". . . I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over." Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, 1971, p. 131.
This superior creation in feathers gave Charles Darwin considerable pause for thought. The magnificent beauty in peacock feathers actually made him "cold all over," as he put it. In a letter to his friend Asa Gray dated 3 April, 1860, he wrote:
"Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales. . . the protein structure of bird feathers and are unique among vertebrates . . . Feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . " "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, pp. 131-132.
Professor A. H. Brush from Connecticut University , a professor of physiology and neurobiology, , described the profound differences between reptile scales and bird feathers:
To maintain that such a complex structure evolved as the result of random mutations from reptile scales is simply a dogmatic belief, based on no scientific foundation at all. As I said hope and belief.
It is said, "There are 650 barbs on either side of a stork feather's stem. Each one has 600 contraposed barbules, attached to one another by 390 hooks which, again, cling together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks become detached from one another, the bird has only to shake itself or groom its feathers with its beak for them to reattach."
What's really amazing about this is, on each barb are even smaller structures known as barbules, too small to be seen with the naked eye. On all of these barbules are tiny hooks, thanks to which the barbules are held together tightly, as if by zippers.
In addition to this fact, a long, stiff tube runs along the center of the feather. From both sides of this tube emerge hundreds of barbs. These barbs, which have differing lengths and degrees of softness, give the feather its aerodynamic properties.
Alan Feduccia says: "Everything about them indicates an aerodynamic function... They're lightweight, they're excellent airfoils, they produce high lift at low speeds, and they have a Velcro-like quality that lets them be reassembled." Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?", New Scientist, February 1, 1997,p. 26.
The well known ornithologist Alan Feduccia does not consider it probable that a tissue so well suited for flight could have emerged initially to serve another purpose (for example, insulation, as is claimed by evolutionists).
Next let me deal with bird feathers, as mentioned before the theory of evolution maintains that birds evolved from reptiles, but is totally unable to account for the enormous differences between these two separate living classes.
Timothy Rowe, Richard A. Ketcham, Cambria Denison, Matthew Colbert, Xing Xu, and Philip J. Currie, “Forensic palaeontology: The Archaeoraptor forgery,” Nature, 29 March 2001, Vo.: 410, pp. 539-540.
Sadly, parts of at least two significant new specimens were combined in favor of the higher commercial value of the forgery, and both were nearly lost to science. Paleontology was also badly damaged by the Piltdown forgery and the “lying stones” of Johann Beringer, and many fossils have been unwittingly or deliberately subjected to misleading reconstruction."
The hoax was detected through detailed analysis by researchers, who published the results in Nature magazine:"The Archaeoraptor fossil was announced as a missing link and purported to be possibly the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that birds did, in fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur . . .
The definition of "bird-type" hip-boned dinosaurs is one based solely on similarities, and other major anatomical gulfs between the two groups make it impossible to interpret that one similarity from an evolutionist perspective. It's more like hope, or some kind of faith to believe this.
On the other hand, Struthiomimus, some of whose anatomical features may be compared to birds, was thin with long back legs and short forearms, and belongs to the Saurischian group, with reptile-type hip bones.
It is well known that certain dinosaurs belonging to the Ornithischian group do not resemble birds at all in their other anatomical features. Ankylosaurus, for instance, had short legs, an enormous body and skin covered in armor-like scales, but is a bird-type hip-boned dinosaur belonging to the Ornithischian group.
Its been said " Some evolutionist publications, for instance, suggest that, based on differences in dinosaurs' hip bones, birds evolved from dinosaurs. The hip bone difference in question is that between the Saurischian (reptile-type hip-boned) and Ornithischian (bird-type hip-boned) groups."
It's surprising to say in the face of all the scientific findings, however, the dinosaur-bird evolution scenario, based on no concrete evidence whatsoever, is still stubbornly defended.
Larry Martin from Kansas University, who has authority on ancient birds, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. In reference to the dilemma in which evolution finds itself, Martin says: "To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it." Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?", New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28.
Professor Alan Feduccia, from North Carolina University, and is a evolutionist. He opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs. His opposition to the dino-bird claims is based on scientific findings: "All in all, I find the whole dino-bird business a total hoax." A., email to J. David, 26 October, 1999; permission to share this email given 3 November 1999.
But for a reptile on the other hand their unable to produce their own body heat, warming themselves by means of the Sun's rays, plus reptiles consume the least energy, and birds the most.
Also what is well know is that reptiles have the slowest metabolism in the living world, while birds hold the record for the fastest. There's example for this. Due to its rapid metabolism, a sparrow's body temperature may sometimes reach 48 degrees Celsius.
There are so many differences between birds and reptiles, the main thing being their structural differences. The main one that is well know is the bone structure. It is well know that the bones of dinosaurs are thick and solid. In contrast, the bones of both living and extinct species of birds are hollow, which makes them very light.
The theory of evolution maintains that birds descended from small, carnivorous theropod dinosaurs-in other words, from reptiles. In fact, however, comparison of birds and reptiles reveals that these classes are very different from one another, and that no evolution between them is possible.
Does the evidence point to all birds having a common therapod ancestor, or could the large flightless birds like ostriches be descendants of dinosaurs like Gallimimus while the other birds descended from dinosaurs like the dromeosaurs. I know that they ultimately would have a single common therapod ancestor though.
Bill throws up the Devil Horns, this show he does not believe in what he is saying, he just doing what he is told, acting. The time in this video he does it is 1:57.
No, YOU offer up the proof. You make the claim evlution is false, provide scientific evidence for your position. Oh and don't use the tired old fallacies all creationists use like the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the micro/macro evolution thing. Your mafia bosses at AIG said people shouldn't use the grand majority of those idiotic arguments anymore. Actually do your own research, then offer up your evidence to peer review to the scientific community.
@Eesa74 The scientific community is actually interested to see if you can use science to prove your point, but using lies and the bible wont impress them a bit.
@NUTCASE71733, Before stepping to me, get your facts right before you speak. Not once did I use the Bible. As for science, I quoted from Professors that I base my opinion on with ref, and some of those Professors are Evolutionist them selves. So you better show the community what got. If you want to refute me NUTCASE71733, then go through what I wrote and deal with it that way. As for Bill Oddie throwing up El Diablo Hand Signal Sign, that is as clear, like the night and the day.
You're a creationist aren't you? Your comments support the idea that you are. By definition you ignore evidence and cling to the bible. I wasn't about to read the fifty million spam posts you made since I heard those claims time and time again from every other creationist here. All of which have been disproved since science is supposed to be falsifiable, and yet due to the nature of creationism one can't test it. Therefore it can't be accepted.
@NUTCASE71733 , No I'm not a creationist, My comments only support common sense. How can I cling to the Bible when I never once used the Bible in my post (no offence to any Christian), so your talking foolishness, to prove this you said:"I wasn't about to read the fifty million spam posts you made since I heard those claims time and time again from every other creationist here."
@NUTCASE71733, So if you had read what I wrote, you would of seen I did not use the Bible. As I said before, since you have trouble reading. No maybe it's arrogance on your part. As I said: "I quoted from Professors that I base my opinion on with ref, and some of those Professors are Evolutionist them selves.
@NUTCASE71733, You said:"and yet due to the nature of creationism one can't test it. Therefore it can't be accepted." Let me put you straight, and set a challenge to you. Bring me one scientist who has created a fly from scratch, from nothing to life. And I will be bold to say that not one scientist can do it, even if you brought all the top scientist together to try and create a fly from scratch, they would never be able to do it.
It's one thing to perform an abiogenesis experiment by letting the base elements that make amino acids-which is a building block to primitive cells-but its another thing to create a fly. To create a fly from scratch, it requires one to clone it's DNA. We have been able to simulate abiogenesis in the lab, look it up.
