Apparently, archaeopteryx has been restored as “first bird” again. Maybe.

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 29, 2011

Evolution, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“Archaeopteryx lost its exalted place in bird evolution,” says Lee.

But, this new evolutionary tree presented a problem because it placed archaeopteryx in a group of dinosaurs that either didn’t fly at all or glided in a way that was not bird-like.

Lee says, it meant that bird flight most probably evolved more than once and archaeopteryx possibly evolved flight independently of birds in a case of what’s called “convergent evolution”.

As far as evolutionary theory goes, such scenarios are not particularly elegant. So Lee carried out a new analysis of the data to see what he could find.

He found a way to jam it in, to be Darwinian, not convergent. If anyone believes it.

Comments

ScottAndrews2
Evolution, the cornerstone of biology, explains biological diversity through a series of genetic changes accumulated through selection and drift. Some disagree, but at least one example separates this knowledge from science-fiction. [Insert yours here.]
Since you have decided that being a liar for Jesus is your best defense, here are more examples (cichlid evolution in African lakes) for the lurkers Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish Chromosome Evolution in African Cichlid Fish: Contributions from the Physical Mapping of Repeated DNAs Rapid evolution and selection inferred from the transcriptomes of sympatric crater lake cichlid fishes No one ever got to heaven by lying for their religion Scott. Do you think you'll be the first?GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Scott
My previous post, 12.3 explained this in detail, and I haven’t seen a response to any of those points.
In 12.3 you identify a problem with each of the three sources of evidence: The fossil record does not have sufficient detail by itself to show how evolution happened. It does not show the accompanying genetic change and does not show each incremental change or the selection pressures that accompany them. I broadly accept that – the fossil record shows gross morphological change over time. Biologists form hypotheses as to the genetic causes and why they were fixed. Current genetic change. Your problem here is that we don’t get to observe large enough changes – not surprising given the timescales that evolution requires (although we do see quite significant changes due to artificial selection where we can step up the selection pressure and we do see things like ring species). However, what we do see is a mechanism that given enough time could account for the morphological change in the fossil record. Cladistics and phylogenetic trees your problem here is that the specifics are missing. I am not sure what you mean by this. Such analyses can lead to evidence for when specific phylogenetic features appeared and also to very specific genetic change (e.g. haemoglobin). I see this type of evidence as somewhere between the fossil record and observed current evolution. Assuming observed mechanisms have applied through time these analyses give strong evidence of the order that these changes might have happened – sometimes in great detail. Now this is the line that really surprises me.
What is lacking is evidence that there is a stool supported by all the legs at once
Let us take whales. We have fossil evidence for how the first whale developed and subsequent development. We have phylogenetic trees of whales and it is certainly possible to create cladistic DNA trees of whales – although I don’t know for certain if that has been done. Clearly our current observations of genetic and phylogenetic change apply to all of life – they are fundamental common mechanisms. So all three legs of the stool apply to this example – as they do to a vast range of examples. I am not saying that I know whether the evidence is overwhelming (I guess it is because I see no reason to doubt the experts). All I am saying is that the method makes enough sense that you need to be an expert to disprove it. I will return to the problems with ID as an alternative in a separate comment.markf_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Stu7
No, what YOU need to do is respect the fact that not all ID’ers are Christians, for one David Berlinski is agnostic as far as I understand it
My post wasn't addressed to all IDers, just the ones who ARE Biblical Creationists but are too hypocritical to admit it. Like I said, if that doesn't apply to you then ignore it. Get the chip off your shoulder and simmer down.GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

