Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Dino to Bird evolution Myth

Jump to new
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!!!
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Really, ever heard of an Ostrich?

ostrich_head_in_ground_full.jpg


The irony! :D LOL
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
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):-
Click to expand...

Speaking of faith......
 
spooly74 said:
The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
... :rolleyes:
don't really know what to say spooly, lol

we talking British underwear? or Aussie underwear?
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
<deleted>

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

<Keep to the topic of the thread.>
 
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.

4. but Owen was embarrassed to end up with evidence in his museum to the contrary , that Archaeopteryx was half reptile half bird - - proof of a theory he himself didn't accept
Click to expand...
.

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
Click to expand...
He goes on to discuss the recent Chinese fossils. (7m 40s)
earliest theropods (dinosaurs) could not fly
why then did they have feathers ? etcetc :confused:
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
Click to expand...
now in Natural History Museum :2twocents
 
2020hindsight said:
... :rolleyes:
don't really know what to say spooly, lol

we talking British underwear? or Aussie underwear?
Click to expand...

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.

birdcompl.gif


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?
 
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.

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!!!
Click to expand...

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

Attachments

  • billandted2.jpg
    billandted2.jpg
    27.6 KB · Views: 86
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!

ktrianta, penny for your thoughts?
Click to expand...

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 !
Click to expand...

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 ;)
 
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 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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • raptor.jpg
    raptor.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 60
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.
 
Top