AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Evolution

779 182510
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

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?


I suppose it's more of an oversimplification of terms then being outright misleading.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

that's what I've been saying all along!!!

Would you agree that birds are to be classed in the superorder of dinosauria? If yes, then we agree.
Birds are 'dinosaurs' because they meet all synapomorphies, they did evolve since then though, that's why you've been (correctly) poking on the point that they don't look exactly like dinosaurs.
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

There is one point I have to address. I can't resist clearing a few things up.

They're not even in the same class! One of them is a reptile, the other's bird! Let alone the same genus!


It is true, using the Linnaeus system of taxonomy that was created over 200 years ago, Birds are in the class Aves and Dinosaurs are in the class reptillia. Dinosauria is a super order. So, how can Birds be in a super-order that belongs to a different class?

Because of this:
Linnaeus system of taxonomy that was created over 200 years ago


The Linnaeus system was created before researchers actually uncovered all the data that shows the evolutionary history of birds. Linnaeus just straight up divided all animals into six classes, based on current observations. As a system for classifying current species, it works all right. But if you want to compare the relationship between two species, it is horribly outdated. Birds are more closely related to any reptile than any non-reptile. Therefore, birds should be in the same taxonomic group as reptiles, since they split off at a later date than say, mammals. And all vertebrates are more closely related to fish than non-vertebrates, which his system also fails to demonstrate.

Any classification system worth anything has to be more than arbitrary words, like "avian dinosaur". Nowadays, words like dinosauria refer to things that are more related to each other than to non-dinosaurs. For instance, any dinosaur is more related to a modern eagle than a pterodactyl.

That is why we call eagles dinosaurs. Dinosauria marks a branching off on the evolutionary tree a long time ago. Think of current classifications as nodes on the tree, not as segments of a branch. Everything after this node is a dinosaur. This is known as monophyly.

In short: strict rank-based Linnaeus taxonomy is horribly outdated. A more modern method is phylogenetic nomenclature, which serves to not only classify organisms in an organized manner, but also reveals their evolution history and degrees of relation to other species.

The Linnaeus system is still taught largely because it is convenient until, well, it is no longer convenient. Like now. For instance, if I wanted to talk about different trees in my yard, I could use the Linnaeus system, because people don't care about the cladistics of these trees. But if I wanted to determine which were more closely related to each other, I would probably abandon this system and switch to cladistics.
thaboss
offline
thaboss
1,649 posts
Nomad

It's not going to "die."

And really there's not much hope of too many other people coming and discussing, all the "hostiles" are the ones with most experience in this type of thing. All they do is either discuss different things like that game theory thing one page back or crush the foolish arguments of Creationists/people who don't believe in evolution...

So what was that game theory thing? And a random question, what did Darwin contribute to evolution? Did he invent/discover it? Or natural selection? Was he the first to suggest the theory of evolution? How did he support his claims? Thaboss just wants some background details about this guy...

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Let's just wait, there have been a few posts in favor of discussion of the evol. game theory, but until now it didn't really start off (probably mainly due to us not being all so well informed about it^^). I know one or two examples of mating strategy equilibriums, but I have yet to read the whole site aknerd linked us to. It's quite a lot..

Unless anyone comes up with a new theme to discuss until then. I just don't.. oh wait, I may know something.

I saw a documentation of a few specialists asserting to ahve enough evidence that many dinosaurs (the examples they used where Triceratops, T-Rex and Pachycephalosaurus) probably had coloured keratin plates/ornaments on the head, just like the hornbill for example.
Their evidence were traces they found on fossils that were homologous to those found on sloth fingers, where the keratin claws are attached.

Interestingly they also asserted that Pachycephalosaurus was probably just a juvenile form of Dracorex.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

So what was that game theory thing?

As far as I got right now, it's the analyzing of frequency of different strategies. Like those mating strategies mentioned. Apparently there's a game theory that was first designed for economics, and was later applied to biology too.

And a random question, what did Darwin contribute to evolution?

He wasn't the first to try to solve the question, Lamarck was one of the first to realize animals change, contrary to what the Genesis dictates. Lamarck got the wrong concept though, Darwin was the first to develop the correct idea about natural selection. Interestingly Darwin never used the term evolution, this came up only after him. But he was the first to publicate a book about the concept of it, his famed "The origin of species" book.
thaboss
offline
thaboss
1,649 posts
Nomad

Yes. Because religion may be fine. However creationism is wrong. Obviously.


Yeah, that was stupid of thaboss.

Apparently there's a game theory that was first designed for economics


Thaboss is not 100% sure, but he thinks that his brother learned about that...

