[__ Science __ ] A very long Wednesday... Young Earth and Old Universe Creationism reconciled?

[Barbarian]

Maybe I’m not understanding what you meant with your original claim (re-quoted above) correctly because I’m just not seeing your response as supporting it in any way. So to clarify;
Is it your claim that through scientific observation someone can rightly observe that an alligator (for example) is more like a pink flamingo (a bird) than it is like a crocodile?

All alligators, crocodiles, caymens, etc. are archosaurs, like birds and dinosaurs. It's like moles, whales, bats, etc. are all mammals and more like each other than they are like birds or crocodiles.

You see, both mammals and archosaurs are a diverse group with a lot of different body shapes and ways of making a living. But in each group, genetic and anatomical data shows them to be descended from a common ancestor. This is how Huxley, over a hundred years ago, predicted that there would be transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. Some key features in the skulls of birds and crocodiles made that clear. Later on , we have confirmation of that prediction.

When it comes to DNA, crocodiles and birds flock together
If you really want to know about birds, you have to consider the crocodile.

That point was driven home this week with the release of the genomes of 45 bird species, which reassigned some perches on the avian evolutionary tree and included some seemingly odd bedfellows.

Down near the roots of that avian tree lies a mysterious ancestor that was decidedly more terrestrial and terrifying than the finch or the wren.

The archosaur, or so-called "ruling reptile," roamed Earth about 250 million years ago, and "was something that was very reptilian, very early-dinosaur-ish, and then it evolved into modern-day crocodiles and birds," said David Haussler, Scientific Director of the UC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, a coauthor of several studies that came out of the avian genomics effort.
...
That's where the modern saltwater crocodile, American alligator and Indian gharial come in. Those modern crocodilians are still crawling around with much of the DNA they inherited well before dinosaurs ruled and evolved into birds. That's why McCormack and Haussler helped map out the modern crocodile genome, along with those of living birds. Their work was among 28 research papers published online Thursday, based on a four-year genome mapping effort.

They found the crocodile had the slowest rate of molecular change of any known vertebrate genome.

"The DNA in the modern-day crocodile has changed a lot less, versus the archosaur, than it has in birds," said Haussler.

By comparison, bird DNA took flight. Their pace of molecular evolution accelerated, and within about 15 million years of evolution, birds radiated out into the bulk of the existing 36 modern avian orders.

 

[Barbarian]

Try the Bombardier beetle out with your analysis then...

Sure. But there's no such thing as "the" bombardier beetle. Turns out, there are many species of them, some of which only release noxious material, some of which spray them, and a few that have more or less active reactions that heat and spray them. There's a rather good series of transitional forms, from those that merely release the material from their cuticle, to those that have directed sprays of hot material.

Would you like to see the details?

 

[chessman]

All alligators, crocodiles, caymens, etc. are archosaurs, like birds and dinosaurs.

Are you not going to answer a simple clarifying question; “Is it your claim that through scientific observation someone can rightly observe that an alligator (for example) is more like a pink flamingo (a bird) than it is like a crocodile?”

Down near the roots of that avian tree lies a mysterious ancestor that was decidedly more terrestrial and terrifying than the finch or the wren.

The archosaur, or so-called "ruling reptile," roamed Earth about 250 million years ago,

I’m asking for clarity on your original claim about testable facts, not about mysterious and ‘terrifying’ ancestors and how near the ‘root’ of an imaginary tree someone decided to place them, then later rearranged them.

 

[New Day Coming]

Mystery of how a tiny dandelion seed can fly up to 500 miles is solved by scientists who want to copy flight technique to make stealth DRONES

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...tiny-dandelion-seed-fly-500-miles-solved.html

I posted this up because half of the science section is dedicated to telling the public it all happened by chance, the other half (with no sense of irony) seems in awe at the design in "nature" and provides up to date examples of engineers learning from the marvellous design solutions created by evolution.

Smh

 

[Jim Parker]

Mystery of how a tiny dandelion seed can fly up to 500 miles is solved by scientists who want to copy flight technique to make stealth DRONES

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...tiny-dandelion-seed-fly-500-miles-solved.html

I posted this up because half of the science section is dedicated to telling the public it all happened by chance, the other half (with no sense of irony) seems in awe at the design in "nature" and provides up to date examples of engineers learning from the marvellous design solutions created by evolution.

Smh

Actually, there is a variety of views expressed with creationists being in the majority by a wide margin.

 

[New Day Coming]

Actually, there is a variety of views expressed with creationists being in the majority by a wide margin.

