Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Dimo]

OK Nineveh whatever you say.

I hope you can sleep tonight.

 

[Stratnerd]

Do dogs evolve twice a year, at the beginnings of the warm and cold seasons or do they adapt? Does their DNA change each season to reflect it?

aharvey already pointed it out but changes in an individual is not evolution. Evolution is a population-level phenomenon where there is a net change in the gene pool.

OK, they aren't classified as dinosaurs. What makes certain reptiles dinosaurs and not others?

it's sort of the same line of reasoning that makes other groups part of or separate than other groups; that is, characters (such as hair, feathers, teeth, etc) reveal memberships. Pterosaurs have characters (namely in the skull) that group them in the larger group of Archosaurs. Pterosaurs, however, have a certain ankle articulation that is not found in dinosaurs and an analysis of many such traits (phylogeny) doesn't put them nested within dinosaurs.

Make any sense?

 

[Flipper]

Nineveh:

So there are no plastic models or pics? That's great!

I asked about the bones and models. I didn't specifically ask about pictures because, as they flagged archaeo as a fake straight away, I didn't see the need to.

The point they were keen to make was that the fossils they did have were compelling evidence for transitional forms. I didn't ask if they were pre-1999 discoveries, but

My approach was fairly simple (paraphrasing slightly): "do you have archaeoraptor anywhere on exhibit, either the original fossil or
models of it?" And they said "no, it was a composite hoax."

Now have a look at these pages. This dinosaur, Confuciusornis, is indisputably feathered. It even has flight feathers.

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDconfu.html

The ancestral theropod dinosaur had three functional fingers in the hand: the thumb, index and middle fingers. Birds retain these three fingers, although they support flight rather than grasping. We have long wondered how dinosaurs made the transition from a grasping to a flying hand, and Confuciusornis gives us new insight into that problem. Confuciusornis still has fully functional raptorial claws on its thumb and middle fingers, but its index finger—the finger that supports the flight feathers—is composed of broad, flat bones and a reduced claw. As with other basal maniraptors, the thumb and middle fingers converge on one another while grasping in Confuciusornis, enabling its hand to support flight while still retaining some grasping ability.

Or this one, Caudipteryx:

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDcaud.html

Some other very interesting details about this dinosaur that provides more supplementary evidence for the therapod origins of birds. They have gizzards that are found to contain stones to aid digestion, something many birds also have. Admittedly, crocodiles do too, but as they're all linked by common ancestry that's not really a surprise.

Also:

Caudipteryx is preserved in a typical avian death pose: the head and neck are arched over the back and the legs lie close together on the same side of the body.

The soft tissues that help dinosaurs support their long necks shrink after death, thus bending the head and neck backward over the body.

They make the point that the same is true with birds.

Both interesting little asides that I was not aware of.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper

I asked about the bones and models. I didn't specifically ask about pictures because, as they flagged archaeo as a fake straight away, I didn't see the need to.

The point they were keen to make was that the fossils they did have were compelling evidence for transitional forms. I didn't ask if they were pre-1999 discoveries, but

My approach was fairly simple (paraphrasing slightly): "do you have archaeoraptor anywhere on exhibit, either the original fossil or
models of it?" And they said "no, it was a composite hoax."

I trust you aren't lying about it

Now have a look at these pages. This dinosaur, Confuciusornis, is indisputably feathered. It even has flight feathers.

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDconfu.html

Or this one, Caudipteryx:

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDcaud.html

Some other very interesting details about this dinosaur that provides more supplementary evidence for the therapod origins of birds. They have gizzards that are found to contain stones to aid digestion, something many birds also have. Admittedly, crocodiles do too, but as they're all linked by common ancestry that's not really a surprise.

Also:

They make the point that the same is true with birds.

Both interesting little asides that I was not aware of.

I too, found some interesting info about the "missing link" before the archaeoraptor (1996). I emailed Storrs Olson and asked what he made of the new exhibit, I hope to hear from him. But, like many of these "significant finds" (especially from China where these bird fossils are being found), I think I'll pass on jumping on the band wagon just yet.

 

[Flipper]

I trust you aren't lying about it

Nuh-uhh. I would invite you to give 'em a call yourself if you have any doubt. I spoke to a young-sounding palaeontologist called "Tom". I didn't ask his surname but there can't be that many at the museum.

The palaeontology department's direct line is 619 255 0232.

If I were lying, i would have said that I had asked about the pictures. I see they have some montages at the exhibit but I didn't think to ask.

However, I was more interested to see how they would portray Archaeoraptor, as that seemed to me more indicative of the museum's attitude towards fakes. I asked my question in a neutral "I'm just interested in dinosaurs" kind of a way to do my best to avoid poisoning the well. I think they were keen to make the point that the real dinosaur fossils they do have tell a pretty clear story. I have to say, the Liaoning fossils are pretty much a grand slam for transitionals. You have dinosaurs that have feathers, and fossils more similar to birds but with saurian heads and four clawed, grasping raptor like feet.