Lamarck got the wrong concept though


What did he think?
Thaboss remembers reading about something where people thought that say, children inherited traits that their parents had, but had gotten after they were born, like strength, or a good singing voice, or skill with a [tool].
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I saw a documentation of a few specialists asserting to ahve enough evidence that many dinosaurs (the examples they used where Triceratops, T-Rex and Pachycephalosaurus) probably had coloured keratin plates/ornaments on the head, just like the hornbill for example.


It's also thought many of these features such as horns and spikes were just ornate and not defensive.

Interestingly they also asserted that Pachycephalosaurus was probably just a juvenile form of Dracorex.


They said a good number of species could just be younger versions of other dinosaurs. From what I can gather this theory seems to be gaining ground.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

You know what, I'll just repost the link aknerd gave us. He's reading his books right now anyway, so might as well do some reading too.

Evolutionary Game Theory

Oh and here's just the wiki article on Darwin, if you want to know more. Right now I don't feel like reading all this up though, let alone give a short summary..

Charles Darwin
What I ought to say though, is that what Lamarck made wrong is he thought that animals adapt during their lifetime to certain needs, and then their offsprings inherit of these changed characteristics etc. However we know that this is wrong, and Darwin realized there was something he called natural selection, that gives an advantage to the better adapted instead that the animals change themselves.
He embarked on the Beagle, originally only to analyze and take samples of the fauna and flora of some place of South America I think, but on the stop at the Galapagos Isles he also collected samples and during the way back, realized certain patterns/had his first ideas about the way adaptation works. Back home he started to study this further and viola, years later we have his book.

Though it's only after Mendels discoveries that the scientific community had the means to understand the implication of genetics and the finer mechanics, that Darwin hadn't a chance of finding out.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Thaboss remembers reading about something where people thought that say, children inherited traits that their parents had, but had gotten after they were born, like strength, or a good singing voice, or skill with a [tool].


Yep that's pretty much it. The classic example is of a giraffe stretching it's neck to reach leaves. He thought as the parents neck became stronger it could pass this down to the offspring who could then carry on stretching and improving on the neck strength where the parent left off.
There are still some people today who think this is correct even though it's been blown out of the water.
thaboss
offline
thaboss
1,649 posts
Nomad

I'm going to completely back out of this discussion now. I'm just going to be a third party observer. I'm going to view these posts and not post myself. Goodday.

http://content.screencast.com/users/brenden12/folders/Jing/media/3dc4de13-79dc-4bb7-aacf-327832980bde/6.png
We shall see...

Anyway... Thaboss forgets if what he read about the traits passed on when living had Lamarck with it. Probably though.

What was that thing about the leopard and the whale or whatever it was...?
Thaboss hopes he isn't interrupting your higher level discussion, he just wants to learn. He doesn't act like he knows everything and is always right...
Please tell him if he intrudes...
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

What was that thing about the leopard and the whale or whatever it was...?
Thaboss hopes he isn't interrupting your higher level discussion, he just wants to learn. He doesn't act like he knows everything and is always right...
Please tell him if he intrudes...


Don't know what you mean? Was something about leopards and whales brought up that I missed?

You not intruding at all. Best way to learn is to ask.
thaboss
offline
thaboss
1,649 posts
Nomad

I just thought of this. If humans evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist? And the hyena that evolved into a whale, why is hyenas still around. Aren't they supposed to all have changed into whales by now?


From macfan1...

And the hyena that evolved into a whale

Once again, it didn't, they evolved from a common ancestor.


Reply from master565

Did they share a common ancestor?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

It's also thought many of these features such as horns and spikes were just ornate and not defensive.

Yes, especially the horns of the Triceratops, who are to be compared more to the antlers of deers, or maybe the horns of a mouflon, and not as a weapon to fend off T-Rexes.

And the Triceratops, too, may only be a fossil of a certain age class, other ceratopsia with differently inclined horns are different age classes (the animation in the documentary showed that with age, the horns grew first upwards and after adolescence started to grow downwards).

They said a good number of species could just be younger versions of other dinosaurs. From what I can gather this theory seems to be gaining ground.

Seeing as how scientists tend to declare each new found as a new species for their own publicity, I'm not surprised at all^^ I'm sure it's the exact same thing in anthropology, if not even more.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Did they share a common ancestor?


If you go back far enough everything has a common ancestor.

The animal whales evolved from appeared similar to a hyena but it wasn't closely related.

Here's an image showing where they sit. Hyena are feliformes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Artiodactylamorpha.jpg
Showing 601-615 of 779