GinoB,
You just repeated the same empty assertion that there is no evidence for evolutionary mechanisms while ignoring the scientific research and data I posted detailing such evidence.
Try a simple writing exercise. Take one or more elements of your 'evidence' and cite them in the form of a paragraph. I'll help you out with the first few words: Evolution, the cornerstone of biology, explains biological diversity through a series of genetic changes accumulated through selection and drift. Some disagree, but at least one example separates this knowledge from science-fiction. [Insert yours here.] Perhaps at this point you'll catch on that you are unable to complete this paragraph by pointing out one or two genetic differences between rodents or bats, or by laying out a series of transitional fossils. What was the first change? What effect did it have? Why was it selected? The next change, etc.? I'm typing out these responses for the sake of onlookers, so that they can judge for themselves which one of us is thinking this through. Notice that I can elaborate my thoughts without resorting to childish talk and analogies that actually work against me. That's much harder to do when you have nothing to say or can't compose your evidence to make a thoughtful case.ScottAndrews2_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
All you have to do is explain any evolutionary change in those terms. Any. Anything. Something. Good grief, man, imagine something! Make something up! How generous can I be? If you can’t produce a real explanation or even make up a hypothetical one, then what separates the above paragraph from science fiction?
I already provided that information for you in post 8 above. There are papers with specific mechanisms identified for bat wing evolution, whale hind limb evolution, sea urchin evolution. You ignored the papers and pretended the research didn't exist just like you did now. You're rapidly descending into Joseph-like willful liar territory here Scott. You sure you want to ride that train?GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

GinoB, Listen buddy, you're coming off as extremely pretentious now: “That description fits many if not most of the posters here. If it doesn’t fit you then ignore it.” No, what YOU need to do is respect the fact that not all ID'ers are Christians, for one David Berlinski is agnostic as far as I understand it. I'm pretty sure you understand that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different concepts; the fact that you refuse to respect that on a site that is dedicated to Intelligent Design reveals more about you than myself or anyone else.Stu7_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

GinoB, Thank you for making my point. Landing gear can't fly. Left ailerons can't fly. Neither can vertical stabilizers. What is your comparison to airports and airplanes? Airplanes are successful, functional integrations of parts. Comparing evolutionary theory to them is begging the question. Unlike aircraft, evolutionary theory never assembles its components into a functional, explanatory whole. I've said over and over that there are no evolutionary explanations for significant diversifications in evolutionary terms. Evolution says that this genetic change occurred, had this phenotypic effect, and conferred a specific reproductive or survival advantage. Then another occurred. Or perhaps something varied, had no immediate effect, but drifted across the population and combined with other variations to produce effects requiring multiple variations. And over time these variations accumulate to produce new features, organs, behaviors, etc. All you have to do is explain any evolutionary change in those terms. Any. Anything. Something. Good grief, man, imagine something! Make something up! How generous can I be? If you can't produce a real explanation or even make up a hypothetical one, then what separates the above paragraph from science fiction? Airplanes. Good grief.ScottAndrews2_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
Some people believe in the Christian god and have never heard of ID. Others are familiar with ID but disagree with on scientific grounds. Others agree with what ID proposes but do not believe in either God or the Christian god.
Which is exactly what I pointed out above: "That description fits many if not most of the posters here. If it doesn’t fit you then ignore it." How about you Scott? You're one of the guys who keeps quoting scripture in lieu of scientific evidence. Do you think the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo? Be honest now.
You might have to think for yourself.
When will you start thinking for yourself and discussing the technical research I keep providing instead of regurgitating the standard evasive excuses?GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
Each “leg” is sufficient. It is sufficient to demonstrate exactly whatever it does demonstrate. What is lacking is evidence that there is a stool supported by all the legs at once.
You're like a guy arguing that airplanes can't fly because each individual piece of the plane can't fly by itself: "Here's the landing gear. It can't fly!!" "Here's the left aileron. It can't fly!!" "Here's the vertical stabilizer. It can't fly!!" You're also making these silly claims at a busy airport, with planes soaring overhead, to a convention of pilots and aircraft designers. Good luck convincing anyone but yourself.GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

GinoB, Some people believe in the Christian god and have never heard of ID. Others are familiar with ID but disagree with on scientific grounds. Others agree with what ID proposes but do not believe in either God or the Christian god. Please reconcile those facts with this shoot-from-the-hip-think-later nonsense:
If you think that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created existing species ex nihilo, then you’re an Intelligent Design Creationist.
You can parrot what someone else told you, but they aren't here now to back you up. You might have to think for yourself.ScottAndrews2_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

