It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If we evolved from monkeys and evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys today?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Archeopteryx

Archaeoraptor is a hoax, albeit a very good one.


It was just a bird fossil with a dromeaosaurs tail glued onto it. It wasn't 'very good'. He was talking about archaeopteryx, which wasn't a hoazx.

National Geographic has recanted their claim the bird-reptile was a missing evolutionary link.

Also noticethat Nat. Geo. is just a magazine, not a source of primary literature. Archaeoraptor was found to be a hoax, probably perpetrated by the chinese seller, by scientists studying the 'fossil'.

The Vestigial bones found in whales are actually quite useful and different depending on the sex of the whale. In male whales the bones help penile erections and in females aid in vaginal contractions.

Vestigial organs need not be functionless. THe 'pelvic bones' in whales are homologous with land animals leg bones.

As for sharing DNA[...] Some would say the soul is in there too."

The point is however that these organisms do in fact share dna. Initially one population split into different ones, and the dna in each varied along its own independant path. Human dna and Chimp dna are similar, indicating that they both inherited it from a common ancestor.

kapitan:
God left clues everywhere for us to unravel, so that we may attain enlightenment and maybe even understand God and the universe from the microscopic to the grand.

How are people supposed to do this tho, scientifically or no-scientifically?

jumpspace:
Look at the catholic religion - they used to promote a belief in re-incarnation

Where in the world did you hear that?

black jackal:
Archaeopteryx it is not a forgery but it is a true bird

AIG is completely incorrect. Arch. has a bony tail, no beak, and dinosaurian teeth, along with fingers that are completely free throughout its life. It -is- a transitional species, it has elements of the 'dinosaur' type and elements of the 'bird' type.

kapitan:
There are a few tantalizing fossils, but as of yet nothing diagnostic

There are numerous fossils that are tranistional between 'types'. Lobe finned fishes, therapsids, dino-birds, australpithecines, and others.

black jackal (from an article):
Martin (1985, p. 182) states

Larry Martin's arguements have been dealt with and rejected by the majority of the paleontological community. Quite a bit has happened since 1985. Also, Martin is not anti evolution. He thinks that there are other transitionals, and that birds evolved, thru normal evolution, from more primitive reptiles than dinosaurs.

"How could scales become feathers, and not only be useful in the intermediate stages but provide a comparative advantage?"

Prim has dealt with the evolutionary stages of feathers and the distinct advantages each stage offeres. His model seems to be confirmed by the finding of succesively more advanced representatives of bird-dino evolution with these feather stages in sequence.

Dinosaur paleontologists would do well to consider what Phillip Johnson says on the subject of fossil "evidence" for evolution

Phil Johnson is a lawyer with no scientific training and apparently a terrible understanding of the evidence involved in evolution.
Honestly, AIG is not a good source of scientific information. What do you think are some of their best evidences for scientific creation presented on their website?




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Sorry I haven't replied I am not chickening out. Storm knocked out my cable thus my internet. I live on the coast in virginia and the remnants of that tropical storm got us a little.

Well I have read (most of the replies) I don't got a bunch of time relatives coming down for labor day. I still don't buy it at all. One thing about evolution is that it is the THEORY of evolution. Evolution has no proof either hence why it is still a theory. Sure I may be uneducated on the subject does this mean I am ignorant. Nope. I know there is no way there is only one species intelligent enought to do the things humans do (land on the moon, send rovers to mars, fly in machines etc.) without it having been influenced by a higher power. Sure animals can be smart but they aren't smart enough not to eat their own $hit are they? One species out of billions reaching a level of intelligence as high as ours. Out of all the species ever existing only us. I don't think so.