Oh your statments you cited that were made by scientists (note I didn't use evolutonist; that's a fucking retarded term) are more than likely taken out of context. Last time I checked the bible says lying is a sin, and creationists dishonesly take quotes out of context to fit iragenda. Darwin's quote about the eye is a prime example, as they only read part of the statement and ignore the next several paragraphs of that chapter of Origen of Species.
well...a scientist already created a cell from scratch. at the Venter's lab, it's called Cynthia. a fly is just one step away. what then? will you stop with your bullshit nonsense?
why don't you accept this challenge:
Try explain AB resistance or plant speciation w/out using evolution theory.
and ffs...stop trying to use abiogenesis against evolution. it's TWO different things.
everytime you spew: "God did it"; that's using the bible, dumbshit.
@transtlantic, Oh let me put you straight on Synthia, which was created in the Venter's lab. In order to create this bacteria, they used chemicals, so they had to used what was available on this earth, also it's "synthetic". They said it is a modified version of the simplest bacteria on Earth. Sorry that's far from being from scratch.
@transtlantic, Before stepping to me you most come correct, ROFL Cynthia. Lets see what Dr J. Craig Venter called it. "New life is called Synthia. Say Venter." You are so silly don't even know what it is called. SHAME.
@transtlantic, You Chief. Google these header you Chief. "Dr Craig Venter (God 2.0) Creates Synthia And Media Buzz From Nothing, Sort Of" "Hello World, I'm Synthia"
@transtlantic, ROFL Cynthia, sound like you got a girl on your brain. Let's read some:
JCVI is an abbreviation of the J Craig Venter Institute, a pioneer in synthetic biology. Earlier this month Venter and his team at Synthetic Genomics, a part of JCVI, created the first ‘synthetic life form’, what they didn’t do — although elements in the media would have you believe that they did — is create a whole new life form.
@transtlantic, The life form, Mycoplasma mycoides, existed long before Venter was a glint in a randy genome’s eye. In this case, however, the bacterium was not itself…literally. It had its original genome removed and replaced with a lab-created genome.
@transtlantic, The result was a life form, which for all intents and purposes was created in a lab. But the bacterium retained the structure engineered by nature, it followed all of her biological processes and never once threatened to rise up and kill its maker. Mary Shelley will have to wait a while.
@transtlantic, Your still putting people down, cussing, as your proof as usual. I did not misquote any one. I bring references and professor's you don't. I dealt with you before and I will do it again.
@transtlantic Look antibiotic resistance of bacteria is a evidence used as a proof evolution. So let's get that out of the way first. The fact of the matter is, that this attribute contributes nothing whatsoever to evolution to these life forms. What this argument does is demolishes the theory of evolution, and proves the opposite to your argument. It points right back to creation.
@transtlantic, It is well know that many bacteria possessed genes even before commercial antibiotics came into use. Stuart B. Levy said: "Scientist do not know exactly why these genes evolved and were maintained."
@transtlantic, Also research was done in 1986, which established that bacteria was in the 19th century, which already carried resistance to antibiotics produced in the 20th century. It's a well known scientific fact that such resistance characteristics existed in many type of bacteria before the discovery penicillin, the attribute of resistance in bacteria is still portrayed as an evolutionary development , how?
@Eesa74 "established that bacteria was in the 19th century"? what the fuck are you talking about?
Moron... establoshed they already carried resistance? LOLOL according to Murray medical microbiology what you say is bullshit. research in bacteria genome mapping in the last 50 years prove that NEW genes appear by random mutations. genes that did not exist before the 1950s.
penicillin exists naturally, Meticillin, didn''t. ergo another proof you are wrong.
@transtlantic, Proofs that the antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not evolution. First lets look at the countless varieties within an individual species of bacteria. We know that some of these possesses the genetic information that bestows resistance to certain drugs. As we known when certain bacteria are exposed to the effect of a particular drug those lacking resistance die, while resistant bacteria survive and are more able to multiply.
"is not evolution"? lol...so why the fuck can't you explain AB resistance w/out using evolution theory?
i keep asking and you not answering, dumbshit.
"countless varieties"? lol... "individual species"? lol...that doesn't even make sense! LOLOL species are a colection of individuals, so why say: "individual species"? LOLOL MORON!
we also KNOW that species of bacteria DO NOT possess the genetic information against AB ERGO the AB WORKING! or else they wouldn't. dumbshit! DUH!
@transtlantic, So after a given period of time, the non-resistant bacteria are completely replaced by these rapidly multiplying resistance. Soon after, that same species of bacteria becomes a colony consisting uniquely of individuals that are resistant to antibiotic in question, and that antibiotic is now useless against that species of bacteria.
"those lacking resistance die, while resistant bacteria survive"! WOW PRECISELY WHAT NATURAL SELECTION, WHICH IS PART OF the theory of evolution, EXPLAINS! dumbshit.
not all resistant bacteria replicate faster than the non-mutants, ergo another proof that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. an example would be flocaxin resistant bacteria, they reproduce slower than non-resistant strains (for example).
BTW, you FAILED to explain the ORIGIN of the resistance.
@transtlantic, The most important point to all this, is that the bacteria is still the same bacteria, the species are still the same species. No evolution has taken place whatsoever. Now bacteria has existed on Earth for about 3.5 billion years and still here as the exact same bacteria. In my opinion antibiotic resistance does not bring anything to the augment table.
the most important point here is that you ignore that species evolve, not "bacteria". "bacteria" is not the name of any species. therefore WHEN a species of bacteria CHANGE, that's evolution, because the MUTANTS are not the same as the non-mutants. and you can deny all you want. but FACT is the resistance is not always there. by that logic bacteria would require a gene for each known antibiotic in the market! they would need to be the size of a basketball! LOLOL
@transtlantic, After this I'm done with you. Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001: "Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics.
@transtlantic,This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics."
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution": "The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species."
So as you can see, we cannot talk about any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produce. That's a fact. Genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria. So from common sense, that means it was created that way. So for a scientist to simply remove the original genome and replace it with a lab-created genome, is as I said before far from scratch.
Because bacteria was already made from scratch in there first place. The scientist will always need what was created before it. So they will never be able to create from scratch as I said before, it's impossible to create from nothing.
Spetner writes: "... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way.
But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule." "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001,
Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it.
by definition i refuse to comment on more than 10 posts made for me. especially when a person like you deliberately trolls page over page with 3 line replies. your purpose of diluting the forum with asanine cretard crap is obvious, troll, obvious.
Mutation on MRSA doesn't decompose the ribosome. i specifically presented an Example where no such thing occurs - MRSA. ergo i don't even know why the fuck you are talking about streptomycin. Meticillin is not the same, dumbshit.
Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:
This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function.
where is the degradation in MRSA origin? loss of specifity? lol... what the fuck are you talking about. MRSA results from an INCREASE in information, not loss.
there is no "Point" in evolution. evolution occurs. it's a fact. period.
and YES evolution occurs EVEN if there is a reduction in fitness. because evolution is about CHANGE of species. no matter the form.
It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are.
To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation.
That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled."
MRSA: results from NEW genetic information being added to the bacterium. same happens with the streptomycin example you provided: the DNA changed, creating NEW information. dumbshit.
"the structure of the ribosome"? the ribosome is not DNA. you confuse genotype with phenotype, typical ignorant creationist mistake.
"disabled"? the mutants survive that means increased fitness. how is that "disabled"?
plus MRSA doesn't have anything to do with what you wrote.
(Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.
MRSA: the ribosome remains FULLY functional. "normal bacterium"? what is a normal bacterium? please provide an example. want a species for you to try prove your claims? E.coli. name me a "normal bacterium": there are thousands of strains. which one is "normal"?
MRSA = no disability.
the resistance has nothing to do with the ribosome.