If you think that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created existing species ex nihilo, then you're an Intelligent Design Creationist. That description fits many if not most of the posters here. If it doesn't fit you then ignore it. Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious.GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
I will not waste time with you. I typed a detailed post explaining that I am aware of the evidence you mention, and why it does not equal the sum you think it does.
No Scott, you didn't do that. You just repeated the same empty assertion that there is no evidence for evolutionary mechanisms while ignoring the scientific research and data I posted detailing such evidence. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring valid critiques instead of addressing them is one of the major reasons ID has zero credibility in the scientific community. Empty rhetoric and hand-waving bluster just won't cut the muster. As I already noted and you keep demonstrating; running away from scientific evidence you can’t explain is a time-honored Creationist tradition.GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

GinoB wrote: What is it with you IDCers? Why do you think going “LA LA LA THERE’S NO EVIDENCE!!” somehow magically makes the evidence disappear?" Would you kindly cool it with these comments. You continually refer to Intelligent Design Creationists. Your intention is crystal clear and combined with your antagonistic approach, it's getting real old real fast. Take a page out of Elizabeth Liddle and co.'s book. In case you missed it, here is the definition of Intelligent Design. https://uncommondescent.com/id-definedStu7_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

GinoB, I will not waste time with you. I typed a detailed post explaining that I am aware of the evidence you mention, and why it does not equal the sum you think it does. Print it out and take it to your teacher and see if he or she can assist you with a response. This will require actually reading it and reasoning on it, so I won't hold me breath.ScottAndrews2_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
That is why I state repeatedly that there is no evolutionary explanation for any significant evolutionary change.
You keep stating it and I keep providing you with real world examples that show you're dead wrong. What is it with you IDCers? Why do you think going "LA LA LA THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!!" somehow magically makes the evidence disappear?
No evolutionary change is ever explained in terms of specific evolutionary mechanisms.
Why don't you give me an explanation, any explanation, for insular dwarfism. It's a real, observed phenomenon. What are the mechanisms that cause it?GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Markf,
Meanwhile ID has zero hypotheses about how this change happened and actually rules itself out from producing such hypotheses.
Especially after years of discussing this very subject, I fail to see why that is a problem. I can list countless theories that don't address the mechanical causes of biological diversity. It's pretty much nearly every scientific theory, ever. The failure of evolutionary theory to explain anything has nothing really to do with ID, except that both subjects may be of interest to the same people. The failure of darwinism isn't something new from ID. It was there all along. They have nothing to do with each other.
What you are doing is taking each leg in turn and saying it is not sufficient. It is the presence of all three legs that makes the story compelling.
Each "leg" is sufficient. It is sufficient to demonstrate exactly whatever it does demonstrate. What is lacking is evidence that there is a stool supported by all the legs at once. That is why I state repeatedly that there is no evolutionary explanation for any significant evolutionary change. No evolutionary change is ever explained in terms of specific evolutionary mechanisms. That's good enough for a hypothesis. But somehow many seem to think that the idea has moved beyond that. Transitional fossils are, at best, evidence of transition. Phylogenetic trees are, at best, evidence of commonalities and perhaps descent. The specifics of that evidence are not what I am disputing, although there is room for that as well. But these lines of evidence are never combined to support the conclusion everyone wants them to. If they were, then someone would reply with an explanation of a significant evolutionary change in evolutionary terms in which neither the causes nor the effects must be assumed. My previous post, 12.3 explained this in detail, and I haven't seen a response to any of those points.ScottAndrews2_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

OK Joseph, you've convinced me you're a compulsive liar who will say anything to 'win' a discussion. You continually lie about your experiences, you lie about what was said, you lie about the evidence others produce. Your compulsively dishonest behavior is neither healthy nor productive. I truly feel sorry for you that you're so messed up mentally and emotionally. Go get some professional help.GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