Animals might not need advanced intelligence to survive. They might have their own successfull nitch as some of you say. Basically you all are saying a animal has no need to evolve and doesn't if it finds a succesfull nitch where it can survive. Hence why there are still monkeys. Your saying basically this common ancestor of all primates branched off into several homonoid species including neanderthals and humans etc. If this is true why did this common ancestor evolve into comptetitive sperate branches in such a short peroid of time. Isn't this contrary to evolution? Doesn't a species supposedly evolve to preserve its existence? Modern Humans exisited with many of these species. If we evolved how did we coexist with them. Same issue with monkeys. We exist with them. If we were once an apelike species that lived and breathed and did everything the same as modern apes do then why did they branch off. Apes found their nitch and their ancestors are basically the same. Why did they have to evolve? Wouldn't they have remained like the aligator unchanged because it found its nitch?

I belive that god created man and life on earth. What created god you might ask? I don't know and I am sure I never will. What was he? I don't know.
Maybe he was a being from somewhere other than earth from an advanced race or species that using technology created life on earth for some reason. I don't know. All I know is that humans are different and that is no coincidence and there is no way we evolved from other animals.

Why does there always seem to be a missing link for the evolution of all these species. Seems to be missing links everywhere. I can theorize all day. Evolution is a crock of crap that has absolutly no proof. A fossil of an entirely different speicies that looks like a screwed up deformed human is no proof. Too many missing links and theorys for me. As for creation, very easy to belive. An intelligent being created life on earth.



[edit on 2-9-2004 by Hoppinmad1]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
i'm too busy to read all the rteplys, so sorry if some on said this already, but the theoy is that we evoled from a primape, and the primeape we evoled from is gone, that is why people are looking for the 'missing link'
the monkeys and apes that are in excistants to day are just a differnt breed of sapians, there genitic structor took a differnt route long ago. they are not our bothers, or sisters, but DISTANT(very) cosins in a sence. i hope this helps to explian a little.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Wow, I did a huge thing on this awhile ago and no one replied. Maybe it was because it was supporting evolution and not discounting it.(note to self, next time you make an evolution post, make it anti-evolution, people will actually reply)

Anyways, "Where's your proof? I don't see any proof." While the guy closes his eyes as tight as possible. Well, where is your proof of god? "The Bible." Is that a credible sourse? "Of course it is, it was witten by christians." I thought the Old Testament was written by Jews. "Lies! You go to hell!" Wasn't Jesus, Joseph, Mary, all Jews? "Lies! You go to hell!" What about the FACT that even the catholic church caved in and said that microevolution was correct? "Lies! You go to hell!"

Anyways, evolution exists. Proof is right outside your window, in your house, even at the grocery store. The cat/dog you have? Evolution. The dog from the ancestor of the wolf/fox/jackal. The cat? Ancestor of the Margay/Ocelot/Cheetah(Yes cheetah, it is in the small cat catagorey for it purs, and doesn't roar like the big cats) The apple or orange tree that made the apples/orange you are eating? Evolution. Reason apples live in colder climates than they id before is because the apple trees that could live in colder climates lived and passed the cold gene. Oranges bigger because the farmers bred the orange trees to grow larger oranges.

Anyways, another thing the ignorant attack is Theory. They act like Theory means the scientist took a hit of acid and just wrote down whatever came to mind. But in the real world without invisable powerful people that live in the clouds, scientific theory means fact. The Theory of Gravity. The Theory of Round Earth. The Theory of Earth Orbiting Around Sun(couldn't think of the actual name) They all facts, and all scientific theories.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I hate the argument of look at cats and dogs and etc. The fact is a cat is still a cat and a dog is still a dog. Animals can change sizes colors etc. But the thing is they are still the same stinking animal. A cat + cat = cat.

Why would a common monkey ancestor evolve and change when it lived and fed off the same things modern monkeys and apes do. Why would nature make it change to survive. Alligators have been around for millions of years without change. They found their supposed nitch. So why would primates branch off into competitive species.

If monkeys are still here because they found their nitch they why did their ancestors branch off in the first place is what I am trying to say.This defeats the supposed purpose of evolution. Survival. Many species have existed without change for millions of years. This alone defeats evolution I belive.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
I hate the argument of look at cats and dogs and etc. The fact is a cat is still a cat and a dog is still a dog. Animals can change sizes colors etc. But the thing is they are still the same stinking animal. A cat + cat = cat.

Why would a common monkey ancestor evolve and change when it lived and fed off the same things modern monkeys and apes do. Why would nature make it change to survive. Alligators have been around for millions of years without change. They found their supposed nitch. So why would primates branch off into competitive species.

If monkeys are still here because they found their nitch they why did their ancestors branch off in the first place is what I am trying to say.This defeats the supposed purpose of evolution. Survival. Many species have existed without change for millions of years. This alone defeats evolution I belive.


I think alot of people here dont realise that much of the evolution belief isnt so much that a specific animal evolved into a NEW animal, but a specific animal may have evolved itselfs physically to a higher state.

Its well know that many creations, fish, reptiles, and mammals, all adapt to their enviroments over the years. The major parts of an animals survival capabilities is: Hunting or Defending, Natural body defenses, and Elemental Conditions. Depending on the need of something for survival, an animal can adapt, and evolve, to suit the needs of what they need to survive; for example, if you take the Wooly Mammoth, it was essentially an Elphant, but in the area it lived in, it needed to grow heavy coats of fur to protect it from the cold. This is Evolution. As Humans, coming out of the Ice Age, we lived primarily in sheltered caves, and we're much hairy, much more Ape-like. We ofcourse, we're not apes, nor did we spawn from them, but we were Primates. We walked on all fours similar to a monkey (evident of ancient fossil bone structure), which was because we lived in caves, and didnt need our hieght. Food was forraged, and natural body defenses were not previlent in our species. Our Defensive and major survival ability was Technology. Using them, we could survive much easier. over time, as we got out of the caves, and used tools, our bodies found it was much more suitable to stand as a species, and we began over time to begin being born to be made to stand. We became less hairy as the ice age died out, and such aswell. This is all examples plainly of evolution. We even see evolution today. People in the 1800s were a good 5'4" average height, now the average is 5'11" for me, and about 5'6" for women. Even before the 1800s, people were as short as 4 feet. This is a natural evolution as our bodies find purpose to grow in height.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
I hate the argument of look at cats and dogs and etc. The fact is a cat is still a cat and a dog is still a dog. Animals can change sizes colors etc. But the thing is they are still the same stinking animal. A cat + cat = cat.

Why would a common monkey ancestor evolve and change when it lived and fed off the same things modern monkeys and apes do. Why would nature make it change to survive. Alligators have been around for millions of years without change. They found their supposed nitch. So why would primates branch off into competitive species.

If monkeys are still here because they found their nitch they why did their ancestors branch off in the first place is what I am trying to say.This defeats the supposed purpose of evolution. Survival. Many species have existed without change for millions of years. This alone defeats evolution I belive.

Have you actually studied evolution? Have you had at least one college level course in anthropology, archaeology, or physical biology? Not that everyone needs a college education to understand evolution....but many people make false assumptions on what evolution is b/c they "heard about it" somewhere....be it in a simple high school biology class or in social sciences in 6th grade...

I'm not insulting your intelligence okay? I have a degree in anthropology, and before I counter what you've said so far, which it looks like very one else is also doing a great job of, I'd like to know if it's even worth my time....b/c if you bring up an arguement opposing millions of years of evidence for evolution by what you've heard off of the discovery channel, then I'll just ignore this thread and move along...but if you have some background in the field and you think you have a firm understanding of what evolution is, then prove it to me and tell me you want me to explain things better for you....

[edit on 9/2/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
I still don't buy it at all.

Any particular reasons?


One thing about evolution is that it is the THEORY of evolution. Evolution has no proof either hence why it is still a theory.


