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 to Bird link

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:

Found a great article today from here:

Dinobird

Read it over, it's really starting to look conclusive, birds evolved from dinosaurs.

"WASHINGTON - A Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaur that died 68 million years ago has provided some of the strongest evidence yet that birds are the closest-living relatives of dinosaurs, scientists said Thursday."

And my favorite passage from the article:

"Horner said most experts are convinced the two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods were closely related to living birds.
"This is another piece to the puzzle, and there are a lot of them," he said.  "Anyone who would argue that birds and dinosaurs are not related — frankly, I'd put them in the Flat Earth Society group." "






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:49 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:49 PM on June 2, 2005 :
Found a great article today from here:

Dinobird

Read it over, it's really starting to look conclusive, birds evolved from dinosaurs.

"WASHINGTON - A Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaur that died 68 million years ago has provided some of the strongest evidence yet that birds are the closest-living relatives of dinosaurs, scientists said Thursday."

And my favorite passage from the article:

"Horner said most experts are convinced the two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods were closely related to living birds.
"This is another piece to the puzzle, and there are a lot of them," he said.  "Anyone who would argue that birds and dinosaurs are not related — frankly, I'd put them in the Flat Earth Society group." "








Flat Earth? Where have I heard that before?
Thanks for such an unbiased and fairminded link.

The Origin of the strart of dino-bird reality?

Sounds like bird droppings to me.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:21 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 12:21 AM on June 3, 2005 :
Quote from Demon38 at 10:49 PM on June 2, 2005 :
Found a great article today from here:

Dinobird

Read it over, it's really starting to look conclusive, birds evolved from dinosaurs.

"WASHINGTON - A Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaur that died 68 million years ago has provided some of the strongest evidence yet that birds are the closest-living relatives of dinosaurs, scientists said Thursday."

And my favorite passage from the article:

"Horner said most experts are convinced the two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods were closely related to living birds.
"This is another piece to the puzzle, and there are a lot of them," he said.  "Anyone who would argue that birds and dinosaurs are not related — frankly, I'd put them in the Flat Earth Society group." "








Flat Earth? Where have I heard that before?
Thanks for such an unbiased and fairminded link.

The Origin of the start of dino-bird reality?

Sounds like bird droppings to me.

My favorite was the "Piltdown Bird"






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:22 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Flat Earth? Where have I heard that before?


The Bible

Thanks for such an unbiased and fairminded link.

You're welcome.

Sounds like bird droppings to me.

What is your refutation of the evidence?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:35 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:35 AM on June 3, 2005 :

The Bible/quote] Demon says so it is. Demon says that there was a start to the origin of reality. Demon lives in the place before reality started.



What is your refutation of the evidence?

First of all when you include a mean spirite and completely dishonest personal attack on the people yo uknow will oppose your views it can safely be assumed you have no integrity.
The Flat Earth argument is a mean spirited juvenile attack .

Secondly there really is nothing to dispute. There is no evidence to suggest the eggs were more like birds. Just because they say so ? After all they have already proved they are anti- Christian atheist , not scientist.
Thirdly: It is impossible even by evolutionary theory. The birds lived before the therapods.

The leader of the evolutionary objections for many years has been Dr Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999). He has pointed out many anomalies, e.g. the allegedly birdlike dinosaurs are ‘dated’ 25–80 million years after the oldest true bird they are supposed to have evolved into. And the theropods had curved, serrated teeth while the ‘oldest’ birds such as Archaeopteryx had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. He explains the superficial similarities between birds and dinosaurs as convergent evolution, i.e. where different groups evolve similar structures because of a similar lifestyle, in this case walking upright on two hind legs. Creationists would explain this as evidence of a common designer who designed similar structures for similar purposes.

Fourthly:


Now Feduccia and a new Ph.D. graduate, Julie Nowicki, have refined the embryological study and published their findings in the leading German biological journal Naturwissenschaften.4 They opened a number of ostrich eggs to examine the embryos at various stages of development. Most studies had concentrated on embryos in the second half of development, when most of the structures are fully formed and merely need to grow. But Feduccia and Nowicki found that the main skeletal features in ostriches, supposedly ‘primitive’ birds, develop between days 8 and 15 of the 42 days in the egg.

The research conclusively showed that only digits two, three and four (corresponding to our index, middle and ring fingers) develop in birds. This contrasts with dinosaur hands that developed from digits one, two and three. Feduccia pointed out:

‘This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible.’

Fithly:


Now Feduccia and a new Ph.D. graduate, Julie Nowicki, have refined the embryological study and published their findings in the leading German biological journal Naturwissenschaften.4 They opened a number of ostrich eggs to examine the embryos at various stages of development. Most studies had concentrated on embryos in the second half of development, when most of the structures are fully formed and merely need to grow. But Feduccia and Nowicki found that the main skeletal features in ostriches, supposedly ‘primitive’ birds, develop between days 8 and 15 of the 42 days in the egg.

The research conclusively showed that only digits two, three and four (corresponding to our index, middle and ring fingers) develop in birds. This contrasts with dinosaur hands that developed from digits one, two and three. Feduccia pointed out:

http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_01/015.htm

Refute that . But please start the origin of reality first.










-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:58 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Secondly there really is nothing to dispute. There is no evidence to suggest the eggs were more like birds. Just because they say so ?

From the article:
"The bone tissue is strongly similar to that made inside the bones of female birds — and no other living type of animal — when they are producing the hard shells of eggs just before they lay them, said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

"In addition to demonstrating gender, it also links the reproductive physiology of dinosaurs to birds very closely.  It indicates that dinosaurs produced and shelled their eggs much more like modern birds than like modern crocodiles," Schweitzer told reporters in a telephone briefing."

Because they say so?  Of course, they are the experts.  If you want to prove them wrong, get a hold of their data and show why it's wrong.  That's the way science works, just because "they say so" doesn't hold any water.
You have yet to falsify any data.

"Thirdly: It is impossible even by evolutionary theory. The birds lived before the therapods."

Incorrect.  From here:
Earliestbeakbird

" The exact age of the bird is not known, but paleontologists say it was
probably close in time to Archaeopteryx, the transitional reptile-bird that
lived about 147 million years ago in what is now Germany and is recognized as
the oldest known bird."
That would put it in the mid jurassic period.

From here:
Therapod

" The Ceratosauria represent the earliest theropod dinosaurs (and indeed may include the ancestor to all later theropods, which would make them a paraphyletic group -- i.e. invalid -- although this has not ever been established). Ceratosauria first are seen in the fossil record in the late Triassic period, some 225 million years ago."

The Triassic was earlier than the Jurassic, so therapod dinosaurs are older than the earliest bird, unless you have evidence that no one else has.

The leader of the evolutionary objections for many years has been Dr Alan Feduccia, professor and former head of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999).

First of all Feduccia is in a very small minority, most paleontologists say the data supports a dino to bird link.  And it's very possible that Feduccia is simply wrong.  There certainly is greater evidence supporting the dino to bird link than refuting it.  New evidence continually supports the link.  Second of all, Feduccia supports bird evolution, just not from dinosaurs.  He supports Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil.  Once again, all paleontologists support evolution, they just debate the details, that's how science works.

"Refute that . But please start the origin of reality first."

Nothing really to refute, Feduccia is in the minority, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence supports dino to bird evolution.  You haven't even made an attempt to refute any of the facts, you keep going back to Feduccia, who looks more and more likely to  be wrong.  You don't even believe in what Feduccia says, so I don't know why you even use him, he does accept evolution.  So you first, refute the latest evidence for dino to bird evolution, show why the experts are wrong.

And I'll explain reality as soon as you tell us how God poofed it into existance.

And by the way, why don't you respond to the coelacanth thread, I'm dying to see how you try to weasel out of that one.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:06 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:49 PM on June 2, 2005 :
Found a great article today from here:

Dinobird

Read it over, it's really starting to look conclusive, birds evolved from dinosaurs.

"WASHINGTON - A Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaur that died 68 million years ago has provided some of the strongest evidence yet that birds are the closest-living relatives of dinosaurs, scientists said Thursday."

And my favorite passage from the article:

"Horner said most experts are convinced the two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods were closely related to living birds.
"This is another piece to the puzzle, and there are a lot of them," he said.  "Anyone who would argue that birds and dinosaurs are not related — frankly, I'd put them in the Flat Earth Society group." "


Unfortunately, the article doesn't provide any evidence that birds are descended from Reptiles.  It simply states that a Tyrannosaurus rex has bone tissue that more closely resembles the bone tissue of birds than the bone tissue of crocodiles.  This doesn't really mean anything.  If they had discovered that crocodiles were more similar in structure to birds than those of ancient reptiles such as dinosaurs, scientists might change their hypothesis and theorize that birds were more closely related to crocodiles.  The fact is, scientists researching evolution hypothesize evolutionary paths by noting the similarities and differences between species.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it certainly doesn't constitute evidence for evolution.  That's like simply saying the fact that some species are more similar to species in another genus than another species is evidence for evolution-actually, that's what this article appears to be saying-and it's simply not true.  

I could see a F-150 truck and a bulldozer and hypothesize that since they look similar and are made of similar materials, that they are related and one evolved from another.  However, this observation of similarities,
although fascinating, in does in no way constitute as evidence that one of these machines evolved from the other.  

The fact that you thought this article deserved a thread of its own really illustrates the fact that evolutionary theory is stalled at the moment-because the fact is that this discovery
probably does deserve a thread of it's own, and probably constitutes one of the biggest highpoints of evolutionary research made this year.  
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 3:39 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the article doesn't provide any evidence that birds are descended from Reptiles.  It simply states that a Tyrannosaurus rex has bone tissue that more closely resembles the bone tissue of birds than the bone tissue of crocodiles.

Why would a Tyrannosaurus Rex have bone tissue more closely ressembling birds than crocodiles if it wasn't more closely related to birds than crocodiles?  And this, of course, supports the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs.
From the article:
" The bone tissue is strongly similar to that made inside the bones of female birds — and no other living type of animal — when they are producing the hard shells of eggs just before they lay them, said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh."

Similar to no other animal, strong evidence of relatedness.  And you have to combine this evidence with other recently found evidence. from here:
DinoEggs
" Scientists found the dinosaur produced eggs in some ways like a crocodile and in other ways like a bird. Crocodiles and similar primitive reptiles have two ovaries enabling them to lay a clutch of eggs. Birds have a single ovary and can only lay one egg at a time.
The dinosaur's egg-producing capability lay somewhere in between, suggesting a link with the modern bird, researchers said. It could produce more than one egg, but only one from each ovary at a time."

Evidence is cumulative and the way evidence is accumulating to support the dino to bird link, it's almost conclusive.

If they had discovered that crocodiles were more similar in structure to birds than those of ancient reptiles such as dinosaurs, scientists might change their hypothesis and theorize that birds were more closely related to crocodiles.

IF they did, then they would have to refine their theory, that's how science works, GO with the evidence!  But paleontologists have NOT found birds are more similiar to crocodiles than dinosaurs, so they are not changing their theory and dino to birds is still the best explaination for the evidence.

The fact is, scientists researching evolution hypothesize evolutionary paths by noting the similarities and differences between species.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it certainly doesn't constitute evidence for evolution.

Yes, but similarities and differences as a basis of relatedness has been incredibly accurate so far.  In species were we can conduct DNA analysis, are table of relatedness has been almost exactly duplicated.  So when we create the tree of life and show how all organisms are related we are highly accurate, this has been independently verified by completely different evidence, DNA.   So basing relatedness on morphology is demonstated to be accurate and while we don't have any dinosaurian DNA to analyze yet, why does classification and predicting evolutionary pathways based on morphology work in the present  and not work for the past?

That's like simply saying the fact that some species are more similar to species in another genus than another species is evidence for evolution-actually, that's what this article appears to be saying-and it's simply not true.

Explain why it isn't true, since this has been independently verified with organisms that we can examine their DNA.

I could see a F-150 truck and a bulldozer and hypothesize that since they look similar and are made of similar materials, that they are related and one evolved from another.  However, this observation of similarities,
although fascinating, in does in no way constitute as evidence that one of these machines evolved from the other.


This is an meaningless comparison because a truck and a bulldozer don't have DNA asnd they don't reproduce.

The fact that you thought this article deserved a thread of its own really illustrates the fact that evolutionary theory is stalled at the moment

How is it stalled?  This is another piece of evidence we didn't have before.  Another piece of evidence that supports dino to bird evolution.  How can MORE knowledge, more evidence casue a theory to "stall"?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:28 PM on June 3, 2005 | 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.