Originally posted by jaywillHere's two suggestions:
Good point.
The Kiwi and the Penguin don't fly. But they do have feathers and not inbetween feathers and scales body parts which present problems which need some contemplation at least.
For eons we supposedly have some animals with something inbetween feathers and scales.
Do you have any suggestion why fossil evidence of such should not be abundant rather than scant?
1. The fossil record isn't terribly good full stop, because of the difficult process that is required to actually form one in the first place. Creatures have to die in just the right place at just the right time and then have just the right processes occur after their deaths. This makes the fossil record understandably small.
2. Those creatures somehow intermediary between reptiles and birds weren't especially successful and were relatively quickly superceded by their more successful competitors. Hence, we don't see many of them. If they existed for a relatively short period of time, and given the iffy nature of the fossilisation process, we wouldn't expect to find many.
Originally posted by jaywillThis argument is often used in relation to eyes.
The problem of the survivability of some transitional forms has to be considered. Take the transition from scales to feathers in the transition between reptiles to birds.
If a reptile like creature with scales gradually evolved into a bird like creature with feathers, there are survivability issues which require some more explanation. Inbetween repitl ...[text shortened]... mething more abrupt than puctuated equilibrium is what I would have in mind as a possibility.
How could some creature with eyes that worked only half as good as ours survive?
If they live in an environment where most creatures have half-as-good eyes they'll do just fine. Likewise with feathered reptiles.
Yuga
a few of the creationists that are critics of macroevolution are scientists with PhD’s, and are leaders in their respective fields in science with their own views on creation, but some of the leaders which support evolution are also leaders in science.
If by creationists, you mean people who reject evolution, then please name one creationist who is a leader in his/her respective field. The top natural scientists all support evolution.
I cannot think of a single prominent creationist or even IDer who is anything close to a leader in their field.
Originally posted by amannionOf course, there are lots of creatures that have eyes half as good as ours, and even worse than that, and they do just fine.
This argument is often used in relation to eyes.
How could some creature with eyes that worked only half as good as ours survive?
If they live in an environment where most creatures have half-as-good eyes they'll do just fine. Likewise with feathered reptiles.
It's the same argument that goes "isn't amazing that fish can extract oxygen through their gills?"
...or "if water contained just 5% more sodium chloride in it it would be toxic to us - how incredible!!!!"
Hmmmm...
Re-arrange these words in any order you see fit:
argument arse face about is your
Originally posted by YugaSo your only real objection to the whole theory of evolution is that is seems unlikely to you based on the scant knowledge you have.
I recognize my statement about probability regarding evolution is incorrect ... [text shortened]...
There must have been an extraordinary set of circumstances necessary to initiate life (it is incredible that Earth even has the means to support life), and currently, the origins of life are beyond the means of science to fully explain to a reasonable degree of certainty; scientifically, propagating life, I believe, is not possible. ... [text shortened]...
Its equivalent to a genealogist telling you that you are descended from a particular famous person and you saying that is highly unlikely as you have no records of your grandparents.
Yes given no records, the probability of you being descended from say a particular King of England is very, very small.But if a genealogist has the records and tells you it is true can you still use your ignorance argument?
Originally posted by jaywillWhat are the "survivability issues"? Why would a dinosaur die just because it had feathers? (bird do have scales).
The problem of the survivability of some transitional forms has to be considered. Take the transition from scales to feathers in the transition between reptiles to birds.
If a reptile like creature with scales gradually evolved into a bird like creature with feathers, there are survivability issues which require some more explanation. Inbetween repitle ...[text shortened]... oesn't fly nor has true scales. At least the mechanisims for survival are yet to be discovered.
Its like a claim that a fish could not walk on land so there could never be an "in between" from fish to land animals. I have personally seen mud skippers which are clearly fish with the ability to walk on land.
Many animals are in the intermediate stage of learning to fly. There are squirrels, snakes, lizards and a number of other creatures that are capable of and show adaptations for gliding.
If the transition were made and such creatures lived millions of years, why don't we see abundantly more fossil evidence of it. If they didn't survive well, was the transition successfully made? If we interpret that the transition was successfuly made in this way I think the evidence of a halfway house should be abundant and not scant.
I do not know how abundant they were nor how long the "transition" was.
Keep in mind that all animals are transitional including dinosaurs and birds.
I believe that many many species in the fossil record have only one or two known examples. Some groups are more successful and leave more fossils. Birds may have evolved in a very small area. For example, suppose that a million years from now most land animals are descended from marsupials. We would find it quite hard to find the fossils of their ancestors without looking in Australia.
My advice to evolutionists would be to look rather into abrupt and sudden transformations. I think something more abrupt than puctuated equilibrium is what I would have in mind as a possibility.
Some changes are abrupt some are long term. I think it goes with environment. When the environment changes abruptly, animals are capable of rapid change (as the example of dog breeding).
2 edits
What are the "survivability issues"? Why would a dinosaur die just because it had feathers? (bird do have scales).
Do you think that the fossil record shows the number of dinosaurs in transition with something inbetween feathers and scales is as abundant as those who simply had scales?
Are you saying that millions of them survived but somehow there fossils did not? If so why?
Its like a claim that a fish could not walk on land so there could never be an "in between" from fish to land animals. I have personally seen mud skippers which are clearly fish with the ability to walk on land.
