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