AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Evolution

779 182514
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
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Stop saying that! It makes no sense whatsoever. How can dinosaurs be birds, yet birds aren't dinosaurs. That makes no sense whatsoever.


You're right, that makes no sense at all. Birds are dinosaurs, but dinosaurs aren't birds does make sense though.

That makes no sense whatsoever, they are 2 completely different species! That's just stupid!


It makes perfect sense.

No static means electricity that can't move to another place until it builds up and superheats the air until it conducts the electricity to the ground. It's called lightning.


Static
stat·icâ â[stat-ik]
adjective Also, stat·i·cal.
1.
pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2.
showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3.
lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
4.
Sociology . referring to a condition of social life bound by tradition.
5.
Electricity . pertaining to or noting static electricity.

I know, but they have similar physical properties, therefore, even if they're categorised differently, they are still similar to dinosaurs.


You claimed that they were dinosaurs, which is wrong. Being similar has nothing to do with anything.

They aren't dinosaurs. They are pterosaus (even though I got a red line indicating incorrect spelling, so they probably don't really exist, like Moe is claiming...).


Had you read the link you would have seen my spelling error, its actually spelled pterosaurs. Pterosaurs also has a red line under it, no spelling check is perfect.
thaboss
offline
thaboss
1,649 posts
Nomad

[walks in whistling]
#10
http://content.screencast.com/users/brenden12/folders/Jing/media/8f11dff2-0f8d-49dc-89a5-fc88050dea20/unbelievable.png
Full list of saddest internet argument techniques here.

[walks-... oh, never mind!]

Thaboss learned the whole "birds/dinos" spcheal in... 7th grade?

And he's not saying that you (alpharomerocars) aren't studying biology in college or whatever, it just seems that all these people are picking apart your wild statements with well reasoned logic and links to support their claims... Thaboss would think someone studying biology would know what they are talking about. (they is the people against you and yourself, btw.)

Thaboss is NOT here to stay.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

They're merely saying that they have a similar skeletal structure. Not that they are exactly identical to one another.


Did you just completely ignore the part where it says...
'So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs."'

In fact there is another link on that page dealing with just this question.
Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

This flat out says...
"Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs"

BIRDS ARE DINOSAURS! Got that?

As for your &quotterosaurs are dinosaurs" bit the first link also makes mention of that as well.
"pterosaurs are close relations, they are not true dinosaurs."
44Flames
offline
44Flames
585 posts
Nomad

I do now beleive that evolution could be possible.

Does this mean that we could evolve over time?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Does this mean that we could evolve over time?


Yes we did, with each new generation of our species.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

&quotterosaurs are close relations, they are not true dinosaurs."

In taxonomy, and this our dear lady alpharomeocars should know, comparative anatomy still plays a certain role, especially in paleontology. And if you compare the skeletons of pterosaurs with those of any dinosaur, you'll notice a number of skeletal characteristics found only in pterosaurs (pterosaur synapomorphies, or homologies if you want). This makes them a group apart, but that doesn't exclude a possible derivation from dinosaurs.

Why aren't they derived from a dinosaur? Simply because all dinosaurs share a number of traits not found in pterosaurs. If pterosaurs evolved from a dinosaur (which would basically make them dinosaurs, or derived dinosaurs, as birds), they'd at least share the most basal dinosaur synapomorphies.

Scaly skin, diapsid skull, all these are found in dinosaurs and pterosaurs, but also in a few other groups as well. These are not dinosaur synapomorphies, so having scaly skin and a diapsid skull does not make you a dinosaur yet. It makes you a diapsida.

Since you like taxonomy so much, alpharomeocars, I hope this explanation was more in your line of interest.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

@alpharomeocars
Your quite clearly trying to twist words around here and quite frankly I'm sick of it.

Yes an avian dinosaur is a dinosaur, this has been demonstrated and backed up. Yes they are different in that one is avian and the other is not, but they are both still dinosaurs. Your argument that it's not because you think it's not is meaningless.... No one is saying they are pterosaurs, seeing as you seem to be putting those words in peoples mouths here. They are saying pterosaurs are not dinosaurs. Your the only one here making the claim that pterosaurs are dinosaurs. Which you have yet backed up!

As for you having authority for being the biology student, YOUR NOT THE ONLY ONE! Though I have to say I highly question this point given your arguments. If you really are, I would recommend either switching your major or getting a refund on that course.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

I know that, but I'm still more highly qualified than you are, because you're just reading books, whereas I'm actually STUDYING the subject.


Doesn't actually mean so. Knowledge is knowledge, glimpsed from any source. It doesn't matter if you go to a prestigious college as much as you understand fully what you learn, and you read diversely.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Now, you guys have been around to recognize a troll when you see one. I'd suggest letting alpharomeocars stew in his own little trolly juices and get back on topic - whatever that is...


You know you may have a point there. I'm all for talking more about dinosaurs and evolution. We had that bit on evolutionary game theory that could be expanded upon.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

That aside, Mage, could you explain in simpler terms why birds can be classified as Dinosaurs. I can comprehend say, 70% of that article you posted but I would appreciate a briefer and clearer summary.

thaboss
offline
thaboss
1,649 posts
Nomad

http://content.screencast.com/users/brenden12/folders/Jing/media/9ffe4797-90dc-41cd-b7c8-93c7b61965c8/4and5.png

It's amazing how well this list works...

[quote]Had you read the link you would have seen my spelling error, its actually spelled pterosaurs. Pterosaurs also has a red line under it, no spelling check is perfect.


Yet, it recognises dinosaurs? Hmmm... Well, how come the spell checker recognises dinosaurs, yet not pterosaurs? That's must mean that pterosaurs aren't actually any different to dinosaurs at all, otherwise they would be on spell checker like dinosaurs are. Obviously, you made them up. [/quote]

because HahiHa is fabricating things or generally misinterpretating things


you are intentionally misinterpreting the information for your own purposes


who's to say that you aren't misinterpreting it?


they seem to be intentionally misinterpreting the evidence


Stop misinterpreting my information!


There was much more, thaboss just found the ones with the actual word "misinterpret."
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

That aside, Mage, could you explain in simpler terms why birds can be classified as Dinosaurs. I can comprehend say, 70% of that article you posted but I would appreciate a briefer and clearer summary.


I think wikipedia has a pretty concise way of putting it.

"There is a wide consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Using the strict phylogenetic nomenclatural definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor must be included in a group for that group to be natural, birds can thus be considered to be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct. Birds are classified by most paleontologists as belonging to the subgroup Maniraptora, which are coelurosaurs, which are theropods, which are saurischians, which are dinosaurs."

Here's a video that might be able to put it even more simply.
Greatest Misconception 1: Birds evolved from Dinosaurs

So people don't have to go digging here's the link that was provided on evolutionary game theory.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-evolutionary/
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

That aside, Mage, could you explain in simpler terms why birds can be classified as Dinosaurs.


I also have a question that I can't find an acceptable answer to after reading the article. Putting aside the taxonomic worries of defining a species in relation to others, I'm wondering about the term 'dinosaur'.
After doing just a little bit of research, it looks like modern birds are classified in such a way that fits them into the definition of dinosaur. But given the problems we have had in determining speciation and proper taxonomic practices in general, I wonder if this classification misses something important.
What I'm saying is that, sure, birds evolved from dinosaurs who survived the Great Extinction. But doesn't calling them dinosaurs somehow overlook the incredible changes and adaptations made over the past 65 million years? Isn't it a bit... misleading?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

thaboss, I love your list more and more...

Concerning the evol. game theory, I was on the mating stategies, and again what I remember of these is that the opportunistic may have a better mating success, but this one depends on the laborious maters; were there no laborious maters, the opportunistic ones would have to start with mating rituals too. That's why there's an equilibrium.

An example I remember are frogs; in certain species of frogs, there's one male sitting on his nenuphar and calling females (the laborious one). There are also so-called 'satellite' males sitting in the vicinity of those males and intercepting the females that get closer (I know, I love nature too ). The satellite males are of course more successful, especially when considering the calling male is much more detectable by predators. And yet the satellite males depend on the calling males to intercept the females.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

What I'm saying is that, sure, birds evolved from dinosaurs who survived the Great Extinction. But doesn't calling them dinosaurs somehow overlook the incredible changes and adaptations made over the past 65 million years? Isn't it a bit... misleading?

True indeed, and that's why, as Mage already pointed out, birds should better be called avian dinosaurs (if the term dinosaur is to be used), and the extinct ones are the non-avian dinosaur. We should have used thsoe term since the beginning, it may have saved some trouble..
Showing 586-600 of 779