Sorry, Jim, I should have re-read my post - I meant the science section of the Daily Mail, not this forum ;-)

 

[Jim Parker]

Sorry, Jim, I should have re-read my post - I meant the science section of the Daily Mail, not this forum ;-)

AH!!! I missed that.
Of course the contributors to the Daily Mail would mostly believe in the two miracles of the "Big Bang" and life arising by serendipity.

 

[Barbarian]

Are you not going to answer a simple clarifying question; “Is it your claim that through scientific observation someone can rightly observe that an alligator (for example) is more like a pink flamingo (a bird) than it is like a crocodile?”

Why would I clarify an idea that you invented? Birds and crocodilians are more closely related than crocodilians are to most other reptiles. Birds and crocodiles or alligators are more like each other than, for example, alligators are to turtles or lizards. Originally, the prediction of transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds was made on the basis of anotomy, just as whales, bats, and humans are classified as mammals. That prediction, made over a hundred years ago, has been since repeatedly verified. But it's also genetics; genetic analysis shows the same thing. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

I’m asking for clarity on your original claim about testable facts, not about mysterious and ‘terrifying’ ancestors and how near the ‘root’ of an imaginary tree someone decided to place them, then later rearranged them.

Actually, the "tree" (more of a bush, really) was first discovered by Linnaeus, who did not know of evolution, and had no explanation for the reason it looks like a family tree. Later Darwin discovered the reason, and genetics confirmed that discovery by showing common ancestry of all known living things.

And of course there's the evidence showing that heme (part of the hemoglobin molecule) of a T. rex is more like that of birds than of other reptiles. Not surprisingly, if you chart the similarities in hemeoglobin, you get the same family tree that Linnaeus first noticed.

 

[New Day Coming]

The Tree of Life or the Orchard of Creation...

 

[Barbarian]

I posted this up because half of the science section is dedicated to telling the public it all happened by chance,

I thought you knew. Darwin's great discovery was that it wan't by chance.

the other half (with no sense of irony) seems in awe at the design in "nature" and provides up to date examples of engineers learning from the marvellous design solutions created by evolution.

Pretty much the way I'm in awe of free markets and their tendency to most efficiently allocate goods and services. That's not by chance, either, although no one actually designs the way it works. If capitalism puzzles you, then at least you're consistent.

 

[Barbarian]

The Tree of Life or the Orchard of Creation...

The problem with the orchard doctrine was pointed out by Kurt Wise. There are transitionals between "kinds" and the orchard metaphor has no way of explaining them.

 

[New Day Coming]

The problem with the orchard doctrine was pointed out by Kurt Wise. There are transitionals between "kinds" and the orchard metaphor has no way of explaining them.

Which transition do you refer to?

 

[chessman]

Why would I clarify an idea that you invented?

I didn’t invent your claim. This is your claim, not mine, which I’ve been trying to get you to provide clarification and scientific evidence for:

we see reptiles that are more like birds than they are like other reptiles.

Birds and crocodiles or alligators are more like each other than, for example, alligators are to turtles or lizards.

Ridiculous. Birds don’t even have a respiratory diaphragm, but both alligators and lizards do. The respiratory system of a lizard (or a crocodile) resembles that of an alligator much more closely than it does ANY bird.

What bird is more like a crocodile in your reasoning than an alligator is like a crocodile? If you can show one, your claim could be validated.

That prediction, made over a hundred years ago, has been since repeatedly verified.

Only within some people’s imaginations has evolutionary translation from dinosaurs to birds been verified.

Linnaeus, who did not know of evolution, and had no explanation for the reason it looks like a family tree.

Easy. It looked like a family tree because it was drawn to look like a family tree.

At least he recognized that alligators look nothing like a bird.

 

[Barbarian]

Are you not going to answer a simple clarifying question; “Is it your claim that through scientific observation someone can rightly observe that an alligator (for example) is more like a pink flamingo (a bird) than it is like a crocodile?”

Barbarian observes:
Why would I clarify an idea that you invented? Birds and crocodilians are more closely related than crocodilians are to most other reptiles. Birds and crocodiles or alligators are more like each other than, for example, alligators are to turtles or lizards. Originally, the prediction of transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds was made on the basis of anotomy, just as whales, bats, and humans are classified as mammals. That prediction, made over a hundred years ago, has been since repeatedly verified. But it's also genetics; genetic analysis shows the same thing. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

I didn’t invent your claim.

No, you invented your claim and then asked me to defend it. Perhaps I've confused you by the term "crocodilians." That means all crocodile-like animals, such as crocodiles, alligators, etc. They all more closely related to birds than they are to many other reptiles such as turtles and lizards. Does that help?

Ridiculous. Birds don’t even have a respiratory diaphragm,

Alligators’ bird breath may explain dinosaurs’ triumph
Birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs have much in common – including, it turns out, their breath. The hyper-efficient breathing system of birds is shared with alligators, and probably evolved in archosaurs, the common ancestor of crocodilians, birds and dinosaurs.

The researchers who have discovered the system in alligators believe it may have given dinosaurs the competitive edge over the ancestors of mammals following the mass extinction at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago.

Thanks to one-way airflow, birds are far more efficient breathers than mammals. When they breathe in, air does not go directly into the lungs. Instead, it enters the air sacs, where it is stored briefly before passing into the lungs at the next inhalation. In this way, air enters and exits a bird’s lungs at different points – in via the air sacs, out via the windpipe – allowing them to maintain near-constant, one-way airflow through their lungs and extract up to two-and-a-half times as much oxygen per breath as a mammal.

Previous research has suggested that one-way air flow is unique to birds and evolved specifically to allow them to make oxygen-demanding flights. It was also thought that the bellows-like air sacs were critical for pumping air one way.

Those conclusions have been toppled by the new study, in which devices to measure airflow were surgically implanted into the lungs of live alligators.

Colleen Farmer of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City also placed the flow meters into the dissected lungs of four dead alligators, which the team then filled with air using a giant syringe. What they found was that alligator lungs function very much like birds’.

Alligators don’t have air sacs like birds, but the researchers think an unusual airway that sits on either side of the alligator trachea may do the same job.

Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University in Sweden agrees that the efficient breathing system probably evolved in a common archosaur ancestor of crocodilians, birds and dinosaurs. “Swift, long-legged animals that might have relied on the rich oxygen supply provided by a one-way airflow were abundant in the early lineages of these groups,” he says.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18392-alligators-bird-breath-may-explain-dinosaurs-triumph/

but both alligators and lizards do.

Actually, lizards don't have diaphragms.
http://reptile-parrots.com/forums/showthread.php/15994-Respiratory-system-reptiles-Anatomy

The respiratory system of a lizard (or a crocodile) resembles that of an alligator

Not surprising that crocodiles do, since they are both crocodilians. But crocodilian respiratory systems, as you see, are more like those of birds than they are like those of other reptiles.

What bird is more like a crocodile in your reasoning than an alligator is like a crocodile?

That was your assertion. As I showed you, crocodilians are more like birds than they are like other reptiles.

Only within some people’s imaginations has evolutionary translation from dinosaurs to birds been verified.[/quot e]

It comes down to evidence. The first realization came from the observation that key anatomical features put birds, crocodilians, and dinosaurs in the same group. From that there was a prediction of dino-bird transitional forms, which was verified later. Then genetic data confirmed the same observation, and finally, biochemical data once again confirmed the conclusion.

Linnaeus, who did not know of evolution, and had no explanation for the reason it looks like a family tree.

Easy. It looked like a family tree because it was drawn to look like a family tree.

No. Linnaeus didn't even consider common descent, and he was puzzled why the diagram looked so much like one.

At least he recognized that alligators look nothing like a bird.

Whales and bats don't look anything like humans, either. But they are still mammals. Think about it.

 

[Barbarian]

Which transition do you refer to?

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

 

[New Day Coming]

Barbarian

"It is suggested that distinctions be made among morphological stratigraphic and stratomorphic intermediates, and among
inter-specific, species, higher-taxon and series stratomorphic intermediates.
Even at this early stage of development and with such significant challenges
as the early whale series, the creation model appears to have potential for
developing a creationist explanation of stratomorphic intermediates which
is superior to that of evolutionary theory."

Interestingly, the article indicates that such investigations are at an early stage. Rather like life itself, with it's jigsaw of finds and gaps, you may conclude your tree of life model to be the most satisfactory,, and I may feel that in a number of places the trees in the orchard are growing more closely together than in others. What will be discovered will doubtless take some time.

On a separate note, I am glad that you have found creation.com though. I found it a good resource.

 

[Barbarian]

Yep. While Wise admits that at present, YE creationism has no explanation for the many, many transitional forms that are (as he says) "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory", he expresses hope that there might someday be an adequate explanation.

He's an honest creationist. And of course, as time goes on, more and more of the gaps between taxa are being filled in by newly-found fossils. Wise only mentions some of them. He also mentions that whales pose a particularly difficult problem because they are found in what are supposed to be flood deposits, and are not found earlier.

He does suggest some hope that this, too might be explained in creationist terms, but again, that is not possible at this time.

 

[chessman]

Does that help?

No, because it doesn’t show what’s needed to support your original claim. It’s a moving of the goalpost though. What would be more helpful toward supporting your claim (“we see reptiles that are more like birds than they are like other reptiles”) is for you to show how an alligator is more like a bird than an alligator is like a crocodile.

But crocodilian respiratory systems, as you see, are more like those of birds than they are like those of other reptiles.

Actually, From Farmer’s report:

“Our data suggest that airflow in the alligator is extremely birdlike, but it is unknown how it is possible to have unidirectional flow without air sacs and with diaphragmatic breathing”​

The likeness being reported on is about the direction of “airflow” in the lungs. The respiratory systems of alligators are substantially different than that of any bird’s. The air flows through the lungs in the same uni-direction, but that’s where the similarities stops, in reality.

I showed you, crocodilians are more like birds than they are like other reptiles.

No, you showed how “airflow” (which is about air (not anatomy or behavior) in an alligator’s breathing (which is diaphragmatic unlike any bird’s) moves in a direction like the “airflow” in a bird’s breathing (both being uni-directional within the lungs). And it’s in only one respect (uni-direction airflow within the lungs) at that, not in many more substantial ways.

The facts of their anatomy are:
1. Alligators and crocodiles breath diaphragmatically, birds don’t.
2. Birds have air sacs in their skeletons, alligators and crocodiles don’t.
The facts of the airflow are:
1. Air flows the same direction in the lungs of alligators as it does in birds.

 

[Barbarian]

No, because it doesn’t show what’s needed to support your original claim. It’s a moving of the goalpost though. What would be more helpful toward supporting your claim (“we see reptiles that are more like birds than they are like other reptiles”)

Yep. As you learned, crocodilians are more like birds than they are like other reptiles.

is for you to show how an alligator is more like a bird than an alligator is like a crocodile.

That was your claim. I just showed you that all crocodilians are more like birds than they are like other reptiles.

But crocodilian respiratory systems, as you see, are more like those of birds than they are like those of other reptiles.
Actually, From Farmer’s report:

“Our data suggest that airflow in the alligator is extremely birdlike, but it is unknown how it is possible to have unidirectional flow without air sacs and with diaphragmatic breathing”

Let's see what they actually said:
Colleen Farmer of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City also placed the flow meters into the dissected lungs of four dead alligators, which the team then filled with air using a giant syringe. What they found was that alligator lungs function very much like birds’.

Alligators don’t have air sacs like birds, but the researchers think an unusual airway that sits on either side of the alligator trachea may do the same job.

Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University in Sweden agrees that the efficient breathing system probably evolved in a common archosaur ancestor of crocodilians, birds and dinosaurs. “Swift, long-legged animals that might have relied on the rich oxygen supply provided by a one-way airflow were abundant in the early lineages of these groups,” he says.

So there you are. As predicted, crocodilians have a birdlike respiratory system. The primary difference in archosaur respiration, is that, unlike other vertebrates, dinosaurs, birds, and crocodilians have a one-way flow that is far more efficient than an in-and-out system.

As you also learned, crocodiles are genetically more like birds than they are like other reptiles like lizards and turtles.

No, you showed how “airflow” (which is about air (not anatomy or behavior) in an alligator’s breathing (which is diaphragmatic unlike any bird’s) moves in a direction like the “airflow” in a bird’s breathing (both being uni-directional within the lungs).

See above. You also learned that they are genetically more similar to each other than they are to other reptiles. And that's not all. It's also about biochemical similarities. And we know these indicate ancestry, since we can test this on organisms of known descent.

And of course, remember all of this was predicted over a hundred years ago, based on anatomical data.

As long ago as 1869, the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley first suggested that birds might be closely related to dinosaurs. He noted similarities between the hindlimb of Megalosaurus and ostriches. Yet it took more than a century for Huxley to be proved right.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/07/evolution-of-birds-from-dinosaurs

As you have seen, anatomy, genetics, respiration, and biochemistry all indicate that birds, dinosaurs, and crocodilians are more closely related to each other than any of them are to other reptiles.

 

[New Day Coming]

I'm digging into this one at the moment - looks very interesting...

"Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species."

Since Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was published in 1859, entirely new fields of science have been born and matured fields which hold the keys to the origin of species. With a Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson is uniquely qualified to investigate what genetics reveals about origins, and has released his findings in the book "Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species." From Master Books, "Replacing Darwin" offers a revolutionary approach to the study of origins with a potential impact as big as Darwin's.

Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1683440757/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XUA2BbG2EV12G