Dinosaurs

[Mallon]

Dinosaurs are dinosaurs and birds are birds....

So you consider a dinosaur like Microraptor...

... to be more closely related to Brachiosaurus than to birds?

That means while species can breed with others of the same species, they cannot breed with creatures not of their species: for instance a domestic dog can mate with a wolf or Coyote and produce offspring because all are canids...

You just contradicted yourself here. Wolves and domestic dogs are not the same species. So does a kind = species, or does kind = some broader taxonomic grouping? You seem to be running into the same problem with defining a "kind" as every other anti-evolutionist. The term is meaningless.

I don't even know how much dinosaurs could interbreed... for instance could a Triceratops mate with other Ceratopsians like Styracasaurus or Protoceratops?

Here's a better question: could something like Archaeopteryx (a bird) mate with something like Protarchaeopteryx (a very bird-like theropod dinosaur)? Evolution occurs at a much nitty-grittier level than the one you suppose (even more so than the example I proposed).

So dino's didn't turn into birds and if you look at the sheer intracicies of birds feathers you will see they could not have "evolved" over time from a featherless creature.

Out of curiosity, what sort of independent research have you done that allows you to make this claim? What knowledge do you have that professional vertebrate palaeontologists who study this very question for a living don't?

The undeveloped evolving feathers would have been useless, gotten in the way, and led to the inbetween species extinction because others would have hunted it due to its inability to fly and its awkwardness on the ground...

Of what use is half a wing? It is very useful:
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/s15-0506.pdf

 

[Mallon]

The 210 similarities are immaterial since it only requires 1 or dissimalarities to refute the hypothesis.

Ummm... no. We expect to see both similarities and dissimilarities between taxa. That's what transitional fossils are all about.

The differences in fused digits and the lung type aren't looking good for the idea.

If you're referring to differences in digit count between birds and dinos, this has been explained already in reference to frame shift mutations. Research the work of Hans Larsson et al.
With regards to the lung issue, we can see the slow transition to bird lungs all throughout the Theropoda. Look at Majungatholus: it's thoracic vertebrae are full of air-sacs and hollows that likely would've attached to the lungs, much as in birds. You probably didn't know this, however, since most anti-evolutionists are too busy trying to refute outdated research from 50 years ago to pay attention to anything currently happening.

If paleontologists were so good at predicting this, you have to wonder why they abandoned the idea for 40 odd years.

The very idea of the bird-dino relationship really didn't get under way until about 40 years ago, so you evidently don't have a clue as to what you are talking about here.

 

[LoG]

Ummm... no. We expect to see both similarities and dissimilarities between taxa. That's what transitional fossils are all about.

Guess I needed to be more specific and say disimilarities that would not have been a result of "survival of the fittest" type of evolution.

If you're referring to differences in digit count between birds and dinos, this has been explained already in reference to frame shift mutations. Research the work of Hans Larsson et al.

Frame shift- The evolutionists version of "Goddidit".

With regards to the lung issue, we can see the slow transition to bird lungs all throughout the Theropoda. Look at Majungatholus: it's thoracic vertebrae are full of air-sacs and hollows that likely would've attached to the lungs, much as in birds.

"Our analysis suggests that it was a physiological impossibility for the lungs of birds to have evolved from the lungs of the theropod dinosaurs, as has been the conventional wisdom for decades," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology and expert on dinosaur and avian evolution.

Living reptiles have "septate" lungs that are like a pair of flabby, compartmentalized air-sacs. The reptilian lung is capable of supporting only relatively low rates of oxygen consumption.

The evidence that the theropod dinosaurs possessed crocodile-like lungs is reinforced by skeletal analysis suggestive of a liver-diaphragm lung ventilation mechanism in these dinosaurs. Crocodiles have a non-muscular diaphragm, powered by muscles which attach to the liver and the pubic bones of the hip. It pulls the large liver backwards to inflate the lungs, and is associated with a distinctive hip structure.

