Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Dino to Bird evolution Myth

Jump to new
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 :eek:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Attachments

  • creatin2.jpg
    creatin2.jpg
    17.2 KB · Views: 127
  • creation.jpg
    creation.jpg
    12.1 KB · Views: 118
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???
 
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. :eek:
 
ktrianta said:
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???
Click to expand...

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?
 
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

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. :eek:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
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.
 
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. ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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).

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?
Click to expand...
That's an apology with a hidden barb 2020.

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

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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]
Click to expand...

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

......

The following simplified cladogram follows these results, and shows the likely distribution of plumaceous (downy) and pennaceous (vaned) feathers among theropods.[33] Note that the authors inferred pennaceous feathers for Velociraptor based on phylogenetic bracketing, a prediction later confirmed by fossil evidence.[5]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
 

Attachments

  • dinosaur bird evolution.jpg
    dinosaur bird evolution.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 43
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. :confused:
 

Attachments

  • fossil.jpg
    fossil.jpg
    7.7 KB · Views: 130
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. :rolleyes:

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."
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Top