Evolution Again!

[_Res Ipsa]

I am still confused by the posts! (Imagine that!)

Yes or No:

In the geologic column, are the bi-pedal dino fossils above the bird fossils?

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo, I don't. But why should we expect them not to be. All it means is that all dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds.


Suppose we have a species of dinosaur. Over time, and for any of a number of reasons, the conditions become different in different areas where this dinosaur lives. The different conditions on one region lead that portion of the species to evolve into birds. But the conditions in another region lead another portion of the species to say pretty much the same. That can lead to a dinosaur and it's bird ancestor being alive at the same time. Which means, some fossils of the original dinosaur will appear higher in the column than some fossils of the birds.

[_schreech]

ceeboo - I think this image holds the key to all your questions....



by the way, I enjoy your evolution threads, its a topic that I find fascinating...

[_Ceeboo]

Tarski,

I very much appreciate both of your posts to me in this thread and I thank you for them) (I mean that)

The bipedal dinosaurs above some of the birds in the strata are not the ancestors of birds either. The they and the birds may have a common ancestor though. It is utterly simple.

I'm going to digest this a while.

I just read (in the last few nights) several articles and sites (One was something Dawkins had written) that were showing the evolution of how birds were evolved from theropods.

Thinking!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

Hey schreech

ceeboo - I think this image holds the key to all your questions....

by the way, I enjoy your evolution threads, its a topic that I find fascinating...

I do too!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_DrW]

Hello again Ceeboo,

Have you read the responses on your earlier evolution poll thread?

If not, I hope that you will do so. Several of the questions you asked above have already been answered there.

The exchange with Tarski, for example, indicates that you have not read, or have not understood, the responses provided on your earlier post.

Best.

[_Tarski]

Ceeboo,

One more thought. There are still some researchers that resist the idea that birds descended from dinosaurs and they think they have some good reasons. However, they do not think this counts as evidence against evolution! It is like I have worked hard to do my own genealogy but one of my uncles thinks I got some of my lines incorrectly reconstructed. He might be right but he certainly isn't arguing against genealogy in general.

If you are really interested in the remaining remote possibility that the bird dinosaur connection isn't what we currently think (as opposed to the evolution/creation debate) then perhaps you might like this:

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology ... dinosaurs/

But I suspect your real interest is in whether or not there is sufficient reason to doubt evolutionary theory in general. In that case, I still recommend "Finding Darwin's God" because it is fun to read, and because it is friendly to Christianity which I think you will appreciate (the author is a practicing Catholic as well as a real scientist).

[_Brackite]

Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs

[Guest]

Tarski

But I suspect your real interest is in whether or not there is sufficient reason to doubt evolutionary theory in general.

No, I already have sufficient doubt in the theory.

My real interest is in discussing evolution and all that sorrounds it! I find in utterly fascinating!

Look Tarski, you realize I am a believing Christian who hangs out (and enjoys) the company of a board that has a great majority of its members that are x-Mormon-atheists. yes?

That should offer, if nothing else, that I am not simply looking for an enviornment to support or comfort me in my personal beliefs about a Creator.

I am absolutely convinced that I know so very very very very little about so much (I would propose that we are all in this boat to some degree) but I enjoy thinking about these things. (Thus, why I start the threads)

To all,

Look, if we were sharing a burger and a beer, we would probably have a blast together discussing any number of topics (And we would likely agree on a great majority of those topics), so I post OP's that I am interested in and would like to discuss. If people would rather not discuss, no problem, there are always several discussions about Mormon apologists and/or Joseph Smith on the board......if you would prefer.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

I am still confused by the posts! (Imagine that!)

Yes or No:

In the geologic column, are the bi-pedal dino fossils above the bird fossils?

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo, I don't. But why should we expect them not to be. All it means is that all dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds.


Suppose we have a species of dinosaur. Over time, and for any of a number of reasons, the conditions become different in different areas where this dinosaur lives. The different conditions on one region lead that portion of the species to evolve into birds. But the conditions in another region lead another portion of the species to say pretty much the same. That can lead to a dinosaur and it's bird ancestor being alive at the same time. Which means, some fossils of the original dinosaur will appear higher in the column than some fossils of the birds.

Okay,

I get what your saying now!

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

Ceeboo,

Regarding bird migration, please see the excerpt below my post on lulu's quantum entanglement thread, and the two links therein.

From another thread:

Turns out that there are a variety of interesting (and possible quantum related) phenomena that have shown up in the magneto-sensory and electro-sensory systems in a wide variety of animals all along the phylogenetic scale from bacteria to mammals, including sharks and rays (elasmobranchs), salmon, migratory birds, and Siberian hamsters.

It appears that the biological mechanisms in play here evolved separately and utilize different organs in the bodies of the various animals. Since static and low frequency electromagnetic field sensing is not nearly as important or useful as light sensing and vision, it seems that nature (evolution) elaborates this capability as needed, using a wide variety of physiological structures.

Since the fields at issues here are extremely weak, quantum mechanical phenomena have been looked at, by a number of labs, as a possible aid or means in transducing these low energy fields into neurological signals. Recent examples of some of the thinking in this area are described here, and here.

A number of years ago, our group did work in this area, some of which has been published. To see more, have a look a look at the quantum mechanical entanglement thread.

Hey W!

Thanks for the contribution!

Although I didn't fully understand the article (they were speaking in what I adoringly call "DrW" language), what I did was pretty interesting (Compass using Earth's magnetic field. Hmmmmm?)

I'm not trying to do a "gotcha" (I hope my north of 2 thousand post record will support this notion) but did you want to share your thoughts/guesses (these thoughts/guesses don't have to be scientific) about the the V-formation and/or flight plan of the Plaver as it relates to a naturalistic possibility?

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo