When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Hoghead1]

All that proves is that there were feathered dinosaurs. When looking at the fossils you could see similarities to birds. So you could predict you might find some big dinosaur birds. That doesn't mean they evolved. All it means is that we found something cool. Dinosaurs were amazing creatures and there were so many different kinds. Just like there are tons of different kinds of birds or insects. None of it proves evolution.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

According to you and your great expertise, which you feel transcends anything in science.

 

[Abraxos]

I think In situ probably meant to write Confuciusornis, Yanornis, and Protarchaeopteryx. (I'm not sure what genus he had in mind when he wrote "Ajanciengenia"--maybe he can tell us.)

Thanks.

No Velociraptor fossils preserve the feathers directly, but one of them has preserved quill knobs, which are feather attachment points. This paper has a photograph of Velociraptor's quill knobs, and a comparison to the quill knobs on a modern bird. On that fossil they're kind of difficult to see, but they're more prominent on a larger dromaeosaurid called Dakotaraptor. (In the Dakotaraptor paper, the arm bone with its quill knobs is shown on the fifth page.)

From what I've gathered there is a few questions that had arised with these "quill-knobs". Forgive me for being rather rigorous in my understanding of this because, I love truth and I'm sure many want to know it no matter where that leads to.

Anyway, as I said there were a few questionable things about this. For example,

• Other Velociraptor forearms are quite smooth—no knobs. Assuming all members of this group had feathers that required such strong anchoring, shouldn't at least the well-preserved ones show quill knobs?

• The bumps identified as quill knobs on all these dinosaur bones have peculiar differences from the real ones we see today on certain bird bones.

• Some are much smaller in proportion.

• Some have different or less regular spacing.

• Other dinosaur bone knobs run along the outside of their arms, instead of along the back of the bone as in modern birds.

• Real quill knobs occur in birds with feathers needing very strong attachments because of the rigors of powered flight. But Dromaeosaurid arms were too small to serve as wings—and in the case of Dakotaraptor the arms were much too small. Why would these creatures need such strongly anchored feathers if they couldn't even use them to fly?

Also, tiny bone bumps have more uses than just anchoring feathers. They sometimes mark attachment points for connective tissue. Evolutionary paleontologist Darren Naish dared to express skepticism over quill knobs in a Concavenator from Spain. He wrote in a 2010 blog post, "Animals sometimes have weird, irregularly spaced tubercles arranged in lines on various of their bones, typically located on intermuscular lines (they presumably represent partially ossified attachment sites for tendinous sheets or similar structures): I've seen them on mammal bones and on a theropod tibia." http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/09/09/concavenator-incredible-allosauroid/

• Why must tiny bumps on dinosaur bones signify feather attachments if they don't on mammal bones?

There have also been studies of these 'quill-knobs' through high powered electron microscopes and they found that these 'quill-knobs' are found in other extinct reptiles, like Leiocephalus Eremitus, and that they don't actually show feathers but evidence of a naturally occurring phenomena formed in Rigormortis.

http://www.icr.org/article/9024

 

[Aggie]

Other Velociraptor forearms are quite smooth—no knobs. Assuming all members of this group had feathers that required such strong anchoring, shouldn't at least the well-preserved ones show quill knobs?

Do you have a source for this? (I mean a photograph or description of a specific fossil, not just what ICR says.) There are not many Velociraptor fossils where the arm bones are well-enough preserved for it to be possible to tell whether it had quill knobs or not. Being able to make this sort of judgement about quill knobs doesn't just require that the arm bones be preserved; it also requires that the bones haven't been significantly distorted or worn after the animal died.

In the specimen where the quill knobs were identified, identifying them required an electron microscope. As far as I know, no one has done that test on any of the few other Velociraptor fossils that are well-enough preserved to possibly make that judgement about them.

These next several points are related to one another, so I think it's best to answer them all at once:

The bumps identified as quill knobs on all these dinosaur bones have peculiar differences from the real ones we see today on certain bird bones.

Some are much smaller in proportion.

Some have different or less regular spacing.

Other dinosaur bone knobs run along the outside of their arms, instead of along the back of the bone as in modern birds.

Real quill knobs occur in birds with feathers needing very strong attachments because of the rigors of powered flight. But Dromaeosaurid arms were too small to serve as wings—and in the case of Dakotaraptor the arms were much too small. Why would these creatures need such strongly anchored feathers if they couldn't even use them to fly?

Dromaeosaurids are not direct ancestors of birds, so it's expecting too much if you expect their and birds' quill knobs to be identical in structure. One obvious difference is that with a few possible exceptions (such as Changyuraptor and Microraptor), dromaeosaurids weren't able to fly. Birds need especially strong and robust quill knobs, because when they fly their wings have to support their entire body weight, but dromaeosaurids didn't have that requirement.

The Dakotaraptor paper mentions a few possible ways that it might have used its wings, and there's one in particular that would have required somewhat sturdy anchor points for its feathers (although not as sturdy as would have been required for flight.) Modern birds of prey use their wings for one other function besides flight: they also flap their wings to stay balanced on the ground while holding onto struggling prey animals with their feet. This paper describes how that the feet of dromaeosaurids share several of the same traits that enable modern birds of prey to do this. If dromaeosaurids (including Dakotaraptor) used their feet in this way, flapping their wings to stay balanced would have been useful to them for the same reason that it's useful to modern raptors.

Also, tiny bone bumps have more uses than just anchoring feathers. They sometimes mark attachment points for connective tissue. Evolutionary paleontologist Darren Naish dared to express skepticism over quill knobs in a Concavenator from Spain. He wrote in a 2010 blog post, "Animals sometimes have weird, irregularly spaced tubercles arranged in lines on various of their bones, typically located on intermuscular lines (they presumably represent partially ossified attachment sites for tendinous sheets or similar structures): I've seen them on mammal bones and on a theropod tibia." http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/09/09/concavenator-incredible-allosauroid/

Why must tiny bumps on dinosaur bones signify feather attachments if they don't on mammal bones?
There have also been studies of these 'quill-knobs' through high powered electron microscopes and they found that these 'quill-knobs' are found in other extinct reptiles, like Leiocephalus Eremitus, and that they don't actually show feathers but evidence of a naturally occurring phenomena formed in Rigormortis.

http://www.icr.org/article/9024

One of the problems with articles like that one from ICR is that they don't include photographs of the muscle attachment points that they say can be mistaken for quill knobs. If they had included a photograph, I think you'd be able to see that the two aren't all that difficult to tell apart.

Darren Naish's article is more useful, because that one does include photographs. Note that on Concavenator the possible quill knobs are much more closely spaced at one end of the bone than at the other, and they're also on what would have been the side of the animal's arm instead of the back of its arm. These are valid reason to doubt that what Concavenator has are actual quill knobs. But Naish specifically points out that in these respects Concavenator is different from dromeosaurids, whereas the location and spacing of quill knobs in dromeosaurids is similar to what it is in birds. These are the sorts of traits one can look at to determine whether an animal has "true" quill knobs or not.

 

[Jimmy D]

No there aren't. Evolutionists use fully formed fossils and claim they are transitions because they believe in evolution. They don't know they are transitional fossils cause they were not there to observe the changes necessary for the offspring to evolve into something else. Its supposition and assumption. They don't know the creatures were not always the creatures for as long as they existed. Fossil evidence is only evidence that that particular creature existed at that time. It is not proof that it evolved from anything else. Unless you believe in evolution. Of so then everything is proof of evolution. Evolution is a dogma. It is not science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Can I ask about the level of your education in biology or paleontology?

 

[Nithavela]

Feather are highly specialised things for flight.

 

[Nithavela]

No there aren't. Evolutionists use fully formed fossils and claim they are transitions because they believe in evolution. They don't know they are transitional fossils cause they were not there to observe the changes necessary for the offspring to evolve into something else. Its supposition and assumption. They don't know the creatures were not always the creatures for as long as they existed. Fossil evidence is only evidence that that particular creature existed at that time. It is not proof that it evolved from anything else. Unless you believe in evolution. Of so then everything is proof of evolution. Evolution is a dogma. It is not science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Could you give us an example of what would constitute a transitional fossil?

Crocoduck?

 

[DogmaHunter]

They can't answer the question of how do you KNOW it's not a creature of its own and did not evolve.

They can. In exactly the same way that they can tell you if your dad is your actual biological dad.

Its guess work and assumption based upon a belief system.

Nope, just like it isn't guess work and assumption based when science determines if your dad is your biological dad.

But at least we agree that assumption based belief systems are a bad thing.

Unless you can tag an animal and watch it evolve into something else evolution cannot be proven.

It's actually kind of funny because animals (and all other living things) ARE tagged.

It's called DNA.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No there aren't. Evolutionists use fully formed fossils and claim they are transitions because they believe in evolution.

You think a "transitional fossil" is something like a crockoduck?

How cute...

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Dinosaurs turned into birds? Wow. Never heard that before. I did hear that birds are the most 'similar' animals to dinosaurs, but that they both developed independently.

...I don't believe it.

Unfortunately this shows your ignorance of evolution.

Dinosaurs to birds is not a new or secretive idea.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Unfortunately this shows your ignorance of evolution.

Dinosaurs to birds is not a new or secretive idea.

Well, I knew that looking at a bird was like looking at the closest thing to a dinosaur. I just didn't know they were "direct" descendants.

...Nothing here is "unfortunate".

 

[Landon Caeli]

...so birds are dinosaurs then..? It doesn't seem like it according to this article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...a-seedy-story-researcherssay/article29705574/

 

[Landon Caeli]

So it's impossible that birds and dinosaurs developed from the same ancestors. No, birds developed "from" the dinosaurs directly. Fine. Done.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...so birds are dinosaurs then..? It doesn't seem like it according to this article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...a-seedy-story-researcherssay/article29705574/

Birds are dinosaurs yes.

In the sense that is pretty impossible to come up with a definition for "dinosaur" that includes ALL known dino's, but excludes birds, without explicitly adding to the definition ".... but not birds".

In the same sense, it is impossible to come up with a definition for "mammal" or "primate" that includes ALL known mammals or primates, but excludes humans.

 

[Jimmy D]

So it's impossible that birds and dinosaurs developed from the same ancestors. No, birds developed "from" the dinosaurs directly. Fine. Done.

We're all friends here as far as I'm concerned, I meant you no ill will.

I understood from your post that I quoted "....I don't believe it" that you had an issue with the OP and the common ancestry of modern birds and dinosaurs hence I queried your understanding. No big deal.

 

[freezerman2000]

 

[freezerman2000]

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON


And now here's something we hope you'll really like.

I did a small clean up. Keep all that personal snarky stuff to yourselves.

If I have to come back in here again, I'm crackin' skulls.

(A little Breakfast Club reference for you. And if you don't know what the Breakfast Club is, we can't be friends.)

Okay, go have fun now.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[PsychoSarah]

...so birds are dinosaurs then..? It doesn't seem like it according to this article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...a-seedy-story-researcherssay/article29705574/

Not exactly a scientific journal, now is it? There's a ton of crap to shift through on the Internet, and not everyone can easily tell apart the gems and the fecal matter.

 

[rjs330]

Hmmm. Very interesting. From what you say, it would appear to be the case that you, a lay person, are way smarter and better informed than all these scientists and therefore qualified to sit in judgment on them. Hmmm. Very interesting.

I am not smarter. But I admit my bias. I fully biased towards creationism. I believe that the Biblical account of creation is accurate. And I fully admit that neither I nor any other human alive witnessed it. I also admit that the human author of Genesis was not there either. I simply believe based on faith that that's The way it iccurred.

The problem with evolutionists is they won't admit What I admit. That evolutionary theory is based upon a belief system, because they can't prove any of it. They say it's fact, but by any scientific measurment it can't be proven. All they do is driven by The dogma that evolution is true therefore all fossils prove it. The fact remains they can do,nothing but point to fully formed fossils and they evolved from other fully formed fossils with no actual,proof that they did. It's supposition because it cannot be duplicated. And they can't prove that each creature is not their own unique creature. Its evolution is true therefore these must have evolved from these.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

No, that is not at all the way science works. Again, you assume you know far more about it than science does. To me, that is about the epitome of hubris.

To,me the epitome of hubris is for humans to say they know,more about how we came into,existence than God does.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk