Dino to Bird evolution Myth

[spooly74]

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.

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]

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]

It seems politics pervades most fields of science.

Yes, it does.

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

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

 

[wayneL]

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]

I hope this is not too subtle...

 

[2020hindsight]

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]

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]

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]

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..

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

 

[trainspotter]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

But its method of breathing makes this dinosaur stand out, said Paul Sereno of the University of Chicago, who wrote about the find on Monday in the journal PLoS ONE.

Instead of lungs that expand and contract, Sereno thinks this beast had air sacs that worked like a bellows, blowing air into the beast’s stiff lungs, much like modern birds...

 

[ktrianta]

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]

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

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.