Jump to content


Photo

Fossil Record


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
43 replies to this topic

#41 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 19 February 2011 - 08:49 PM

Birds, it appears, are indeed theropod dinosaurs.  Here are a few links.

http://www.ucmp.berk.../theropoda.html

http://www.ucmp.berk...ids/avians.html

http://en.wikipedia....da#Major_groups

http://cas.bellarmin...ry_of_birds.htm

http://www.geol.umd....z/gaiaintro.pdf

As the second of those links says, "The 'controversy' remains an interest more of the press than the general scientific community."

I do, however, agree...of course "simple" organisms appear both early and late in the record.  It's that more and more "complex" organisms joined the party in stages.

And the digestive tracts and brains of birds are considerably less complex than those found in mammals.

View Post


The conclusion now appears to be that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. There is a distinction between being related in this way and actually being classified as such.

#42 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,534 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 February 2011 - 07:25 AM

IMO this thread IMO has gotten way out-of-hand, I can't count the number of strawman arguments laid against ikester's simple and straightforward claims. Its clear if you read Ikester's posts from the beginning he is not claiming Mars currently has water as earth does, which leads to answering Number's red herring (I know the argument will be that the word "having" was used instead of "having had" water, but the context from the beginning was clear, that scientists have promoted a global flood on mars in the past). Then all the equivocation, mostly by the rock: For example:

"You can't have photosynthesis without oxygen."

Duh. Strawman, psuedo-red herring.

"I don't know anybody who would say Earth's atmosphere has always existed as is currently does."

Duh. Strawman.

"Plants don't make oxygen. Plants produce free oxygen."

Gross equivocation.

Rock, in just a few posts you blatantly equivocated, then tried misdirection when called on it, and then riddled the thread with various strawmen. You''ll be on a short leash after you return, if you so chose, from a temporary suspension.

Fred

#43 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 20 February 2011 - 02:04 PM

If there were a large flood, one would absolutely expect to see statistically significant trends in the data.  That is, one might expect that mammals, with high intelligence, were better at getting away than, say reptiles, which were better at getting away than, say bottom feeders...perhaps you'd think flying animals of all types, birds, bats, insects, etc. would get away the best, as they don't need contact with the rapidly shrinking ground to escape.  So, problem #1:  flying animals did not differentiate themselves in any way from their land-borne counterparts, flying reptiles are found with other reptiles, and flying mammals are found with other mammals.  Problem #2:  you mean to tell me that not one single mammal was killed in the initial stages of the flood?  Sure, one could believe that mammals would be statistically better at getting away than reptiles or bottom-feeders...but that every single mammal escaped, presumably, for several days without a single one dying, even of natural causes?  That's simply ludicrous.

View Post

I think you need to look at the fossil bearing sections themselves. You'll find out that most fossils are marine anyway. Are we told that there are reptiles in sedimentary sites with marine animals? Mammals also. It's not seen as anything strange, because so called first and last appearance ranges intersect. If a mammal is found with an invertebrate that is found also in an earlier epoch--the mammal will move the invertebrate's range to a later time.

If you look up laggerstatten, and check out the list of what is found, you'll find mostly marine animals with a few non marine. That seems to be the real stats.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Lagerstätte

http://en.wikipedia....of_fossil_sites

#44 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 21 February 2011 - 03:58 AM

I think you need to look at the fossil bearing sections themselves.  You'll find out that most fossils are marine anyway.  Are we told that there are reptiles in sedimentary sites with marine animals? Mammals also. It's not seen as anything strange, because so called first and last appearance ranges intersect. If a mammal is found with an invertebrate that is found also in an earlier epoch--the mammal will move the invertebrate's range to a later time.

If you look up laggerstatten, and check out the list of what is found, you'll find mostly marine animals with a few non marine.  That seems to be the real stats.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Lagerstätte

http://en.wikipedia....of_fossil_sites

View Post


I offer this comment from Richard Selley in his book "Ancient Sedimentary Environments."

"To use fossils to identify the depositional environment of the host sediment two assumptions must be made:

1) That the fossil lived in the place where it was buried.
2) That the habitat of the fossil can be deduced either from its morphology or from studying its living descendants (if there are any).

These are two very real problems which must always be kept in mind when using fossils as environmental indicators. It is not always easy to be sure that a creature lived in or on the sediment in which it was buried. Many fossils are preserved in a particular environment not because they lived in it but because they found their way into it by accident and it was so hostile that it killed them. Think of all the drowned cats washed out to sea by the River Thames."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users