GinoB:
The inputs to a GA are the raw performance specifications – in the case of the NASA antenna it was frequency range, maximum allowable power, maximum allowable weight, etc.
Exactly! That is all the information required.
The end results are the manufacturing specifications, how to physically build the thing – materials, dimensions, etc.
That is derived from the first spec- duh. And you only get a different result if you change specs.
That is so wrong as to be laughable.
Prove it or admit that you are a liar.
Like real biological evolution, GAs may converge on a local optima for a solution but will take a different path to get there every time.
Taking a different path does not mean you get a different result- only a moron would think so and here you are. The evidence of humans with something tail-like- no evidence of an atavism- IOW you are a liar and a moron.
Why do you feel the need to lie about virtually every topic discussed on this blog?
Sed the proven liar...Joseph_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Joseph
GinoB: Where in the program is the information for the final results of a GA? The specifications- just as I said.
My word but you're an imbecile. The inputs to a GA are the raw performance specifications - in the case of the NASA antenna it was frequency range, maximum allowable power, maximum allowable weight, etc. The end results are the manufacturing specifications, how to physically build the thing - materials, dimensions, etc. Those two sets of information are not the same, not even close. A few weeks ago you bragged about having actually written GAs as part of your job. It's clear you were lying about that too.
And you only get a different result if you change specs.
That is so wrong as to be laughable. The random mutation part of the algorithm guarantees that you won't get the identical result. Like real biological evolution, GAs may converge on a local optima for a solution but will take a different path to get there every time.
The evidence of humans with something tail-like- no evidence of an atavism
Why do you feel the need to lie about virtually every topic discussed on this blog?GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

GinoB:
Where in the program is the information for the final results of a GA?
The specifications- just as I said. And you only get a different result if you change specs.
So when two construction firms are given a specification for a bridge and produce two completely different designs – one with wooden trusses, one metal with suspension cables – then the information in the two designs is identical?
No way the same specification produced two diffferent structures- you made that up because that is all you can do. And I am STILL waiting for your determination of atavistic for human tails- YOU made the claim support it or admit that you are a moron.
I just linked to a paper with the evidence.
The evidence of humans with something tail-like- no evidence of an atavism- IOW you are a liar and a moron.Joseph_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Joseph
All the information is in the program.
Where in the program is the information for the final results of a GA? You're now claiming that when NASA used a GA to build a miniature RF antenna they already had the information for the final design? Then why didn't they just build the antenna directly? And why is it that if you run the GA multiple times you get a different end design each time? You keep typing and stupid contradictory things keep coming out.
The specification IS the information you moron. And yes there can be many ways to meet that spec- so what?
So when two construction firms are given a specification for a bridge and produce two completely different designs - one with wooden trusses, one metal with suspension cables - then the information in the two designs is identical? You're really outdoing yourself in the stupidity department today Joseph.
And I am STILL waiting for your determination of atavistic for human tails- YOU made the claim support it or admit that you are a moron.
I just linked to a paper with the evidence. Why are you lying about what was provided? You lie about things a lot I've noticed.GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

All the information is in the program. The specification IS the information you moron. And yes there can be many ways to meet that spec- so what? And I am STILL waiting for your determination of atavistic for human tails- YOU made the claim support it or admit that you are a moron.Joseph_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Joseph
GinoB: Where does the new information in the designs created by Genetic Algorithms come from Joseph? The design.
That didn't answer the question. Quit evading and try again. Where does the new information in the designs created by Genetic Algorithms come from Joseph?
GB: If they had this info at the start why didn’t they just build the final product directly? They entered the specifications- the design meets those specifications.
The specification isn't the same as the information in the result. There can be a huge number of ways to meet the same spec with different designs. They all don't have the same information content. Where did the information in the final GA result come from Joseph?
GB: These atavistic tails on humans. Humans did NOT evolve from monkeys you moron.
No one said they did. The question you're avoiding is where did the information in empirically observed human tails come from Joseph?GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

GinoB:
Where does the new information in the designs created by Genetic Algorithms come from Joseph?
The design.
If they had this info at the start why didn’t they just build the final product directly?
They entered the specifications- the design meets those specifications. What atavistic tails on humans?
These atavistic tails on humans.
Humans did NOT evolve from monkeys you moron. So how did YOU determine the tails are atavistic? IOW for once support your bald assertions.Joseph_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Joseph
GinoB: "Iterative processes filtered by selection and that retain heritable traits are empirically observed to form new morphologies, i.e new ‘information’." Nice bald assertion.
I keep forgetting you love the fussy child defense: THAR AIN'T NO DARN EVIDENCE!!! Where does the new information in the designs created by Genetic Algorithms come from Joseph? Was it 'jammed in' at the start by the programmers? If they had this info at the start why didn't they just build the final product directly?
GB: But at least you finally admitted that atavistic tails on humans shows they evolved from ancestors with tails. What atavistic tails on humans?
These atavistic tails on humans. Where did the information for these tails come from Joseph?GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

GinoB
Iterative processes filtered by selection and that retain heritable traits are empirically observed to form new morphologies, i.e new ‘information’.
Nice bald assertion.
But at least you finally admitted that atavistic tails on humans shows they evolved from ancestors with tails.
What atavistic tails on humans? Your ignorance doesn't mean anything here.Joseph_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Joseph
There isn’t anything in genetics nor developmental biology that supports universal common descent. Cladistics are based on similarities and as such can be used to support a common design.
Oh dear, there goes the fussy child again... THAT AIN'T NO DARN EVIDENCE!!!
The processes that we observe around us do not support the claim of universal common descent unless the first organism was jammed with so much information it could lose information along the way and still give rise to the diversity we observe.
Iterative processes filtered by selection and that retain heritable traits are empirically observed to form new morphologies, i.e new 'information'. We already know you're too dense to grasp this simple fact.
And BTW ID says most of the changes occur by design- as in organisms were designed to evolve.
ID and you say a lot of stupid things you can't back up. But at least you finally admitted that atavistic tails on humans shows they evolved from ancestors with tails.GinoB_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

MarkF- There isn't anything in genetics nor developmental biology that supports universal common descent. Cladistics are based on similarities and as such can be used to support a common design. The processes that we observe around us do not support the claim of universal common descent unless the first organism was jammed with so much information it could lose information along the way and still give rise to the diversity we observe. And BTW ID says most of the changes occur by design- as in organisms were designed to evolve.Joseph_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Note: Fantasy Island: Evolutionary Weirdness Does Not Favor Islands - July 2010 Excerpt: “We concluded that the evolution of body sizes is as random with respect to ‘isolation’ as on the rest of the planet,” he said. “This means that you can expect to find the same sort of patterns on islands and on the mainland.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100708b Amazing Insects Defy Evolution – October 2010 Excerpt: India spent tens of millions of years as an island before colliding with Asia. Yet the fossil record contains no evidence that unique species evolved on the subcontinent during this time, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201010.htm#20101026a This following article reveals how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the.htmlbornagain77_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Thorton: "Another blatant denial of reality that would be funny if it weren’t so sad. How about insular dwarfism, where known evolutionary mechanisms cause a population isolated in a small geographic area (typically an island) to become reduced in size? The phenomena has been studied extensively and empirically observed numerous times." ==== The Evo-Proponants have pushed this agenda even with human examples in areas like Papua New Guinea where those supposed dwarfed dark skinned human beings where they tried to pushthese 3rd world folks(who were offended at what these experts who visted them had to say BTW) to be some sort evolutionary links and proof of evolution hard at work at downsizing. Yet on even incredibly smaller islands like Samoa and other Polynesian groups who live likewise live on tiny islands just a hop skip and a jump from the far larger land mass area which is Papua New Guinea, the physically large sizes of the average human beings in these populations living on these islands just seem to defy this Evolutionary fantasy wet dream of a failed theology. Which ultimately offers proof that it's not about the science.Eocene_{October 31, 2011
October
10
Oct
31
31
2011
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply