There are no winners and losers in a MONKEY MELTDOWN!!!Thinks he is winning when in reality is clearly having a meltdown.
The monkey road is pretty damn funny! Even I have to admit that.
At least you know I am doing my best to stay out of the pissing contests and resist the baiting that is pretty obvious to me now.
But this tactic will gain them absolutely nothing except being ignored.
We both know who I am referring to, right?
Unfortunately he did succeed in sidetracking the discussion, which I suspect was his true motivation all along.
Oh well, it is what it is, or rather, it was what it was!
I bet you don't even understand what I mean in that quote. And yes I know it's not a monkey!
If you were asking me, then you are correct, I have no idea.
nah i wasn't talking to you but i will explain. in today's age --and I believe it's in large part because of how trolling is done-- people hide behind stoicism. anger is seen as weakness. passion is a bother to be mocked. I think all of that is based on fear. I prefer Rousseau
Dude really needs to get off my tbh little stain follows me into other threads as well as continuously bringing up me and others who haven't even bothered to acknowledge him
He's made around 500 posts since Fridayneckbeard must be incredibly obese to the point of unable to move thus resulting in endless amounts of time to post on ST from sunrise to sunset
I get it, and I agree 100%.
You are right about the fear issue.
I've also been saying that a lot on here resort to ridicule when they have no confidence in their own opinion or argument.
I am beginning to suspect though that some on here just want to bait others into getting upset so they have an excuse to put them down.
The truth is it always backfires on those type of posters, and results in them looking like total losers with nothing constructive to add to the discussion.
They compensate for their ignorance by lashing out in hopes of sidetracking the decent posters and when they succeed it gives them a cheap thrill, although very temporary because when the competent posters return to their points, the ignorant one is usually just ignored.
That is my theory for what it's worth.
The Riverdance chimps were way too funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics
The claims of creationists go like this:
"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
Now ask yourself:
"Is the Earth an isolated system?"
"Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?"
Why or why not?
See, this is not difficult at all, and you don't have to take anybody's word for it. You can read on the subject yourself, as I have done.
Did I ask a difficult question or two here?
You are ignoring them.
Is the earth a closed system?
"Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?"
They have far more than one.They have like 1 fossil of a supposed whale with webbed feet and that's proof?
If you really had researched that, you would know that already.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part1b.htmlTransition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)
The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)
•Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
•Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
•Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.
The ancestral amphibians had a rather weak skull and paired "aortas" (systemic arches). The first reptiles immediately split into two major lines which modified these traits in different ways. One line developed an aorta on the right side and strengthened the skull by swinging the quadrate bone down and forward, resulting in an enormous otic notch (and allowed the later development of good hearing without much further modification). This group further split into three major groups, easily recognizable by the number of holes or "fenestrae" in the side of the skull: the anapsids (no fenestrae), which produced the turtles; the diapsids (two fenestrae), which produced the dinosaurs and birds; and an offshoot group, the eurapsids (two fenestrae fused into one), which produced the ichthyosaurs.
The other major line of reptiles developed an aorta on left side only, and strengthened the skull by moving the quadrate bone up and back, obliterating the otic notch (making involvement of the jaw essential in the later development of good hearing). They developed a single fenestra per side. This group was the synapsid reptiles. They took a radically different path than the other reptiles, involving homeothermy, a larger brain, better hearing and more efficient teeth. One group of synapsids called the "therapsids" took these changes particularly far, and apparently produced the mammals.
Some transitions among reptiles
I will review just a couple of the reptile phylogenies, since there are so many.... Early reptiles to turtles: (Also see Gaffney & Meylan, in Benton 1988)
•Captorhinus (early-mid Permain) -- Immediate descendent of the protorothryids.
Here we come to a controversy; there are two related groups of early anapsids, both descended from the captorhinids, that could have been ancestral to turtles. Reisz & Laurin (1991, 1993) believe the turtles descended from procolophonids, late Permian anapsids that had various turtle-like skull features. Others, particularly Lee (1993) think the turtle ancestors are pareiasaurs:
•Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle s .
•Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very s -like way. (Lee, 1993)
•Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and s , but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..
•Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described.
Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info)
•Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Penn.) -- The primitive amniotes described above
•Petrolacosaurus, Araeoscelis (late Pennsylvanian) -- First known diapsids. Both temporal fenestra now present. No significant change in jaw muscles. Have Hylonomus-style teeth, with many small marginal teeth & two slightly larger canines. Still no eardrum.
•Apsisaurus (early Permian) -- A more typical diapsid. Lost canines. (Laurin, 1991)
GAP: no diapsid fossils from the mid-Permian.
•Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds).
•Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.
•Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.
•Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.
•Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs.
Some species-to-species transitions:
•De Ricqles (in Chaline, 1983) do ents several possible cases of gradual evolution (also well as some lineages that showed abrupt appearance or stasis) among the early Permian reptile genera Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, and Romeria.
•Horner et al. (1992) recently found many excellent transitional dinosaur fossils from a site in Montana that was a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous. They include:
1.Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
2.Many transitional lambeosaurids (50! specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
3.A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus
4.A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.
All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)
Transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals
This is the best-do ented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the beginning. As Rowe recently said about this transition (in Szalay et al., 1993), "When sampling artifact is removed and all available character data analyzed [with computer phylogeny programs that do not assume anything about evolution], a highly corroborated, stable phylogeny remains, which is largely consistent with the temporal distributions of taxa recorded in the fossil record." Similarly, Gingerich has stated (1977) "While living mammals are well separated from other groups of animals today, the fossil record clearly shows their origin from a reptilian stock and permits one to trace the origin and radiation of mammals in considerable detail." For more details, see Kermack's superb and readable little book (1984), Kemp's more detailed but older book (1982), and read Szalay et al.'s recent collection of review articles (1993, vol. 1).
This list starts with pelycosaurs (early synapsid reptiles) and continues with therapsids and cynodonts up to the first unarguable "mammal". Most of the changes in this transition involved elaborate repackaging of an expanded brain and special sense organs, remodeling of the jaws & teeth for more efficient eating, and changes in the limbs & vertebrae related to active, legs-under-the-body locomotion. Here are some differences to keep an eye on:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Early Reptiles Mammals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 No fenestrae in skull Massive fenestra exposes all of braincase
2 Braincase attached loosely Braincase attached firmly to skull
3 No secondary palate Complete bony secondary palate
4 Undifferentiated den ion Incisors, canines, premolars, molars
5 Cheek teeth uncrowned points Cheek teeth (PM & M) crowned & cusped
6 Teeth replaced continuously Teeth replaced once at most
7 Teeth with single root Molars double-rooted
8 Jaw joint quadrate-articular Jaw joint dentary-squamosal (*)
9 Lower jaw of several bones Lower jaw of dentary bone only
10 Single ear bone (stapes) Three ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus)
11 Joined external nares Separate external nares
12 Single occipital condyle Double occipital condyle
13 Long cervical ribs Cervical ribs tiny, fused to vertebrae
14 Lumbar region with ribs Lumbar region rib-free
15 No diaphragm Diaphragm
16 Limbs sprawled out from body Limbs under body
17 Scapula simple Scapula with big spine for muscles
18 Pelvic bones unfused Pelvis fused
19 Two sacral (hip) vertebrae Three or more sacral vertebrae
20 Toe bone #'s 2-3-4-5-4 Toe bones 2-3-3-3-3
21 Body temperature variable Body temperature constant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edited for length--RG]
Transition from diapsid reptiles to birds
In the mid-1800's, this was one of the most significant gaps in vertebrate fossil evolution. No transitional fossils at all were known, and the two groups seemed impossibly different. Then the exciting discovery of Archeopteryx in 1861 showed clearly that the two groups were in fact related. Since then, some other reptile-bird links have been found. On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition, consisting of a very large-scale series of "cousin" fossils. I have not included Mononychus (as it appears to be a digger, not a flier, well off the line to modern birds). See Feduccia (1980) and Rayner (1989) for more discussion of the evolution of flight, and Chris Nedin's excellent Archeopteryx FAQ for more info on that critter.
•Coelophysis (late Triassic) -- One of the first theropod dinosaurs. Theropods in general show clear general skeletal affinities with birds (long limbs, hollow bones, foot with 3 toes in front and 1 reversed toe behind, long ilium). Jurassic theropods like Compsognathus are particularly similar to birds.
•Deinonychus, Oviraptor, and other advanced theropods (late Jurassic, Cretaceous) -- Predatory bipedal advanced theropods, larger, with more bird-like skeletal features: semilunate carpal, bony sternum, long arms, reversed pubis. Clearly runners, though, not fliers. These advanced theropods even had clavicles, sometimes fused as in birds. Says Clark (1992): "The detailed similarity between birds and theropod dinosaurs such as Deinonychus is so striking and so pervasive throughout the skeleton that a considerable amount of special pleading is needed to come to any conclusion other than that the sister-group of birds among fossils is one of several theropod dinosaurs." The particular fossils listed here are are not directly ancestral, though, as they occur after Archeopteryx.
•Lisboasaurus estesi & other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" (mid-Jurassic) -- A bird-like theropod reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds, since modern birds have no teeth). These really could be ancestral.
GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible.
•One possible ancestor of Archeopteryx is Protoavis (Triassic, ~225 Ma) -- A highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Unfortunately, not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds.
•Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993)
•Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992).
•"Las Hoyas bird" or "Spanish bird" [not yet named; early Cretaceous, 131 Ma) -- Another recently found "little forest flier". It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip. A fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird, indicating homeothermy. (Sanz et al., 1992)
•Ambiortus dementjevi (early Cretaceous, 125 Ma) -- The third known "little forest flier", found in 1985. Very fragmentary fossil.
•Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, and other Cretaceous diving birds -- This line of birds became specialized for diving, like modern cormorants. As they lived along sal er coasts, there are many fossils known. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, a reptilian trait.
[Note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils
IF you prefer da yootoobz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ
I would point out that each one of those years in paranethesis denots a scientifically reviewed paper.
Yes, there are transitional forms, and mountains of physical evidence supporting that.
All of that should have put this discussion to bed IMHO.
Fish=fish
lizard=lizard
Where are the ones that turned into humans?
Oh and scientist can't lie? Has he done any actual studies himself? No, he hasn't. In other words he has faith in what they are saying is true.
In before "you're stupid and that's not how evolution works". I'm pretty sure something had to come before the first ape/chimp, so what was it?
I would love to have wings.
both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains)
seems convenient
You can try and poison the well but it is what it is. You are trying to claim that 'we' are trying to claim lizards turned into humans. We have gone over the ideas of common ancestor, genetic mutations, genetic drift, isolated populations and all manner of things. Now grasping of complex ideas is a standard of mine. As such your 'in b4' comment is apt.
It's to the point now where one of two things are happening. Either:
a) you are bored and just trolling
b) you are incapable of understanding the concepts that are required to understand the answer.
I would still love to have wings though.
so then what turned into humans? i mean before our common ancestors?
After all this, if that is still your question you are a lost cause. I told you before I do not have the inclination to tutor you and you do not seem to have the capacity to teach yourself. It's a difficult skill to be intellectually self reliant, so you are not alone.
If you want to try I would advise looking into what a common ancestor is. It's obvious by your question you have not mastered the concept.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
