That is just a cop out and a pathetic appeal to authority.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?
The matter is pretty much closed surely.
Nothing is ever closed, except minds.
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"
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
eg IS he saying that Birds and Dinosaurs are not related?
In which case he and that paper are diametrically opposed in viewpoint !
ok ktPretty obvious from the title of the thread what i am saying.
eg IS he saying that Birds and Dinosaurs are not related?
In which case he and that paper are diametrically opposed in viewpoint !
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
2. you may or may not have picked up that a lot has happened in recent years in this field ( china fossils etc )PS 9 September 1997; accepted 7 October 1997
wayne...Here's a couple of links from Google contesting the dino=>bird theory
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/231/65/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/old_theories_die_hard_birdsevo.html
Don't know how good they are... information only. But they are recent.
wayne...
even those are (just) superseded by David Attenborough's program (back about 20 posts)
Guess I think of Attenborough as less of a dinosaur than John A. Ruben (et al)Only because you believe Attenborough's version. I'm certain there are credible scientists with different views.
Let me clarify.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.
No it hasn't. Because you presented no evidence. None.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.
The Discovery InstituteHere'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.
Lets not go there.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
The Discovery Institute
Lets not go there.
Granted.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.
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.
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.
Fait accompli eh.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?