Astonishing 99-Million-Year-Old Bird Wings Found Preserved In Amber

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: muzzleflash

None of what you linked to, or quoted, says that there is a "theory of macroevolution". No one is disagreeing that macroevolution is studied, just that there is no "theory of macroevolution". It's actually an area of study that is a part of the theory of evolution.

You're being disingenuous, because you and I know few disagree with "microevolution", it's essentially fact.

Macro on the other hand?
You're right it's not even to the theory stage yet, it's still a hypothesis.

I concede...

a reply to: TerryDon79

Also may I inquire how you think the platypus came to be?

Did the first mammals lay eggs and this creature is just a remnant of that original line? Is it related to ducks?

Or is it an exceptional branch from live birthing mammals that somehow ancient inactive dna got activated and this was the result?

Does this mean the first mammals come from duck like birds originally?

I dont mean to go too far off topic here but I am being attacked over a word that I did technically use properly no matter what opinion one has about the validity of evolution meanwhile the bizarre mysteries I brought up (Lazarus, beaks, etc) are being completely willfully ignored. Why?

a reply to: muzzleflash

The duck-billed platypus is actually a mammal. A very early type of egg laying mammal. It's a monotreme. From what we know, they split from echidnas around 19-48 million years ago. They're closely related to Teinolophos and Steropodon (other, extinct, monotremes).

That would mean that mammals did, in fact, lay eggs before they evolved to live birthing.

(That's about all I know on the platypus)

a reply to: TerryDon79

Here I'll help:

The evolution of mammals has passed through many stages since the first appearance of their synapsid ancestors in the late Carboniferous period. The most ancestral forms in the class Mammalia are the egg-laying mammals in the subclass Prototheria.[1] By the mid-Triassic, there were many synapsid species that looked like mammals. The lineage leading to today's mammals split up in the Jurassic; synapsids from this period include Dryolestes, more closely related to extant placentals and marsupials than to monotremes, as well as Ambondro, more closely related to monotremes.[2] Later on, the eutherian and metatherian lineages separated; the metatherians are the animals more closely related to the marsupials, while the eutherians are those more closely related to the placentals. Since Juramaia, the earliest known eutherian, lived 160 million years ago in the Jurassic, this divergence must have occurred in the same period.

The wiki

Keep in mind this stuff is heavily hypothetical based on very limited data. Still a good read though.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Yes you are right: it should have read 'on land' in stead of 'on earth'. You are also right that both insects and crustaceans are arthropods. And before 2010 you would have been right stating that insects are not crustaceans, but from the moment that first paper appeared (followed by 4-5 others) insects are part of the (pan-)crustacean group, with probably some crustaceans (e.g. sea monkeys) closer related to insects than to other crustaceans (e.g. crabs).

Regier et al. 2010. Arthropod relationships revealed by phylogenomic analysis of nuclear protein-coding sequences. Nature 463: 1079-1083.

Cheers!

originally posted by: M00nStar
a reply to: Harte

So what exactly would an Ostrich be? Dinosaur or Non-Flying Bird?

Would a stegosaur be a four-legged bird with wings on it's back?

Harte

originally posted by: Greggers
The word Avian doesn't mean "not." .

That's exactly what it means, birds are Avian dinosaurs, Dinosaurs however are not birds

You don't seem to get basic animal classification.

Maybe if I use a different example closer to home for you

Dogs are descended from wolves
However wolves are not dogs..

get it yet?, its semantical, which imo always makes the most boring of discussions, if you want to believe that birds are T.Rex's then good luck to you.

originally posted by: Marduk
if you want to believe that birds are T.Rex's then good luck to you.

A flying T-Rex!

*dreams*

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: gortex

99-million-year-old wings

That cant be right. God created birds some couple of thousands years ago.

She put the wings in the amber to test us.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Marduk
if you want to believe that birds are T.Rex's then good luck to you.

A flying T-Rex!

*dreams*

shut up shut up, before some idiot starts going on about dragons

a reply to: Marduk

I don't believe in dragons. I'm not Welsh.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Greggers
The word Avian doesn't mean "not." .

That's exactly what it means, birds are Avian dinosaurs, Dinosaurs however are not birds

You don't seem to get basic animal classification.

Maybe if I use a different example closer to home for you

Dogs are descended from wolves
However wolves are not dogs..

get it yet?, its semantical, which imo always makes the most boring of discussions, if you want to believe that birds are T.Rex's then good luck to you.

You seem to be the one who is confused, not merely about taxonomy, but about the nature of the conversation we're having. I never claimed that dinosaurs were birds.

What I said was the reverse, specifically that BIRDS are DINOSAURS. The first statement is wrong (unless one inserts a limiting qualifier), while the latter 100% accurate. Birds ARE dinosaurs.

Avian still doesn't mean "not." Avian means "relating to, or of, birds."

And yes, avian dinosaurs are STILL dinosaurs. Otherwise, we wouldn't call them avian DINOSAURS.

As far as your statement about birds being T-Rexes, I will simply leave you with this quote from a previous poster in this thread, which provides proof that birds and T-rexes are both, in fact, accepted to be dinosaurs by mainstream science:

So, in the eyes of mainstream science, the clade ‘Aves’ and species ‘Tyrannosaurus rex’ share a common ancestor and are both placed in the clade ‘Dinosauria’. Maybe that changes tomorrow in the light of new findings, but today it is the most accepted theory.

originally posted by: Agnost
Just checked in again on this thread and saw it is more or less sorted out.

The semantics are indeed confusing. What people perceive as being dinosaurs, is not what biologists and paleontologists perceive as dinosaurs. The same happens with apes.

New discoveries and new techniques are changing taxonomy, and also caused the shift from paraphyletic clades to monophyletic clades. A clade that was classified alongside another one, suddenly might find itself classified as a part of the latter clade, or even split up and placed under different clades. And in many cases the original names of the clades are maintained.

So, in the eyes of mainstream science, the clade ‘Aves’ and species ‘Tyrannosaurus rex’ share a common ancestor and are both placed in the clade ‘Dinosauria’. Maybe that changes tomorrow in the light of new findings, but today it is the most accepted theory.

Likewise humans, gorillas, gibbons share a common ancestor and are placed in the clade ‘Hominoidea’, that means human-like, but its actual synonym in common language is ‘apes’, so theoretically, yes, we are apes.

And, here is another one: ever wondered why there are almost no crustaceans on earth, and almost no insects in the water? Well, that was answered in 2010 (and following years) when they discovered that insects are in fact crustaceans, although in this case they changed the name of the clade ‘Crustacea’ to ‘Pancrustacea’ and the old ‘Crustacea’ is now a polyphyletic group.

In day to day life (and in fact in schools also) people may see and study apes and humans, crustaceans and insects, dinosaurs and birds as separate kinds of ‘sister’ groups, and that’s fine with me for practical reasons, but in today’s mainstream science semantics they are not.

Cheers!

I'm quoting this post because MARDUK really needs to read it.

Yes, birds are dinosaurs. The post above is a very eloquent addition to the several posts I've made on the topic, essentially saying many of the same things regarding the changing taxonomy standards.

On the other hand, dinosaurs are not birds (not without a limiting qualifier of some kind), nor did I ever say they were.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
You have now been confronted with the fact your simplistic opinion was driven by bias and ignorance and foolish prejudice.

No wonder it's difficult to discuss this topic, you immediately jump to the conclusion that I "haven't studied biology" when I've actually spent years doing exactly that in a formal setting. Over a single word you didn't even bother to Google?!?

Please read the article linked, do some basic research for at least 1 hour, then let me know what's up.

Blindly believing in things should be avoided and we ought to question things and most of all, do a tiny bit of reading. Just a tiny bit would be fine...

Sorry, but you are the one that mentioned "theory of macro evolution". The scientific theory is the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis. Micro and macro evolution only differentiate time. The mechanisms are exactly the same.

Big evolutionary changes do not happen over night. They are an accumulation of the smaller changes, not sudden big changes and the definition you posted above agrees with me. Micro = short term small change, macro = longterm result of numerous small changes adding up over time.

Claiming that micro evolution is proven, but macro is not, is laughably absurd. If you wish to suggest they are different, then it's on YOU to show the different mechanisms, or demonstrate why there is a limit on accumulation of changes. Good luck with that.

a reply to: Barcs

You are making a strawman argument now, and knowingly misconstruing what I said purely to be a jerk because I dared question evolution.

I added a modifying term to give specification on the general area of dispute, and you're using all sorts of disingenuous tactics and fallacious claims to try and assassinate my post - where I clearly said I was curious, recognized it was theoretical, and sought to learn more about the most difficult aspects.

You're just a jerk for that, and I am very disappointed in your attitude. It's uncalled for. I'm sorry for doubting and questioning your beliefs, but you need to get over the fact not everyone blindly agrees.

Do you even know what strawmen arguments or disingenuous misconstruing is? You knew exactly what I meant by what I said and think you can slyly shame me into being afraid to publicly question your religion - but at no point did you bother addressing my good questions did you?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: muzzleflash
You have now been confronted with the fact your simplistic opinion was driven by bias and ignorance and foolish prejudice.

