Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Dino to Bird evolution Myth

Jump to new
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

I already have a problem with the term 'miraculously', and it's abiogenesis, 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.
 
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 said:
Nothing is ever closed, except minds. :2twocents
Click to expand...

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 :2twocents

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

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.
 
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"

PS I play a lot of backgammon on the internet - at least you know the rules of the engagement there :2twocents

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

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.
 
ktrianta said:
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
2. you may or may not have picked up that a lot has happened in recent years in this field ( china fossils etc ) :2twocents
 
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 said:
wayne...
even those are (just) superseded by David Attenborough's program (back about 20 posts) ;)
Click to expand...

Only because you believe Attenborough's version. I'm certain there are credible scientists with different views.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The Discovery Institute :eek: :banghead:
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
Click to expand...
Lets not go there.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, 2 for 2. Out of context.
Appreciate clarification ;)
 
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+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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Fait accompli eh.
Are you closing the thread now?? :rolleyes:
 
Top