27 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsHere is another quote on the ancestor of the modern penguin:
The following is a quote I found on Penguin sncestry:
Penguin ancestry beyond Waimanu remains unknown and not well-resolved by molecular or morphological analyses. The latter tend to be confounded by the strong adaptive autapomorphies of the Sphenisciformes; a sometimes perceived fairly close relationship between penguins and grebes is almost certainly an ...[text shortened]... the other hand, different DNA sequence datasets do not agree in detail with each other either.
Waimanu was flightless like all modern penguins. Though its wing bones do not show the extreme specializations modern penguins have for an aquatic lifestyle, it does seem adapted for wing-propelled diving, and may have resembled a flightless loon in body shape and maybe the Great Auk in its manner of locomotion. DNA sequence analyses and anatomy argue for a close relationships of penguins and loons, the former lineage specializing for wing-propelled and the latter for foot-propelled diving.
So there is no established connection ancestrally to a bird that could fly.
28 May 11
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat's your source?
The following is a quote I found on Penguin sncestry:
Penguin ancestry beyond Waimanu remains unknown and not well-resolved by molecular or morphological analyses. The latter tend to be confounded by the strong adaptive autapomorphies of the Sphenisciformes; a sometimes perceived fairly close relationship between penguins and grebes is almost certainly an the other hand, different DNA sequence datasets do not agree in detail with each other either.
EDIT - Found it. You're quoting Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia's source:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/6/1144.full
From that paper:
the divergence of penguins and storks (which are closest to penguins
28 May 11
1 edit
Take a look at this:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Pelecaniformes
The "pelecaniform" lineages appear to have originated around the end of the Cretaceous. Monophyletic or not, they appear to belong to a close-knit group of "higher waterbirds" which also includes groups such as penguins and Procellariiformes. It is interesting to note that there are quite a lot of fossil bones from around the K–Pg boundary which cannot be firmly placed with any of these orders and rather combine traits of several of them. This is of course only to be expected, if the theory that most if not all of these "higher waterbird" lineages originated around that time is correct.
Also see
http://tolweb.org/%27Water_Birds%27/123207
28 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI've said quite a few things too, and what I pointed out to you was even
I asked you if you thought penguins evolved from birds that could fly, you said you weren't too sure as you hadn't really though about it. I then explained my position in further detail clarifying what i meant, you replied 'okay'. How exactly is that not agreeing with me? If you didn't agree with me, why not just say 'no'?!
What exactly have i run with? How exactly have i made it sound like you said 'quite a few things'?
after your quote, attempting to let you know how far I was willing to go.
I believe there is only one rule where we can ID kinds and that is if they
can breed to it can reproduce after its kind. So simply looking alike or having
some feature that looks like something on another creature as far as I'm
concern does not mean that it ever shared the same ancestors or not.
Kelly
28 May 11
Originally posted by KellyJayRight on! It shared the same designer and maker, the Creator God.
I've said quite a few things too, and what I pointed out to you was even
after your quote, attempting to let you know how far I was willing to go.
I believe there is only one rule where we can ID kinds and that is if they
can breed to it can reproduce after its kind. So simply looking alike or having
some feature that looks like something on another cre ...[text shortened]... ure as far as I'm
concern does not mean that it ever shared the same ancestors or not.
Kelly
That is why creatures features sometimes look alike. It is like fashion
designers, for example, each designer has a unique style that is
carried over into the next dsign.
29 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobIs there a point to being a bird?
This was getting lost in the thread, so i started a new one. This is where we're up to -
The point i'm trying to make is how can you call a penguin a bird if you believe it and none of it's ancestors could fly? Surely the whole point of it being a bird is that it [b]can/could fly!![/b]
I never thought of a penguin as a bird. I think that's what scientiststststs call them. 😵
I think penguins are fish. 🙄
29 May 11
Originally posted by josephwI think it has more in common with a bird than a fish.
Is there a point to being a bird?
I never thought of a penguin as a bird. I think that's what scientiststststs call them. 😵
I think penguins are fish. 🙄
It looks more like a bird to me, but I am not a biologists.
But you can call it a fish if you want as long as you agree
that God made them that way and they did not evolve from
something else. Okay?
29 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsRJ, everything that was created by God on the day it was created is just as it was today as on the day it was created. Except for the curse. That came after creation, and is the stumbling block that is denied by those who favor the absence of a creator.
I think it has more in common with a bird than a fish.
It looks more like a bird to me, but I am not a biologists.
But you can call it a fish if you want as long as you agree
that God made them that way and they did not evolve from
something else. Okay?
Evolution is a delusion trap. A mountain of nothing.
But still, a penguin swims like fish, looks like a bird, and to me, looks very helpless out of water. 😉
29 May 11
Originally posted by josephwAgreed.
RJ, everything that was created by God on the day it was created is just as it was today as on the day it was created. Except for the curse. That came after creation, and is the stumbling block that is denied by those who favor the absence of a creator.
Evolution is a delusion trap. A mountain of nothing.
But still, a penguin swims like fish, looks like a bird, and to me, looks very helpless out of water. 😉
29 May 11
Originally posted by josephwSo God made all the races of man, all the breed of dogs, all the breeds of cats, every gene in every living thing was present at creation?
RJ, everything that was created by God on the day it was created is just as it was today as on the day it was created. Except for the curse. That came after creation, and is the stumbling block that is denied by those who favor the absence of a creator.
You do realize that when you have children, your child has some genes from you, and some from your spouse and is thus different from both of you? Your child is not 'just as it was today as on the day [life] was created'?
