Q For Darwinists: Are Fish Birds or Dinosaurs?

[Agonaces of Susa]

Darwinists make the claim that birds are theropod dinosaurs i.e. terrible lizards.

So my question is are fish birds, dinosaurs, or both?

Flying fish glide as well as birds, researchers find

ScienceDaily (Sep. 11, 2010) — We're all familiar with birds that are as comfortable diving as they are flying but only one family of fish has made the reverse journey. Flying fish can remain airborne for over 40s, covering distances of up to 400m at speeds of 70km/h. Haecheon Choi, a mechanical engineer from Seoul National University, Korea, became fascinated by flying fish when reading a science book to his children. Realising that flying fish really do fly, he and his colleague, Hyungmin Park, decided to find out how these unexpected fliers stay aloft.

Their discovery that flying fish glide as well as birds is published in The Journal of Experimental Biology.

But getting hold of flying fish to test in a wind tunnel turned out to be easier said than done. After travelling to Japan to try to buy fish from the world famous Tsukiji fish market, the duo eventually struck up a collaboration with the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives of Korea. Park went fishing in the East Korean Sea, successfully landing 40 darkedged-wing flying fish. Selecting five similarly sized fish, Park took them to the Korean Research Centre of Maritime Animals, where they were dried and stuffed, some with their fins extended (as in flight) and one with its fins held back against the body, ready to test their aerodynamics in the wind tunnel. Fitting 6-axis force sensors to the fish's wings and tilting the fish's body at angles ranging from -15 degrees to 45 degrees, Park and Choi measured the forces on the flying fish's fins and body as they simulated flights.

 

[sbvera13]

Fish are antecedents of both, and thus, are neither.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Fish are antecedents of both, and thus, are neither.

But fish can fly. So if fish were antecedent to dinosaurs and birds, therefore flight cannot have evolved from dinosaurs.

 

[rockaction]

Flight is a convergent trait. It is not relegated in its definition to just birds. Bats can fly, and we do not call them birds.

 

[jacks]

But fish can fly.

They can? On the other hand some birds are great swimmers...

 

[Flatland]

But fish can fly. So if fish were antecedent to dinosaurs and birds, therefore flight cannot have evolved from dinosaurs.

Can you show me a fish that can fly?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Can you show me a fish that can fly?

Can you show me an opening post you have read?

 

[[serious]]

Darwinists make the claim that birds are theropod dinosaurs i.e. terrible lizards.

So my question is are fish birds, dinosaurs, or both?

Flying fish glide as well as birds, researchers find

Well, are you your child or your grandfather?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Well, are you your child or your grandfather?

According to Darwinists, my child is a blue-eyed blond-haired Aryan Übermensch whereas my grandfather was an illiterate subhuman cave ape.

 

[[serious]]

According to Darwinists, my child is a blue-eyed blond-haired Aryan Übermensch whereas my grandfather was an illiterate subhuman cave ape.

Nah, I heard your grandfather could type as well as your son, so they must be the same person. It's only logical. Cavemen didn't type, so I can't be saying your grandfather is a caveman.

 

[Anaximander]

Darwinists make the claim that birds are theropod dinosaurs i.e. terrible lizards.

So my question is are fish birds, dinosaurs, or both?

Hi Agonaces of Susa,

My background is paleontology and fossil stratigraphy. I am also a devout Christian who embraces the reality of biological evolution not because someone told me so, but because I searched for it on my own in the fossil record.

First, theropod dinos were not "terrible lizards". The origin of this name came at a time when very little was understood about dinos and investigators merely thought they were big reptiles. They have since realized there are many differences. As some have pointed out, flight does not define a bird. Case in point - an ostriche is a flightless bird. Young earth creationist Duane Gish defines a bird as a creature having a fercula (wishbone) and feathers. Well, the raptor dinos had a fercula AND feathers. The problem is we can no longer separate birds from dinos by morphology. You cannot say "Well, birds have no teeth and no bony tail like dinos" (which is correct), because Gish claims Archaeopteryx was a bird yet it had teeth and a bony tail.

Even though this answer just might be convincing to you, my bet is that your opinion on evolution has not changed. Why? Your rejection of biological evolution has nothing to do with "evidence against evolution" arguments, it is because you have wholeheartedly embraced a particular interpretation of Genesis, i.e., a religious belief.

Am I wrong?

best,

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Hi Agonaces of Susa,

My background is paleontology and fossil stratigraphy. I am also a devout Christian who embraces the reality of biological evolution not because someone told me so, but because I searched for it on my own in the fossil record.

First, theropod dinos were not "terrible lizards". The origin of this name came at a time when very little was understood about dinos and investigators merely thought they were big reptiles. They have since realized there are many differences. As some have pointed out, flight does not define a bird. Case in point - an ostriche is a flightless bird. Young earth creationist Duane Gish defines a bird as a creature having a fercula (wishbone) and feathers. Well, the raptor dinos had a fercula AND feathers. The problem is we can no longer separate birds from dinos by morphology. You cannot say "Well, birds have no teeth and no bony tail like dinos" (which is correct), because Gish claims Archaeopteryx was a bird yet it had teeth and a bony tail.