These findings are also consistent with the conclusions of recent research done by scientists at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, reported last month in Science, which also concluded birds could not have been closely related to dinosaurs. That research was based on evidence that birds lacked the embryonic thumb found in dinosaurs.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ncs/newsarch/1997/November97/nodinobird.htm

You probably didn't know this, however, since most anti-evolutionists are too busy trying to refute outdated research from 50 years ago to pay attention to anything currently happening.

Bet you got that straight from Talk-Origins. Shouldn't you be providing a link?

The very idea of the bird-dino relationship really didn't get under way until about 40 years ago, so you evidently don't have a clue as to what you are talking about here.

"The British palaeontologist Thomas Huxley presented a theory in 1868, which claimed that birds are descended from dinosaurs. His theory stated these reasons for it:"
http://www.dino-web.com/birds.html

Do you normally take your shoes off before sticking your feet in your mouth? At least when I do it I can claim I'm just a dumb old creationist. You however don't have that excuse.

If birds are the descendants of dinosaurs then Creationists are correct that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

 

[shernren]

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ncs/news...nodinobird.htm

A little research would have turned this up:

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/lungs.html

where the Oregon State University team's claims are roundly disproved.

And then for some real science,

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/dino_lungs/

Have a good day!

 

[RealityCheck]

You can mate a coyote with a wolf, yes. But they are not the same species! They're not even the same genus. They are classed under a higher level, and the fact that they can breed is generally immaterial, because the offspring are usually infertile.

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid
there are more fertile hybrids then you would expect. Coyote(M)-dog(F) hybrids are very common in our area, we have a chow-chow/coyote ourselves.



Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia (all animals)
Phylum: Chordata (animals with notochords)
Subphylum: Vertebrata (animals with a skeleton of bone or cartilage)
Class: Mammalia (mammals)
Order: Carnivora (carnivores)
Family: Canidae (dog family)
Genus: Canis (dogs)
Species: lupus (wolves)

there is a nice discussion of the Canidae family at:
http://home.globalcrossing.net/~brendel/canidae.html

which all goes to show you that no fertile hybrids are not a definition of either species or genus.

Yeah, bad example - as I finished that statement I had lion/tiger and horse/donkey pairings in mind, and was not focused specifically on the dog pairings.

Yes, any fertile hybrid may be considered to be a different species - but generally that will be the case if the hybrids themselves tend to mate exclusively with other similar hybrids. One of the definitions of species (reaching back to 9th grade bio...) is a group of animals that tends to mate exclusively with others of the same kind. This is why, for example, dog breeds don't constitute different species - because the different breeds will mate and produce fertile offspring, but there is no exclusivity. Wolves and coyotes are different species because wolves tend to mate with wolves, coyotes with coyotes, and the cross-breeds are exceptions.

 

[Mallon]

Frame shift- The evolutionists version of "Goddidit".

Except that it's been empirically tested and shown to be true. Did you even make an attempt to delve into that literature? I gave you a starting point. How about instead of making such blind assertions you actually substantiate yourself. Arguments from ignorance don't hold water.

"Our analysis suggests that it was a physiological impossibility for the lungs of birds to have evolved from the lungs of the theropod dinosaurs, as has been the conventional wisdom for decades," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology and expert on dinosaur and avian evolution.

Remember when I said Feduccia has 2 or 3 cronies? Ruben in one of them.
Here's the reference to the study on Majungatholus I was telling you about. I highly recommend you read it as it contradicts much of what Ruben et al. think:

O’Connor, P. and Claessens, L., Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs, Nature 436:253–256, 14 July 2005.

Bet you got that straight from Talk-Origins. Shouldn't you be providing a link?

You want me to provide you a link to support my statement that creationist assertions are usually based on outdated misinformation? Ok...

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24651426&postcount=17

"The British palaeontologist Thomas Huxley presented a theory in 1868, which claimed that birds are descended from dinosaurs. His theory stated these reasons for it:"

http://www.dino-web.com/birds.html

Do you normally take your shoes off before sticking your feet in your mouth? At least when I do it I can claim I'm just a dumb old creationist. You however don't have that excuse.

Was Huxley's hypothesis widely regarded at the time? No. Why not? Because vert paleo was still largely in its infancy and not many fossils were known at the time (what few dinosaur fossils were known looked more similar to 'classic' reptiles).
But in the 150 years since then -- surprise, surprise -- science has moved on and we now know of very bird-like dinosaurs such as Velociraptor, Oviraptor, Caudipteryx, Microraptor, Sinosauropteryx, etc, etc, etc. My point still stands. The dino-bird relationship did not gain acceptance until 30-40 years ago (mostly pioneered by the work of John Ostrom).

If birds are the descendants of dinosaurs then Creationists are correct that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

Won't argue with you there. A broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Wolves and coyotes are different species because wolves tend to mate with wolves, coyotes with coyotes, and the cross-breeds are exceptions.

species is not really that easy to define, i'd refer interested people to an extraordinary book on the topic:
Darwinism Evolving Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection
David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber

for example, a male coyote in my area is more likely to breed with a female dog then with a female coyote, something noted in several webpages i consulted. simply as a matter of population density and availability.

 

[RealityCheck]

Wolves and coyotes are different species because wolves tend to mate with wolves, coyotes with coyotes, and the cross-breeds are exceptions.

species is not really that easy to define, i'd refer interested people to an extraordinary book on the topic:
Darwinism Evolving Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection
David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber

for example, a male coyote in my area is more likely to breed with a female dog then with a female coyote, something noted in several webpages i consulted. simply as a matter of population density and availability.

I should never have brought up the damn coyotes.

Just kidding. What I brought up as a definition for species is "one" definition of species - one that applies very well in many cases, but there's always exceptions. Dogs are actually a terrible example of how species are defined, overall. A Siberian Husky, being a domesticated dog, is lumped in the same genus and species as a Chihuahua, but probably has more genetically in common with a gray wolf than with a chihuahua. Yet the gray wolf is classed as a separate species!

 

[Starcrystal]

Ok, species maybe was the wrong word since many of y'all want to nitpick scientific terms!
Dogs, wolves & coyotes in the same family.... just as Lions & Tigers are CATS though different species of cats, and horses, donkeys are types of equine (I suppose).
But you will not mate things outside their family, no dogs with cats or horses with cows.

And as far as the alleged infertility of the offspring of Coyotes & dogs... nope - plenty of fertile hybrids out there. I've lived on reservations & wild places where dogs & coyotes get together quite frequently and some of the offspring are domesticated, and they can breed with either or...

As for that feathered creature.... it's a distinct type of animal just like Archeoptryx. It's not a missing link. People probably kept the things as pets in wizards castles which gave rise to legends of little pet dragons.... seriously.

 

[Dannager]

Ok, species maybe was the wrong word since many of y'all want to nitpick scientific terms!

It's important to define the argument in scientific terms because that is the avenue of legitimization that creationists are trying to use. If they want their viewpoint to be considered scientifically valid they have to agree to represent it under the terms of science.

Dogs, wolves & coyotes in the same family.... just as Lions & Tigers are CATS though different species of cats, and horses, donkeys are types of equine (I suppose).
But you will not mate things outside their family, no dogs with cats or horses with cows.

No, you probably won't. That doesn't mean evolution is false, though. In fact, such an observation supports evolutionary theory. Constant change in genetic make-up means that populations that may once have been capable of interbreeding can eventually evolve to the point of genetic distinction, where mating with the other species is no longer genetically viable.

And as far as the alleged infertility of the offspring of Coyotes & dogs... nope - plenty of fertile hybrids out there. I've lived on reservations & wild places where dogs & coyotes get together quite frequently and some of the offspring are domesticated, and they can breed with either or...

Covered by rmwilliamsll.

As for that feathered creature.... it's a distinct type of animal just like Archeoptryx. It's not a missing link. People probably kept the things as pets in wizards castles which gave rise to legends of little pet dragons.... seriously.

...wizards' castles?

 

[Mallon]

Ok, species maybe was the wrong word since many of y'all want to nitpick scientific terms!

What did you expect? This isn't English class. You can't just make up stuff as you go along and not get called for it. If you're going to step into the realm of science, you have to play by the rules.

But you will not mate things outside their family, no dogs with cats or horses with cows.

What does this have to do with evolution? No scientist has ever argued that individuals from different families could mate to produce new hybrid species.
Also note that no scientist has ever been able to define the term "family" objectively, and so the word virtually has no meaning except "animals that look similar to one another". In fact, organisms of all sorts are quite often difficult to classify because of evolution. If biblical kinds were true, you would be able to tell me unequivocally whether Homo erectus is an ape or a man.

People probably kept the things as pets in wizards castles which gave rise to legends of little pet dragons.... seriously.

Do you not feel that by saying things like this, you're demonstrating a complete unwillingness to address reality? You would sooner believe in wizards and little pet dragons than evolution? Ok... I see I've been wasting my time here.

 

[RealityCheck]

What did you expect? This isn't English class. You can't just make up stuff as you go along and not get called for it. If you're going to step into the realm of science, you have to play by the rules.

Do you not feel that by saying things like this, you're demonstrating a complete unwillingness to address reality? You would sooner believe in wizards and little pet dragons than evolution? Ok... I see I've been wasting my time here.

I was going to say much the same thing...

 

[Starcrystal]

If biblical kinds were true, you would be able to tell me unequivocally whether Homo erectus is an ape or a man.

Do you not feel that by saying things like this, you're demonstrating a complete unwillingness to address reality? You would sooner believe in wizards and little pet dragons than evolution? Ok... I see I've been wasting my time here.

Actually neither.... Homo Erectus & Neanderthal were another species altogether... closely resembling man but not man and not apes. I know Neanderthals were the Druedain mentioned by Tolkien:

(Posted by a friend of mine)

"the Drúedain, also known as Drûgin (singular being Drug), Woses,
Wild Men of the Woods and Púkel-men, were a strange race of Men
which was counted amongst the Edain.

Tolkien got this term from the legendary Woodwoses.

The Drûgin lived among the Second House of Men, the Haladin, in the
First Age in the forest of Brethil. They were an alien folk to the
other Men: a bit like Dwarves in stature and endurance, stumpy,
clumsy-limbed (with short, thick legs, and fat, "gnarled" arms), had
broad chests, fat bellies, and heavy buttocks. According to the
Elves and other Men, they had "unlovely faces": wide, flat, and
expressionless with deep-set black eyes that glowed red when
angered. They had "horny" brows, flat noses, wide mouths, and
sparse, lanky hair. They had no hair lower than the eyebrows, except
for a few men who had a tail of black hair on the chin. They were
short lived

This matches the evidence found on Neanderthal man (not the pop
culture interpretation)."

I have also come across scientific evidence that shows Neanderthals DNA is several parts off to the point they are saying they cannot be classified in the fame family tree anymore (as evolutionists once did)

As far as wizards castles..... there are legends of wizards who had pet dragon like creatures.... but you would only be able to accept this if you beleive dinosaurs and man lived at the same time. Some do, some don't.

 

[RealityCheck]

Amazing. Using Tolkien as a scientific resource. What Tolkien would have to say about that... I can only imagine. I certainly can't type it because this site has profanity filters.

 

[Gazelle]

Dinosaurs are dinosaurs and birds are birds.... nothing "evolved" into another species, people did not come from apes, and God created every species "after its own kind." That means while species can breed with others of the same species, they cannot breed with creatures not of their species: for instance a domestic dog can mate with a wolf or Coyote and produce offspring because all are canids... but you can't mate a dog with a cat or a goat. It just doesn't work that way. You can't even mate a human with an ape, and I hear some sickos have tried.... so this alone proves God created individual species and the species remain relatively the same since creation.
I don't even know how much dinosaurs could interbreed... for instance could a Triceratops mate with other Ceratopsians like Styracasaurus or Protoceratops?
Could Velociraptor breed with Dionychus? Similar animals but I think they all produced after their kind. So dino's didn't turn into birds and if you look at the sheer intracicies of birds feathers you will see they could not have "evolved" over time from a featherless creature. The undeveloped evolving feathers would have been useless, gotten in the way, and led to the inbetween species extinction because others would have hunted it due to its inability to fly and its awkwardness on the ground...

HEY STAR . . . VERY GOOD STUFF . . .

 

[Mallon]

I know Neanderthals were the Druedain mentioned by Tolkien... As far as wizards castles..... there are legends of wizards who had pet dragon like creatures....

Sounds to me that, while you profess to be a Christian, you place your faith in tales about Middle Earth, hobbits, trolls and the like, rather than even the Bible. I guess that's your perogative, but please don't pretend any of this means anything in the face of facts. With all due respect, you obviously have little education in the biological sciences as revealed by your previous posts here (e.g. not being able to differentiate between species), so do you truly expect your musings about wizards and dragons to hold any sway? It's an honest question.

 

[gluadys]

Actually neither.... Homo Erectus & Neanderthal were another species altogether... closely resembling man but not man and not apes. I know Neanderthals were the Druedain mentioned by Tolkien:

(Posted by a friend of mine)

"the Drúedain, also known as Drûgin (singular being Drug), Woses,
Wild Men of the Woods and Púkel-men, were a strange race of Men
which was counted amongst the Edain.

Tolkien got this term from the legendary Woodwoses.

The Drûgin lived among the Second House of Men, the Haladin, in the
First Age in the forest of Brethil. They were an alien folk to the
other Men: a bit like Dwarves in stature and endurance, stumpy,
clumsy-limbed (with short, thick legs, and fat, "gnarled" arms), had
broad chests, fat bellies, and heavy buttocks. According to the
Elves and other Men, they had "unlovely faces": wide, flat, and
expressionless with deep-set black eyes that glowed red when
angered. They had "horny" brows, flat noses, wide mouths, and
sparse, lanky hair. They had no hair lower than the eyebrows, except
for a few men who had a tail of black hair on the chin. They were
short lived

This matches the evidence found on Neanderthal man (not the pop
culture interpretation)."

I have also come across scientific evidence that shows Neanderthals DNA is several parts off to the point they are saying they cannot be classified in the fame family tree anymore (as evolutionists once did)

As far as wizards castles..... there are legends of wizards who had pet dragon like creatures.... but you would only be able to accept this if you beleive dinosaurs and man lived at the same time. Some do, some don't.

I really love Tolkien too. I can even still piece out a bit of the Sindarin of your signature.

But there is a good reason his work is called fantasy. You discredit the greatness of his imagination to treat it as anything else.

 

[imind]

HEY STAR . . . VERY GOOD STUFF . . .

what, exactly was good about it, given that it is all false? i did not know that christians were supposed to support each other and tradition even when it conflicts with the truth.

which is jesus more concerned with, tradition or truth? i would be willing to bet my salvation that he is more concerned with truth.

 

[Assyrian]

Hey it must be true. Tolkein denied LOTR was an allegory.

 

[steen]

I never said that god was dumb, god uses satan to sift out the real beleivers I think, other than that can you hink of a reason why god would have allowed it to happen when he knew it was satan?

Huh? Doesn't make sense. How could Adam or Eve be non-believers before they had knowledge?