# Dino to Bird evolution Myth



## ktrianta (1 August 2009)

Intersting article on Dinosaurs and Birds. 

Not likely to have evolved from dinosaurs to birds as is the current belief.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/lung_structure_and_ventilation_i.htm


Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds 

John A. Ruben, Terry D. Jones, * Nicholas R. Geist, W. Jaap Hillenius 

Reptiles and birds possess septate lungs rather than the alveolar-style lungs of mammals. The morphology of the unmodified, bellowslike septate lung restricts the maximum rates of respiratory gas exchange. Among taxa possessing septate lungs, only the modified avian flow-through lung is capable of the oxygen-carbon dioxide exchange rates that are typical of active endotherms. Paleontological and neontological evidence indicates that theropod dinosaurs possessed unmodified, bellowslike septate lungs that were ventilated with a crocodilelike hepatic-piston diaphragm. The earliest birds (Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines) also possessed unmodified septate lungs but lacked a hepatic-piston diaphragm mechanism. These data are consistent with an ectothermic status for theropod dinosaurs and early birds. 

J. A. Ruben, T. D. Jones, N. R. Geist, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-2914, USA. 
W. J. Hillenius, Department of Biology, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC 29424, USA. 
*   To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jonest@bcc.orst.edu


----------



## spooly74 (1 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Intersting article on Dinosaurs and Birds.
> 
> *Not likely* to have evolved from dinosaurs to birds as is the current belief.
> 
> ...




Why?


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 August 2009)

On the other hand - there was a bird with claws in China - Confuciusornis.  (gets confusing don't it). 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution

Another way to look at it   :topic
Ever heard of the "thippeny problem"? - like when we went metric in 1966, there was no problem with the big coins,  2/- became 20c,  1/- became 10c, 6d became 5c, etc  - but then the huge debate whether 3d became 2c or 3c etc.  Hours and hours went into pondering this quandary ...

and lo and behold, the 2c is (also) becoming - or rather has already become extinct.   



> ... bird species are currently going extinct at a far greater rate than any possible speciation or other generation of new species. The disappearance of a population, subspecies, or species represents the permanent loss of a range of genes.




PS But try telling Cardinal Pell that man has anything to do with that ...


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Why?





Read the paper. The link is there and it explains it. 

Basically to do with differences in anatomical structure.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> 1.  The earliest birds ...
> 2. lacked a hepatic-piston diaphragm mechanism.
> 3. These data are consistent .. for theropod dinosaurs and early birds.



1. if they're wrong, the earliest birds couldn't give a damn about worms.  
2. if we have hepatic-piston diaphragms, does that mean we're evolved from the model T?

PS.  The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese


----------



## Timmy (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Read the paper. The link is there and it explains it.
> 
> Basically to do with differences in anatomical structure.




Hehehe ... so what your saying is "No idea", right?


----------



## spooly74 (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Read the paper. The link is there and it explains it.
> 
> Basically to do with differences in anatomical structure.




Couldn't you give a summary in your own words 

There is nothing there to suggest that it's a *myth*.

Explain your claim.

There are millions of observations supporting evolution, and precisely none suggesting otherwise.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs "Creation Science 101" by Roy Zimmerman

"and some of you sceptics might have a blind faith in science -  and imperical enquiry - and observable reality - and other myths"


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Couldn't you give a summary in your own words
> 
> There is nothing there to suggest that it's a *myth*.
> 
> ...





If the article is too hard, then try reading this in Science daily, it is in more plain english:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htmhe


----------



## spooly74 (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> If the article is too hard, then try reading this in Science daily, it is in more plain english:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htmhe



That link is broken.
If you can't even explain in your own words, don't bother appealing to authority.


----------



## Timmy (2 August 2009)

spooly - just so you know the creationists are having wet dreams about this article.  (Just don't mention "peer review", OK?)


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> That link is broken.
> If you can't even explain in your own words, don't bother appealing to authority.




Science News Share    Blog    Cite Print    Email    BookmarkDiscovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) ”” Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also: 
Plants & Animals
Birds 
Zoology 
Bird Flu Research 
Fossils & Ruins
Early Birds 
Dinosaurs 
Paleontology 
Reference
Archaeopteryx 
Lung 
Feathered dinosaurs 
Gun dog 
The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.

"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed."

These studies were just published in The Journal of Morphology, and were funded by the National Science Foundation.

It's been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals, the OSU experts say. What was just discovered, however, is that it's this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales.

Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a high rate of gas exchange and high activity level. Their unusual thigh complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse.

"This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight."

However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable thigh bone that is involved in their motion – including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and – in the ancient past – dinosaurs.

The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.

"But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.

"A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset," Ruben said.

The newest findings, the researchers said, are more consistent with birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system.

There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian "thecodonts," which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs. The lung structure and physiology of crocodiles, in fact, is much more similar to dinosaurs than it is to birds.

"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."

OSU research on avian biology and physiology was among the first in the nation to begin calling into question the dinosaur-bird link since the 1990s. Other findings have been made since then, at OSU and other institutions, which also raise doubts. But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.

"Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."

"Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about," Ruben said. "But now there are more asterisks all the time. That's part of the process of s


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

Timmy said:


> spooly - just so you know the creationists are having wet dreams about this article.  (Just don't mention "peer review", OK?)




What does this have to do with creationists?

Just because the dino to bird evolution is the current popular model, does not mean that it is above criticism does it???


----------



## Timmy (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> What does this have to do with creationists?
> 
> Just because the dino to bird evolution is the current popular model, does not mean that it is above criticism does it???




OK, I'll mention it - peer review.  Check it out, or, keep clutching at those straws!


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> That link is broken.
> If you can't even explain in your own words, don't bother appealing to authority.




Hope this works.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

Timmy said:


> OK, I'll mention it - peer review.  Check it out, or, keep clutching at those straws!




These studies were published in The Journal of Morphology, and were funded by the National Science Foundation. Is that Peer reviewed enough for you????????


----------



## Timmy (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> These studies were published in The Journal of Morphology, and were funded by the National Science Foundation. Is that Peer reviewed enough for you????????




I am quite satisfied, it is you needing to read the reviews.  But all we have seen from you is a claim, a refusal to discuss it in your own words, and a huge slab of cut and paste.


----------



## mastatrada (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> What does this have to do with creationists?




Creationists are like the opposition party in politics- they will grab any opportunity they can, no matter how irrelevant, to criticize and deride the people in power (or in this case the accepted truth of evolution) to try and make themselves look more appealing. Even though they would be incapable of producing as good a solution were they in a position where it was demanded of them.


----------



## darkside (2 August 2009)

Timmy said:


> Hehehe ... so what your saying is "No idea", right?




Thanks Timmy, you stole my thunder, that was going to be my response.


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

Timmy said:


> I am quite satisfied, it is you needing to read the reviews.  But all we have seen from you is a claim, a refusal to discuss it in your own words, and a huge slab of cut and paste.




Timmy,

You have the links, read them and come to your own conclusions. I doubt that you even know what peer review is. 

By the way, where does it say I have to explain anything in my own words? I have referred to the links and if you bothered to read them, then it is pretty clear that the research shows that the whole dino to bird evolution thing just does not hold water.

If i explained it in my own words, you would have just criticised me for lack of support, until i provided support, and even then when that happens, because it may be your pet belief that ie being challenged you would then just claim that the article was not peer reviewed without even knowing what you are talking about.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

Maybe creationism is a myth too ? 