Even though this answer just might be convincing to you, my bet is that your opinion on evolution has not changed. Why? Your rejection of biological evolution has nothing to do with "evidence against evolution" arguments, it is because you have wholeheartedly embraced a particular interpretation of Genesis, i.e., a religious belief.

Am I wrong?

best,

Hi Anaximander.

Yes you are wrong.

I reject evolution because there is not only no scientific evidence for it, but also because all the scientific evidence falsifies it.

E.g. it is impossible for Homo sapiens sapiens to have spontaneously evolved into existence in Ethiopia 195,000 B.C. because there were already Homo sapiens sapiens living in Mexico 250,000 B.C.

On the contrary, it is Darwinism that is a religious belief because fundamentalists continue to believe in it despite the disconfirming scientific evidence.

The reality is that humans like us are millions of years old.

And we will never give birth to anything other than a human like us. DNA etc.

 

[Anaximander]

Hi Anaximander.

Yes you are wrong.

I reject evolution because there is not only no scientific evidence for it, but also because all the scientific evidence falsifies it.

E.g. it is impossible for Homo sapiens sapiens to have spontaneously evolved into existence in Ethiopia 195,000 B.C. because there were already Homo sapiens sapiens living in Mexico 250,000 B.C.

On the contrary, it is Darwinism that is a religious belief because fundamentalists continue to believe in it despite the disconfirming scientific evidence.

The reality is that humans like us are millions of years old.

And we will never give birth to anything other than a human like us. DNA etc.

Why are you lying for Jesus? Scientific evidence has nothing to do with it, it's biblical evidence that pulls your strings, and you know it. To make comments like Homo sapiens "spontaneously" evolving shows clear ignorance in evolutionary theory. I challenge you to search peer reviewed literature (and not creationist websites) and show me where any scientist claims this. I can save you the trouble - none. Are you truly confident that Homo sapiens were in Mexico 250,000 years ago? This claim state that it was confirmed by radiocarbon dating, which is a physical impossibility!

Also, giving birth to humans has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. Nowhere does it say a pre-human gave birth to a human. If you believe this, then you have a huge misconception about evolution.

best,

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Why are you lying for Jesus?

Why are you trolling for Darwin?

Scientific evidence has nothing to do with it

No wonder you believe in biological evolution...

To make comments like Homo sapiens "spontaneously" evolving shows clear ignorance in evolutionary theory.

What miracle do you claim caused humans like us to spontaneously evolve in 195,000 B.C.?

I challenge you to search peer reviewed literature (and not creationist websites) and show me where any scientist claims this. I can save you the trouble - none.

"The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought and the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory [evolution], period. Their reasoning is circular. H. sapiens sapiens evolved ca. 30,000-50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Therefore any H.s.s. tools 250,000 years old found in Mexico are impossible because H.s.s. evolved ca. 30,000- ... etc. Such thinking makes for self-satisfied archaeologists but lousy science!" -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981

Irwin-Williams, C., et al., Comments on the Associations of Archaeological Materials and Extinct Fauna in the Valsequillo Region Puebla Mexico, American Antiquity, Volume 34, Number 1, Pages 82-83, Jan 1969

Szabo, B.J., Malde, H.E., and Irwin-Williams, C., Dilemma Posed By Uranium-Series Dates On Archaeologically Significant Bones From Valsequillo Puebla Mexico, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 6, Pages 237-244, Jul 1969

Steen-McIntyre, V., et al., Geologic Evidence for Age Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archaeological Site Valsequillo Mexico, Quaternary Research, Number 16, Pages 1-17, 1981

VanLandingham, S.L., Corroboration of Sangamonian Age of Artifacts From the Valsequillo Region Puebla Mexico By Means of Diatom Biostratigraphy, Micropaleontology, Volume 50, Number 4, Pages 313-342, 2004

Are you truly confident that Homo sapiens were in Mexico 250,000 years ago?

Yes.

"I determined fission-track ages on zircons from two of the tephra units overlying the artifacted beds. The Hueyatlaco ash yielded a zircon fission-track age of 370,000+/-200,000 years, and the Tetela brown mud yielded an age of 600,000+/-340,000 years. There is a 96 percent chance that the true age of these tephras lie within the range defined by the age and the plus or minus value. Now, there were four different geological dating techniques that suggested a far greater antiquity to the artifacts than anyone in the archaeological community wanted to admit." -- Charles W. Naeser, chemist, April 2007

Do you claim to know more about chemistry than Charles Naeser did?

This claim state that it was confirmed by radiocarbon dating, which is a physical impossibility!

LOL.

For someone who is such an expert you seem to not know anything about radiocarbon dating.

Radiocarbon dating is alleged to only work up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years ago.

Also, giving birth to humans has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. Nowhere does it say a pre-human gave birth to a human. If you believe this, then you have a huge misconception about evolution.

What animal do you claim gave birth to the first human?

