I've seen birds and they're nothing like dinosaurs, so that's clearly incorrect.

As Mage pointed out already, there are enough characteristics in common between birds and dinosaurs, to validate the link between the two; especially skeletal characteristics. Another example are marks on dinosaur bones that are homologous to those on bird bones where feathers are attached. And the process from the scales to gliding feathers to flying feathers is pretty well documented.

That sounds interesting, but I have no idea what you're on about whatsoever.

Dinosaur phylogeny. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about: I've visited lectures about that theme.

And anyway birds can't have evolved from dinosaurs because dinosaurs went extinct during an acopocalypse and therefore there wouldn't have been any dinosaurs in order for them to be able to evolve into birds, so that's clearly incorrect.

That's the catch: not all dinosaurs went extinct. Most species did, but the birdlike theropods obviously didn't. And crocodils also survived as far as I know, I know they're not dinosaurs but if they survived, chances are they're not the only ones.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Don't be silly. They are clearly different species. You can tell by the way that they look completely different to a dinosaur. Seriously now, I though that that much would be obvious... I was wrong...

The only obvious thing is that your teacher made something wrong. Birds and dinosaurs only at the first look look too different; if you take the time to analyze both more closely, what you apparently didn't, you realize they're closer than they appeaar. You know, in biology, not everything is obvious to the eye; only a novice would think so.

that makes them similar to dinosaurs, not identical. For example, their body mass is considerably less than a dinosaur's. And they have air sacs, therefore they are completely different to a dinosaur.

Dude, don't be silly; the small feathered dinosaurs were just as small as your generic small birds. In this debate, size is no valid argument, at least not coming from someone with a working knowledge in biology; I'd have expected so much of a creationist, but not from you.

Crocodiles survived because they were underwater and they eat fish. Therefore they were able to survive on fish long enough to outlast the apocalypse and before the fish died of starvation and being eaten when they underwater food ran out because there is more of it underwater. With lakes being smaller than oceans they eventually evolved into smaller crocodiles which are the ones you get these days. However, birds wouldn't have survived because the ash blocking out the sun would cause plants to die. Without anything to eat they would starve to death and die. Worms can't survive because ash makes the soil very acidic and therefore they would die along with all the other annelids. Therefore there's absolutely no way that birds could've survived even though crocodiles did. That's why I disbelieve that birds evolved directly from dinosaurs. I think that it's most likely that when the dinosaurs died, then the hybrids would've evolved into birds after the apocalypse. Presuming that they didn't die from themselves; birds clearly didn't evolve directly from dinosaurs.

You sound as if the catastrophe wiped out everything on the surface; this is obviously not the case. I mean look around you!!
One reason the birds ancestors might have survived their relatives, are the feathers; they were great thermal regulators, even before having any function in flight. Also, as already said, many theropods were quite small, so no need of having huge carcasses to feed on.
Lastly, I'd like to stress out this point:
I think that it's most likely that when the dinosaurs died, then the hybrids would've evolved into birds after the apocalypse.

Small theropods were already bird-like before the catastrophe, which might be the actual reason why they survived.
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

They are clearly different species.


Well, dinosaurs aren't.. actually never mind. Reading through the last few pages provides enough evidence that arguing this point will not be fruitful.

Birds are dinosaurs, there is ample fossil evidence to support this. I don't think you really understand how taxonomy works. For instance, we (I'm assuming you are human, or at least a terrestrial vertebrate) are all part of the Sarcopterygii clade. This is the clade of lobe-finned fish. "But wait!" you say, "I have seen a fish and the live in the water. I do not live in the water, therefore I am not a fish. QED".

But, just like how "dinosauria" does not refer exclusively to large, triassic lizard things, Sarcopterygii does not refer to exclusively boney fish. It refers to all fish with fleshy, lobed, and paired fins (along with some other things), and all groups that evolved from these fish.

Because that is how cladistics works. I'm sure you have seen a cladogram before. It keeps branching off, but things at the ends of the branches belong to ALL the branches "beneath" them (I say "beneath", because cladograms are oriented in different ways. You know what I mean).

Can we talk about something more interesting than taxonomy?

Does anybody here know anything about Evolutionary Game Theory? I just got two books on the subject... But I still don't know that much about it. Sounds pretty interesting though.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Does anybody here know anything about Evolutionary Game Theory? I just got two books on the subject... But I still don't know that much about it. Sounds pretty interesting though.


I've heard about it but haven't looked to much into it. Since you've been reading up on it, perhaps you can fill us in more about it?
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Well if they are the same size as a bird and they have the same feathers as a bird and if they have the same skeleton of a bird, then clearly they are just birds, not dinosaurs.


Clearly all animals are grouped by appearance only, nothing else matters.

Birds survived


Wait, what about this?

However, birds wouldn't have survived because the ash blocking out the sun would cause plants to die.
Showing 556-570 of 779