This bloke (an aussie managing a Creation Museum in USA - thinks that dinosaurs were included on noah's ark 
hell the thing would have damned near sunk with just the weight of the insects !! (throw in a couple of African and of course Indian elephants - and maybe a breeding pair of American Bison etc etc )
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=163021


> A former Queensland science teacher has opened what is being described as the world's first Creation Museum, situated in the United States.  The museum teaches that the Earth is barely 6,000 years old and that God created dinosaurs and humans at roughly the same time.  It is not surprising the museum has attracted the wrath of some scientists, who have been protesting outside at the official opening.
> 
> America's newest tourist attraction is a state-of-the-art multimedia museum with Adam and Eve, Noak's Ark and children frolicking near dinosaurs.




And then there's Hovind, who quotes Hitler (and/or Goebels) in an attempt to discredit the evolutionists.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFm8uCZ6Uoc


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

Amazing how people turn this into a creation v evolution debate. 

Wrong thread for this.

This is about the dino to bird evolution myth.

Are people so insecure in their belief of evolution, that every questioning of aspects of their belief is a threat to bring the whole edifice down???


----------



## trainspotter (2 August 2009)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOPSSSSSS ktrianta ... for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. My scientist can beat up your scientist. So there!

*Primitive feathered dinosaur Tianyulong confuciusi *

The creature, found in China, belonged to a large group of dinosaurs previously thought to have no connection with birds or feathers.

Yet its fossil remains contain clear signs of feather-like structures, including long tail filaments. A number of theropod fossils have been discovered bearing the remains of primitive feathers, thought to have been used for insulation or display rather than flight.

But the newly discovered dinosaur, named Tianyulong confuciusi, was not a theropod. It did not even belong to the vast group called Saurischia which included theropods, early birds and huge plant-eating dinosaurs such as Brachyosaurus.

Tianyulong was part of the other large dinosaur group, Orinithischia, which included duck-billed hadrosaurs and the armoured Triceratops and Stegosaurus.

The dinosaur dates back to the early Cretaceous period, around 130 million years ago. Its incomplete fossil skeleton was found in Liaoning Province, north-eastern China, the home of many other feathered dinosaurs.

Even in its own time, Tianyulong was a "living fossil", bearing features tying it to a group of herbivorous dinosaurs that evolved 70 million years earlier.

Discussing the research in Nature, US expert Dr Lawrence Witmer, from Ohio University, wrote: "Perhaps the only conclusion that can be drawn... is that little Tianyulong has made an already confusing picture of feather origins even fuzzier."

I think this is what is being refered to by your scientist.

BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE ! The National Geographic (who we all know can be trusted) has this to say: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070906-dinosaurs-birds.html

Oh dear .... ONE ALL ... play on .... you are all in it.


----------



## trainspotter (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Amazing how people turn this into a creation v evolution debate.
> 
> Wrong thread for this.
> 
> ...




Umm nope ... not really. I thought I was having a rational discussion about the dinosaur to bird evolution thingy. I got nuffin on creation vs evolution ... we have done this already in more religious nuts haven't we?


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> OOOOOOOOOOOOOPSSSSSS ktrianta ... for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. My scientist can beat up your scientist. So there!
> 
> *Primitive feathered dinosaur Tianyulong confuciusi *
> 
> ...




Thanks trainspotter, at least you are on point with the oppossing view. The artcile l referred to challenges the dino to evolution myth, it clearly supports evolution if people bothered to take the time to read it. 
Guess that some people are so sensitive that any questioning of evolution is not allowed without responding by attacking the man.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."



well the above excerpt is in one of your posts 
conceded ... maybe true ...  (peripheral, and sorry , but right or wrong it ain't that earth shattering is it?) 
so...?

meanwhile you seem to agree with evolution (presumably ??) - and hence , no argument from me anyway (on the big stuff)

PS my post #3 seemed to suggest the opposite (birds with claws etc) - but I'm not gonna lose any sleep m8


----------



## trainspotter (2 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Thanks trainspotter, at least you are on point with the oppossing view. The artcile l referred to challenges the dino to evolution myth, it clearly supports evolution if people bothered to take the time to read it.
> Guess that some people are so sensitive that any questioning of evolution is not allowed without responding by attacking the man.




It is what it is ktrianta. Nature of the beast in this place. Attack first then read second. Then make grovelling apology about having some weird disease that caused you to have a brain snap. Ususally no apology, just no response is the answer. Get used to it. Have a teaspoon of cement and take off the rose coloured glasses. These things tend to get off topic and hijacked to a diffferent slant so just grab the steering wheel and put the thing back on track.


----------



## trainspotter (2 August 2009)

National Geographic would not print mistruths would they?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070906-dinosaurs-birds_2.html
*New "Mini" Dinosaur a Step in Bird Evolution Path*

The fossils indicate that the new species was not only feathered but also likely had winglike forelimbs and hind limbs, Turner said. 

Mark Norell is a study co-author and curator at the natural history museum's division of paleontology. 

Dino-Era Bird Flew With Four Wings, Study Says (September 28, 2006) 

"Many of the animals that were thought to look like giant lizards only a few years ago are now known to have been feathered and to have had many other defining bird characteristics," Norell said.


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> It is what it is ktrianta. Nature of the beast in this place. Attack first then read second. Then make grovelling apology about having some weird disease that caused you to have a brain snap. Ususally no apology, just no response is the answer. Get used to it. Have a teaspoon of cement and take off the rose coloured glasses. These things tend to get off topic and hijacked to a diffferent slant so just grab the steering wheel and put the thing back on track.




Thanks for the intervention trainspotter. 

It would be interesting to have a frank discussion on the theory of evolution, sans the creation v evolution argument.

There some elegant work on evolution out there, but there are arguments and holes, even within the E. community that make fascinating debates.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

Like I say, if ktrianta agrees with that post - that evolution is true but possibly in error in the detail - then I'm happy.  

It would be strange, since it flies in the face of earlier posts on "religious nuts" thread, but hey - ktranta was just misunderstood there as well I guess.   I notice there you were steering towards "the jury is still out on evolution" (paraphrased). 

But now you've changed right?

Hey I apologise, no probs ... with those provisos.   

But also - Like I say, maybe kt you'd like to answer my post #3?  maybe agree that there is other evidence to also consider?


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Like I say, if ktrianta agrees with that post - that evolution is true but possibly in error in the detail - then I'm happy.
> 
> It would be strange, since it flies in the face of earlier posts on "religious nuts" thread, but hey - ktranta was just misunderstood there as well I guess.   I notice there you were steering towards "the jury is still out on evolution" (paraphrased).
> 
> ...



That's an apology with a hidden barb 2020.

Just leave it alone and have a discussion without that, see what happens.


----------



## ktrianta (2 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Like I say, if ktrianta agrees with that post - that evolution is true but possibly in error in the detail - then I'm happy.
> 
> It would be strange, since it flies in the face of earlier posts on "religious nuts" thread, but hey - ktranta was just misunderstood there as well I guess.   I notice there you were steering towards "the jury is still out on evolution" (paraphrased).
> 
> ...




2020,

Have no problems at all with natural selection.

I acknowledge that there is an alternate view on the dino to bird evolution but why raise a post on it, when hollywood and the media seem to be presenting it as fact. 
Great to be educated that there may be alternative views out there and that is why I posted. 

Just the same really as the global warming debate where the general consensus seems to crowd anyone out with an alternate view and I think a thread has been done on this, so no point going there now.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

probably similar to trainspotter's post :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
more evidence especially from China..



