Genus vs. Specie

[SkeletalFrog]

And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution.

Why would it be different? It doesn't matter if an albino appears via natural breeding or is created via genetic engineering, it's still an albino, and still has the albino allele. Indeed, if anything, Nature is superior to us at creating mutations, as our methods are regrettably rather crude still, and does so with great regularity. Indeed, statistically, every one of us has 10 *new* mutations, not present in either parent, that affect protein coding (and hundreds that are "silent").

In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.

The "feather headress" is Hollywood and art, not science - we have evidence of full, bird-style wing feathers on the arms of Velociraptor and other species, and current evidence suggests that they were fully feathered.

As for the larger ones, there are multiple issues. First and foremost is preservation - feathers preserve very rarely, and there's only a few deposits in the world of high enough quality to retain evidence of them. It's not that other things didn't have feathers, just that the coarse sediment prevented fine details from being preserved. Aside from that, there's the issue of size - feathers may provide valuable insulation for a small animal, but cause a large one to overheat, so large dinosaurs may have lost them, much like why elephants and rhinos are mostly bald. Finally, there's relationships - only one group of dinosaurs, the maniraptorans (including raptors, T. rex, and therizinosaurs), had what we could recognize as feathers. Others, including other predatory dinosaurs like Allosaurus and Spinosaurus, diverged before feathers evolved.

If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.

Actually, adaptation is most often a change in anatomy or biochemistry. Look at the diversity in frog shapes - hoppers, walkers, jumpers, burrowers, swimmers, all with bodies adapted to their mode of locomotion. And no piddly stuff - doubling or halving of leg muscle mass, significant differences in muscle properties, springy tendons.


An excellent primer for this is actually the product of an old newsgroup, talk.origins. Their overall FAQ is here: Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution" with links to other FAQs about particular issues (including some you're raised). This other one here Introduction to Evolutionary Biology is a good introduction to evolution, its mechanics, common misconceptions, modern data, etc.

I will warn you that it's a bit dry and tends towards the "wall of text" style of presentation, but it's extremely useful, and should answer most of your questions quite thoroughly.

[GrifTheGreat]

Why would it be different? It doesn't matter if an albino appears via natural breeding or is created via genetic engineering, it's still an albino, and still has the albino allele. Indeed, if anything, Nature is superior to us at creating mutations, as our methods are regrettably rather crude still, and does so with great regularity. Indeed, statistically, every one of us has 10 *new* mutations, not present in either parent, that affect protein coding (and hundreds that are "silent").



The "feather headress" is Hollywood and art, not science - we have evidence of full, bird-style wing feathers on the arms of Velociraptor and other species, and current evidence suggests that they were fully feathered.

As for the larger ones, there are multiple issues. First and foremost is preservation - feathers preserve very rarely, and there's only a few deposits in the world of high enough quality to retain evidence of them. It's not that other things didn't have feathers, just that the coarse sediment prevented fine details from being preserved. Aside from that, there's the issue of size - feathers may provide valuable insulation for a small animal, but cause a large one to overheat, so large dinosaurs may have lost them, much like why elephants and rhinos are mostly bald. Finally, there's relationships - only one group of dinosaurs, the maniraptorans (including raptors, T. rex, and therizinosaurs), had what we could recognize as feathers. Others, including other predatory dinosaurs like Allosaurus and Spinosaurus, diverged before feathers evolved.



Actually, adaptation is most often a change in anatomy or biochemistry. Look at the diversity in frog shapes - hoppers, walkers, jumpers, burrowers, swimmers, all with bodies adapted to their mode of locomotion. And no piddly stuff - doubling or halving of leg muscle mass, significant differences in muscle properties, springy tendons.


An excellent primer for this is actually the product of an old newsgroup, talk.origins. Their overall FAQ is here: Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution" with links to other FAQs about particular issues (including some you're raised). This other one here Introduction to Evolutionary Biology is a good introduction to evolution, its mechanics, common misconceptions, modern data, etc.

