Proof that birds descended from dinosaurs

[Meat Man]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NLaIFf96PP4&feature=related

[Edana]

My dialup wont let me watch anything from youtube, but if youre interested in this subject you might want to check out GenesisPark.com

[David_V]

My dialup wont let me watch anything from youtube, but if youre interested in this subject you might want to check out GenesisPark.com
Is that a parody site? It must be since no one could really believe any of that stuff.... could they?

[mary oleary]

"The dinosaurian origin of birds is based on sloppy science," Feduccia said. "It is a fantasy by which one believes it's possible vicariously to study dinosaurs at the backyard bird feeder."

In an accompanying commentary in Science titled "The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaur Halted?", Dr. Richard Hinchliffe of the University of Wales said the new report calls into question the dinosaurs-to-birds idea and is a forceful statement of the opposing theory.

"...The present paper gives the developmental evidence a sharp focus which makes it a timely contribution to current debate on bird origins," wrote Hinchliffe, the world authority on vertebrate limb development. "This convincing evidence of 2-3-4 wing digit identity will not be to the liking of ... supporters of a dinosaur origin of birds.

"For the time being, this important developmental evidence that birds have a 2-3-4 digital formula, unlike the dinosaur 1-2-3, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur-origin orthodoxy."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971027064254.htm

[mary oleary]

That's why it remains a THEORY... not a fact.

"The dinosaurian origin of birds is based on sloppy science," Feduccia said. "It is a fantasy by which one believes it's possible vicariously to study dinosaurs at the backyard bird feeder."

In an accompanying commentary in Science titled "The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaur Halted?", Dr. Richard Hinchliffe of the University of Wales said the new report calls into question the dinosaurs-to-birds idea and is a forceful statement of the opposing theory.

"...The present paper gives the developmental evidence a sharp focus which makes it a timely contribution to current debate on bird origins," wrote Hinchliffe, the world authority on vertebrate limb development. "This convincing evidence of 2-3-4 wing digit identity will not be to the liking of ... supporters of a dinosaur origin of birds.

"For the time being, this important developmental evidence that birds have a 2-3-4 digital formula, unlike the dinosaur 1-2-3, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur-origin orthodoxy."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971027064254.htm

[David_V]

"The dinosaurian origin of birds is based on sloppy science," Feduccia said.
He is wrong, or is being misinterpreted. Creationists do that a lot. They seem to be unable,or unwilling, to understand the truth.

In an accompanying commentary in Science titled "The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaur Halted?", Dr. Richard Hinchliffe of the University of Wales said the new report calls into question the dinosaurs-to-birds idea and is a forceful statement of the opposing theory.....
That's another favorite tactic of creationists; take something out of date and present it as new. Try reading something less than 10 years old.

[David_V]

That's why it remains a THEORY... not a fact.
Sorry, evolution is a fact. It happened. That species have changed over time is a fact. Not accepting that fact is akin to not accepting the Sun is the center of our solar system.

If, by some extreme chance that you care to learn more on the topic, you can read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

[Meat Man]

I love how some people are like "God said let there be light, then it was". lol. How stupid.

I to think there is a God, and I do think he/she/it made all of earth and around it. But HOW did it happen? There was light, but HOW was there light? Not just by saying it. Come on, that's just stupid.

Getting back to things, if you watch the clip then you'll see how they found a raptor with feathers. I also think there is more evidence to back up the theory that dinos turned into birds. Just look at them.

[MtnEagle]

You guys remember that recent (last quarter of 2007) news bit from the BBC about the T-Rex's closest modern relative being the Chicken?

So we get the "Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The T-rex."

and the "Tastes like T-Rex" jokes.

:)

[mary oleary]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051010085411.htm
(Oct. 10, 2005) [/B]— ]

CHAPEL HILL -- No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree.


UNC scientist is the author of more than 150 papers and six major books, including The Age of Birds, which Harvard University Press published in 1980 and The Origin and Evolution of Birds, published by Yale University Press in 1996.

Among other discoveries, Feduccia found by a careful examination that Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird and one of the world’s most famous fossils, could fly. Previously, many scientists thought the animal to be an Earth-bound dinosaur.

He determined its flying ability by observing that the fossil’s feathers had leading edges significantly shorter than their trailing edges, which is characteristic of all modern flying birds. The edges of feather of birds incapable of flight, such as ostriches, are symmetrical.