> The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, *but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers*. Today there are *more than twenty genera of dinosaurs with fossil feathers, nearly all of which are theropods.*
> 
> Most are from the Yixian formation in China.
> 
> The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, *have even tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers*, in immunological tests.[1]






ktrianta said:


> ...Just the same really as the global warming debate where the general consensus seems to crowd anyone out with an alternate view and I think a thread has been done on this, so no point going there now.



"a" thread ?? - on global warming?  - like you suggesting just one? lol  try 20 m8 
lol - you are a master of understatement sir.  
cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 August 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs



> Fossil feather impressions are extremely rare; therefore only a few feathered dinosaurs have been identified so far. However, through a process called phylogenetic bracketing, scientists can infer the presence of feathers on poorly-preserved specimens. All fossil feather specimens have been found to show certain similarities. Due to these similarities and through developmental research almost all scientists agree that feathers could only have evolved once in dinosaurs. Feathers would then have been passed down to all later, more derived species (although it is possible that some lineages lost feathers secondarily).
> 
> If a dinosaur falls at a point on an evolutionary tree within the known feather-bearing lineages, scientists assume it too had feathers, unless conflicting evidence is found. This technique can also be used to infer the type of feathers a species may have had,* since the developmental history of feathers is now reasonably well-known.[*32]
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs


----------



## trainspotter (2 August 2009)

*I am ALL for more education. Can't get enough. Knowledge is power. Information is everything.*

Dinosaur evoluted (is there such a word?) hmmmmmmm .... evolved into birds huh? Hard to believe !!! They don't even have feathers ... no wait !! They do have fossiled remains of "dinosaurs" with feathers right? I give up.


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2009)

Here's an article that discusses the nonfeathered-feathered dino thingy.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070601-dino-feathers.html


----------



## wayneL (2 August 2009)

An interesting quote here from: http://www.scientificblogging.com/n...dinosaurs_evolved_birds_not_likely_says_study

It seems politics pervades most fields of science. 



> OSU research on avian biology and physiology was among the first in the nation to begin calling into question the dinosaur-bird link since the 1990s. Other findings have been made since then, at OSU and other institutions, which also raise doubts. But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.
> 
> "Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."
> 
> "Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about," Ruben said. "But now there are more asterisks all the time. That's part of the process of science."


----------



## trainspotter (2 August 2009)

LMAO with WayneL ... just like in here perhaps?


----------



## kotim (2 August 2009)

Evolution through 'chance' is currently the preferred method of development that is promotoed by the establishment, irrespective of whether it is true or not.  Personally how we got here is a mystery on a super detailed level, irrespective of whether you believe in a God produced creation or a chance produced creation.

The reality is that there is very little scientific evidence for evolution based on a change of species, does it mean that its not true, no, but it certianly means a lot less than what many want to beleive.


----------



## trainspotter (2 August 2009)

Nicely put kotim. I like it.


----------



## spooly74 (2 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> An interesting quote here from: http://www.scientificblogging.com/n...dinosaurs_evolved_birds_not_likely_says_study
> 
> It seems politics pervades most fields of science.




Actually, there was some science down the bottom of the page.


> This is a crap paper. It avoids the obvious implications that it makes modern birds irreducibly complex overall, which is simply ridiculous. Any anatomist worth their salt can see numerous ways that modern birds could have evolved leaving the thigh as a support mechanism for the airsacs. The most obvious way is that the gastralia was once the support mechanism, as well as involved in ventilation, but as the sternum developed back, and the weight shifted in the animal, the locomotion took to the knee joint to counteract this displacement, and ventilation was taken over by a ribs+sternum complex, allowing the loss of the gastralia. This could then leave the thigh as a supporting brace.




Just from the abstract, this paper states accepted facts about current bird anatomy, then _assumes unknowns_ about dinosaurs millions of years ago. It then extrapolates these unknowns to form conclusions implying a birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.

Build a strawman - then tear it down. As the poster said, Crap.



			
				ktrianta said:
			
		

> This is about the dino to bird evolution myth.
> 
> Are people so insecure in their belief of evolution, that every questioning of aspects of their belief is a threat to bring the whole edifice down???




What evidence is there to *continue* to call this a myth?

The is no belief required for the theory of evolution. It explains observable facts.









Why do people laugh at creationists?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/12/birds-did-not-evolve


----------



## spooly74 (2 August 2009)

kotim said:


> The reality is that there is very little scientific evidence for evolution based on a change of species, does it mean that its not true, no, but it certianly means a lot less than what many want to beleive.




There are literally *millions* of pieces of evidence.
This reality you speak of only exists inside your head.


----------



## Timmy (3 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> It seems politics pervades most fields of science.




Yes, it does.    



trainspotter said:


> LMAO with WayneL ... just like in here perhaps?




Yes, just like in here.  Creationists have a line to push.


----------



## wayneL (3 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Just from the abstract, this paper states accepted facts about current bird anatomy, then _assumes unknowns_ about dinosaurs millions of years ago. It then extrapolates these unknowns to form conclusions implying a birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.
> 
> Build a strawman - then tear it down. As the poster said, Crap.
> 
> The is no belief required for the theory of evolution. It explains observable facts.



OK let's leave aside the creationist's angle for a moment. (We all know the agenda there, but don't let that blind us to rational debate)

The key attribute of science, I would have thought, is to keep an open mind and progress with theory as evidence come to light. The thing with palaeontology, although there are millions of pieces of evidence, there are also millions of missing pieces. 

Therefore assumptions must be made to form a cogent theory. Though not qualified to make a definitive assessment of the paper presented (it might well be rubbish). I see nothing wrong with challenging current dogma... yes, dogma. The science "establishment" has become very dogmatic; probably always has been. Need we look any further than the schmozzle that is climate science.

Nutritional science and exercise physiology (equine) is another field where I have some working knowledge. The science there, though steadily improving, is laughable, but no less dogmatic with apostle like adherents to various established (and totally rubbish) theories.

And these people have the benefit of real time current observation!

You think palaeontology has all the I's dotted and the T's crossed - working with bits and pieces from millions of years ago?

_*Impossible!*_

It's obvious some gradual unfolding of life happened. Only a loony could argue that. As to the precise details; hey, we're working on it, but lets have none of this "established fact" nonsense.

Hell, forensic scientists get what happened last week wrong half the time.


----------



## queenslander55 (3 August 2009)

I hope this is not too subtle...


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

Hell there are bound to be hundreds of minor points of contention in this field. 
But the point is that there is overwhelming agreement on the macro stuff. 

I guess it boils down to the question "Are there any significant points of scientific disagreement when it comes to evolution?"  My guess is no ( but I concede that depends on the definition of significant, lol).

kt, Please don't draw the long bow to then argue that "similarly, global warming sceptics don't get equal airtime around here".  (or deniers for that matter) 

:topic
hey q55
I'm reminded of 2 biblical quotes ...

1. "Let he who is without sin cast etc " and
2. "yield not into temptation"

The point is ( on closer review) that there are marks right?
does that mean that people threw bits of steel, hence totally acceptable?

maybe ? - in summary - what's the point of that sign? - or those posts for that matter.



> PPS There's a saying that goes, 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.' OK. How about, 'Nobody should throw stones'? That's crappy behavior. My policy is, 'No stone throwing regardless of housing situation.'


----------



## queenslander55 (3 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> maybe ? - in summary - what's the point of that sign? - or those posts for that matter.




The metaphore I am attempting (possibly poorly) 2020 is the point that scientists being on the whole a rather dry bunch, only report the facts that they uncover.  Now whether or not those facts fit neatly into our individual beliefs etc. is IMHO irrelevant.  After all facts are facts and I equate facts to that sign.