To end it let me bring a evolutionist into this, biologist Francisco Ayala, he said: "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds." "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 64.
1978? wow...science must have stopped since then! LOLOL
Murray medical microbiology, latest edition (2000s) and more updated scienceproves your ayala wrong (retired, btw):
Acta Biochim Pol. 1995;42(4):517-24.
Evolution and resistance expression of MRSA. Evaluation of beta-lactam antibiotics against a set of isogenic strains with different types of phenotypic expression
proof that the genes were not there before the man made compounds.
and WAIT: you write and i quote: "3.5 billion years and stillhere as the exact same bacteria"? LOLOL
utter bullshit. there isn't one single bacteria from the present that existed 3 billion years ago, heck: make it 1 billion years ago. why? because bacteria EVOLVED and speciated.
BTW. you DID Not explain AB resistance.
i'll put you to reality again: explain the existence of MRSA.
go, dumbshit. when i put forth a real example you will see your bullshit crumble! LOLOL
Well then if you don't deny evolution, brush up on what it is. Because you're very mistaken on what you said earlier.
Do you understand what ad hominem is? It's fallacious only when one tries to link a characteristic of the other person to the validity of their statement. Which I hadn't done. All I said was that it seems as if you don't understand what a falsifiability test is.
Actually yes you can. Evolution is a fact as well as a scientific theory. Evolution being change in genetic frequency within a population, genetic variation and how it changes over time. That is observed.
nope, there's no evidence of evolution *in action*. what's found is very distant forms without intermediate links. that's all mental theorizings around some fossils and that's it. What's observed nowadays is genetic mutation which doesn't necessarily match the notion of evolution.
You don't even know what evolution is. It is defined as the change in genetic frequency in a population over time. That is observed evolution in action. Mutations and Genetic variation are what cause the change. Mutations are *crucial* to evolution. They are part of what natural selection acts upon. Think before you type dude.
Ok then, if you think you know what evolution is give me your definition. And don't give me another childish response. You didn't even comment on any of my points, it seems to be you that doesn't get what is being said.
sorry, have no time for that. i do not deny evolution, i'm just saying it has some draws and no one can be sure 100% in many areas.
"falsifiability test tells me you probably don't understand what a falsifiability test is." is a pointless ad hominem crap so I don't continue it anymore. bye.
sorry, have no time for that. i do not deny evolution, i'm just saying it has some draws and no one can be sure 100% in many areas.
"falsifiability test tells me you probably don't understand what a falsifiability test is." is a pointless ad hominem crap so I don't continue it anymore. bye.
What you probably mean is proofs of creationism accounts, not proofs of God. And you're right, those are based on *some* evidence, but definitely not *all* of the evidence. To say that evolution doesn't pass the falsifiability test tells me you probably don't understand what a falsifiability test is.
Thats a bird foot your holding stupid! Different species. You think a powerful well built dino foot would evolve into a little weak one that we kill in huge quantities. Well done dino you evolved into our dinner good move evolution.
Interesting, so how come when the dinosaurs were released from Noah's arc that the Tyrannosaurs and many other meat eating dinosaurs and mammals did not cause permanent extinction by eating all of the other animals (2 of each species) as their food supply? How are we still here in spite of that fact? In fact how are any meat eating mammals still here in spite of that, seeing as they need to eat at least a couple of pounds of meat a day to survive. Do you think meat just magically appears?
@AcusticDave Possible provisions for them were there but do you know David and the lions den in the bible, take a look. God creates, you think he can't control his creation for his purpose. You are not God so you can't understand how he does this. Take God out of your human box you have placed him in. Jesus controlled the waves, turned water into wine and healed the blind 2000 years ago. All stupid unless you believe in his devine nature. God is God. There is none equal to his greatness.
You just don't know, don't bullshit. Your just simply trying to defend your fragile ego. Take God out of that worship box you have, he's not real. I don't know how you can believe these inconsistent stories you read, the fact that dinosaurs are nowhere present, including that if they were alive during then they would all so well document their people being picked off by giant flying dactls and dromaeosaurids as human settlements would obviously just be an all you can eat buffet for these guys.
@AcusticDave What ego, God dislikes pride. "pride comes before a fall" as it is written. Humans are the most intelligent, it's no buffet. We can kill anything. It's a buffet for us. God put us above animals. In any case If its so easy for dinos to live and kill why did they die? Maybe we killed them off like we kill everything now. I have no worship box. He is everywhere for everyone to see. Evolution is a fairytale full of lovely stories. Most of them a 3 year old could make up.
Wow, you even fail to admit the big strong t-rex outclasses you. You would have shit yourself just from the sight of that behemoth, you will even shit yourself at the sight of a tiger without the restriction of those stupid zoo bars, you will be it's food at that point. You're so full of self righteous bullshit.
@AcusticDave Nothing on earth out classes Humans. Just look around you. I did not say that we are invincible but we are ultimately in control of animals on earth. If we can kill a human then we can kill anything less intelligent. Can you comprehend that? Your talking the most dangerous predators, Not everything on the ark would have been a killer. Noah's ark is easy to understant if you believe in God. You just don't believe so can't understand. Get to know what God is capable of and understand.
Pterosaurs were already on the decline by the time of the extinction, perhaps due to competition with birds. The extinction event killed selected groups of animals. Marine life and large terrestrial life. Freshwater species (crocodiles, frogs) and small terrestrial life (birds, mammals) lived. Birds were the only group of small dinosaurs, that is why they survived. But not all birds survived. There were three sub-classes of birds, only the ones we have today (Neornithes) made it.
I think the feathers started to grow to protect dinosaurs from cold, and then they used them to fly, but the main purpose of feathers where to keep worm. I mean, what something else to keep worm if not feathers, can you imagine a dinosaur with fur on it...
Wallace's Flying Frog, Rhacophorus nigropalmatus. When threatened or in search of prey, they will leap from a branch and splay their four webbed feet. The membranes between their toes and loose skin flaps on their sides catch the air as they fall, helping them to glide, sometimes 50 feet (15 meters) or more, to a neighboring tree branch or even all the way to the ground. They also have oversized toe pads to help them land softly and stick to tree trunks.
The reason it never will is because morphological change is impossible. Having extra webbing between the feet is not a morphological difference to other frogs in the same way a galapagos finch having a slightly longer beak to reach nuts is not a different morphology to the finch with a slightly shorter beak.
the reasons for no flying frogs has more to do with being an amphibian.
birds already had efficient hearts and lungs. they also had feathers, well before flying. flying needs large amounts of energy. amphibians and other modern reptiles can't meet this demand.
bats are a surprise, with heavy bones and those not so efficient mammal lungs. still it works and that is all that is important.
Haha, yet another great evolutionist claim. Dinosaurs turned into birds with millions and millions of years. It makes perfect sense... What they were doing is climbing up into trees and trying to fly from one tree to another and the ones that could jump across that bit better survived and so evolved new respiratory systems, a different heart, feathers of different varieties from what were previously scales, and, and, and, their bones turned hollow. Look he's got arms and, and legs! Bird!
ur an idiot. 3.50 onwards 100% evidence the raptor family had feathers, i was under the impression this convo was related to what we saw in the video but maybe u just chose to assume its a biiiiiiiig joke.
Many dromaeosaur theropods have been identified as hollow-boned, and feather-bearing. As for "feathers of different varieties from what were previously scales" I hope you're aware that birds DO have scales. Just saying.
@athlete117 It's indeed pure phantasy that small favorable transmitted DNA mutations can produce flying animals from some dinosaurs. Unlike creating humans from dirt, filling the missing gap with only three letters: GOD! Not to mention that fossils are all fakes, radioactivity based datation is absolutely unreliable (and we all know that radioactive pollution can't last more than a couple of decades). Science is always better when it fits the bible!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
hey guys maybe in some milions years all the birds will turn back to dinosaurs. wouldent that be so cool :D . . . . darwinian propaganda is what i call this!!!