No wonder it's difficult to discuss this topic, you immediately jump to the conclusion that I "haven't studied biology" when I've actually spent years doing exactly that in a formal setting. Over a single word you didn't even bother to Google?!?

Please read the article linked, do some basic research for at least 1 hour, then let me know what's up.

Blindly believing in things should be avoided and we ought to question things and most of all, do a tiny bit of reading. Just a tiny bit would be fine...

Claiming that micro evolution is proven, but macro is not, is laughably absurd. If you wish to suggest they are different, then it's on YOU to show the different mechanisms, or demonstrate why there is a limit on accumulation of changes. Good luck with that.

I did not make that claim and you cannot shift the burden of proof onto me to prove your beliefs for you while you are too lazy to do so.

I claimed (by inference) I doubted that accumulated mutations could randomly amount to complete viable species morphing as it seems so improbable and there are dozens of major problems with that proposition.

Because I doubt your blind belief does NOT shift the burden of proof onto me to "disprove or prove" it. The burden of proof remains on the proponent of the theory.

Instead of explaining why such a theory makes perfect sense and addressing my questions you did what?

1) Completely avoided my doubts.
2) Focused on a word I did not misuse claiming I misused it yet now you're using it just like I did.
3) Created a strawman argument and attacked it rather than addressing my actual points of curiosity.
4) Attacked my character for no reason other than to shame me for doubting evolution.
5) Knew you were committing this act of viciousness, therefore were disingenuously misconstruing my post.
6) Tried to put the burden of proof on the doubter of your theory which is absurd.
7) Acted very snobbishly.
8) Completely failed in your goal.
9) Wasted everyone's time.

a reply to: Barcs

While I'm at it I'll address one issue here.

I find it improbable that an animal would go from not having wings to suddenly having wings and being able to fly.

If it were via an accumulation of many mutations over thousands or millions of years that means:
it slowly evolved a non-useful lengthy series of pointless mutations and then one day eventually these non-useful random mutations amounted to the development of a fully usable wing.

I see that as complicated and absurd.
Why would it favor all of these useless mutations when they don't amount to a necessity for survival until way down the line?

Wouldn't all of these intermediate mutations risk becoming detrimental for a long period of time while it slowly developed into a working wing configuration?

If adaptation is for survivalist reasons, how did the dna "know" to keep slowly randomly mutating towards this "goal of a wing" thousands of years down the line? It can't "know", it had to be pure random coincidences that by luck, became wings.

Yet at the same time that half of the creatures are undergoing this magical "evolution" process and drastically morphing unbelievably complex new features and abilities (somehow surviving the intermediary phases) --- the other half of the creatures remained the exact same as originally recognized in the fossil record for up to hundreds of millions of years, not needing to adapt to the vastly ecological or climatic shifts continually occuring around them??

If the Lazarus specimens were so survivable why need to adapt into these creatures claimed to derive from them?

It's all a huge mystery and unbelievably sophisticated and complex. Like I said, if anyone can really prove how this works thoroughly and eloquently you will get a Nobel and sell tens of millions of books on this...

A wing is a weaker example.

Let's think of primary sensory organs like eyes or ears.

Now, going from no eyes and not seeing to having even the most rudimentary eyes and suddenly seeing light is the big mystery.

Once you have eyes, continually improving them to having better sight is more reasonable (though still seemingly improbable).

Think of it, creature X slowly mutated a thousand times slowly building the components of the first primitive eye - without having any use for any of those components until way later when it finally completed the vastly complex project.

I'd almost think the jump to having an eye suddenly must have occurred in one single birth. At least the mutations would function properly immediately and give certain survival benefits right away.

But who does the new species breed with?
How does that work?
This is utterly confusing.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
Now, going from no eyes and not seeing to having even the most rudimentary eyes and suddenly seeing light is the big mystery.

Primitive organisms have photreceptors and other receptors to allow them to respond to the environment (move away from things that will kill them, like bright light (UV rays) or heat or cold.)

Eye structures evolved during the Edicarian expansion (600 million years ago) and it wasn't "sudden."

Once you have eyes, continually improving them to having better sight is more reasonable (though still seemingly improbable).

Think of it, creature X slowly mutated a thousand times slowly building the components of the first primitive eye - without having any use for any of those components until way later when it finally completed the vastly complex project.

Actually, the creatures survived that had eyes best adapted for their living situation. This shows up pretty clearly in the trilobites with their many variations on the theme of "eyes"

Other creatures were developing eyes at the same time (convergent evolution.) We see certain structures evolving and re-evolving in different clades throughout time.

a reply to: Byrd
Wait. What?
You mean irreducible complexity is not a valid argument?
en.wikipedia.org...