Hope this helps in unravelling my thought processes, and if you do, please drop me a line and let me in on the secret as well...


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

queenslander55 said:


> Hope this helps in unravelling my thought processes, and if you do, please drop me a line and let me in on the secret as well...



:topic
well I'd say the scientists to whom you refer get stoned regularly 
cheers

you mean this sorta thing ..? 
"if you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Primitive feathered dinosaur Tianyulong confuciusi.
> 
> The creature, found in China, belonged to a large group of dinosaurs previously thought to have no connection with birds or feathers.  Yet its fossil remains contain clear signs of feather-like structures, including long tail filaments




trainspotter, I reckon between my  Confuciusornis (post #3) = bird with claws, 

...and your Tianyulong confuciusi (post #23) = dinosaur with feathers, 

we've just about filled in the missing links here. 

mind you, I suspect you didn't read my post #3 before posting your #23 - or your #27 for that matter  - no probs , we move on.. 


			
				trainspotter said:
			
		

> Nature of the beast in this place. Attack first then read second.


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

I think there might be a certain amount of evidence in the form of fossils that would go somewhat to linking dinosaurs and birds? Then again I have no eye dear what you are talking about either 2020? If you are referring to the quotation you supplied in regards to #27 this was not for your benefit. It was for ktrianta to swallow a chill pill and in no way reflected on the tautology you are esposing. Glad I cleared that up .... NOT !


----------



## spooly74 (3 August 2009)

wayneL said:
			
		

> OK let's leave aside the creationist's angle for a moment. (We all know the agenda there, but don't let that blind us to rational debate)




Booooo no fun 



> The key attribute of science, I would have thought, is to keep an open mind and progress with theory as evidence come to light. The thing with palaeontology, although there are millions of pieces of evidence, there are also millions of missing pieces.




How would you classify evidence?

In addition, What are you implying by that term "missing pieces". To address this statement, it would be good to know what claim is being made. Remember, a scientific theory is designed to explain a SPECIFIC set of facts.



> Therefore assumptions must be made to form a cogent theory.



I disagree. Assumptions are only made when trying to form a cogent hypothesis. The paper referenced in this thread is based on assumptions which carry an unknown probability. 



> Nutritional science and exercise physiology (equine) is another field where I have some working knowledge. The science there, though steadily improving, is laughable, but no less dogmatic with apostle like adherents to various established (and totally rubbish) theories.
> 
> And these people have the benefit of real time current observation!




I remember you noting that before. Something along the lines that the horses had an odour after they'd finished training, from which you were clearly able to draw conclusions from, rebutting some paper?
Question: Did the paper actually say that 'x' will make them horses run faster? I may be completly off the mark here from memory.



> You think palaeontology has all the I's dotted and the T's crossed - working with bits and pieces from millions of years ago?
> 
> Impossible!



Again, what claim is being made?



> It's obvious some gradual unfolding of life happened. Only a loony could argue that. As to the precise details; hey, we're working on it, but lets have none of this "established fact" nonsense.



A scientific _theory_ must be used in it's correct context. The issue of it's more common use as a 'guess' is completly irrelevant. The same word carries totally different meanings.

A scientic fact is a verifiable observation.

Instances of micro evolution have been directly observed.
Instances of macro evolution have been directly observed.
The evolution of multi cellular life from uni cellular life has been directly observed.

Science has directly observed every aspet of evolution, therefore it is a fact that species evolve. 
Evolution is a fact when describing WHAT happened. It's the theory that explains HOW it happened.

If there is to be some rational debate on the subject, it's important to set some guidelines, otherwise the precise nature of scientific language will be misused and cause confusion.


----------



## jonojpsg (3 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> A scientic fact is a verifiable observation.
> 
> Instances of micro evolution have been directly observed.
> Instances of macro evolution have been directly observed.
> ...




Hmm, can't resist here:

The evolution of uni cellular life from ... non-living chemicals has NOT been directly observed.  

Oh, woops, science has not directly observed every aspect of evolution, so where does that leave us


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> 1. I think there might be a certain amount of evidence in the form of fossils that would go somewhat to linking dinosaurs and birds
> 2. [post] #27 this was not for your benefit. It was for ktrianta to swallow etc



1. agreed 
2. fair enough 

we move on (as I said) - no biggie. 
You gotta admit those two confucius's nail it pretty well though. 
Let's just say that only a rich man would bet against it.


----------



## derty (3 August 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Hmm, can't resist here:
> 
> The evolution of uni cellular life from ... non-living chemicals has NOT been directly observed.
> 
> Oh, woops, science has not directly observed every aspect of evolution, so where does that leave us



It leaves US with more and more of the evolutionary puzzle being understood. It leaves YOU with less gaps from which to peddle the creationist cause. 

So how did this end up becoming an argument that has now sunk to the level of a religious contest? I am confused, as the original article merely questioned the current thinking that birds are a successful evolutionary branch off dinosaurs, whereas the article seems to suggest that birds and dinosaurs may have had a common evolutionary descendant. As quite a few people noted later in the thread; Evolution was not part of the discussion it was simply discussing a different possible evolutionary origin for birds.

I am thinking some people did not give much thought to what the article was actually saying and merely jumped to conclusions based on the title.


----------



## spooly74 (3 August 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Hmm, can't resist here:
> 
> The evolution of uni cellular life from ... non-living chemicals has NOT been directly observed.
> 
> Oh, woops, science has not directly observed every aspect of evolution, so where does that leave us




It leaves you about to be corrected.

Evolution describes how life evolves, it says NOTHING of how life began. 



> .....otherwise the precise nature of scientific language will be misused and cause confusion.


----------



## jonojpsg (3 August 2009)

derty said:


> It leaves US with more and more of the evolutionary puzzle being understood. It leaves YOU with less gaps from which to peddle the creationist cause.
> 
> So how did this end up becoming an argument that has now sunk to the level of a religious contest? I am confused, as the original article merely questioned the current thinking that birds are a successful evolutionary branch off dinosaurs, whereas the article seems to suggest that birds and dinosaurs may have had a common evolutionary descendant. As quite a few people noted later in the thread; Evolution was not part of the discussion it was simply discussing a different possible evolutionary origin for birds.
> 
> I am thinking some people did not give much thought to what the article was actually saying and merely jumped to conclusions based on the title.




Hey derty,
I was just pointing out a flaw in the argument - you're the one who is arguing about US and YOU and creationist causes blah blah blah.  I happen to agree completely that evolution occurs, and am interested in the "arguments" and "evidence" put in supporting the different hypotheses.

I would have though that fossil "evidence" coming out of China would be somewhat suspect given their track record?


----------



## derty (3 August 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Hey derty,
> I was just pointing out a flaw in the argument - you're the one who is arguing about US and YOU and creationist causes blah blah blah.  I happen to agree completely that evolution occurs, and am interested in the "arguments" and "evidence" put in supporting the different hypotheses.
> 
> I would have though that fossil "evidence" coming out of China would be somewhat suspect given their track record?



Apologies jono, I know that you espouse a created universe, I made the assumption that your were attempting to hijack the thread - my bad.

I'm unsure of what track record you are speaking of. Some of the Chinese fossils coming out of northern China have amazing preservation due to the very low energy of the site of deposition and consequently the very fine particle size that comprises the sediments that host the fossils. The evidence is essentially the scientific interpretation of what is preserved in the rock, are you saying that the science coming out of China is dodgy?