@MEGslayer ever seen Jurassic Park? id rather have a life long debate whether dinos are birds or not than be eaten by a dino just to prove they are birds...
"Furthermore, other fossil finds considered to be dinosaur precursors to birds have turned out to be flightless birds similar to ostriches, such as Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui."
turned out to be flightless birds? as opposed to dinosaurs? How does that preclude it from being a dinosaur. If the birds are descended from dinosaurs, then they are all dinosaurs. That is simple cladistics that even an elementary school child could understand (if they bothered to teach cladistics).
"I trust much more in the jurassic park's reconstruction of velociraptor (despite the increase in size, of course)."
Yes, of course, we should just ignore all the evidence about velociraptors that have turned up since Jurassic Park came out (i.e. fossils with feathers) and while we are at it lets just ignore the whole Dinosaur Renaissance the Jurassic Park is in fact championing and one of the biggest tenets of that renaissance: that birds are dinosaurs. full stop.
Pterosaurs did not fly in the sence that birds fly today. For the most part they were gliders, catching updrafts in there large wings to glide over large distances.
Also, Pterosaurs were cold blooded, so they needed a warm climate to generate the energy to take of from the ground.
Birds on the other hand, are warm blooded, so they do not need a warm climate to survive.
Avian dinosaurs (birds) can migrate, and mammals can hibernate. this allows them to surive adverse climates, while Dinosaurs were large, and stuck were they stood. So whatever happened at the K-T boundary affected land locked Dinosaurs, while avian dinosaurs survived.
This is incorrect, many dinosaur species are though to have been migratory similarly to mammals like caribou. The extinction event killed animals above a certain size limit. And all dinosaurs except birds weighed more than a few pounds. Perhaps this was due to available food or the intense conditions immediately after the asteroid collision.
What program is this? It looks really interesting.
MissHystic 2 weeks ago
how come something tat is so big so giant...but become something so small....
imperial881 5 months ago
@imperial881 not all dinosaurs where big. when the last arceoroptyx was found it was first mistaken for componatus.
gooddarkjedi 5 months ago
". . . I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over." Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Harvard Common Press, 1971, p. 131.
Eesa74 8 months ago
This superior creation in feathers gave Charles Darwin considerable pause for thought. The magnificent beauty in peacock feathers actually made him "cold all over," as he put it. In a letter to his friend Asa Gray dated 3 April, 1860, he wrote:
Eesa74 8 months ago
"Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales. . . the protein structure of bird feathers and are unique among vertebrates . . . Feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . " "On the Origin of Feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9, 1996, pp. 131-132.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Professor A. H. Brush from Connecticut University , a professor of physiology and neurobiology, , described the profound differences between reptile scales and bird feathers:
Eesa74 8 months ago
To maintain that such a complex structure evolved as the result of random mutations from reptile scales is simply a dogmatic belief, based on no scientific foundation at all. As I said hope and belief.
Eesa74 8 months ago
It is said, "There are 650 barbs on either side of a stork feather's stem. Each one has 600 contraposed barbules, attached to one another by 390 hooks which, again, cling together like the two sides of a zipper. If the hooks become detached from one another, the bird has only to shake itself or groom its feathers with its beak for them to reattach."
Eesa74 8 months ago
What's really amazing about this is, on each barb are even smaller structures known as barbules, too small to be seen with the naked eye. On all of these barbules are tiny hooks, thanks to which the barbules are held together tightly, as if by zippers.
Eesa74 8 months ago
In addition to this fact, a long, stiff tube runs along the center of the feather. From both sides of this tube emerge hundreds of barbs. These barbs, which have differing lengths and degrees of softness, give the feather its aerodynamic properties.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Alan Feduccia says: "Everything about them indicates an aerodynamic function... They're lightweight, they're excellent airfoils, they produce high lift at low speeds, and they have a Velcro-like quality that lets them be reassembled." Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?", New Scientist, February 1, 1997,p. 26.
Eesa74 8 months ago
The well known ornithologist Alan Feduccia does not consider it probable that a tissue so well suited for flight could have emerged initially to serve another purpose (for example, insulation, as is claimed by evolutionists).
Eesa74 8 months ago
Evolution theory fails to explain the complex structure of bird feathers.
Eesa74 8 months ago
This is widen by the the unbridgeable gulf between birds and reptiles is feathers, which are unique to birds.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Next let me deal with bird feathers, as mentioned before the theory of evolution maintains that birds evolved from reptiles, but is totally unable to account for the enormous differences between these two separate living classes.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Timothy Rowe, Richard A. Ketcham, Cambria Denison, Matthew Colbert, Xing Xu, and Philip J. Currie, “Forensic palaeontology: The Archaeoraptor forgery,” Nature, 29 March 2001, Vo.: 410, pp. 539-540.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Sadly, parts of at least two significant new specimens were combined in favor of the higher commercial value of the forgery, and both were nearly lost to science. Paleontology was also badly damaged by the Piltdown forgery and the “lying stones” of Johann Beringer, and many fossils have been unwittingly or deliberately subjected to misleading reconstruction."
Eesa74 8 months ago
We conclude that Archaeoraptor represents two or more species and that it was assembled from at least two, and possibly five, separate specimens. . .
Eesa74 8 months ago
But Archaeoraptor was revealed to be a forgery in which bones of a primitive bird and a non-flying dromaeosaurid dinosaur had been combined. . . .
Eesa74 8 months ago
The hoax was detected through detailed analysis by researchers, who published the results in Nature magazine:"The Archaeoraptor fossil was announced as a missing link and purported to be possibly the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that birds did, in fact, evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur . . .
Eesa74 8 months ago
Let's not forget also, that fossil said to be discovered in China in 2001, which turned out to be a false construction.
Eesa74 8 months ago
The definition of "bird-type" hip-boned dinosaurs is one based solely on similarities, and other major anatomical gulfs between the two groups make it impossible to interpret that one similarity from an evolutionist perspective. It's more like hope, or some kind of faith to believe this.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Hip bone structure, therefore, represents no apparent evidence that dinosaurs and birds are related.
Eesa74 8 months ago
On the other hand, Struthiomimus, some of whose anatomical features may be compared to birds, was thin with long back legs and short forearms, and belongs to the Saurischian group, with reptile-type hip bones.
Eesa74 8 months ago
It is well known that certain dinosaurs belonging to the Ornithischian group do not resemble birds at all in their other anatomical features. Ankylosaurus, for instance, had short legs, an enormous body and skin covered in armor-like scales, but is a bird-type hip-boned dinosaur belonging to the Ornithischian group.
Eesa74 8 months ago
In fact, however, this provides no support for the claim that dinosaurs are the forerunners of birds.
Eesa74 8 months ago
This concept of dinosaurs with bird-type hips is sometimes perceived as evidence for dinosaur-to-bird evolution.
Eesa74 8 months ago
What?
Eesa74 8 months ago
Its been said " Some evolutionist publications, for instance, suggest that, based on differences in dinosaurs' hip bones, birds evolved from dinosaurs. The hip bone difference in question is that between the Saurischian (reptile-type hip-boned) and Ornithischian (bird-type hip-boned) groups."
Eesa74 8 months ago
Certain concepts that represent no evidence for this scenario are superficially portrayed as "evidence" for the link between birds and dinosaurs.