I have seen dogs walk on their hind legs. I'm not sure that proves that K9s are on thier way to evolving into two legged animals walking upright like humans.
Did these land walking fish survive by the millions but their fossils did not remain?
Many animals are in the intermediate stage of learning to fly.
There is no way you could really know that for certain. If the change requires many millions of years to observe you can only guess.
I have seen photos of a certain snake gliding through the air as it lept from branch to branch. It might be fun to imagine that gradually they will evolve into winged snakes flying like birds. But that cannot be known.
There are squirrels, snakes, lizards and a number of other creatures that are capable of and show adaptations for gliding.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThere were many species of dinosaur, I don't know that statistics but it is a fact that a large number of species existed which we have not yet found fossils of.
Do you think that the fossil record shows the number of dinosaurs in transition with something inbetween feathers and scales is as abundant as those who simply had scales?
Are you saying that millions of them survived but somehow there fossils did not? If so why?
It is possible that feathers evolved quite rapidly in a single or small group of species.
I have seen photos of dinosaur fossils with feathers.
How many fossils of dinosaurs with scales have you seen? It is very possible that many of the dinosaurs had feathers but all we see are bones.
Did these land walking fish survive by the millions but their fossils did not remain?
I believe some fossils remain and as I said some existing living species remain.
There is no way you could really know that for certain. If the change requires many millions of years to observe you can only guess.
I have seen photos of a certain snake gliding through the air as it leap from branch to branch. It might be fun to imagine that gradually they will evolve into winged snakes flying like birds. But that cannot be known.
I agree that we cannot know what the future holds but was pointing out that all animals are 'transitional' and that many species today could be the transitional forms of future flying animals. They don't seem to have a 'survivability problem' and many may not leave abundant fossils. Most flying animals only occur in forests with very tall trees and have fairly small populations.
A million years from now you will find lots of fossil frogs but possibly not find a single fossil gliding frog. That doesn't mean the didn't/don't exist.
I looked it up and flyers/gliders include frogs, fish and lemurs as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_and_gliding_animals
And the snakes I mentioned already have wings even though they may not look like birds.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you think then that some snakes and frogs are well on their way to learning to fly through the evolution process?
There were many species of dinosaur, I don't know that statistics but it is a fact that a large number of species existed which we have not yet found fossils of.
It is possible that feathers evolved quite rapidly in a single or small group of species.
I have seen photos of dinosaur fossils with feathers.
How many fossils of dinosaurs with scales have y And the snakes I mentioned already have wings even though they may not look like birds.
The thought of a flying spitting cobra or a rock python sufficating its prey in mid air is interesting.
But I could also imagine that the pinguin is going in the "wrong" evolutionary direction. While the amphibious frog is developing wings perhaps the flightless penguin is gradually becomming an amphibian.
I am not trying to be funny of lighthearted about it.
Doesn't it seem like the possibilties are too varied to be thought bizzare?
IF you imagine that the flap of scalely skin on the gliding snake are proto wings what prevents us from taking the hood of the cobra as proto wings?
The cobra erects itself and spreads its hood to strike. Is this possibly the first stages of the cobra also learning to fly? Are the proto wings around its head today as a hood?
Originally posted by jaywillWings are used to fly, thats what makes them wings. Yes the cobra has a similar body structure but that doesn't make it a wing.
IF you imagine that the flap of scalely skin on the gliding snake are proto wings what prevents us from taking the hood of the cobra as proto wings?
The cobra erects itself and spreads its hood to strike. Is this possibly the first stages of the cobra also learning to fly? Are the proto wings around its head today as a hood?
However it does demonstrate that similar structures can have multiple purposes thus the popular ID claim that you cannot have wings before you fly and you cant fly before you have wings is shown to be flawed.
Originally posted by jaywillI think that if the conditions continue to favor better gliding and flying that they will evolve improvements. As their environment is rapidly being wiped out by humans it is possible that it will never happen.
Do you think then that some snakes and frogs are well on their way to learning to fly through the evolution process?
But I could also imagine that the pinguin is going in the "wrong" evolutionary direction. While the amphibious frog is developing wings perhaps the flightless penguin is gradually becomming an amphibian.
I am not trying to be funny of lighthearted about it.
The penguin has already become a sea creature.(not an amphibian, most amphibians are largely land dwelling). There are many examples of mammals becoming entirely water bound. (Whales/dolphins)
Doesn't it seem like the possibilties are too varied to be thought bizzare?
I am not quite sure what you mean.
On the topic of penguins, do you think they are related to other birds or is that too far-fetched for you?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI used the term "proto wings" didn't I?
Wings are used to fly, thats what makes them wings. Yes the cobra has a similar body structure but that doesn't make it a wing.
However it does demonstrate that similar structures can have multiple purposes thus the popular ID claim that you cannot have wings before you fly and you cant fly before you have wings is shown to be flawed.
Now because the environment may change in ways that we cannot imagine evolution if true make take some surprising turns in the distant future. Suppose what we see today as bird wings are really a transitional stage into something else?
Perhaps they are proto solar panels of the distant future. It could be that today they funtion in a transitional stage as wings but what we really are seeing is the evolutionary development of animals with something like solar panels.
This panels would convert the sunlight to electrical energy somehow used by the birds of the future. Today they seem wings. But the ever gradual transition might reveal they are proto feathery solar panels to capture the solar energy of the sun.
What do you think? If evolution is true those wings may be in transition to become feathery solar panels?