PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dino Bird link
       More evidence...

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just read this from here:
Dino/BirdLink

"But the new finding by Chris Organ of Harvard University and his colleagues complicates this thinking and shows that the shorter genomes of birds originated in saurischian dinosaurs, the group of dinosaurs from which birds evolved and that includes Tyrannosaurus rex. So rather than being a characteristic of birds or flying animals, short genomes should be thought of as a characteristic of dinosaurs, including the killer theropod dinosaurs, he said."

And how about this from the same article:

" Then they generated a family tree that showed how genome length evolved over time. The results showed that the shorter, "bird-sized" genomes (of about 1.8 billion base pairs) evolved in saurischian dinosaurs between 230 and 250 million years ago, long before Archaeopteryx and the other early birds evolved."

Does anybody really doubt that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs anymore?  It looks conclusive to me and the rest of the scientific world.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:27 AM on March 8, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting article... are they saying bats evolved from dinosaurs?  And are they saying flightless birds like the emu and peguin didn't?  Looks like they "murkied" it more up to me.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:23 AM on March 8, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

are they saying bats evolved from dinosaurs?

Not at all, I thought the article was clear.  Scientists thought relatively short genomes corresponded to flight.  Bats have a much larger genome than birds, 2.25 billion base pairs compared to 1.45 billion base pairs of birds but it's smaller than other mammals that don't fly.  I really didn't see anything in the article that even hinted at bats evolving from dinosaurs.  

And are they saying flightless birds like the emu and peguin didn't?

Again, nowhere in the article does it say this.  It does say that flightless birds have longer genomes than flying birds but I think it's clear, their genome is still shorter than other vertabrates.

Looks like they "murkied" it more up to
me.


Depends on what your definition of murky is.  It makes it pretty clear that shorter genomes originated in saurischian dinosaurs and the only reason that modern birds posses this trait is because they evolved from saurischian dinosaurs.  No other explaination makes sense.  This is just one more piece of evidence added to the huge amount already supporting the theropod dinosaur to bird theory.
As I said, is there anyone left that doubts dino to bird evolution?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:17 PM on March 8, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, here's the deal. Birds, as in creatures you learned about when you were in kindergarden, are dinosaurs. Bats are mammals. Penguins = birds = dinosaurs. Where are you getting these conclusions from?


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:29 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"birds... are dinosaurs"

No evolution in that...




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:58 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"birds... are dinosaurs"

No evolution in that...


Why not?  That's like saying humans are apes, no evolution in that...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:41 PM on April 26, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or setters are dogs... or parrots are birds... exactly.  If one thing IS something else that is not the same as something USED TO BE something else, but it evolved from it.  If birds ARE dinosaurs as he states, then no evolution has occurred.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:15 AM on April 27, 2007 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or setters are dogs... or parrots are birds... exactly.  If one thing IS something else that is not the same as something USED TO BE something else, but it evolved from it.  If birds ARE dinosaurs as he states, then no evolution has occurred.


Uhm...I don't know where you are going with this Ed, but the prevailing scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that humans, chickens, orangutangs, triceratops and sea cucumbers all share a common ancestor.   Evolution?  Common Descent? Shared Ancestry?...No matter what word you use, the evidence speaks for itself...Loudly I might add.

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:03 PM on April 27, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I'd say common design, but obviously you wouldn't expect to find any similarities if things were designed by one person.  Heck, next thing you know we'll start thinking you'll find similarities between works by the same author or something crazy like that.  

As to the point I was making... he specifically stated birds ARE dinosaurs.  That is to say, they did not evolve from dinosaurs, but ARE dinosaurs.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:57 PM on April 27, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I'd say common design, but obviously you wouldn't expect to find any similarities if things were designed by one person.  Heck, next thing you know we'll start thinking you'll find similarities between works by the same author or something crazy like that.  


I would expect to find similarities if things were designed by one person. Therefore, things clearly weren't designed by one person, because the similarities are all linear, like the dude in charge had no idea what he was doing--like he was learning as he went. That's all-knowing God for you.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:26 PM on April 27, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If birds ARE dinosaurs as he states, then no evolution has occurred.

Why not?  Modern birds are definitely different from velociraptors.  So birds are dinosaurs, they are not the same dinosaurs that lived 65 million years ago.  What happened to velociraptors (dinosaurs) and where did parrots (dinosaurs) come from?  Sure looks like evolution occurred to me...

Well, I'd say common design, but obviously you wouldn't expect to find any similarities if things were designed by one person.

Sure you would, but what would this common design be based on?  Wouldn't the most logical, straightforward answer be that common design was applied to the environment the organisms found themselves in?  All animals that lived in similar niches would have similar characteristics.  What other criteria would a common designer base his (it's) common design on?  And that's exactly what we DON'T see in reality.  Organisms aren't grouped by what environment they live in, they're relatedness is based on something else, something only explained by common descent!  Please explain to us how common design works, how predictive it is...In other words, back up your claims or retract them.

Heck, next thing you know we'll start thinking you'll find similarities between works by the same author or something crazy like that.

This is just a variation on the common creationist misunderstanding of common descent, authors works don't reproduce imperfectly.  So it is an irrelevant comparison.

As to the point I was making... he specifically stated birds ARE dinosaurs.  That is to say, they did not evolve from dinosaurs, but ARE dinosaurs.  

You just don't understand how biological classification works, nested groups within groups.  It's the same as saying man did not evolve from animals, but IS an animal.  Modern birds (dinosaurs) evolved from extinct dinosaurs.  Evolution in action.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:31 PM on April 27, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only reason you find the idea that birds are dinosaurs so absurd is because of your perspective.

By your logic, whales aren't mammals, they're just whales.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:22 PM on April 29, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, that would be stupid.  whales ARE in the class mammalia.  Birds are in the class Aves while dinosaurs (such as Steggy) are in the class Archosauria (others may be listed as saurischia or ornithischia).  Of course whales are mammals.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:25 AM on April 30, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 07:25 AM on April 30, 2007 :
Actually, that would be stupid.  whales ARE in the class mammalia.  Birds are in the class Aves while dinosaurs (such as Steggy) are in the class Archosauria (others may be listed as saurischia or ornithischia).  Of course whales are mammals.


Besides names what separates the two? They have the same basic skeleton (except for claws).


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:15 PM on April 30, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gee, I don't know.  Platypuses and humans are in the same Class.  What separates the two?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:43 AM on May 1, 2007 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gee, I don't know.  Platypuses and humans are in the same Class.  What separates the two?


Cognitive abilities?...Oh wait...The cognitive abilities of certain non-chordates (octopodes) and non-mammals (crows) have been observed to be more advanced (at least from a human perspective) than the cognitive abilities of platypuses.  


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:09 AM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you.  My point exactly.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:45 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you.  My point exactly.


I don't know what your point is Ed, but maybe you could explain the criteria one uses to determine that cephalopods, arthropods and mammals are the products of a common designer?  If octopodes and crayfish and dolphins were "designed" as you have suggested, then I believe the most  reasonable conclusion would be that they were all designed independently by different designers.  

In other words, if all living things are "designed" and "evolution" by way of "natural selection" plays no role in the development of living systems beyond the species level, then multiple creators have to be involved in the process...ie  ID = Polytheism.

Ed...Are you a Druid?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 1:23 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This of course assumes a designer with limited knowledge and skill and the inability to come up with more than one design.  I'm not so smug as to think that there is nothing out there smarter than I am so I am open to the idea.  Besides, we all know that the Godhead is composed of three unique individuals and I have no reason to doubt that any one of the three might have had input into the creation.  Have you ever known a "master" who does nothing but paint the same picture over and over again?  And while it is often easy to figure out who painted something by its over all design, is it also not possible for them to branch out into other fields?  

Anyhow, getting back to the point.  He was trying to argue that I don't believe that whales (or humans) are mammals which I showed to be untrue.  It is blatantly obvious that they are both in the class mammalia.  Birds and dinosaurs aren't even in the same class yet he was trying to point out the similarities between them.  My point was that there can be huge differences between species in the same class and there can be similarities between species of different classes.  Neither would be proof of evolution.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:33 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 07:43 AM on May 1, 2007 :
Gee, I don't know.  Platypuses and humans are in the same Class.  What separates the two?


One is a synapsid and one is a diapsid. Pretty much skeletal configuration.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:58 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.