Eesa74 8 months ago
It's surprising to say in the face of all the scientific findings, however, the dinosaur-bird evolution scenario, based on no concrete evidence whatsoever, is still stubbornly defended.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Larry Martin from Kansas University, who has authority on ancient birds, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. In reference to the dilemma in which evolution finds itself, Martin says: "To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it." Pat Shipman, "Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?", New Scientist, February 1, 1997, p. 28.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Professor Alan Feduccia, from North Carolina University, and is a evolutionist. He opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs. His opposition to the dino-bird claims is based on scientific findings: "All in all, I find the whole dino-bird business a total hoax." A., email to J. David, 26 October, 1999; permission to share this email given 3 November 1999.
Eesa74 8 months ago
But for a reptile on the other hand their unable to produce their own body heat, warming themselves by means of the Sun's rays, plus reptiles consume the least energy, and birds the most.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Also what is well know is that reptiles have the slowest metabolism in the living world, while birds hold the record for the fastest. There's example for this. Due to its rapid metabolism, a sparrow's body temperature may sometimes reach 48 degrees Celsius.
Eesa74 8 months ago
There are so many differences between birds and reptiles, the main thing being their structural differences. The main one that is well know is the bone structure. It is well know that the bones of dinosaurs are thick and solid. In contrast, the bones of both living and extinct species of birds are hollow, which makes them very light.
Eesa74 8 months ago
The theory of evolution maintains that birds descended from small, carnivorous theropod dinosaurs-in other words, from reptiles. In fact, however, comparison of birds and reptiles reveals that these classes are very different from one another, and that no evolution between them is possible.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@aieoua
Prove it.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
Does the evidence point to all birds having a common therapod ancestor, or could the large flightless birds like ostriches be descendants of dinosaurs like Gallimimus while the other birds descended from dinosaurs like the dromeosaurs. I know that they ultimately would have a single common therapod ancestor though.
baryonyx550 9 months ago
@baryonyx550
Some scientists have thought Ostiches decsended from the Ornithomimidea family. I dunno the specifics though, I'll have to look into it.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
Bill throws up the Devil Horns, this show he does not believe in what he is saying, he just doing what he is told, acting. The time in this video he does it is 1:57.
Eesa74 9 months ago
@Eesa74
You can't be serious.....
kylioneXsushi 9 months ago
@kylioneXsushi Let me deal with the bird theory first, as for the devil horns hand sign is well known.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
Prove it.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
@NUTCASE71733, I don't have to prove any thing, it's 1:57 in the video. You prove me wrong.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
No, YOU offer up the proof. You make the claim evlution is false, provide scientific evidence for your position. Oh and don't use the tired old fallacies all creationists use like the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the micro/macro evolution thing. Your mafia bosses at AIG said people shouldn't use the grand majority of those idiotic arguments anymore. Actually do your own research, then offer up your evidence to peer review to the scientific community.
NUTCASE71733 8 months ago
@Eesa74 The scientific community is actually interested to see if you can use science to prove your point, but using lies and the bible wont impress them a bit.
NUTCASE71733 8 months ago
@NUTCASE71733, Before stepping to me, get your facts right before you speak. Not once did I use the Bible. As for science, I quoted from Professors that I base my opinion on with ref, and some of those Professors are Evolutionist them selves. So you better show the community what got. If you want to refute me NUTCASE71733, then go through what I wrote and deal with it that way. As for Bill Oddie throwing up El Diablo Hand Signal Sign, that is as clear, like the night and the day.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
You're a creationist aren't you? Your comments support the idea that you are. By definition you ignore evidence and cling to the bible. I wasn't about to read the fifty million spam posts you made since I heard those claims time and time again from every other creationist here. All of which have been disproved since science is supposed to be falsifiable, and yet due to the nature of creationism one can't test it. Therefore it can't be accepted.
NUTCASE71733 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NUTCASE71733 , No I'm not a creationist, My comments only support common sense. How can I cling to the Bible when I never once used the Bible in my post (no offence to any Christian), so your talking foolishness, to prove this you said:"I wasn't about to read the fifty million spam posts you made since I heard those claims time and time again from every other creationist here."
Eesa74 8 months ago
@NUTCASE71733, So if you had read what I wrote, you would of seen I did not use the Bible. As I said before, since you have trouble reading. No maybe it's arrogance on your part. As I said: "I quoted from Professors that I base my opinion on with ref, and some of those Professors are Evolutionist them selves.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@NUTCASE71733, You said:"and yet due to the nature of creationism one can't test it. Therefore it can't be accepted." Let me put you straight, and set a challenge to you. Bring me one scientist who has created a fly from scratch, from nothing to life. And I will be bold to say that not one scientist can do it, even if you brought all the top scientist together to try and create a fly from scratch, they would never be able to do it.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
It's one thing to perform an abiogenesis experiment by letting the base elements that make amino acids-which is a building block to primitive cells-but its another thing to create a fly. To create a fly from scratch, it requires one to clone it's DNA. We have been able to simulate abiogenesis in the lab, look it up.
NUTCASE71733 8 months ago
@Eesa74
Oh your statments you cited that were made by scientists (note I didn't use evolutonist; that's a fucking retarded term) are more than likely taken out of context. Last time I checked the bible says lying is a sin, and creationists dishonesly take quotes out of context to fit iragenda. Darwin's quote about the eye is a prime example, as they only read part of the statement and ignore the next several paragraphs of that chapter of Origen of Species.
NUTCASE71733 8 months ago
@Eesa74
well...a scientist already created a cell from scratch. at the Venter's lab, it's called Cynthia. a fly is just one step away. what then? will you stop with your bullshit nonsense?
why don't you accept this challenge:
Try explain AB resistance or plant speciation w/out using evolution theory.
and ffs...stop trying to use abiogenesis against evolution. it's TWO different things.
everytime you spew: "God did it"; that's using the bible, dumbshit.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic, Oh let me put you straight on Synthia, which was created in the Venter's lab. In order to create this bacteria, they used chemicals, so they had to used what was available on this earth, also it's "synthetic". They said it is a modified version of the simplest bacteria on Earth. Sorry that's far from being from scratch.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
it's Cynthia, not Synthia. you failed right at the start of your post, dumbshit.
"they used chemicals"! NO SHIT! even the sun if made out of chemicals, YOU are made of chemicals, EVERYTHING is made of chemicals, dumbshit.
the PLANET EARTH is made of chemicals.
It has all to do from being from scratch dumbshit. unless you believe in creation ex nihilo, that is even dumber.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic, Before stepping to me you most come correct, ROFL Cynthia. Lets see what Dr J. Craig Venter called it. "New life is called Synthia. Say Venter." You are so silly don't even know what it is called. SHAME.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@transtlantic, You Chief. Google these header you Chief. "Dr Craig Venter (God 2.0) Creates Synthia And Media Buzz From Nothing, Sort Of" "Hello World, I'm Synthia"
Eesa74 8 months ago
@transtlantic, ROFL Cynthia, sound like you got a girl on your brain.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@transtlantic, ROFL Cynthia, sound like you got a girl on your brain. Let's read some:
JCVI is an abbreviation of the J Craig Venter Institute, a pioneer in synthetic biology. Earlier this month Venter and his team at Synthetic Genomics, a part of JCVI, created the first ‘synthetic life form’, what they didn’t do — although elements in the media would have you believe that they did — is create a whole new life form.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@transtlantic, The life form, Mycoplasma mycoides, existed long before Venter was a glint in a randy genome’s eye. In this case, however, the bacterium was not itself…literally. It had its original genome removed and replaced with a lab-created genome.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@transtlantic, The result was a life form, which for all intents and purposes was created in a lab. But the bacterium retained the structure engineered by nature, it followed all of her biological processes and never once threatened to rise up and kill its maker. Mary Shelley will have to wait a while.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@transtlantic, ROFL Cynthia. Please stick to your cussing and putting people down, it makes more sense.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
you MISQUOTE and QUOTE MINE professors, dumbshit. Talkorigins debunks every single copy paste you presented here, dumbshit.
your references aren't even direct references. those oppose your bullshit.
if you want to refute me try debunk this paper, dumbshit:
Evolution by Any Other Name: Antibiotic Resistance and Avoidance of the E-Word
PLoS Biol. 2007 February; 5(2): e30.
or run away just like every other cretard i present this paper to.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic, Your still putting people down, cussing, as your proof as usual. I did not misquote any one. I bring references and professor's you don't. I dealt with you before and I will do it again.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@transtlantic Look antibiotic resistance of bacteria is a evidence used as a proof evolution. So let's get that out of the way first. The fact of the matter is, that this attribute contributes nothing whatsoever to evolution to these life forms. What this argument does is demolishes the theory of evolution, and proves the opposite to your argument. It points right back to creation.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
"nothing whatsoever" - proof by assertion isn't an argument, but a logical fallacy.
FACT IS: AB resistance PROVES bacteria evolve.
Methicilin resistance gene didn't exist before the antibiotics, dumbshit.
same applies to vacomycin. it's man made drugs. the GENES were not there before the use of this antibiotics.
therefore your ignorance is exposed.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic, It is well know that many bacteria possessed genes even before commercial antibiotics came into use. Stuart B. Levy said: "Scientist do not know exactly why these genes evolved and were maintained."
Eesa74 8 months ago
@transtlantic, Also research was done in 1986, which established that bacteria was in the 19th century, which already carried resistance to antibiotics produced in the 20th century. It's a well known scientific fact that such resistance characteristics existed in many type of bacteria before the discovery penicillin, the attribute of resistance in bacteria is still portrayed as an evolutionary development , how?
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74 "established that bacteria was in the 19th century"? what the fuck are you talking about?
Moron... establoshed they already carried resistance? LOLOL according to Murray medical microbiology what you say is bullshit. research in bacteria genome mapping in the last 50 years prove that NEW genes appear by random mutations. genes that did not exist before the 1950s.
penicillin exists naturally, Meticillin, didn''t. ergo another proof you are wrong.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic, Proofs that the antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not evolution. First lets look at the countless varieties within an individual species of bacteria. We know that some of these possesses the genetic information that bestows resistance to certain drugs. As we known when certain bacteria are exposed to the effect of a particular drug those lacking resistance die, while resistant bacteria survive and are more able to multiply.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
"is not evolution"? lol...so why the fuck can't you explain AB resistance w/out using evolution theory?
i keep asking and you not answering, dumbshit.
"countless varieties"? lol... "individual species"? lol...that doesn't even make sense! LOLOL species are a colection of individuals, so why say: "individual species"? LOLOL MORON!
we also KNOW that species of bacteria DO NOT possess the genetic information against AB ERGO the AB WORKING! or else they wouldn't. dumbshit! DUH!
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic, So after a given period of time, the non-resistant bacteria are completely replaced by these rapidly multiplying resistance. Soon after, that same species of bacteria becomes a colony consisting uniquely of individuals that are resistant to antibiotic in question, and that antibiotic is now useless against that species of bacteria.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
"those lacking resistance die, while resistant bacteria survive"! WOW PRECISELY WHAT NATURAL SELECTION, WHICH IS PART OF the theory of evolution, EXPLAINS! dumbshit.
not all resistant bacteria replicate faster than the non-mutants, ergo another proof that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. an example would be flocaxin resistant bacteria, they reproduce slower than non-resistant strains (for example).
BTW, you FAILED to explain the ORIGIN of the resistance.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic, The most important point to all this, is that the bacteria is still the same bacteria, the species are still the same species. No evolution has taken place whatsoever. Now bacteria has existed on Earth for about 3.5 billion years and still here as the exact same bacteria. In my opinion antibiotic resistance does not bring anything to the augment table.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
the most important point here is that you ignore that species evolve, not "bacteria". "bacteria" is not the name of any species. therefore WHEN a species of bacteria CHANGE, that's evolution, because the MUTANTS are not the same as the non-mutants. and you can deny all you want. but FACT is the resistance is not always there. by that logic bacteria would require a gene for each known antibiotic in the market! they would need to be the size of a basketball! LOLOL
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic, After this I'm done with you. Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001: "Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@transtlantic,This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics."
Eesa74 8 months ago
"Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001
Eesa74 8 months ago
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution": "The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species."
Eesa74 8 months ago
"Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001,
Eesa74 8 months ago
So as you can see, we cannot talk about any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produce. That's a fact. Genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria. So from common sense, that means it was created that way. So for a scientist to simply remove the original genome and replace it with a lab-created genome, is as I said before far from scratch.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Because bacteria was already made from scratch in there first place. The scientist will always need what was created before it. So they will never be able to create from scratch as I said before, it's impossible to create from nothing.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Spetner writes: "... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way.
Eesa74 8 months ago
But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule." "Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue: Continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max," 2001,
Eesa74 8 months ago
Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
by definition i refuse to comment on more than 10 posts made for me. especially when a person like you deliberately trolls page over page with 3 line replies. your purpose of diluting the forum with asanine cretard crap is obvious, troll, obvious.
Mutation on MRSA doesn't decompose the ribosome. i specifically presented an Example where no such thing occurs - MRSA. ergo i don't even know why the fuck you are talking about streptomycin. Meticillin is not the same, dumbshit.
transtlantic 8 months ago
Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
"bacteria developing immunity"? bacteria can't develop immunity. bacteria develop resistance. not immunity. basic biology knowledge.
Plus i remind you: MRSA isn't resistance against streptomycin, but Meticillin. there is an increase in benefit for the species.
PLUS: resistance to streptomycin provides HIGHER fitness against streptomycin , how is that not a benefit?LOLOL
transtlantic 8 months ago
This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
where is the degradation in MRSA origin? loss of specifity? lol... what the fuck are you talking about. MRSA results from an INCREASE in information, not loss.
there is no "Point" in evolution. evolution occurs. it's a fact. period.
and YES evolution occurs EVEN if there is a reduction in fitness. because evolution is about CHANGE of species. no matter the form.
transtlantic 8 months ago
It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are.
Eesa74 8 months ago
Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
MRSA is evolution where an accumulating mutations increases survival. no degradation. again: you dodged my example.
sucks to be you, dumbshit.
transtlantic 8 months ago
To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
ribosome? lol... bacteria like MRSA results from a mutation that changes zero the structure of the ribosome.
why do you keep talking about streptomycin? MRSA, the M stands for Meticillin.
an example that proves all your crap wrong.
transtlantic 8 months ago
That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled."
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
MRSA: results from NEW genetic information being added to the bacterium. same happens with the streptomycin example you provided: the DNA changed, creating NEW information. dumbshit.
"the structure of the ribosome"? the ribosome is not DNA. you confuse genotype with phenotype, typical ignorant creationist mistake.
"disabled"? the mutants survive that means increased fitness. how is that "disabled"?
plus MRSA doesn't have anything to do with what you wrote.
transtlantic 8 months ago
(Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
MRSA: the ribosome remains FULLY functional. "normal bacterium"? what is a normal bacterium? please provide an example. want a species for you to try prove your claims? E.coli. name me a "normal bacterium": there are thousands of strains. which one is "normal"?
MRSA = no disability.
the resistance has nothing to do with the ribosome.
try another argument.
transtlantic 8 months ago
To end it let me bring a evolutionist into this, biologist Francisco Ayala, he said: "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds." "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 64.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
1978? wow...science must have stopped since then! LOLOL
Murray medical microbiology, latest edition (2000s) and more updated scienceproves your ayala wrong (retired, btw):
Acta Biochim Pol. 1995;42(4):517-24.
Evolution and resistance expression of MRSA. Evaluation of beta-lactam antibiotics against a set of isogenic strains with different types of phenotypic expression
proof that the genes were not there before the man made compounds.
try again, dumbshit.
transtlantic 8 months ago
I'm done with you, my challenge still stands. Say Hi to Cynthia for me. You had me in tears.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
i also remind you of my challenge:
try explain AB resistance or plant speciation without using evo theory.
i do notice you always prefer to avoid plant speciation. i would dare to say: you deny speciation occurs.
no wonder people call creationists - morons.
no wonder it was so fucking easy to win the Dover trial. all you have is: "God did it". lolol
moron.
transtlantic 8 months ago
@transtlantic, direct life-and-death consequences. Please don't.
Eesa74 8 months ago
@Eesa74
and WAIT: you write and i quote: "3.5 billion years and stillhere as the exact same bacteria"? LOLOL
utter bullshit. there isn't one single bacteria from the present that existed 3 billion years ago, heck: make it 1 billion years ago. why? because bacteria EVOLVED and speciated.
BTW. you DID Not explain AB resistance.
i'll put you to reality again: explain the existence of MRSA.
go, dumbshit. when i put forth a real example you will see your bullshit crumble! LOLOL
transtlantic 8 months ago
Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
@ErebusGodOvDarkness
sorry, have no time for that. i do not deny evolution, i'm just saying it has some draws and no one can be sure 100% in many areas.
"falsifiability test tells me you probably don't understand what a falsifiability test is." is a pointless ad hominem crap so goodbye.
alexgrinkov 1 year ago
@alexgrinkov
Well then if you don't deny evolution, brush up on what it is. Because you're very mistaken on what you said earlier.
Do you understand what ad hominem is? It's fallacious only when one tries to link a characteristic of the other person to the validity of their statement. Which I hadn't done. All I said was that it seems as if you don't understand what a falsifiability test is.
ErebusGodOvDarkness 1 year ago
this proves that there is no such thing as god
xDaFFyDuCk 1 year ago
you can't see evolution in action as well as you can't see "God"
alexgrinkov 1 year ago
@alexgrinkov
Actually yes you can. Evolution is a fact as well as a scientific theory. Evolution being change in genetic frequency within a population, genetic variation and how it changes over time. That is observed.
ErebusGodOvDarkness 1 year ago
@ErebusGodOvDarkness
nope, there's no evidence of evolution *in action*. what's found is very distant forms without intermediate links. that's all mental theorizings around some fossils and that's it. What's observed nowadays is genetic mutation which doesn't necessarily match the notion of evolution.
alexgrinkov 1 year ago
@alexgrinkov
You don't even know what evolution is. It is defined as the change in genetic frequency in a population over time. That is observed evolution in action. Mutations and Genetic variation are what cause the change. Mutations are *crucial* to evolution. They are part of what natural selection acts upon. Think before you type dude.
ErebusGodOvDarkness 1 year ago
@ErebusGodOvDarkness
i do know what evolution is. it's you who doesn't get what I'm saying :)
alexgrinkov 1 year ago
@alexgrinkov
Ok then, if you think you know what evolution is give me your definition. And don't give me another childish response. You didn't even comment on any of my points, it seems to be you that doesn't get what is being said.
ErebusGodOvDarkness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ErebusGodOvDarkness
sorry, have no time for that. i do not deny evolution, i'm just saying it has some draws and no one can be sure 100% in many areas.
"falsifiability test tells me you probably don't understand what a falsifiability test is." is a pointless ad hominem crap so I don't continue it anymore. bye.
alexgrinkov 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ErebusGodOvDarkness
sorry, have no time for that. i do not deny evolution, i'm just saying it has some draws and no one can be sure 100% in many areas.
"falsifiability test tells me you probably don't understand what a falsifiability test is." is a pointless ad hominem crap so I don't continue it anymore. bye.
alexgrinkov 1 year ago
@ErebusGodOvDarkness
"proofs" that God exists are the same theorizings based on some "evidence"
alexgrinkov 1 year ago
@ErebusGodOvDarkness
evolution theory doesn't pass falsifiability test that much u know
alexgrinkov 1 year ago
@alexgrinkov
What you probably mean is proofs of creationism accounts, not proofs of God. And you're right, those are based on *some* evidence, but definitely not *all* of the evidence. To say that evolution doesn't pass the falsifiability test tells me you probably don't understand what a falsifiability test is.
ErebusGodOvDarkness 1 year ago
so similarity = evidence? ok bill oddie. whatever.
daddypriam 1 year ago
@daddypriam
Similarity usually implies the same genes are at work. Heredity. So yet it is evidence of evolution.
ErebusGodOvDarkness 1 year ago
i can't wait till i start growing feathers and my arms turn into wings..be so awesome.........
harmankardo 1 year ago
Thats a bird foot your holding stupid! Different species. You think a powerful well built dino foot would evolve into a little weak one that we kill in huge quantities. Well done dino you evolved into our dinner good move evolution.
truthtalker49 1 year ago
Interesting, so how come when the dinosaurs were released from Noah's arc that the Tyrannosaurs and many other meat eating dinosaurs and mammals did not cause permanent extinction by eating all of the other animals (2 of each species) as their food supply? How are we still here in spite of that fact? In fact how are any meat eating mammals still here in spite of that, seeing as they need to eat at least a couple of pounds of meat a day to survive. Do you think meat just magically appears?
AcusticDave 1 year ago
@AcusticDave Possible provisions for them were there but do you know David and the lions den in the bible, take a look. God creates, you think he can't control his creation for his purpose. You are not God so you can't understand how he does this. Take God out of your human box you have placed him in. Jesus controlled the waves, turned water into wine and healed the blind 2000 years ago. All stupid unless you believe in his devine nature. God is God. There is none equal to his greatness.
truthtalker49 1 year ago
You just don't know, don't bullshit. Your just simply trying to defend your fragile ego. Take God out of that worship box you have, he's not real. I don't know how you can believe these inconsistent stories you read, the fact that dinosaurs are nowhere present, including that if they were alive during then they would all so well document their people being picked off by giant flying dactls and dromaeosaurids as human settlements would obviously just be an all you can eat buffet for these guys.
AcusticDave 1 year ago
@AcusticDave What ego, God dislikes pride. "pride comes before a fall" as it is written. Humans are the most intelligent, it's no buffet. We can kill anything. It's a buffet for us. God put us above animals. In any case If its so easy for dinos to live and kill why did they die? Maybe we killed them off like we kill everything now. I have no worship box. He is everywhere for everyone to see. Evolution is a fairytale full of lovely stories. Most of them a 3 year old could make up.
truthtalker49 1 year ago
@truthtalker49
Wow, you even fail to admit the big strong t-rex outclasses you. You would have shit yourself just from the sight of that behemoth, you will even shit yourself at the sight of a tiger without the restriction of those stupid zoo bars, you will be it's food at that point. You're so full of self righteous bullshit.
AcusticDave 1 year ago
@AcusticDave Nothing on earth out classes Humans. Just look around you. I did not say that we are invincible but we are ultimately in control of animals on earth. If we can kill a human then we can kill anything less intelligent. Can you comprehend that? Your talking the most dangerous predators, Not everything on the ark would have been a killer. Noah's ark is easy to understant if you believe in God. You just don't believe so can't understand. Get to know what God is capable of and understand.
truthtalker49 1 year ago
@truthtalker49 noahs ark? right so how did the penguin march down the mountain back to an icy climit.
penguins wobbled through the desert? oh yea what did the lion eat?
if the lion ate one animal after he got off the boat. the other animal would go extinct.
and thats just one predator i mentioned.
the ecosytem would never survive.
not to mention . there are so many animals that need to live in groups to survive.
yea creationist are the sharpest tools in the shed
dcderek24 1 year ago
@truthtalker49 moron. it was beneficial to be small during extinction of dinosaurs
dcderek24 1 year ago
Pterosaurs were already on the decline by the time of the extinction, perhaps due to competition with birds. The extinction event killed selected groups of animals. Marine life and large terrestrial life. Freshwater species (crocodiles, frogs) and small terrestrial life (birds, mammals) lived. Birds were the only group of small dinosaurs, that is why they survived. But not all birds survived. There were three sub-classes of birds, only the ones we have today (Neornithes) made it.
centrarchid 1 year ago
I think the feathers started to grow to protect dinosaurs from cold, and then they used them to fly, but the main purpose of feathers where to keep worm. I mean, what something else to keep worm if not feathers, can you imagine a dinosaur with fur on it...