----------



## derty (3 August 2009)

Here is an article from 2008 that seems to support evidence of bird-like breathing mechanisms in at least one branch of predatory dinosaur. 

http://evolutiondiary.com/2008/09/30/dinosaur-predator-breathed-like-a-modern-bird/


> Scientists have unearthed the remains of a large meat-eating dinosaur with a breathing apparatus much like a modern bird, fortifying the link between birds and dinosaurs and helping to explain the evolution of birds’ unique system of breathing.
> 
> Pulled from 85-million-year-old rock along the banks of Rio Colorado in Argentina’s Mendoza Province, this 33-foot-long (10 meter), two-legged predator weighed as much as an elephant and likely had feathers, the scientists said.
> 
> ...


----------



## ktrianta (3 August 2009)

Good to see that the thread is largely on track. 
Seems to me that finding feathered dinosaurs does not really support dino to bird evolution as feathers are different from wings. Maybe dinosaurs just had feathers. 
The research paper I referred to seems to paint a stronger case against it, as it looks at the anatomical structure. Birds require fixed thigh bones which aids in their respitory system whereas dino's had moveable thigh bones. Indeed the research paaper viewed this as fatal for the dino to bird belief.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

derty said:


> 1.  .. So how did this end up becoming an argument that has now sunk to the level of a religious contest?
> 
> 2. I am confused, as the original article merely questioned the current thinking that birds are a successful evolutionary branch off dinosaurs, whereas the article seems to suggest that birds and dinosaurs may have had a common evolutionary descendant. As quite a few people noted ...
> 
> 3. I am thinking some people did not give much thought to what the article was actually saying and merely jumped to conclusions based on the title.



howdy derty,
reverse order ...
3. the title claims "a myth" - surely you're entitled to react to the "summary title" as well as the detail - especially if it is arguably an incorrect interpretation.  I would say that, at best, EVEN IF this article were totally correct, it only amounts to a change of a few lines of the evolutionary cladogram / flow chart. 

2. agreed (refer 3 above).

1. well I'd say it is reasonable to assume that that was where kt was coming from, after all, it's "would be consistent with the available evidence" ...

namely previous posts by ktrianta - in fact he had made the claim previously on the religious thread ..., viz 



ktrianta said:


> How complex single celled organisms spontaniously generated from inorganic matter?



,   but I happily take Carl Sagan's word for it - i.e. that "the molecules of life spontaneously self-assemble" - Sagan reckons about 50% at least probability, given the eons of time available... (drake equation etc):-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=307212

but finally, likewise, kt pushes creationism pretty solidly as well :-


> ...  if you do not believe in a Creator god, then you cannot accept what I believe and that is fair enough and I respect your opinion but we both cannot be correct.
> 
> So simply put, why I believe is that it is *a better fit with the evidence*.




like I say -  it is a better "fit with the evidence" that kt is really wanting to lead this argument towards a creationist god.


----------



## ktrianta (3 August 2009)

2020

Seems people here are very precious about their beliefs. people don't like evolution being questioned, even when the whole point of the thread is to show that the current view on dino to bird evolution is not universally accepted.

Let me spell it out, - 

THIS THREAD IS NOT AN ATTACK ON EVOLUTION this is a look at conflicting aspects on one view.

Get over it people!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

kt
If you're saying that this thread doesn't follow from your recent posts (already quoted from), then,  theropod-dinosaurs-wings or not,  I'd say you're arguing with a wing and a prayer, and you don't have a theropod to stand on.   

I'm guessing you're saying that you didn't post this thead because it agrees with your religious thinking - already clarified.

Can I assume that it's ok to stretch the truth a bit because you're "only talking to infidels"? 

Wanna know something, I find "no evidence whatsoever" that religious people are more honest than agnostics or atheists.


----------



## spooly74 (3 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> *Birds require fixed thigh bones which aids in their respitory system whereas dino's had moveable thigh bones*. Indeed the research paaper viewed this as fatal for the dino to bird belief.




Really, ever heard of an Ostrich?







The irony!  *LOL*


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> 2020
> 
> Seems people here are very precious about their beliefs. people don't like evolution being questioned, even when the whole point of the thread is to show that the current view on dino to bird evolution is not universally accepted.




ok ok - back to the (yawn) thread then ...
even wikipedia agrees with you !!! 
your theory of a "cover-up" - pagan or otherwise - or whatever you're really trying to say -  doesn't sound too contentious kt!. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds



> The origin of birds is a contentious topic within evolutionary biology and has been for many years. A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. To date, most researchers support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.
> 
> However a few oppose this idea, on the grounds that the "hands" of birds and theropods develop quite differently as well as on the basis of cladistic analyses.
> 
> *The ongoing discovery of feathered dinosaur fossils in the Liaoning Province of China has shed new light on the subject for both specialists and the general public*.


----------



## wayneL (3 August 2009)

2020,

It seems you are the one pushing the religion angle in this thread. Can you ever have a discussion that focuses on the particular topic at hand? KT, agenda or not, is trying to discuss the dino => bird theory. It is YOU who keeps bringing up God.




2020hindsight said:


> ,   but I happily take Carl Sagan's word for it - i.e. that "the molecules of life spontaneously self-assemble" - Sagan reckons about 50% at least probability, given the eons of time available... (drake equation etc):-




Speaking of faith......


----------



## spooly74 (3 August 2009)

The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)





> For example, *a seventeenth century recipe for the spontaneous production of mice* required placing sweaty underwear and husks of wheat in an open-mouthed jar, then waiting for about 21 days, during which time it was alleged that the sweat from the underwear would penetrate the husks of wheat, changing them into mice.



... 
don't really know what to say spooly, lol 

we talking British underwear? or Aussie underwear?


----------



## ktrianta (3 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> ok ok - back to the (yawn) thread then ...
> even wikipedia agrees with you !!!
> your theory of a "cover-up" - pagan or otherwise - or whatever you're really trying to say -  doesn't sound too contentious kt!.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds




When did I say a cover up?????

As I already stated before:

Seems people here are very precious about their beliefs. people don't like evolution being questioned, even when the whole point of the thread is to show that the current view on dino to bird evolution is not universally accepted.

Let me spell it out, - 

THIS THREAD IS NOT AN ATTACK ON EVOLUTION this is a look at conflicting aspects on one view.

If i wanted to make it an attack on the Neo Darwinian Evolution Myth that life has miraculously spontaneously generated from inorganic matter and then miraculuosly by random genetic copying mistakes adds all the information to go from single celled organisms to humans, I would have said so.

It seems that you guys are the ones bringing religion into it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

<deleted>

<Different thread, different discussion. If you want to discuss that, go to the relevant thread>

<Keep to the topic of the thread.>


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB597EQWvPY


from a broadcast only last week 24 July 2009, on BBC Radio 4.
Attenborough discussing the reptile to bird evolution...

3m mark..


> 1. Archaeopteryx fossil bought by Owen.
> 2. Charles Darwin published Origin of Species 1859 in which he claimed animal species were descended from one another.
> 
> 3. Richard Owen on the other hand proposed God made archetypes one by one (similar to Book of Genesis) - then God tweeked those archetypes  to change details - he claimed Archaeopteryx was a bird.
> ...



. 



> Archaeopteryx: David Attenborough recounts the remarkable story of a feather like any other feather from a bird only, at 150 million years old, before birds evolved. So which creature did it come from?
> 
> This was originally broadcast on Fri, 24 July 2009, on BBC Radio 4. All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the BBC Podcasts shall remain the property of the BBC or third parties.
> Category:  Education



He goes on to discuss the recent Chinese fossils.  (7m 40s)
earliest theropods (dinosaurs) could not fly
why then did they have feathers ? etcetc  
worth the listen 



> Archaeopteryx, surely the most astonishing proof of [cross-species = reptile to bird] evolution you could ever get - on a couple of feet of roofing tile



now in Natural History Museum


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

heaps of other good youtubes there. :- google "birds + dinosaurs"
, viz
http://www.youtube.com/results?feature=moby&search_query=birds+dinosaurs+&search_type=&aq=f


----------



## spooly74 (4 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> ...
> don't really know what to say spooly, lol
> 
> we talking British underwear? or Aussie underwear?




LOL 20, didn't see that bit, lol. Just knew that spontaneous generation has not been claimed by scientists in 150 years and is indeed, falsified.

Back on topic.

Here is an image of some skeletal structures.






Seems that as the femur shifts towards the horizontal, the centre of gravity moves back as the tail disappears.
From the assumptions made in the paper, this would mean that Archaeopteryx didn't have bird lungs and couldn't fly!

ktrianta, penny for your thoughts?


----------



## trainspotter (4 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> 2020
> 
> Seems people here are very precious about their beliefs. people don't like evolution being questioned, even when the whole point of the thread is to show that the current view on dino to bird evolution is not universally accepted.
> 
> ...




Righteous brother ... righteous. (as in Bill and Teds excellent adventure) You GO girlfriend !


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

spooly74 = 2 posts back said:
			
		

> Here is an image of some skeletal structures.
> 
> Seems that as the femur shifts towards the horizontal, the centre of gravity moves back as the tail disappears.
> From the assumptions made in the paper, this would mean that Archaeopteryx didn't have bird lungs and couldn't fly!
> ...




I'll throw in another penny there kt. 

Interesting sketches there spooly.
Archaeopteryx  has the long tail ( in common with theropods) 
- and also the three-clawed hand; 

whereas (conversely) it has long forelimbs (in common with the wings of  Gallus = chicken, - and other birds)
- and also wishbone 

meanwhile reversed 1st toe is common to all three, 
 and the teeth aappear to be a gradation throughout, sharp , then reptilian (smaller), then none.  

btw, (an aside) - Anyone see a recent TV documentary on how Raptors (Velociraptor) struck, using their claws as weapons - not unlike how an eagle uses its talons. (?)  They were much smaller than portrayed in "Jurassic Park", - allegedly only the size of a scrub turkey. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor



trainspotter said:


> Righteous brother ... righteous. (as in Bill and Teds excellent adventure) You GO girlfriend !




I'm sure you know what you're talking about ts, lol.
I'd say more but I might be accused of being off thread


----------



## ktrianta (4 August 2009)

Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (and an evolutionist himself) has said that:

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.

These are experts in their field and are no doubt more qualified than you and I to talk on this subject.

What this goes to show if that people who are authorities in their fields, can't agree, so lets be open to the possibility that there views may be wrong.

Spooly, as you say, definetly agree that spontaneous generation has been falsified (the law of biogenesis) so I guess we have no problems accepting that life will not miraculously arise from inorganic matter then?


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> btw, (an aside) - Anyone see a recent TV documentary on how Raptors (Velociraptor) struck, using their claws as weapons - not unlike how an eagle uses its talons. (?)  ...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor




2005 BBC documentary, The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs :-

Velociraptor(BBC)
sorry , can only find a french youtube (at this stage) 
 [FRENCH] The truth about killer dinosaurs: Velociraptor(BBC)

NEVERTHELESS - 
 the pictures clearly show
a) covered in downy feathers - wings of a sort - 
b) use of claws (not unlike eagles)

Then there's the classic case of "two dinosaurs fighting fossil" - in fact locked together in "mortal combat" - certainly dying simultaneosly - rapidly buried in sand - the raptors claw stuck in the Protoceratops's throat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fightingdinosamnh2.jpg



> The "Fighting Dinosaurs" specimen, found in 1971, preserves a Velociraptor mongoliensis and Protoceratops andrewsi in combat and provides direct evidence of predatory behavior. When originally reported, it was hypothesized that the two animals drowned.[11] However, as the animals were preserved in ancient sand dune deposits, it is now thought that the animals were buried in sand, either from a collapsing dune or in a sandstorm. Burial must have been extremely fast, judging from the lifelike poses in which the animals were preserved. Both forelimbs and one hindlimb of the Protoceratops are missing, which has been seen as evidence of scavenging by other animals.[23]
> 
> The distinctive claw, on the second digit of dromaeosaurids, has traditionally been depicted as a slashing weapon; its assumed use being to cut and disembowel prey.[24] In the "Fighting Dinosaurs" specimen, the Velociraptor lies underneath, with one of its sickle claws apparently embedded in the throat of its prey, while the beak of Protoceratops is clamped down upon the right forelimb of its attacker. This suggests Velociraptor may have used its sickle claw to pierce vital organs of the throat, such as the jugular vein, carotid artery, or trachea (windpipe), rather than slashing the abdomen. The inside edge of the claw was rounded and not unusually sharp, which may have precluded any sort of cutting or slashing action, although only the bony core of the claw is known. The thick abdominal wall of skin and muscle of large prey species would have been difficult to slash without a specialized cutting surface.[23]
> 
> *The slashing hypothesis was tested during a 2005 BBC documentary, The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs*. The producers of the program created an artificial Velociraptor leg with a sickle claw and used a pork belly to simulate the dinosaur's prey. Though the sickle claw did penetrate the abdominal wall, it was unable to tear it open, indicating that the claw was not used to disembowel prey. However, this experiment has not been published or repeated by other scientists, so its results cannot be confirmed.


----------



## whereu (4 August 2009)

Its probably not the intention of the threat to discuss this, but I feel that the notion that the theory of evolution relies only on randomness should be addressed. 

The theory of evolution describes how random errors in the gene copying process can lead to change (eg new species). Simply put those changes that put individuals at a disadvantage don't reproduce as successfully as changes that do. It only requires a small percentage of errors to be advantageous for that configuration to dominate - over generations the maths shows that they will. 

I don't know how life started but I guess the Noble Prize would be mine if I found out. I suppose a molecule capable of replicating itself would be a good start. Carbon based compounds in a water solution may be candidates. There are a lots of references: just google replicating molecules.

I'm not an evolutionary scientist, so I am open to correction. If anybody thinks there are errors in my explanation, please correct me.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

PS Raptor using small wings as stabilisers :-


----------



## ktrianta (4 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Raptor using small wings as stabilisers :-




Wow great picture. Do you know who took it and how long ago


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Wow great picture. Do you know who took it and how long ago




It was found in a camera belonging to a bloke named "Adam" - something like that  -  

now who would that be I wonder


----------



## spooly74 (4 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.
> 
> These are experts in their field and are no doubt more qualified than you and I to talk on this subject.
> 
> What this goes to show if that people who are authorities in their fields, can't agree, so lets be open to the possibility that there views may be wrong.



That is just a cop out and a pathetic appeal to authority.


> Spooly, as you say, definetly agree that spontaneous generation has been falsified (the law of biogenesis) so I guess we have no problems accepting that life will not miraculously arise from inorganic matter then?




I already have a problem with the term 'miraculously', and it's *a*biogenesis, which is not the same thing a spontaneous generation, it was never a law, and has NOTHING to do with evolution.

