This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Dino to Bird evolution Myth

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.
 
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
 
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

 
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.


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

we talking British underwear? or Aussie underwear?
 

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..
.

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
 
...
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?
 

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

Attachments

  • billandted2.jpg
    27.6 KB · Views: 86

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

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
 
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?
 
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

 

Attachments

  • 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.
 
PS Raptor using small wings as stabilisers :-
 

Attachments

  • raptor using wings as stabilisers.jpg
    2.9 KB · Views: 57
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...