This is incorrect. A theory in science does not become a fact, ever. Not after being around for a million years. There is a theory of gravity. Its still a theory. And, similarly, there is a theory of evolution and there is the fact of evolution. Darwin's theory is that evolution occurs primarily the a process of adaptation via natural selection. The fact of evolution is that species do change over time, its observed. Agreed, we don't see in modern populations a fish give birth to a frog, but no one expects that and no one is saying that that is how evolution operates.


Sure I may be uneducated on the subject does this mean I am ignorant. Nope.

Not ot offend, but its the definition of being ignorant. You are saying you don't know anything about he subject, hence you are ignorant of the facts and evidences involved.



I know there is no way there is only one species intelligent enought to do the things humans do (land on the moon, send rovers to mars, fly in machines etc.) without it having been influenced by a higher power.


And how do you know this? You have studied the evolutionary steps required for this intelligence? Obviously human like intelligence is not a requirement for a species of animal, the rest get along fine without it. Investing all those resources to develope a large complex brain isn't going to be very helpful to the overwhelming majority of animals. There is just no reason to say that all animals should evolve high intelligence, it simply isn't allways an advantage. What good would being very intelligent be to a fish? It can't communicate with other intelligent fish, it can't 'learn' not to bte a fish hook (once it does, its already caught), and it can't pass that knowledge on to its fishlings.



Sure animals can be smart but they aren't smart enough not to eat their own $hit are they?


Humans do some incredibly stupid things too don't they? Human babies play with and smear their #e all over the place. Ever hear of a county or town having an E.Coli outbreak? E.coli is only transmited via an anal to oral route. IOW, people eating #e. Sure, its not big chunks of eat that they are gobbling down with a spoon, but its in your food and water in small amounts. So humans infact do eat their own #e, and whats worse, they aren't even smart enough to realize it. But thats neither here nor there.



One species out of billions reaching a level of intelligence as high as ours. Out of all the species ever existing only us. I don't think so.

Why?


Basically you all are saying a animal has no need to evolve and doesn't if it finds a succesfull nitch where it can survive. Hence why there are still monkeys.

No. This is not what people are saying. They are saying the organisms adapt to their niche. Chimps adapted to one type, whereas humans adapted to another, one wherein social skills and intelligence was a necessity.


Your saying basically this common ancestor of all primates branched off into several homonoid species including neanderthals and humans etc. If this is true why did this common ancestor evolve into comptetitive sperate branches in such a short peroid of time.


What makes you say it was a short period of time?


Isn't this contrary to evolution?

No.

Doesn't a species supposedly evolve to preserve its existence?

No. A species doesn't evolve for any reason at all. Species adapt to their environment. This means that advantageous traits spread throughout a population. Its not happening 'for' any purpose. The continued existence of the species is a byproduct, a consequence of the logic of it.


Modern Humans exisited with many of these species. If we evolved how did we coexist with them.

Please explain why we wouldn't co-exist with them.


Same issue with monkeys. We exist with them. If we were once an apelike species that lived and breathed and did everything the same as modern apes do then why did they branch off. Apes found their nitch and their ancestors are basically the same. Why did they have to evolve? Wouldn't they have remained like the aligator unchanged because it found its nitch?

No. Becuase there are new niches available. Take the alligator. Alligators live in swamps and ambush their prey by 'jumping' out of the water and dragging them into it, or snatching them while they are in the water. Thats their niche, living in swamps and snatching stuff. But alligators can leave the water no? THey can move from waterhole to waterhole right? But they aren't as good at lumbering around on land as they are in the water right? What happens to an alligator that is just a little better at walking on land? Or, to be more specific, -if- being slightly better at walking around is an advantage (ie allows this gator to have more offspring, say because it literally gets around more, can walk to more water holes and what not) then what do you think will happen? Its offspring will inherit that ability to walk more, and thus they will have the same advantage. And their offspring nad their offspring. Now what if some of them develop more of an ability to walk better? And so one and so on. Eventually you'd have things descended from alligators that don't even bother to go into the water, that run on the ground and ambush prey there. Infact, there -are- running alligators in the fossil record. Thats how evolution works; variation in the population with inheritance of traits and overproduction of offspring. Given that, a population -must- evolve. And in the more than 200 years since darwin first formalized this logic, no one has be able, ever, to refute it or come up with a better logic.


I belive that god created man and life on earth. What created god you might ask? I don't know and I am sure I never will. What was he? I don't know.

Irrelevant. I am commenting on this because its specifially irrelevant. Evolution, and all the sciences (whether its engineering, phyiscs, or math) state -nothing- about god, pro or con. The clostest sort of statement that can be gotten at is that 'there is no requirement of divine intervention here', and one could argue that science doesn't even make that statement.


All I know is that humans are different and that is no coincidence and there is no way we evolved from other animals.


Then what about the evidence for evolution? Are you saying that god (whatever you are saying it is) created humans and at the same time created humans in such a way as to make people thinking rationally, logically, and scientifically, that they were evovled? This is a deceiver god then?


Why does there always seem to be a missing link for the evolution of all these species. Seems to be missing links everywhere.


Are you actually saying that the fact not every organism that ever lived is preserved as a fossil is evidence against evolution?


Evolution is a crock of crap that has absolutly no proof. A fossil of an entirely different speicies that looks like a screwed up deformed human is no proof.


You are rejecting the proof at the outset. You have stated there its impossible for humans to have evolved, period. That because humans are intelligent, its absolutely impossible for humans to have evolved. The 'unconvincingness' of the evidence is irrelevant. You have already stated that its impossible. Even if the evidence was 'convincing' to you, it still would'nt be true, because you have stated that because humans are intelligent, they can't have evolved. At least don't cite this other stuff, because your actaul problem with evolution is that you don't think humans could've evolved because they are intelligent.


Too many missing links and theorys for me.


Every science is based on theories, so if that were the actual problem with evolution for you then you would have to reject every science.

As far as the missing links go, think about it. Fossils are only -rarely- preserved. In the entire history of man's evolution, do you think its reasonable to expect every stage in the process to have been preserved, and also to be found?


As for creation, very easy to belive. An intelligent being created life on earth.


Since when does something being easy to beleive mean that its true?


If monkeys are still here because they found their nitch they why did their ancestors branch off in the first place is what I am trying to say

The population of monekies was large. Some lived in an environment that was changing, others in one that stayed the same. Since the envrionment changed, some of the monkies had to change. Look at africa. There is a geological process going on there known as rifting, its leading (and has been since this time we are talking about) to two different environments, one jungle, one savana. The chimps are thought to be the ones whose enviroment didn't change and stayed jungle. The human line is the one whose enviroment radically changed. They had to evolve in order to survive. Monkeys in that environment that didn't change died out, leaving that altered ones in the population.


This defeats the supposed purpose of evolution. Survival. Many species have existed without change for millions of years. This alone defeats evolution I belive.

Those organisms are called 'living fossils'. They are still in the same unchanged niche that they were in thousands of years ago. If there is no advantage to changing, then the change -can't- occur, or at least it can't spread throughout the population.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
You can have a degree in anything. It doesn't matter to me. People belived the earth was flat and the center of the universe for hundreds of years. I am sure there were scholars on the subject also then. Doesn't make it true.
Evolution is such unbelivable crap and there is absolutly no belivable evidence hence why it is still a theory. I only belive it is a matter of time before it is debunked.

Somone above made a good point. They compared a wooly mammoth to an elephant. So in the theory of evolution this group of normal elephants wandered north to where it was cold. The ones without hair to keep them warm died out. The ones that survived had more elephants. These were prone to have long hair due to more long hair dna being in their bodies. So over each sucessive generation these animals devloped slowly into the wooly mammoth.

Interesting way to try to prove evolution. Problem with this is a wooly mammoth is nothing but a hairy elephant. It is still a stinking elephant with long hair. It did not change into another species entirely. There is abousoluly no way a one celled organism suddenly appeared alive then split and changed into all the speices today. That is so much more improbable than creation. What magical process created this first creature.

Here is a link to a news article of ancient fish that predated the dinosaurs acoelacanth that was caught. These are considered living fossils as they were alive 400 million years ago. These fish have remained unchanged almost indefinatly. These fish predated stinking dinousaurs. It hasn't changed. There are many many animals that were in a perfect nitch yet supposedly evolved. Why hasn't this one? This animal is as very very old yet no change. The earth is assumed to be 4.5 billion years old. This animal has existed 1/9 th of this time without change. Dinosaurs, apes, birds, all suposedly evolved yet this changed none.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
To Nygdan-

I meant that no fossil has been pinned down as THE missing link. Yes lots of ones that point that way.

Hoppinmad-

I ask this seriously, not in jest or to make you appear stupid: Have you actually read about evolution from a source that does not attempt to discredit that theory biblically? And, other than a few historicaly known people and places can you say that, definitively, scripture is any more authentic than you claim of the theory of evolution?

[edit on 3-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   
There are also still bacteria and other single cell organism, and thats where it al started. Evolution is not the bush administration, killing everything that you leave behind.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
You can have a degree in anything. It doesn't matter to me.


The other poster wasn't chastising you for not having a degree. You admit that you don't know what you are talking about, that you don't know anything about evolution


People belived the earth was flat and the center of the universe for hundreds of years.

Yes, and like you they didn't investigate the issue or study the research done on it. People who did try to educate themselves found out that the earth was infact round. The greeks demonstrated this in ancient times. People who actually investigated the situation found out the truth. Those who didn't, such as yourself (as you openly admit) merely had their own beleifs to go on.


Evolution is such unbelivable crap and there is absolutly no belivable evidence hence why it is still a theory.


Evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, stands on the evidence. People who have looked into it have found that the evidence supports it. In science, researchers perform tests to refute theories. Since the mid 1800's, thousands of researchers have tested the theory. None have been able to refute it.


I only belive it is a matter of time before it is debunked.

It might happen tomorrow, it might happen in a hundred years, but it hasn't happened yet.


So over each sucessive generation these animals devloped slowly into the wooly mammoth. [...] Problem with this is a wooly mammoth is nothing but a hairy elephant. [...] It did not change into another species entirely.


You are entirely wrong, and apparently don't know what a species is. The wolly mammoth is not even in the same genus as modern elephants.


There is abousoluly no way a one celled organism suddenly appeared alive then split and changed into all the speices today.

Your personal inability to look at the evidence is harly a critique of evolutionary theory.



What magical process created this first creature.

Ironic. You are saying the scientific study is magic, but that the magical, literally magic, creation by god somehow isn't.


Here is a link to a news article of ancient fish that predated the dinosaurs acoelacanth that was caught. These are considered living fossils as they were alive 400 million years ago. These fish have remained unchanged almost indefinatly. These fish predated stinking dinousaurs. It hasn't changed.


Please expalin why it is supposed to have changed. And, actually, it isn't in the same genus as the fossil example, it has changed.


This animal is as very very old yet no change.

Evolution does not state that organisms will change merely because of the passage of time. This animal adapted to its niche. There is no reason for it to change, its environment hasn't changed.

You really aren't qualified to critique evolution at this point. You obviously don't know what it is, what it does/does not predict, how its studied, what its mechanics are, and what the evidence is for it.


The earth is assumed to be 4.5 billion years old.

Every scrap of information we have about the age of the earth indicates its on that order of age.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
At the risk of getting a one-liner fine.......

You Go Nygdan!!



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
I meant that no fossil has been pinned down as THE missing link. Yes lots of ones that point that way.

Should there be one tho? I mean, its not though that there was a chimp, then an intermeadiate, and then a modern man. There should be many no?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I think with humans we are pretty much there, I mean more towards something like the elusive Protoavis. There are "scraps" of bone svidence, but I wasn't aware of a fossil that we could get a picture of a creature on the cusp of heading towards bird. Is there one and how did I miss that?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
I mean more towards something like the elusive Protoavis.


Oh ok, I was thinking in a different context. The issue with the bird/dinosaur transition is that, while there have been incredible discoveries lately, unfortunately none have been 'older', stratiagraphically, than archaeopteryx. One the one hand, that doesn't matter. The cladistic/phylogenetic analyses are indicating that some of them are from lines that are as old/older than archaeopteryx. But where it gets really confusing/contentious is which ones are on the line to birds, and which ones are similiarly modififed dinosaurs. Some have suggested that dromaeosaurs (deinonychus and the like) are actually evolved from flightless -early- birds. Others have suggested that dromeosaurs / maniraptors are the 'sister group' to birds.

It is amazing some of the stuff they've been finding in the past few years.

There's microraptor

With its arm and leg wings that you might've heard so much about recently

and the very strange caudipteryx

copyright www.tangrala.com...
Which is part of the 'contentiousness'. Microraptor is thought to be a type of dromeosaur, but caudipteryx sometimes comes out as an extremely primitive oviraptorosaur. The thing is, the more 'advanced' oviraptorosaurs are more 'dinosaur-like', and this is sometimes used to support the idea that some dinosaurs are infact descended from flightless birds (like the emu or ostrich)

Anyway, here's an interesting depiction of Epidendrosaurus and Microraptor.

[html= www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk...] Luis Rey[/html]
I'm almost tempted to put this in cryptozoology, because these dinobirds are an entirely unexpected and unique class of animals. This illustration really shows just how comlex the issue is, are this things birds, dinosaurs, in betweem, off-shoots, what? Anyway, its been an exciting few years in paleontology, and the discovery of strange integumentary structures on -ornithischian- dinosaurs was a -real- shock.


[html= www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk...] Luis Rey [/html]
The foreground shows Psittacosaurus with these strange features on its tail. Not feathers, sometimes refered to as 'quills', and definitely very strange.

Whats next, feathered crocodiles!?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Oh yeah..... I guess I kinda forgot Microraptor. Thanx.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Nygdan - nice work...doubt he's listening though....

hoppinmad....you've yet to answer how much research and knowledge you actually have on the theory of evolution....does your definition come from two or three lines in a dictionary or what? How much did you actually know before you started this thread?

First off....let's look at something as simple as a woman giving birth to her child...When a child is born, they're not a fully developed infant yet, they're head is the largest part of their body, the skull is not finished fusing...Our brains continue to increase in size as does our skull...that's why it isn't fully fused and is soft...this also allows some contortion to occur while passing thru the vagina...But wait...some women's hips are to narrow to pass a child....and so they have a Cesarean section....

Noticed how the number of women having a c-section has increased over the years? This is not a natural form of birth, and otherwise these women and children would die...women with narrow hips were meant to be form of natural selection and that gene was meant to pass out of our species...due to modern medicine we have kept it and it remains to circulate in our gene flow...

Of course the cesarean section delivery have been around for thousands of years, but they were primarily performed b/c the woman was dying and the baby had to come out...

So that's just one textbook example of the proof of evolution - there's many more if that one doesn't suit you....



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Why are not Humans exactly the same and all humans look alike and some are smarter than other and some are healthier and some are Better at certain things ....



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Problem with this is a wooly mammoth is nothing but a hairy elephant. It is still a stinking elephant with long hair. It did not change into another species entirely.


So, elephants and wooly mammoth's aren't separate and distinct species?
*buzzer sounds*


Problem with this is a wooly mammoth is nothing but a hairy elephant. It is still a stinking elephant with long hair.


And we're nothing but hairless apes (primates) with overinflated egos. We're still a stinking primate, but with less hair and a little more smarts... What's your point?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join