Adapted from materials provided by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The guy is not creationist... Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions...and it's interesting that you feel authoratative enough on the subject to proclaim facts when scientists aren't even that bold...

The THEORY of evolution remains a theory regardless of your opinion. The theories have changed to accomodate the facts as they continue to be discovered, revealed, or more completely understood.

Such as Haeckel's theory of recapitulation.

[David_V]

I love how some people are like "God said let there be light, then it was". lol. How stupid.

I to think there is a God, and I do think he/she/it made all of earth and around it. But HOW did it happen? There was light, but HOW was there light? Not just by saying it. Come on, that's just stupid.
Yet some people actually believe that stuff and they want their religion taught in the science classroom where it does not belong.

Getting back to things, if you watch the clip then you'll see how they found a raptor with feathers. I also think there is more evidence to back up the theory that dinos turned into birds. Just look at them.
Dinos didn't "turn into birds." When you say that the creationists will believe that some huge, 20 ton, dinosaur laid an egg that had a little tiny bird in it. They are purposefully ignorant of how evolution works. It took over 30 million years for the Saurids to evolve into the birds we know today.

[David_V]

The guy is not creationist... Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions...and it's interesting that you feel authoratative enough on the subject to proclaim facts when scientists aren't even that bold...
No, he is not a creationist, but he is an ornithologist. When he gets another degree in paleontology then I'll pay more attention.

The THEORY of evolution remains a theory regardless of your opinion.
And evolution remains a fact in spite of your opinion. The fact is that evolution is simply change over time. That species have changed over time os a proven fact. Denying evolution is no different than denying the Earth is shaped like a ball and orbits the Sun.

The theories have changed to accomodate the facts as they continue to be discovered, revealed, or more completely understood.
That's a good thing. Science can change as more information comes to light. Religions cannot change, creationism is a religious view and cannot change with new information. Anything new that would prove creationism to be wrong is automatically rejected.

Such as Haeckel's theory of recapitulation.
He got it wrong. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

And next time, try quoting some scientist from THIS century.rolleyes:

[mary oleary]

My POINT David- was that information regarding evolution supportive "facts" was that they may be discounted, disproven or downright misrepresented- and therefore are not FACTS- never were FACTS- though they were taught and accepted as FACTS.

I wasn't quoting Haeckle as an authority, but rather as an illustration, that the THEORY of evolution changes, and many things that were accepted as FACTS were not FACTS at all.

There is NO DIFINATIVE examples of evolution within species morphing into another species- There are examples of evolution ( adaptations) within a species.

The theories proposed are based on observation and evidences that support those observations. BUT no one has proven that a scale turned into a feather, or a dinosaur turned into a bird, or vice versa.

[David_V]

My POINT David- was that information regarding evolution supportive "facts" was that they may be discounted, disproven or downright misrepresented- and therefore are not FACTS- never were FACTS- though they were taught and accepted as FACTS.
I understand your point, but I cannot agree with it. Evolution is a fact. The facts that support the fact of evolution cannot be discounted, have not been disproved, and are not misrepresented except by those with religious objections. They have a long history of misrepresenting facts about evolution.

I wasn't quoting Haeckle as an authority....
Irrelevant. You still need to quote an authority from this century for your argument to work.

There is NO DIFINATIVE examples of evolution within species morphing into another species- There are examples of evolution ( adaptations) within a species.
You are wrong again. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

The theories proposed are based on observation and evidences that support those observations. BUT no one has proven that a scale turned into a feather, or a dinosaur turned into a bird, or vice versa.
Why should evolution and science have to "prove" something that they never claimed happened? Anyway, not being able to prove that does not cancel the fact that species have changed over time. But you did provide a perfect example of the misrepresentation of evolution. Dinosaurs did not "turn into" birds. Birds evolved from saurid dinosaurs, ; scales did not instantly turn into feathers - they evolved. That's why what you claimed did not happen.

[Edana]

You know, they say that lashing out in anger like this is just one of many negative reactions to religious conviction. ;) Lighten up. We are all free to our individual views of the world and how it was created.

[David_V]

You know, they say that lashing out in anger like this is just one of many negative reactions to religious conviction. ;)
Who is lashing out in anger?

Lighten up. We are all free to our individual views of the world and how it was created.
Do you always see disagreement as anger? It seems to me that you are adding your own anger to what others are saying. That's called "projection." What are you so angry about? Where did I say that any individual cannot have their own world view? :nixweiss: