I think the accepted thinking is that birds evolved from reptiles, not vice-versa. Archeopteryx is a good example of a bird with dinosaur ancestry. Not all dinosaurs were giant, just the “popular” ones (The giant meat-eaters always get all the press, but for obvious reasons giant predators need to be a small minority.) Many species of dinosaur were actually very small, and some believe that their ancestors are still with us, having evolved into the birds of today. Hence the origin of the phrase “having gone to the birds.” He he.
Link to the topic: Does the theory of evolution fly in the face of facts?
Another bit of misinformation from the author of the question: he claimed that at the Cretaceous-Tertiary extincion event (K-T event, 65 Ma), 95% of all species went extinct (and therefore, evolution had to start all over, etc.) This is not what the fossil record shows–100% of all DINOSAUR families went extinct (that is, 100% of all of the Dino families that were still living by the terminal Cretaceous, anyway… extinction events in the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous killed off the large Sauropods and others), but most other orders survived pretty well. Crocodillian reptiles and Turtles, for instance, first appear in the Permian, coexist with the Dinos throughout the Mesozoic, and are living today (although they did suffer some losses). Mammals first arrived in the early Mesozoic, stayed small and puny (that’s where their niche was), survived the K-T event and–quite obviously–are doing well today. (Placental mammals, that is; the Marsupial mammals did suffer heavily, but they’re still around, too). Only 15% of marine invertebrates (including Ammonites) went extinct, but most bivalves, cephalopods, etc., are thriving nicely–as they have since the earliest Paleozoic. Ditto amphibians (since Pennsylvanian, anyway). Birds appeared at least by the Jurassic, survived K-T, and they, too, are still chriping away.
Bottom Line: Modern-day organisms are not the result of a mere 65 Ma of evolution and extinction events are not “odd” things, but very much a part of the evolutionary process. Extinction occurs when an organism is unable to adapt to a changing environment. Environmental change is one of the primary motivators of evolution and it’s evil twin extinction, and all three are well-preserved and strongly correlative in the stratigraphic record.
I am a “believer” in evolution, and I am dismayed with the tone taken by SDSTAFF David in his answer to the evolution evidence question. Although some of the postulates of Kenneth W. Blackburn are pretty out there as far as I’m concerned, it might be more useful and convincing to reply in a respectful tone instead of a deriding one. How are you going to convince someone that you’re right if you make fun of them or tell them you’re crazy? It’s not even all that amusing.
For example, the comment by David that Your idea that animals should just get more and more dangerous while they grow bigger and bigger is, well, ridiculous. is an ad hominen attack, and isn’t based in logic or scientific reason. I don’t find it all that ridiculous that predators would become better at being predators through evolution. If that makes them bigger and meaner, that’s not totally illogical.
Another example of insensitivity or perhaps over-sensitivity is the comment that *When you start talking about birds turning into reptiles, we’re back at the “ridiculous” stage again. All I can do is urge you to
pick up a basic biology textbook before making claims about this topic again. *. I am an educated person, and I’m aware of some connection between reptiles and birds, but I don’t know what basic biology you’re talking about. If you explained how birds and reptiles are related, and how one didn’t “turn into” the other, that might be more effective than merely flaming the questioner.
Your example regarding the antibiotic-resistant bacteria was an excellent example, on the other hand, and was a sterling example of “proof” of (at least some limited version) of evolution.
At any rate, although I expect and relish some sarcasm and questioner-baiting by the Straight Dope staff, I think that SDSTAFF David has let his emotion get the better of him, and has compromised his otherwise intelligent answer. It is difficult enough to make an ignorant person learn contrary to their innate prejudices or faith without the added ridicule.
Ken
I just have to say:
When I saw that the mailbag question was about evolution, my first thought was, “Oh gee, I wonder if David B is gonna answer this one!” 
An example of an animal in transition: the Polar Bear.
Look up close at a Polar Bear’s feet (not in person in the wild, of course). Also, notice the ears and the shape of the head. The Polar Bear is evolving into an aquatic animal.
It’s a gross overstatement to say that the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria proves that evolution occurs.
I don’t think that even the most die-hard non-evolutionist could possibly argue that it’s impossible to breed for a specific characteristic in the face of centuries of history of humans doing exactly that (whether intentionally or otherwise), so the fact that there are now chihuahuas, or black moths in England, or antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or whatever is more or less irrelevant. It’s not going to convince anyone who’s already decided against evolution to change their minds.
Are there any clear cases of one species transforming into an unambiguously different species, with full documentation of the entire process? I’m not aware of any, but if they exist they would be a much more powerful argument than resistant strains of bacteria.
quote:
“Are there any clear cases of one species transforming into an unambiguously different
species, with full documentation of the entire process?”
I doubt that many evolutionists would consider this particularly important anymore–there’s already enough evidence for evolution from a variety of other sources. They would be delighted to find such a record, of course, but it’s not crucial. The only people who would care are creationists who start from the unfalsifiable premise that new species can’t be created because the Bible says so. It was an important topic in Darwin’s time when the whole question of evolution was up for grabs, but that was settled 150 years ago for mainstream biologists. Evolutionary biology has moved on a bit from there.
With regard to SDStaff David’s reply to Kenneth Blackburn’s theory on evolution, I am appalled at his response. Much of what David himself says is “fact” is simply an opinion, and an opinion of a seemingly egotistical intellectual “wannabe”. Who is David to say that Kenneth is wrong by saying that the larger an animal gets the more dangerous he becomes?" This is an opinion, which makes neither one of you “right” in the true sense. The only amusing thing about David’s response is that he has the nerve to say to Kenneth “So little knowledge, so much certainty” when in fact we could all turn around and say to David, “So little knowledge, so MUCH stupidity.” Your response was cutting an cruel, not at all in the tone Straight Dope is famous for.
Mostly I agree with IrishCait.
The evolution answer was fine, but the
“So little knowledge, so much certainty”
was not necessary, too mean-spirited, and
leaves David vulnerable, in the unlikely
event there’s any little thing wrong with
his explanation.
However, IrishCait, to paraphrase your
closing, you say the Straight Dope is not
known for being smart-assed and condescending.
You and I have been reading different Straight Dopes.
My site has no useful knowledge, but is often damned with faint praise
Ok, I’m not going to get in any debates, as I really don’t have an opinion on evolution. But from what I see in the whole argument is that evolution protagonists have just as much ‘faith’ in the theory of evolution as creationism protagonists have in the belief about the beginning. I just read that there are ‘already enough evidence for evolution from a variety of other sources’. Care to back that up? I have an equal amount of questions on creation as I do on evolution which I’d like to see answered with examples and not hearsay.
Still keepin it real…
Screeling
The reason I didn’t list evidence is that the whole thing has been exhaustively covered in many other threads, which may be why DavidB chose this particular question to answer today. Just scroll around in Great Debates and take your pick.
Here’s a link, though, if you are really interested:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Damn, Cher3 beat me to the punch. I’ll just have to try harder.
First for torq, check out
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Try some of the links. Especially the Introduction, discussing what “transitional fossils” means. Then check out, say, Cetaceans (Whales and dolphins). I know it’s long, but you asked a complex question.
Also try the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
from IrishCait:
That’s not what he meant. I believe the line you mean is
What David meant is that evolution does not dictate that animals will just grow larger and grow more dangerous. Rather, they will change to fit the circumstances of the environment. If conditions support a growth, then they will grow, but conditions might change and support smaller animals. But I can read his sentence and see how you misunderstood. I suppose getting larger is in itself becoming more dangerous - use of gravity on your side, if nothing else.
Screeling, it’s evidence, not faith. I encourage you to go to TalkOrigins and browse a little. Check the FAQs. (See “Browse” on the main bar.)
As for the condescending tone, someone on another thread already has complained about the SDSTAFF trying to mimic Cecil’s style. I think that’s what it is, though not necessarily successfully.
David, since dinosaurs did turn into birds, don’t laugh at the notion that birds could turn into dinosaurs. (Okay, that’s a very shallow and brief description that misses all the nuances, but it isn’t technically wrong.)