 

[Targ]

I'm also going to have to ask for a source for the claim that homo sapiens existed in Mexico 250,000 years ago. The oldest evidence of homo sapiens living there dates back to around 21,000 years ago. Mitochondrial-DNA studies also place the earliest homo sapiens in Mexico at around a similar time.

 

[Anaximander]

Why are you trolling for Darwin?


No wonder you believe in biological evolution...


What miracle do you claim caused humans like us to spontaneously evolve in 195,000 B.C.?



"The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought and the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory [evolution], period. Their reasoning is circular. H. sapiens sapiens evolved ca. 30,000-50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Therefore any H.s.s. tools 250,000 years old found in Mexico are impossible because H.s.s. evolved ca. 30,000- ... etc. Such thinking makes for self-satisfied archaeologists but lousy science!" -- Virginia Steen-McIntyre, tephrochronologist, March 30th 1981


Yes.

"I determined fission-track ages on zircons from two of the tephra units overlying the artifacted beds. The Hueyatlaco ash yielded a zircon fission-track age of 370,000+/-200,000 years, and the Tetela brown mud yielded an age of 600,000+/-340,000 years. There is a 96 percent chance that the true age of these tephras lie within the range defined by the age and the plus or minus value. Now, there were four different geological dating techniques that suggested a far greater antiquity to the artifacts than anyone in the archaeological community wanted to admit." -- Charles W. Naeser, chemist, April 2007

Do you claim to know more about chemistry than Charles Naeser did?


LOL.

For someone who is such an expert you seem to not know anything about radiocarbon dating.

Radiocarbon dating is alleged to only work up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years ago.


What animal do you claim gave birth to the first human?

It's amazing how a young earth creationist is so confident about Charles Naeser's research. Of course, you fail to tell anyone that the two skulls supposedly found were not found in situ:

per Naeser: "We have evidence for two primitive human skulls. The Dorenberg skull was collected in the area over 100 years ago (Reichelt,1899 (1900)) ...It was on display in a museum in Leipzig for many years, and was destroyed during the bombings of WW II. We are looking for a photo or drawing of it.

The second skull, the Ostrander skull, is rumored to have been collected illegally at Hueyátlaco sometime in the late 60’s or early 70’s and recently to have been turned over to a Native American tribe for reburial. No attempt was made to date it."

The evidence for humans is suspect, not the rock dates.

When you state, "What animal do you claim gave birth to the first human" is another example of pure ignorance of biological evolution. Nowhere does any scientist claim anything other than human beings give rise to human beings. Are you still confused? That's because your education on evolution came from anti-evolutionists.

best,

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

It's amazing how a young earth creationist is so confident about Charles Naeser's research.

I am an Old Earth Creationist so you've got your "facts" wrong again.

The evidence for humans is suspect, not the rock dates.

LOL.

If I was a fundamentalist Darwinist with faith in biological evolution I would be suspicious of peer-reviewed science as well.

When you state, "What animal do you claim gave birth to the first human" is another example of pure ignorance of biological evolution.

Afraid to answer a simple question?

Nowhere does any scientist claim anything other than human beings give rise to human beings.

I agree.

However pseudoscientsts i.e. Darwinists make the absurd claim that humans evolved from an ape. What ape gave birth to the first human and why?

Are you still confused? That's because your education on evolution came from anti-evolutionists.

I wish that were true.

Unfortunately I live in America where it is illegal to teach any scientific hypothesis other than evolution in public school biology class. Therefore I was brainwashed with Darwinism from the time I could crawl. What makes us different is that I don't have blind faith in Charles Darwin's Victorian Age hypothesis.

 

[rockaction]

If I was a fundamentalist Darwinist with faith in biological evolution I would be suspicious of peer-reviewed science as well.

Hey, you're the one who thinks the following 2.8 million papers are bunk!

evolution - Google Scholar

 

[Anaximander]

However pseudoscientsts i.e. Darwinists make the absurd claim that humans evolved from an ape. What ape gave birth to the first human and why?

This is clearly another example of you not understanding the evolutionary process. Regardless if you believe scientific literature is biased, nowhere does it say humans gave birth to anything other than humans. You just don't get it.

...so, if you really do not understand the evolutionary process, then how can you reject something you do not know. Obviously, because you are basing it upon your favored interpretation of Genesis. Notice it is an interpretation, not revelation.

Unfortunately I live in America where it is illegal to teach any scientific hypothesis other than evolution in public school biology class.

Wrong. It is legal to teach any and all scientific hypotheses, just not creationism.

best,

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

This is clearly another example of you not understanding the evolutionary process. Regardless if you believe scientific literature is biased, nowhere does it say humans gave birth to anything other than humans. You just don't get it.

How are you defining human?

If by human you mean Homo sapiens sapiens then I agree that humans gave birth to the humans that are mythologically alleged to have not existed in Kenya in 195,001 B.C. and then somehow magically and miraculously appeared for no reason in 195,000 B.C.

Wrong. It is legal to teach any and all scientific hypotheses, just not creationism.

LOL. I challenge you to name one hypothesis other than evolution that is legal to teach in public school biology.

And if Darwinists are so confident in their so-called "theory" why do they need to use censorship and the law to enforce their religious beliefs?