MandosMady 2 years ago
It makes you wonder why frogs didn't evolve and become avian with all that hopping between lilly pads they do.
athlete117 2 years ago
Wallace's Flying Frog, Rhacophorus nigropalmatus. When threatened or in search of prey, they will leap from a branch and splay their four webbed feet. The membranes between their toes and loose skin flaps on their sides catch the air as they fall, helping them to glide, sometimes 50 feet (15 meters) or more, to a neighboring tree branch or even all the way to the ground. They also have oversized toe pads to help them land softly and stick to tree trunks.
Ishta5 2 years ago 3
I've known of the existence of that drog for a long time. Guess what, it will never develope the ability to fly.
athlete117 2 years ago
The reason it never will is because morphological change is impossible. Having extra webbing between the feet is not a morphological difference to other frogs in the same way a galapagos finch having a slightly longer beak to reach nuts is not a different morphology to the finch with a slightly shorter beak.
athlete117 2 years ago
You must listen to NephilimFree. I can tell by your bastardization of the word "morphological." Do you know what morphology is?
Leehofooks 2 years ago
the reasons for no flying frogs has more to do with being an amphibian.
birds already had efficient hearts and lungs. they also had feathers, well before flying. flying needs large amounts of energy. amphibians and other modern reptiles can't meet this demand.
bats are a surprise, with heavy bones and those not so efficient mammal lungs. still it works and that is all that is important.
yellowdart137 2 years ago
@athlete117 they are Amphibians not reptiles.
maximaldinotrap 1 year ago
@athlete117 ROFL ! A BURNED TURKEY are you serious
Phaseme0810 1 year ago
Haha, yet another great evolutionist claim. Dinosaurs turned into birds with millions and millions of years. It makes perfect sense... What they were doing is climbing up into trees and trying to fly from one tree to another and the ones that could jump across that bit better survived and so evolved new respiratory systems, a different heart, feathers of different varieties from what were previously scales, and, and, and, their bones turned hollow. Look he's got arms and, and legs! Bird!
athlete117 2 years ago
their bones turned hollow?
Ishta5 2 years ago
@athlete117
ur an idiot. 3.50 onwards 100% evidence the raptor family had feathers, i was under the impression this convo was related to what we saw in the video but maybe u just chose to assume its a biiiiiiiig joke.
haz020190 2 years ago
@athlete117
Many dromaeosaur theropods have been identified as hollow-boned, and feather-bearing. As for "feathers of different varieties from what were previously scales" I hope you're aware that birds DO have scales. Just saying.
FluffyBunniesOnFire 1 year ago
@athlete117 Raptors DID have hollow bones... AND feathers. Just sayin'.
FluffyBunniesOnFire 1 year ago
@FluffyBunniesOnFire Oh wait, I already told this.
FluffyBunniesOnFire 1 year ago
@athlete117 It's indeed pure phantasy that small favorable transmitted DNA mutations can produce flying animals from some dinosaurs. Unlike creating humans from dirt, filling the missing gap with only three letters: GOD! Not to mention that fossils are all fakes, radioactivity based datation is absolutely unreliable (and we all know that radioactive pollution can't last more than a couple of decades). Science is always better when it fits the bible!
wollin20 1 year ago
@wollin20 WHERE CAN I FIND ONE OF THESE "BIBLE'S" .... IN THE FICTION OR NON FICTION SECTION?
spandexhammer 10 months ago
@athlete117
Dino bones were already hollow.
NUTCASE71733 9 months ago
Science ist Krieg!
NewMargaritaville 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hey guys maybe in some milions years all the birds will turn back to dinosaurs. wouldent that be so cool :D . . . . darwinian propaganda is what i call this!!!
theden 2 years ago
Hmm? doubtful it'll take that long. we're already reverse-engineering chickens into dinosaurs.
MEGslayer 2 years ago 3
@MEGslayer ever seen Jurassic Park? id rather have a life long debate whether dinos are birds or not than be eaten by a dino just to prove they are birds...
Witchielake 1 year ago
maybe you should learn a bit about evolution "theden"
MyCrownOfWorms 2 years ago
Birds ARE dinosaurs,retards! I can't believe some people aren't ready to know that birds are dinosaurs! It's obvious!
Britfiftyfive 2 years ago 3
"Furthermore, other fossil finds considered to be dinosaur precursors to birds have turned out to be flightless birds similar to ostriches, such as Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui."
turned out to be flightless birds? as opposed to dinosaurs? How does that preclude it from being a dinosaur. If the birds are descended from dinosaurs, then they are all dinosaurs. That is simple cladistics that even an elementary school child could understand (if they bothered to teach cladistics).
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"I think these are blind hypotheses based on homologous features rather than scientific facts."
Right, that's why I used the word "infer", your claim that dinos are cold blooded is a hypothesis too.
"Have you ever seen one of those small crocodiles or a lizzard running? They can move really fast and they're cold blooded."
They can move very fast for very short periods of time and only if they have warmed up a bit.
Admitedly when I'm talking about warm-blooded dinos I'm refering to theropods.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago 4
"How can they make this statement [that some dinos are warm blooded] based only in fossil bones?"
So much can be infered from the fossil record.
Dinos were built to move quick, implying a high metabolic rate, implying warm blooded.
Dinos along side warm-blooded mammals and had to compete with them, that they succesfully did so implies a similar metabolism and active locomotion.
Dinos have an erect posture and weight-bearing limbs oriented directly below the body like warm blooded animals.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"I trust much more in the jurassic park's reconstruction of velociraptor (despite the increase in size, of course)."
Yes, of course, we should just ignore all the evidence about velociraptors that have turned up since Jurassic Park came out (i.e. fossils with feathers) and while we are at it lets just ignore the whole Dinosaur Renaissance the Jurassic Park is in fact championing and one of the biggest tenets of that renaissance: that birds are dinosaurs. full stop.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
lol
Ishta5 3 years ago
definitively they was birds, not all, but many, as the TREX!!! , TREX was a big bird... now maybe a chicken!!!
yogods 3 years ago
it is called physics, they can calculate lift, that is how we can build planes and hanggliders.
So, why do they migrate in the winter? it is hard to eat worms that is covered by snow. other birds stay. And feathers are nice isolation
Ishta5 3 years ago
Pterosaurs did not fly in the sence that birds fly today. For the most part they were gliders, catching updrafts in there large wings to glide over large distances.
Also, Pterosaurs were cold blooded, so they needed a warm climate to generate the energy to take of from the ground.
Birds on the other hand, are warm blooded, so they do not need a warm climate to survive.
canmoore 3 years ago
Avian dinosaurs (birds) can migrate, and mammals can hibernate. this allows them to surive adverse climates, while Dinosaurs were large, and stuck were they stood. So whatever happened at the K-T boundary affected land locked Dinosaurs, while avian dinosaurs survived.
canmoore 3 years ago
This is incorrect, many dinosaur species are though to have been migratory similarly to mammals like caribou. The extinction event killed animals above a certain size limit. And all dinosaurs except birds weighed more than a few pounds. Perhaps this was due to available food or the intense conditions immediately after the asteroid collision.
centrarchid 1 year ago