I suspect that the tone of David’s answer was triggered by the exasperation which many people (ESPECIALLY Cecil!) experience when encountering someone who appears to be willfully ignorant. Part of this exasperation stems from knowing that arguments with such people are usually a waste of time: arguments depend on a logical perspective probably not shared by the other person.
The poster may also be a child, however, and perhaps therefore should have been given more benefit of the doubt.
Personally, I find it hard to burst Ken’s balloon. But that’s just because it doesn’t hold much air.
Seeing his manifesto and David’s erudite reply brought to mind the megafauna of New Zealand and Australia - the 9 foot tall Moa bird, Giant Sloths, Kangas the size of cows. Then some hungry tail-less monkeys with pointed sticks show up and before you can say ‘millenium’ they’re gone.
A few million years from now highly evolved marsupials will be discussing the catastrophic extinction event known as the ‘Age of Man’…
First of all I wanted to say that I thought the tone of David’s reply was just what was needed. I think it is important when dealing with people who blatently refuse to accept common scientific facts based on absolutely nothing but their own smug and uninformed “opinions” to make sure that they receive the kind of ego-deflating that might make them think twice before spouting off about something they haven’t bothered to really learn anything about.
While I’m at it, I also wanted to point out something very important to the evolutionary thoery that most people forget or ignore. “Survival of the fittest” has nothing to do with evolution. This phrase was coined later by an economist whose name escapes me at the moment when he tried to use evolution to justify large corporations wiping out small business. The fact is, evolution doesn’t occur in order to help an organism survive. The mutations are completely random. Some make the organism better adapted to it’s environment, some make life harder, and some don’t have any effect on survival whatsoever. The only reason certain mutations fail and certain ones prosper is because some mutations make it easier for the organisms that possess them to live long enough to reproduce or to reproduce more often and some have the opposite effect. This doesn’t mean that those genetically assisted organisms are somehow more “deserving” of survival, they just happened to be the ones that did.
Just wanted to clarify to bup that you are quite right, The Straight Dope is definitely known for being smart-assed and condescending, but to reiterate what I already wrote, David was cutting and cruel. There’s a difference.
Wow! Well, this seems to have sparked a bit of discussion.
It seems most of the claims regarding the actual content of my response have been dealt with by others (if I missed any, I apologize – please feel free to point them out; though if we’re going to get into a general creation/evolution discussion, it would be best to take it to Great Debates), and we’re mostly dealing with my tone.
Please note that this is the second question on evolution that I have dealt with in recent months. The first can be found at: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mevolution.html
This was apparently a response to that answer, and a rather ignorant response at that. I’m sorry if I didn’t live up to Cecil’s wit, but then, who can? I can only try to emulate the master. If I have failed, I will humbly submit to his whipping of me. That said, this person’s ignorance was so thick you could cut it with a knife – yet he was so sure of himself. That is what caused the attitude I displayed. As I said, he needs to pick up a basic biology textbook.
Irishman noted:
Well, that was exactly the reason I thought it so funny. He knows so little that he has it precisely backwards, but is apparently absolutely sure that his view is correct.
I believe in evolution to a degree. It has been noticed that certain birds have changed the color of their feathers and that bacteria often changes. However, their are still a lot of problems with the theory of evoultion as it now stands. You should read the book -DARWIN’S BLACK BOX- by Michael Behe,a microbiology professor. Dr. Behe himself is not a creationist , but does point out that evolution does not make much sense on the biochemical level. He says that evolution can explain small steps but that small steps can not always explain large changes. I believe he equates it to trying to jump over the grand canyon with a pogo stick. Now, about 1/3 of the book is devoted to the chemistry of his argument, which is way over my head, however he does make a lot of arguements that are very understandable to the common reader. He writes that (and I’ll do my best here to summarize correctly what he says) that evolution cannot explain certain things such as eyeballs. Eyeballs are made up of very many parts. Without one part the eye cannot function. Evoltion cannot explain how the the eye evolved then. Animals didn’t have partial eyes that didn’t work . (I am sorta making a mess of his arguement,but it is much better explained in his book). Like I said I believe in evoultion to a degree, but I think if you grew bacteria for a billion years you’d never have a human or any other animal.