I mean, what are you looking for from transitionals? How much clearer do you expect it to be?

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

These two dictionaries don't seem to show much difference in the definition but I will post again with another source from my library when I get back.


Adaptation: (Merriam-Webster)
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment


Adaptation: (Encarta)

noun

1. adapting: the process or state of changing to fit new circumstances or conditions, or the resulting change
2. something adapted to fit need: something that has been modified for a purpose
a film adaptation of a novel
3. biology change to suit environment: the development of physical and behavioral characteristics that allow organisms to survive and reproduce in their habitats
4. physiology diminishing sensory response: the diminishing response of a sense organ to a sustained stimulus


Acclimatization: (Encarta)
transitive and intransitive verb

adapt: to become accustomed to a new climate or environment, or help somebody become accustomed to it


Acclimatization: (Merriam-Webster)
transitive senses : to adapt to a new temperature, altitude, climate, environment, or situation
intransitive senses : to become acclimatized
- ac·cli·ma·tiz·er noun

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

For this one I am using MCGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. I will type it exactly as it is written in the book.

Acclimatization:
[EVOL]* Adaptation of a speciesor population to a changed environment over several generations. Also known as acclimation.(I looked for this later version of the term and it refered me back to this one.)

Adaptation:
[GEN]* The occurance of genetic changes in a population or species as the result of natural selection so that it adjusts to new or altered environmental conditions.
[PHYSIO]* The occurance of physiological changes in an individual exposed to changed conditions; for example, tanning of the skin in sunshine, or increased red blood cell counts at high altitudes.

* EVOL denoted this is an evolution term.
GEN, genetic and PHYSIO is physiology.



After taking the time to read thses definitions I would have to say that I believe in the physiological definition of adaptation more than the evol one but I will reserve my opinion on the genetic one until I have checked it out further.



So for aharvey....

Yes, I meant to say adaptation and not acclimatization. But thank you for offering your opinion.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

aharvey already pointed it out but changes in an individual is not evolution. Evolution is a population-level phenomenon where there is a net change in the gene pool.

No offense to any one else who believes in evolution but I seem to be understanding your posts better.

it's sort of the same line of reasoning that makes other groups part of or separate than other groups; that is, characters (such as hair, feathers, teeth, etc) reveal memberships. Pterosaurs have characters (namely in the skull) that group them in the larger group of Archosaurs. Pterosaurs, however, have a certain ankle articulation that is not found in dinosaurs and an analysis of many such traits (phylogeny) doesn't put them nested within dinosaurs.

Make any sense?

Let me ask this then, the phylogeny of the pterosaur says it is a reptile but doesn't have the same ancestral history of the other reptiles which are in groups or characterized as dinosaurs? If this was a statement would it be correct, in your opinion?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper

Nuh-uhh. I would invite you to give 'em a call yourself if you have any doubt. I spoke to a young-sounding palaeontologist called "Tom". I didn't ask his surname but there can't be that many at the museum.

The palaeontology department's direct line is 619 255 0232.

If I were lying, i would have said that I had asked about the pictures. I see they have some montages at the exhibit but I didn't think to ask.

What part of, "I trust you aren't lying" did you miss?

I am waiting for an email reply, but I sent the email hours before you called.

However, I was more interested to see how they would portray Archaeoraptor, as that seemed to me more indicative of the museum's attitude towards fakes. I asked my question in a neutral "I'm just interested in dinosaurs" kind of a way to do my best to avoid poisoning the well. I think they were keen to make the point that the real dinosaur fossils they do have tell a pretty clear story. I have to say, the Liaoning fossils are pretty much a grand slam for transitionals. You have dinosaurs that have feathers, and fossils more similar to birds but with saurian heads and four clawed, grasping raptor like feet.

I mean, what are you looking for from transitionals? How much clearer do you expect it to be?

Well, I have a few points. The first is the Archaeoraptor isn't the first "missing link from dinos to birds" to come from that area of the world. We got one in 1996 and again in 1999. The second is, well, there seems to be many "dino to bird missing links" coming from just that one tiny area of the world. I guess I could consider it convenient so many decided to evolve right there together. The last point is, this would be the first "missing link" for anything. Evo seems to like to BOLD CLAIM a "missing link" then later we all find out the evidence is either A. a hoax, B. What is it (bird or ape), or C. The other what it is (either Man or dino). With this picture of "missing links", I think it would be prudent to abstain from the belief dinos evolved into birds based on an bones from China, not to mention an exhibit by the folks from Utah. I think I will wait a few and see what the "peer review" says about it this time next year. It would be really cool to get Storrs Olson's take on it, if he finds the time to reply to me, I'll share his thoughts on the thread.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Agent Smith

For this one I am using MCGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. I will type it exactly as it is written in the book.

