Another Dinosaur / Bird Connection Found

Discussion in 'Science' started by UTEOTW, Apr 15, 2005.

  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    This time it happens to be about eggs.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/15/dinosauregg/index.html

    This dinosaur was a member of the theropods, the group of dinosaurs which gave rise to birds.

    Since this creature has characteristics intermediate between other archosaurs like crocodiles and birds, it is another example of the transition from reptiles to birds.

    Wasn't someone recently challenging my assertion that dinos laid eggs? Are two eggs inside a fossilized dinosaur good enough?
     
  2. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Unfortunately there is no actual evidence of this.

    Again, this is an assumption and has never been observed. It may just as easily be a discretely created creature with similar features of another creature - for example a fish has two eyes and so do people... it doesn't mean then are next to each other in some phylogenic tree.

    Still doesn't show how dinos turned into birds. Until you can reproduce this in a lab, your conjecture is without merit.
     
  3. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Dino-bird evolution falls flat!

    by Jonathan Sarfati

    Readers may remember the recent media fanfare about the so-called ‘feathered dinosaurs’ (including Sinosauropteryx) supposedly proving that dinosaurs evolved into birds. We covered these in Creation 19(2):6 (see Kentucky fried dinosaur?) and 19(4):49, 1997. We cautioned that many media ‘proofs’ of evolution are later refuted with barely a whimper in the media. Recent research has proved the point:

    *

    ‘New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related.’1 A team led by bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science.2
    *

    A team led by John Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University in Corvallis, analysed fossil outlines of Sinosauropteryx’s internal organs. Its ‘bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds.’3 Indeed, birds have a complicated system of air sacs which keep air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi) in the lung, and blood moves through the lung’s blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake,4 an excellent engineering design.5 Interestingly, some defenders of dinosaur-to-bird evolution, discount this evidence against their theory by saying ‘the proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal.’6 Of course, only evolutionary faith requires that bird lungs arose from lungs of another animal.
    *

    Also, Ruben and ancient bird expert Larry Martin believe that the so-called ‘feather’ traces are actually frayed collagen fibres beneath the skin. Feather expert Alan Brush, University of Connecticut, Storrs, points out that they ‘lack the organization found in modern feathers.’7


    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/dino_bird.asp
     
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Again, this is an assumption and has never been observed. It may just as easily be a discretely created creature with similar features of another creature - for example a fish has two eyes and so do people... it doesn't mean then are next to each other in some phylogenic tree."

    It is such a good thing that this is not how scientists go about doing their work. It does give some insight into the need to spam.

    "Still doesn't show how dinos turned into birds. Until you can reproduce this in a lab, your conjecture is without merit."

    Such a misunderstanding of sceince.

    Astronomers can take their telescopes and study far away processes that they could never reproduce in the lab. Yet this is science.

    Geologists look for clues in the rocks of processes that they could never reproduce in their labs. Or do you have a way to make a planet in the lab and study plate techtonics? Do you doubt then that the earth's crust is divided into plates?

    Paleontologists no longer have the dead animals and plants to study. Yet they have their fossils. Anf they can make many observations from such fossils. Others can observe the fossils and see if they come to the same conclusion (just like repeating a chemistry experiment in another lab). They can make predictions about what other kinds of fossils or other evidence should be found. And biologists can study genetics right in their labs.
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related.’1 A team led by bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science."

    Ah, so you now draw the same distinction that Feduccia does. He claims that birds are not the direct descendants of dinosaurs but instead that they are both evolved from a common archosaur ancestor. While his opinion is in the minority among paleontologists, if it means that you now accept the evolution of birds then I welcome this development.

    Here is what Feduccia himself had to say about what you are doing. "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."

    Oh, BTW, there is an explanation for this in the literature if anyone had checked.

    Wagner, G. P. & Gauthier, J. A.. "1,2,3 = 2,3,4: A solution to the problem of the homology of the digits in the avian hand," (1999). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 51115116.

    " A team led by John Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University in Corvallis, analysed fossil outlines of Sinosauropteryx’s internal organs."

    Well, according to Ruben "The earliest birds (Archaeopteryx and enantiornithines) also possessed unmodified septate lungs." So does that mean that Archaeopteryx is just a feathered flying dinosaur?

    For criticism of Ruben, go read the following. http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/jdp/misc/lungs.html

    It is too complicated to copy a nice tidbit here and I am not going to spam the board with the whole page.

    " Also, Ruben and ancient bird expert Larry Martin believe that the so-called ‘feather’ traces are actually frayed collagen fibres beneath the skin. Feather expert Alan Brush, University of Connecticut, Storrs, points out that they ‘lack the organization found in modern feathers.’"

    And just what would you expect early feathers to look like?

    If you look at modern feathers, they give a pretty good model of how feather are likely to have evolved. And they include a stage of frayed fibers. Think down. As you move further down the line, you see feathers that look more and more like modern bird feathers until you get to creatures like Microraptor which was undeniably a reptile but which posses fully formed flight feathers on all four limbs.

    Also, remember your thumb thing above. Caudipteryx possess fully formed symmetrical feathers but also had the dinosaur thumb arrangement. So what was it?
     
  6. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Until the End of the World,

    Do you participate on any other topics, or just spend all of your time promoting the antichrist teachings of atheiests? I have never see someone who professes to be a Christian spend so much time trying to prove the theories of evolution to be factual.
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I post on other topics some.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/2924.html#000014

    But I think it is worth the time to rid ourselves of the false doctrine of YE that Satan is using to divide believers and keep many from coming to Christ.

    And besides, there are many good Christians who work in the sciences so it is not true to call them atheistic teachings.
     

Share This Page

Loading...