Are Humans Animals

[ADigitalArtist]

If a human can assert that Because We Are, We Have Rights

I try very much to not assert this. I agree with you that the idea of rights are a human construct, and have little to do with nature and doing. Being a human of course means that I have a human bias just like cooper's hawks have a bias for cooper's hawks, but I do not claim that nature or gods or anything handed down rights to either. So instead my reasoning for behaviors, law etc come from more a place of utility and consequentialism.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

According to taxonomy and evolutionary science, we are apes. We're primates. (No, not monkeys.)

Incorrect.

"Apes are monkeys in the same way that monkeys are primates, humans are apes and I am a human – it's called a nested hierarchy. This means that all apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes. Just as all humans are apes, but not all apes are human."

Apes are monkeys – deal with it

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not going to go over what we've already been over, (i.e. bird to dinosaur is extremely evident and nobody except creationists who like to quote mine actually doubt it) but based on a much better article than the one you provided, it's not challenging evolution or common descent at all. PNAS | Mobile

Scientists: Bird's Ancestors Likely Not Dinosaurs

 

[Shadow Wolf]

we also share about 50% genetic similarity with bananas, our ancient ancestors?

All of life is related and woven together and intimately linked. We all share the same common origin, and together we have grown and together we will continue to grow.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, we didn't descend from bananas. We did descend from a common ancestor that led to both sets of species. Just as we descended from an ancestor common to all the great apes...who also, like us, share a common ancestor with bananas.

right, so sharing similar genes does not make a species our ancestor

we all morphed from single cells by millions of accidental improvements?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Scientists: Bird's Ancestors Likely Not Dinosaurs

A. Is not actually countering birds from dinosaurs, but calling for small theropod avian dinosaurs to be put in their own independent clade from other non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
B. Is one proposed change within dinosaur to bird taxonomy which is not accepted by the vast majority of biologists, and this biologist you are quoting, who still sees modern aves as descended from theropod dinosaurs.
C. Stop trying to quote mine material you're not invested in actually understanding.

 

[Jose Fly]

Scientists: Bird's Ancestors Likely Not Dinosaurs

First line in the article....

"A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, as many scientists have believed, but from a creature that existed long before."\

So "birds may have evolved from A, rather than B".

shrug

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

right, so sharing similar genes does not make a species our ancestor

we all morphed from single cells by millions of accidental improvements?

1) Exactly: it means we share a common ancestor
2) "morphed" is not the correct term, although yes, the morphology has changed as well; the correct term is that we and all other species have descended with modification over time from a common ancestor.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Incorrect.

"Apes are monkeys in the same way that monkeys are primates, humans are apes and I am a human – it's called a nested hierarchy. This means that all apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes. Just as all humans are apes, but not all apes are human."

Apes are monkeys – deal with it

Taxonomically we have prosimians (such as lemurs) and athropoids, or the "higher primates," and from there we are divided into ape, monkey, and hominid. There is some overlap and common ancestry, but we've evolved far along enough that we no longer share a common genus.

Scientists: Bird's Ancestors Likely Not Dinosaurs

That doesn't even link us to the abstract. But, even still, that is the wonderful thing about science. When it's shown to be wrong, it discards ideas proven wrong and embraces the stronger hypothesis. This is very much unlike religion, where thousands of years later and the Bible is still claiming the value of pi is 3.

 

[Jose Fly]

A. Is not actually countering birds from dinosaurs, but calling for small theropod avian dinosaurs to be put in their own independent clade from other non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
B. Is one proposed change within dinosaur to bird taxonomy which is not accepted by the vast majority of biologists, and this biologist you are quoting, who still sees modern aves as descended from theropod dinosaurs.
C. Stop trying to quote mine material you're not invested in actually understanding.

Creationists love quoting Alan Feduccia. Apparently they think him advocating an alternative evolutionary history for birds means he's saying they didn't evolve at all.....or something.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

[QUOTE="ADigitalArtist, post: 5083233, member: 56353"

A. Is not actually countering birds from dinosaurs, but calling for small theropod avian dinosaurs to be put in their own independent clade from other non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
B. Is one proposed change within dinosaur to bird taxonomy which is not accepted by the vast majority of biologists, and this biologist you are quoting, who still sees modern aves as descended from theropod dinosaurs.
C. Stop trying to quote mine material you're not invested in actually understanding.[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify for you

A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs

Alan Feduccia, biology professor at the University of North Carolina: "It’s just not a dinosaur. In other words, there’s not anything about this creature that allows classifying it as a dinosaur," he said.

pretty cut and dry isn't it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Taxonomically we have prosimians (such as lemurs) and athropoids, or the "higher primates," and from there we are divided into ape, monkey, and hominid. There is some overlap and common ancestry, but we've evolved far along enough that we no longer share a common genus.

That doesn't even link us to the abstract. But, even still, that is the wonderful thing about science. When it's shown to be wrong, it discards ideas proven wrong and embraces the stronger hypothesis.

The Bible tells us that life appeared in distinct sudden stages, not slow smooth gradual transitions, which did the fossil record end up validating?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

we also share about 50% genetic similarity with bananas, our ancient ancestors?

Here is the missing link:

 

[Jose Fly]

pretty cut and dry isn't it?

Guy, what you're seeing here is several of us wondering just what your point is. Feduccia thinks the evidence shows birds evolved from a different ancestry, therefore.........?

 

[David T]

Yes of course we are, its just that there are those who believe they are higher than other animals, makes me laugh actually.

Well the ego most certainly is! High on itself that is. It's a big problem in religion and science as well. They seem to agree often times that the size of ones ego determines what is correct.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

="Guy Threepwood, post: 5083250, member: 55684"]

="ADigitalArtist, post: 5083233, member: 56353"

A. Is not actually countering birds from dinosaurs, but calling for small theropod avian dinosaurs to be put in their own independent clade from other non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
B. Is one proposed change within dinosaur to bird taxonomy which is not accepted by the vast majority of biologists, and this biologist you are quoting, who still sees modern aves as descended from theropod dinosaurs.
C. Stop trying to quote mine material you're not invested in actually understanding.

Just to clarify for you

A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs

Alan Feduccia, biology professor at the University of North Carolina: "It’s just not a dinosaur. In other words, there’s not anything about this creature that allows classifying it as a dinosaur," he said.

pretty cut and dry isn't it?

I already explained why it's not nearly as cut and dry as you're trying to paint it, so I won't bother repeating myself.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

[QUOTE="ADigitalArtist, post: 5083233, member: 56353"

A. Is not actually countering birds from dinosaurs, but calling for small theropod avian dinosaurs to be put in their own independent clade from other non-avian theropod dinosaurs.
B. Is one proposed change within dinosaur to bird taxonomy which is not accepted by the vast majority of biologists, and this biologist you are quoting, who still sees modern aves as descended from theropod dinosaurs.
C. Stop trying to quote mine material you're not invested in actually understanding.

Just to clarify for you

A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs

Alan Feduccia, biology professor at the University of North Carolina: "It’s just not a dinosaur. In other words, there’s not anything about this creature that allows classifying it as a dinosaur," he said.

pretty cut and dry isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Yeah it is: ONE scientist is arguing that birds evolved from an earlier ancestor that also gave rise to the dinosaurs, rather than from a line of dinosaurs.

It's still evolution, and it's still trying to figure out exactly how the path of evolution occurred, based on the fossil evidence.

Just because one scientist is proposing a new line of descent does not mean that he thinks evolution is wrong (or that the bible is right)...it does, however, mean that other paleontologists will now consider his proposal, and if it's found to have sufficient evidence in support, will accept his proposal...until such time as more evidence is found, which might disprove/falsify his model. Or, they might consider the evidence and model he is proposing, and decide that he is not right in his interpretation...and then they'll all go back to the field to dig up other fossils and see if any other evidence can shed a light on the competing models of how birds and dinosaurs evolved...

It is still all about evolution, and none of the paleontologists are arguing that evolution didn't happen...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Here is the missing link:

Well found! very funny, but not any less creative than many other missing links

 

[Father Heathen]

We share some vague physical similarities, that's about all we can say for sure. It's a semantic question mostly but I would vote no, we are distinct from the animals.

Never mind our opposable thumbs, mammary glands, etc.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I already explained why it's not nearly as cut and dry as you're trying to paint it, so I won't bother repeating myself.

A fossil found in Inner Mongolia may prove that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs

Alan Feduccia, biology professor at the University of North Carolina: "It’s just not a dinosaur. In other words, there’s not anything about this creature that allows classifying it as a dinosaur," he said.

^ You would have to argue your point with this guy, his cut and dry words, not mine