Acclimatization:
[EVOL]* Adaptation of a speciesor population to a changed environment over several generations. Also known as acclimation.(I looked for this later version of the term and it refered me back to this one.)

Adaptation:
[GEN]* The occurance of genetic changes in a population or species as the result of natural selection so that it adjusts to new or altered environmental conditions.
[PHYSIO]* The occurance of physiological changes in an individual exposed to changed conditions; for example, tanning of the skin in sunshine, or increased red blood cell counts at high altitudes.

* EVOL denoted this is an evolution term.
GEN, genetic and PHYSIO is physiology.



After taking the time to read thses definitions I would have to say that I believe in the physiological definition of adaptation more than the evol one but I will reserve my opinion on the genetic one until I have checked it out further.



So for aharvey....

Yes, I meant to say adaptation and not acclimatization. But thank you for offering your opinion.

Agent Smith,

Okay, take it from me, a professional biologist: the definitions you got from popular dictionaries are at odds with how professional biologists use these terms. In particular, there is no difference between your above definitions of acclimatization and the "genetic" definition of adaptation. Both of these are the biologist's working definition of adaptation; the physiological definition you give for adaptation is what the biologist refers to as acclimatization. Acclimatization is not an evolutionary phenomenon, adaptation is.

So what? Well, when Stratnerd first referred to "adaptation," he was using the biological definition (i.e, with the evolutionary context). When you responded by saying you didn't always associate adaptation with evolution, that's because you weren't referring to the same concept that Stratnerd was. So go back to your post (#161), reconsider Stratnerd's point using whatever term you want as long as it reflects his intent (namely, a trait that evolves in response to natural selection), and see what you think.

 

[docpotato]

Originally posted by Nineveh

My whole argument was proven with your attitute. It takes a pompous attitude to look at DNA, not know what it is, then lable it junk.

It takes a pretty pompous attitude to look at, say, a scientific theory and not understand it or what it's trying to say completely and label it "false".

Are you oblivious to the fact that it is this same group of people with this same attitude (i.e. the "scientists") who labelled parts of DNA junk and then found that they were wrong?? Obviously labelling it "junk" didn't really stop the inquiry, now did it?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by docpotato

It takes a pretty pompous attitude to look at, say, a scientific theory and not understand it or what it's trying to say completely and label it "false".

Too bad you didn't follow along with the conversation.

 

[docpotato]

I ate too many jelly beans last night and now my stomach hurts.

 

[Stratnerd]

AS and Aharvey,

Unfortunately adapation is used outside of evolution in reference to eyes. I say this because I've seen "adaptation" published in the context of an individual response to light (which we do). Bad use of terms.

But, AS, I think you're right about the pterosaurs.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

AS and Aharvey,

Unfortunately adapation is used outside of evolution in reference to eyes. I say this because I've seen "adaptation" published in the context of an individual response to light (which we do). Bad use of terms.

Yeah, scientists are not always as good about terminology as they could be. Witness the different scientific meanings of the word "homology," for example. A second, particularly vexing, problem can occur when scientists borrow words from the popular vernacular because it's a catchy way to describe something; e.g., "junk," as in "junk DNA." A third, related, problem occurs with a term used to mean different things by scientists and lay people (e.g., "theory"), and scientists themselves sometimes use the word in the non-scientific way.

The moral of the story: try to use the right term when you can, but be on the alert for apparent conflicts in ideas that are only based on different meanings of key terms.

 

[Flipper]

[whoop, double post - please ignore]

 

[Flipper]

Nineveh:

What part of, "I trust you aren't lying" did you miss?

Except that putting it on the table sort of implies that the thought had crossed your mind. I'd wondered if it would, hence full disclosure.

I know you think hoaxing and lying is a way of life for we evolutionists, but believe it or not, some of us are honest.

 

[Stratnerd]

N -

Any word from San Diego about A'raptor?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Flipper

Except that putting it on the table sort of implies that the thought had crossed your mind. I'd wondered if it would, hence full disclosure.

I know you think hoaxing and lying is a way of life for we evolutionists, but believe it or not, some of us are honest.

No actually Flipper, on this thread, you have proven to be the most reliable. I am very grateful you took the toll charges on yourself to answer the question for us all. I am still waiting for San Deigo, CSI, and Storrs Olson to reply. At this point, I don't hold out much hope they will, it's been two days, but who knows?

Strat,
Yes indeedie Mr. Flipper called San Diego, you can find out what he did here.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

AS,

Unfortunately adapation is used outside of evolution in reference to eyes. I say this because I've seen "adaptation" published in the context of an individual response to light (which we do). Bad use of terms.

But, AS, I think you're right about the pterosaurs.

I apologise for not replying quicker but had to go buy a new monitor and had to enjoy some nighttime kayaking

So what is your opinion on Coral Ridge and CSI's new relationship?