ความคิดเห็นที่ 49
คุณคลื่นแทรก
นี้คือคำถามของคุณใช่ม๊ะ
> สาวสวนพลู
ประเด็นที่ต้องการ คือ อะไร
ขอคำถามด้วย
เพราะยกพระคำภีร์มา แต่ไม่ได้ถามอะไร
***********************************
ประเด็นคือ พระคัมภีร์บอกว่า นกเกิดก่อนสัตว์เลื้อยคลาน แต่หลักฐานที่พบมันไม่ใช่
คุณสาวสวนพลูว่าพระเจ้าสร้างนกตัวแรกมาให้กระพือปีกบินได้เลย หรือให้มันเลื้อยคลานสี่ขาก่อนแล้วฝึกบินครับ
ที่นี้เราดูอีกกระทู้ของคุณ
**********************
พอดีผมรู้จักเจ้าอาเคออปเทอริกซ์ครับ ตกลงมันนกหรือสัตว์เลื้อยคลานครับ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur-bird_connection
จากคุณ : คลื่นแทรก - [ 24 เม.ย. 50 16:14:09 ]
เราคลิ๊กไปแล้วแหละ
พระเจ้าสร้างนกตัวแรกมาให้กระพือปีกบินได้เลย หรือให้มันเลื้อยคลานสี่ขาก่อนแล้วฝึกบินครับ
ย้ำอีกทีนี้คำถามน๊ะ
คุณคลิ๊กลิงค์ที่คุณยกมาให้ยัง
Main article: Archaeopteryx
Archaeopteryx is still maybe the most compelling fossil evidence towards a dinosaur-bird link, especially when compared to some maniraptoran dinosaurs such as Deinonychus.
Archaeopteryx, the first good example of a "feathered dinosaur", was discovered in 1861. The initial specimen was found in the Solnhofen limestone in southern Germany, which is a lagerstätte, a rare and remarkable geological formation known for its superbly detailed fossils. The Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil, with features clearly intermediate between those of modern reptiles and birds. Brought to light just two years after Darwin's seminal The Origin of Species, its discovery spurred the nascent debate between proponents of evolutionary biology and creationism. This early bird is so dinosaur-like that, without a clear impression of feathers in the surrounding rock, specimens are commonly mistaken for Compsognathus.[citation needed]
Archaeopteryx is undeniably a bird, but also exhibits a number of reptilian features, the most obvious ones being the long tail, teeth, dinosaurian three-fingered hands with clawed fingers, and dinosaurian legs (Dinosauria On-Line, 1995, 1996).
It seems more likely than not the bird lineage originated in today's Eurasia. The fossil record is too scant yet to settle this question, but it appears from the close similarity between Archaeopterx and the earliest unequivocal deinonychosaurs that the lineages had not separated a long time before the Late Jurassic. The distribution of fossils suggests that the bird-deinonychosaur split occurred around the time of the separation of Gondwana from Laurasia; by the Early Cretaceous, avian flight was apparently advanced enough to enable the different bird lineages to perform successful trans-oceanic voyages.
นี้คือสิ่งที่คุณตีความน๊ะ
คุณคิดของคุณเอง ว่านกคือ Archaeopteryx
คุณอ่านข้างล่างยัง
Birds Came First
An even more radical implementation of the possibility that some dinosaurs are secondarily flightless, is the Birds Came First-hypothesis ("BCF"), which holds that all dinosaurs are "postvolant". The hypothesis was developed by amateur paleontologist George Olshevsky, who shortly after reading Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World in the early nineties had the insight that the arguments expounded there for the secondarily flightlessness of the Maniraptora, might well be adapted to argue for the same condition to be present in all Theropoda, indeed in all Dinosauria. "BCF" accepts the close relationship between dinosaurs and birds, but argues that, merely given this relationship, it is just as likely that dinosaurs descended from birds as the other way around. It should be emphasized that the term "birds" in this case refers to a morphological state, not to Aves as they have been cladistically defined. Olshevsky does not claim that modern birds split off from other dinosaurs very early; in fact precisely the opposite: he thinks that Aves is but the most derived expression of a vast diversification of flying dinosaurs all through the Jurassic.
BCF admits that most dinosaurs found are large and very derived in morphology compared to a hypothetical flying ancestor, and it also accepts the results of cladistic analysis connecting these large species into a cladogram, suggesting that the intermediate forms were also large. BCF could have avoided this problem by claiming that just a very basal form was volant and all subsequent forms large. Instead Olshevsky resorted to a far more radical position by emphasising the point that a cladogram doesn't logically imply the morphology of its intermediate steps. He claimed, basing himself partly on Cope's law, that there was a hidden stem lineage of small arboreal forms that during the Mesozoic was the real engine driving dinosaurian evolution, generating time and again larger ground-dwelling species. The smallness and arboreality of the forms was used to explain the fact that they rarely left a trace in the fossil record. Of course being small and arboreal doesn't imply the capacity to fly and Olshevsky allowed his hypothesis to diverge in three subhypotheses: the weakest was that the stem line consisted of small tree-living species; the stronger was that these could glide; the strongest that they possessed full powered flight.
BCF has not found acceptance among professional paleontologists. It was only published once, in a magazine, Mesozoic Meanderings, that Olshevsky himself produced. Paul perfunctorily dismissed the hypothesis in his Dinosaurs of the Air; in the peer-reviewed literature it is never even mentioned as such. However this does not mean the hypothesis has been completely ignored by professionals. Olshevsky is a well-known figure among dinosaur enthusiasts in the USA and has been for many years a very active participant in the various internet fora dedicated to the study of dinosaurs. This has lead to much debate about BCF. The main objections from the professional side are that the hypothesis as a whole is too vague to be testable and that the empirical support for the most interesting subhypothesis - full flight capacity - is poor. Only for the group of the Tetanurae, which are already quite derived theropods, are there some slight indications, e.g. the presence af a furcula, and these can be explained as exaptations. Because of the many convergences needed, BCF is also not very parsimonious when analysed from a cladistic point of view, as it implies that flight was lost many times. The parsimony problem would only be remedied if many flying forms would be found basal to the various groups.
อะไรมาก่อน คุณก็ดูแล้วกัน ของหมู่Archaeopteryx
ของคุณอะ คิดเองได้น๊ะ หรืออ่านลิงค์ที่คุณยกมาอ่านให้จบ
จากคุณ :
สาวสวนพลู 
- [
25 เม.ย. 50 15:43:55
]
|
|
|
แล้วจับลิงไปที่ดาวมัน ถามหน่อยว่าลิงมันจะอยู่สภาพแวดล้อมที่ดาวเอเลี่ยนมันได้ไง มันคนละดาวปัจจัยอะไร ๆ มันย่อมแตกต่างอยู่แล้ว แล้วเอเลี่ยนจะจำลองสภาพแวดล้อมในโลกเพื่อให้ลิงอยู่ที่ดาวมันยังไง จะสร้างออกซิเจนให้เหมาะสมยังไง ปรับแสงยังไง แรงดึงดูดเป็นไง เพาะเชื้อยังไง มีคำถามมากมาย สรุปง่าย ๆ ว่ามันเป็นไปไม่ได้