In all life forms that reproduce via sexual reproduction (that includes most animals and plants), every single individual is unique with a unique set of genes that no other living thing has had before or since. To claim that life does not change over time shows only ignorance of the basics of biology.
29 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe may be ignorant of the basics of biology, but you completely
So God made all the races of man, all the breed of dogs, all the breeds of cats, every gene in every living thing was present at creation?
You do realize that when you have children, your child has some genes from you, and some from your spouse and is thus different from both of you? Your child is not 'just as it was today as on the day [life] was create ...[text shortened]... e. To claim that life does not change over time shows only ignorance of the basics of biology.
ignored his statement, "except for the curse." I understood him
to mean that any changes we see today, such as mutations, is
because of God's curse after mankind's disobedience. But he
believes, as I do, that all plants and animals remain the same
"kind" of plant or animal as when God created them. I am sure
he knows that we use "finger prints" to identify individuals because
each are unique. And I believe he would say your characterization
of what he meant is not correct and misleading.
29 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThen his first sentence makes no sense.
He may be ignorant of the basics of biology, but you completely
ignored his statement, "except for the curse."
Its like saying 2 = 4 except 4 is bigger.
I understood him to mean that any changes we see today, such as mutations, is
because of God's curse after mankind's disobedience. But he
believes, as I do, that all plants and animals remain the same
"kind" of plant or animal as when God created them.
But neither of you can define what a 'kind' is, so it is meaningless. I bet that neither of you have actually decided whether penguins are a single kind, or whether they are multiple kinds or whether there are other birds in the same 'kind'. So using 'kinds' as a basis for discussing the origin of the penguin is of no use whatsoever.
I am sure he knows that we use "finger prints" to identify individuals because
each are unique. And I believe he would say your characterization
of what he meant is not correct and misleading.
And I am sure he didn't think through what he wrote and after thinking about it will realize that he posted a whole lot of nonsense. He doesn't even realize that when you have a child - the human race has evolved - by definition. New genes = new race = evolution.
(by the way, finger prints are a product of the environment not genes. Even identical twins have different finger prints).
29 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have defined "kind" but you just don't like my definition.
Then his first sentence makes no sense.
Its like saying 2 = 4 except 4 is bigger.
[b]I understood him to mean that any changes we see today, such as mutations, is
because of God's curse after mankind's disobedience. But he
believes, as I do, that all plants and animals remain the same
"kind" of plant or animal as when God created them.
But n ...[text shortened]... of the environment not genes. Even identical twins have different finger prints).[/b]
We don't care if the penguin is a bird or a fish. We just
believe it is the same "kind" of animal it was when God
created it. When I was referring to "fingerprints", I was
indicating a unique feature that distinguishes on individual
from another. I did not say anything about genes causing
it. The birth of a child is not "evolution" but "reproduction".
You seem to be the one posting nonsense in my opinion.
29 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsFirst things first, let's get the pedantic bit out the way. If you wish to ask me a question use one of these ?, a question mark. The post in which you wanted me to clarify something contained none. What you're trying to get at might make perfect sense in your head, but it may not come across that way across cyber space. I apologise for my insult, my initial remark about you and 'your ilk' was just intended as such.
I believe you statred the insults on this thread with this statement:
"Thank goodness you and you ilk are not scientists. If you were we'd still be living in caves going for a dump in the bushes."
In response to another of my posts you give the following reply:
So you seem to think that either his body grew or his wings shrunk and turned into flippe ...[text shortened]... some ideas that make sense, otherwise, it becomes just
another evolutionary fairy tale.
Secondly, you have a gross misunderstanding of how evolution works. I seriously suggest you read some books on the topic, but i will attempt to explain anyhow it works in the case of the penguin.
Two birds didn't just mate and produce a penguin out of nowhere. It's a slow accumulative process that takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Now think of a penguin, now imagine next to him you could stand his father, and next to him his father, and next to him his father and so on and so going back generations for thousands of years. Now as you go back through the generations at no point would a penguin just suddenly appear out of nowhere, instead you'd just see slow gradual changes from one generation to the next. As you go back further back in time the penguin would start to become more un-penguin-like and more like it's common ancestor. That's how evolution works, small changes at a time spread over millenia.
Does that make sense? It's like you looking in the mirror everyday, you don't see yourself age on a day to day basis, but if you could line up yourself day by day and look down the line you could see the slow change in your physiology as you get older, or younger, depending on which way up the line you look. Nothing just springs out of nowhere.
Are you with me so far?
29 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI understand what you are saying, buy I just don't believe animals
First things first, let's get the pedantic bit out the way. If you wish to ask me a question use one of these ?, a question mark. The post in which you wanted me to clarify something contained none. What you're trying to get at might make perfect sense in your head, but it may not come across that way across cyber space. I apologise for my insult, my ini ...[text shortened]... p the line you look. Nothing just springs out of nowhere.
Are you with me so far?
have existed on earth for a million years. My guess would be, maybe,
10,000 years. I know the Holy Bible is not a biology book, but I
believe it is inspired writings from men that knew God. And they
wrote that God said that he created the plants and animals to
reproduce after their own kind. And I just don't think that man
today is intelligent enough to figure out exactly what happened
10,000 years ago. To dig up a bone and say that it is a million years
old and claim to know what animal it came from, its eating and mating
habits, and what it is the ancestor of is beyond believe to me.
I agree that my understanding of evolution is different from years.
I don't consider a creature evolving unless it becomes more complex
and advanced than it was before. For a bird that had the ability to
fly and then losses that ability does not appear to have become more
complex and advanced, but just the opposite. But you seem to define
any small change as evolution. I believe that animals can adapt to
their environments, but I do not consider that evolution, as you do.