In the meantime, there is no evidence in any form from this latest paper that falsifies the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

No evidence, just opinion, or Myth if you like.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

personally I agree with Timmy - I wish that kt would state what he thinks that original paper actually says !!

otherwise we are all posting at shadows here.  

My own opinion is that -  between ts , spooly and I  - there are numerous examples posted already - several intermediate stages already posted. 
The matter is pretty much closed surely. 

QED = quite enough done = quod erat demonstrandum


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> The matter is pretty much closed surely.




Nothing is ever closed, except minds.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Nothing is ever closed, except minds.




well you and timmy seem to disagree there wayne - 
 kt has yet to clarify what he is saying - and what the topic of the thread is
- apart from generalities so general as to be ... ERR ... "whisps of clouds"

PS I play a lot of backgammon on the internet - at least you know the rules of the engagement there 

eg IS he saying that Birds and Dinosaurs are not related?
In which case he and that paper are diametrically opposed in viewpoint !


----------



## ktrianta (4 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> well you and timmy seem to disagree there wayne -
> kt has yet to clarify what he is saying - and what the topic of the thread is
> - apart from generalities so general as to be ... ERR ... "whisps of clouds"




Pretty obvious from the title of the thread what i am saying. It is what the article i referred to is saying and what Feduccia has been saying all along on this matter.

2020 you are good at cutting and pasting even 100million year old photos.

To Spooly, getting a bit frothy at the mouth with your last post - "pathetic appeal to authority"- Guess that a leading expert in the field is a pathetic appeal. Or maybe it is just that he does not agree with your position. Why don't you google him and see how pathetic he is?

FYI the Law of biogenesis. The law which states that life arises from existing life. 

At the very least, I hope this thread has at least opened your eyes to the possibility that the dino to bird theory is not a fact, but rather one view which is not universally accepted by the scientific community.


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> well you and timmy seem to disagree there wayne -
> kt has yet to clarify what he is saying - and what the topic of the thread is
> - apart from generalities so general as to be ... ERR ... "whisps of clouds"
> 
> ...




Don't know enough to say whether the paper is rubbish or not, or whether the general concept is rubbish or not. But I do know that people/scientists love old chestnuts. I like to see them challenged. That way we might end up with fresh chestnuts to challenge.

Theory is dynamic. Many theories have changed and evolved as new data come to light. I see no reason why evolution, or some tenets within evolution, might be any different.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Pretty obvious from the title of the thread what i am saying.



ok kt
continue with the explanation 
btw, you left out this bit :-


2020hindsight said:


> eg IS he saying that Birds and Dinosaurs are not related?
> In which case he and that paper are diametrically opposed in viewpoint !


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Intersting article on Dinosaurs and Birds.
> 
> Not likely to have evolved from dinosaurs to birds as is the current belief.
> 
> ...




quick comment about your article kt

1. It includes nothing prior to 1997 in its "references" (quick check only) - more importantly ...  do you know when it was written?  ..


> PS 9 September 1997; accepted 7 October 1997



2. you may or may not have picked up that a lot has happened in recent years in this field ( china fossils etc )


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2009)

Here's a couple of links from Google contesting the dino=>bird theory

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/231/65/

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/old_theories_die_hard_birdsevo.html

Don't know how good they are... information only. But they are recent.


----------



## trainspotter (4 August 2009)

Dinosaurs laid eggs didn't they? Birds lay eggs don't they? Good enough is close enough for me ! POST 999 by the way.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Here's a couple of links from Google contesting the dino=>bird theory
> 
> http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/231/65/
> 
> ...



wayne... 
even those are (just) superseded by David Attenborough's program (back about 20 posts)


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne...
> even those are (just) superseded by David Attenborough's program (back about 20 posts)




Only because you believe Attenborough's version. I'm certain there are credible scientists with different views.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Only because you believe Attenborough's version. I'm certain there are credible scientists with different views.



Guess I think of Attenborough as less of a dinosaur than John A. Ruben  (et al)


----------



## spooly74 (4 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> To Spooly, getting a bit frothy at the mouth with your last post - "pathetic appeal to authority"- Guess that a leading expert in the field is a pathetic appeal.



Let me clarify.
I think it is you who are pathetic because of your avoidance to acknowledge evidence to the contrary, and may I suggest you google ''appeal to authority".


> At the very least, I hope this thread has at least opened your eyes to the possibility that the dino to bird theory is not a fact, but rather one view which is not universally accepted by the scientific community.



No it hasn't. Because you presented no evidence. None. 
Neither did the paper. 
Think about it.



wayneL said:


> Here's a couple of links from Google contesting the dino=>bird theory
> 
> http://[COLOR="Red"]www.evolutionnews.org[/COLOR]/2009/06/old_theories_die_hard_birdsevo.html
> 
> Don't know how good they are... information only. But they are recent.



The Discovery Institute  


> The Discovery Institute is a conservative non-profit public policy U.S. think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of *intelligent design*



Lets not go there.


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> The Discovery Institute
> 
> Lets not go there.




Fair enough, didn't see that bit.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (5 August 2009)

Spooly74,

Perhaps _you_ should google "appeal to authority". So far as I can see, you are not applying it correctly in this case. Ktrianta is *not* asserting that X is true because Dr Y asserts that it's so. The provocative wording of the thread title can be blamed for such a misunderstanding but I have not yet found in ktrianta's posts anything other than pointing out dissent *within* a paradigm on a specific issue. It may well be the case that the initially linked paper is factually incorrect but that may be a problem of methodology or it may impact on views of whether or not birds did descend from dinosaurs or on a separate branch from a shared ancestor. Given the discussion in literature like _Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of the Dinosaurs_, it doesn't seem like a settled issue - however, I'm not trained in the field and it would be easy to misunderstand highly technical discussions.

On the other hand, you are yet to recant or clarify the strawman you create and attack in posts #7 and 41 that this thread involves a general attack on evolution from a special creation vantage point despite the clear message of the OP that it is a specific proposed line of descent *within* evolutionary theory that is being questioned.


----------



## spooly74 (5 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Spooly74,
> 
> Perhaps _you_ should google "appeal to authority". So far as I can see, you are not applying it correctly in this case. Ktrianta is *not* asserting that X is true because Dr Y asserts that it's so. The provocative wording of the thread title can be blamed for such a misunderstanding but I have not yet found in ktrianta's posts anything other than pointing out dissent *within* a paradigm on a specific issue. It may well be the case that the initially linked paper is factually incorrect but that may be a problem of methodology or it may impact on views of whether or not birds did descend from dinosaurs or on a separate branch from a shared ancestor. Given the discussion in literature like _Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of the Dinosaurs_, it doesn't seem like a settled issue - however, I'm not trained in the field and it would be easy to misunderstand highly technical discussions.



Granted.
In the specific context on that relpy, you are correct that kt has not directly appealed.
However, the title of the thread is intentionally misleading imo. Just because there is no scientific consensus, does not mean that any consideration be given to the conclusions drawn from the paper in question, and there has also been no acknowledgement of current evidence in favour of bird evolution, ie Myth.



			
				MS+ said:
			
		

> On the other hand, you are yet to recant or clarify the strawman you create and attack in posts #7 and 41 that this thread involves a general attack on evolution from a special creation vantage point despite the clear message of the OP that it is a specific proposed line of descent *within* evolutionary theory that is being questioned.




Yep, 2 for 2. Out of context.
Appreciate clarification


----------



## MS+Tradesim (5 August 2009)

Spooly,

My respect for you just went up multiple notches. 

I also agree that the thread title is misleading given that ktrianta doesn't seem to be exactly proposing that. Maybe it was intentionally provocative. Dunno.


----------



## ktrianta (5 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Spooly,
> 
> My respect for you just went up multiple notches.
> 
> I also agree that the thread title is misleading given that ktrianta doesn't seem to be exactly proposing that. Maybe it was intentionally provocative. Dunno.




MS,

Spot on. It was intentionally provocative. Sometimes it gets people thinking by being intentionally provocative.
I am sure that at least some people who have read this thread will at least walk away with the view that maybe the dino to bird theory is wrong. Others obviously got very defensive believing an attack on one aspect of the evolution story is the equivalent to launching an all out attack on the whole edifice and hence the search for hidden agendas and creationist conspiracies.

Nice to have a voice of reason on this thread.


----------



## spooly74 (5 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> MS,
> 
> Spot on. It was intentionally provocative. Sometimes it gets people thinking by being intentionally provocative.
> *I am sure that at least some people who have read this thread will at least walk away with the view that maybe the dino to bird theory is wrong.* Others obviously got very defensive believing an attack on one aspect of the evolution story is the equivalent to launching an all out attack on the whole edifice and hence the search for hidden agendas and creationist conspiracies.



Fait accompli eh.
Are you closing the thread now??


----------



## ktrianta (5 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Fait accompli eh.
> Are you closing the thread now??




Wow I did not realise that I had that much power. Just wait a minute while I leap this building with a single bound.

I am sure that if people what to contribute and add they will. Who knows we might even have a 100million year old photo of a flying dinosaur added to prove it.


----------



## nulla nulla (5 August 2009)

Any one that has every bought fried chicken from the big fried chicken distributors could have told you immediately that the birds evolved from dinosaurs... or were still evolving when they were cooked.


----------



## spooly74 (5 August 2009)

More hidden agendas.

*Publishing with a hidden agenda: why birds simply cannot be dinosaurs*


----------



## ktrianta (6 August 2009)

And some more:

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue


----------



## MS+Tradesim (6 August 2009)

The heart of the matter is, unless one has at least some specialist knowledge within this field, assessing the debate is nearly impossible. Ktrianta's latest link is an interview with Feduccia who seems to get hammered hard in spooly's prior link in both article and comments. He doesn't seem to be well-received and frankly, I can't tell if it's because he and the "_birds aren't dinos_" crowd are way off base and rightfully criticised, or if they are on track and being resisted by the dogmatic faithful to orthodoxy. 

In my own area of private research, I know you need a wide ranging understanding of the background material from different quarters and need to grasp the technical concepts under debate. Without that background it's very easy to dismiss novel views simply because they buck established views and it's highly annoying to the mainstream researchers when fanciful speculation gets aired in the media as fact. But some novel views are correct and show that fundamental assumptions of orthodoxy in the field are flawed, and this does get political because careers are built on it, and people find it very hard to admit they're wrong when they have a large investment of time and thought in an area. The belief that all scientists are emotionally neutral researchers simply pursuing facts is deluded or naive.

In this thread, I have no idea which side is right, but on balance it maybe premature to form the belief that _"birds are descended from theropods is wrong"_ and quite reasonable to hold the belief _"birds are descended from theropods"_.


----------



## ktrianta (6 August 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> The heart of the matter is, unless one has at least some specialist knowledge within this field, assessing the debate is nearly impossible.........
> 
> The belief that all scientists are emotionally neutral researchers simply pursuing facts is deluded or naive.
> 
> [/I].




Couple of very telling points in my view. 

For us laymen who do we believe? It is possible that both views are wrong but it is certain that both views cannot be correct. 

As such we need to be careful not to be too dogmatic on such issues.


----------



## ktrianta (10 August 2009)

And some more on the contreversy:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070601-dino-feathers.html


----------



## spooly74 (10 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> And some more on the contreversy:
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070601-dino-feathers.html



Funny how the same names keep popping up in your research.


----------



## ktrianta (11 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Funny how the same names keep popping up in your research.




Not sure what the relevance of this point is? Maybe these are the experts in the field challenging the commonly held belief.

Another interesting article as well.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090804-pterosaurs-wings-fossil-hairs.html

Researchers says In general, the new find shows that pterosaur wings are "much more complex than we thought." 

Just makes it harder to explain the transition from dinosaurs to birds one would think.


----------



## spooly74 (11 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Not sure what the relevance of this point is? Maybe these are the experts in the field challenging the commonly held belief.



Maybe they are idiots who don't have a clue? 
If they had some falsifiable evidence, that would be a good start for discussion.



> Researchers says In general, the new find shows that pterosaur wings are "much more complex than we thought."
> 
> Just makes it harder to explain the transition from dinosaurs to birds one would think.



You came to this conclusion from that article. Willful ignorance must be bliss.


----------



## ktrianta (11 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Maybe they are idiots who don't have a clue?
> If they had some falsifiable evidence, that would be a good start for discussion.
> 
> 
> You came to this conclusion from that article. Willful ignorance must be bliss.





Spooly, 

Just using logic and common sense. Nothing wrong with trying it once in a while!!!

"By literally shining new light on a Chinese pterosaur fossil, researchers have found that the membranes in the creature's wings contain a complex pattern of fibers not found in any living animal. 

The membrane structure may have given some pterosaur species better control when they took to the skies, a new study says."

You can't take the simplistic approach of it looks like proto feathers hence the dino to bird evolution myth is proved. You have to explain how this complex pattern of fibres evolved.

Feathers (if they are indeed feathers and this is open to dispute) aren't wings. Now an expalination is needed for the complex fibres as well.

As i said just makes it harder to explain the transition from dinosaurs to birds one would think. 

Looking more and more like a myth.


----------



## spooly74 (11 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Spooly,
> 
> "By literally shining new light on a Chinese pterosaur fossil, researchers have found that the membranes in the creature's wings contain a complex pattern of fibers not found in any living animal.
> 
> ...



Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs  


> Just using logic and common sense. Nothing wrong with trying it once in a while!!!



:


----------



## ktrianta (12 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs
> 
> :




Spooly,

Please show me where I said that?

Read this article if you wish.
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/pterosaurs.html 

"Pterosaurs were just the coolest things that were ever in the air," says Padian. "They were the first vertebrates to fly. They did it long before birds and bats. And it terms of size, they pushed the envelope as far as it could go for a flying animal."

So where do they fit in the dino to bird evolution myth? If they evolved flight, are they the first in the line of dinosaurs to bird evolution and then evolved into modern birds? If not from what did they evolve? (in the article, the author is suggesting they are cousins of the dinosaurs - but maybe he is just one of those dino to bird evolution deniers) 

Or did dinosaurs just evolve into today's modern birds or was it pterosaurs that was the forerunner?

I am no expert in this field and whilst I have a degree and a post graduate degree in my field, it is fairly obvious that this area is one that belief is significant in determing which view one would adopt.

Whilst both sides may be wrong, they cannot both be right.


----------



## spooly74 (12 August 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Spooly,
> 
> Please show me where I said that?
> 
> ...



Dinosaurs evolved into birds. The evidence is overwhelming.
I won't be responding to your mind numbing nonsense anymore.


----------



## ktrianta (12 August 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Dinosaurs evolved into birds. The evidence is overwhelming.
> I won't be responding to your mind numbing nonsense anymore.




DINOSAURS DID NOT EVOLVE INTO BIRDS. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.

See I can make that same argument too but even more forcefully by using capitals.

As I have said in another thread, if you can't question your beliefs, then they really aren't worth having.


----------