I will warn you that it's a bit dry and tends towards the "wall of text" style of presentation, but it's extremely useful, and should answer most of your questions quite thoroughly.

Ill give it a look. I'm not completely closed on the idea. I've always wandered if there we're more to what they claim. Like you said about the holly wood bull. I wasn't referring to that ****. I usually watch documentories on dinosaurs and other such prehistoric creatures and I have yet to see one that said that their were large Raptors covered entirely with feathers. Just the headress and yes some on their arms, but not the whole body. The closest to this that I know of is the Archeoptorix or however you spell its name, but it was small. Chicken sized right?

Maybe I need to look over some more documents on Evolution. I can honestly say that my knowledge on this subject has been greatly decreased from not keeping up with it over the years. Used to read a lot about it Dinos, but a lot of archeologists opinions differ and so its hard to say who is right and who is wrong. You've got my attension though.

[GrifTheGreat]

Ok this makes more sence now. Thanks for the link Skeletal. This is different from the Evolution I'm used to. It actually states that ist a change in the gene pool rather than just apearing out of nowhere. It basically states that there already has to bemore than just one of a creature to cause an evolutionary event to take place within that group of creatures braught on by some sort of event. Like with the moths landing on the soot covered Berch trees and thus not being eaten by birds because of camoflage and yet the bright colored ones are eaten so more dark colored moth were allowed to breed. Natural selection being a main part of that evolutionary event. Also with the ones with tails that are bright, but mimic a poisonous moth and the dark without tails being able to hide and yet they are from the same type of moth. It isn't that dry of a read. I've read worse believe me.

[SkeletalFrog]

Ill give it a look. I'm not completely closed on the idea. I've always wandered if there we're more to what they claim. Like you said about the holly wood bull. I wasn't referring to that ****. I usually watch documentories on dinosaurs and other such prehistoric creatures and I have yet to see one that said that their were large Raptors covered entirely with feathers. Just the headress and yes some on their arms, but not the whole body. The closest to this that I know of is the Archeoptorix or however you spell its name, but it was small. Chicken sized right?

Sadly, many of those documentaries are every bit as bad as Hollywood. Multiple times, the two paleontologists in our department have ranted at great length throughout lunch about wild inaccuracies presented as fact even on "respectable" TV documentary channels like Discovery. I even know of one person who threatened to sue them after they edited his words to make it sound like he was saying the exact opposite of the actual data (the channel backed down).

Ok this makes more sence now. Thanks for the link Skeletal. This is different from the Evolution I'm used to. It actually states that ist a change in the gene pool rather than just apearing out of nowhere. It basically states that there already has to bemore than just one of a creature to cause an evolutionary event to take place within that group of creatures braught on by some sort of event. Like with the moths landing on the soot covered Berch trees and thus not being eaten by birds because of camoflage and yet the bright colored ones are eaten so more dark colored moth were allowed to breed. Natural selection being a main part of that evolutionary event. Also with the ones with tails that are bright, but mimic a poisonous moth and the dark without tails being able to hide and yet they are from the same type of moth. It isn't that dry of a read. I've read worse believe me.

Glad to help! Let me know if you have any questions!

[cali]

Ummm.

I think my cat is flirting with my dog. I'll post pics of the kippies later....

[GrifTheGreat]

Ummm.

I think my cat is flirting with my dog. I'll post pics of the kippies later....

I don't know Cali, that might be pushing it a little. Bit Lol!

[SkeletalFrog]

Talk about good timing:

Giant feathered dinosaur found in China was too big to fly | Science | The Guardian

Basically, we now have a fossil of a ~30 foot primitive tyrannosaur that was covered in feathers from head to toe.

[GrifTheGreat]

Talk about good timing:

Giant feathered dinosaur found in China was too big to fly | Science | The Guardian

Basically, we now have a fossil of a ~30 foot primitive tyrannosaur that was covered in feathers from head to toe.

Wow that is good timing. There is no way this could be a coincidence