Re: KT boundry event

uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Pip R. Lagenta wrote:

[Third send]
On 17 Apr 2006 14:30:51 -0700, uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

NashtOn wrote:

uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I just finished Alvarez's book

"T. Rex and the Crater of Doom" the title of which is a bit misleading,
and Mr and Mrs Rex do not appear.

I am puzzled, however, by his poor argument that after the KT boundry
event the mammals were able to take over the niches (large animals)
that dinos had previously occupied. The question arises: Why didn't we
get dinos all over again? Why didn't we get large reptiles, at least?
Why large MAMMALS?



Do you think anybody knows the answer to this? Obviousy, according to
the ToE, it's probably because determinism goes out the window and the
conditions that made for the "evolution" of dinos were not present after
they became extinct.

Obviously? No. Nobody expects the same group to evolve twice -- look up
Dollo's Law. And dinosaurs, of course, didn't become extinct. There are
around 10,000 living species.

Birds branched off from dinos long before this!

...in the same way that Tyrannosaurus branched off from dinosaurs.
That is to say, a bird is a dinosaur in the same way that a
Tyrannosaurus is a dinosaur. You can do this for any pair of
bird/dinosaur: "chickens branched off from dinosaurs in the same way
that Brachiosauruses branched off from dinosaurs." The branch does
not fall very far from the tree. Birds are dinosaurs.


Not exactly. They're birds.

And they're dinosaurs too. This is really a very simple concept. What if
Pip had told you that whales are mammals? Would you have replied "Not
exactly. They're whales."? It's only tradition and the accidents of
extinction that led early taxonomists to makes Aves a class and
dinosaurs a part of a different class, Reptilia. Fortunately, those bad
old days of confusion are gone, and modern taxonomists show Aves as a
group within Dinosauria.

Necessarily, if our classifications are to mirror phylogeny, we must
have groups within groups. Birds are theropods, and dinosaurs, and
archosaurs, and amniotes, and tetrapods, and sarcopterygians, etc. One
does not preclude the others.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Myth of Bird Evolution
    ... > between dinosaurs and birds. ... The fact is, however, that this fossil ... "The evolution of birds", like other claims made by Darwinism, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Vernacular and Linnaean Naming (Was: KT boundary event)
    ... If you want to say "birds are dinosaurs" it shows you have no ... If you mean can scientists communicate clearly amongst themselves then ... The poor standards of language eductaion have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Vernacular and Linnaean Naming (Was: KT boundary event)
    ... If you want to say "birds are dinosaurs" it shows you have no ... If you're talking about the communication of scientific information to ... If you mean can scientists communicate clearly amongst themselves then ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sean Pitman and nested hierarchy
    ... not evolve from dinosaurs because true birds are found in the fossil ... birds are 'living dinosaurs'". ... article think has feathers. ... That is in fact what defines a nested hierarchy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sean Pitman and nested hierarchy
    ... not evolve from dinosaurs because true birds are found in the fossil ... birds are 'living dinosaurs'". ... article think has feathers. ... There are quite a number of mainstream scientists who think that these ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast