Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?

Well, the thing is, we have genetics now. If the fossil record didn't align with genetics, then it would basically become nonsense and wouldn't be viable in terms of support of the theory of evolution. But of course that isn't the case. The fossil record exists and it parallels phylogenies of the field of genetics.

And with that said, the question becomes, if we have evidence for evolution, but creationists have a problem with that, what is their better explanation?

"God did it". Isn't particularly meaningful. Because God could just use evolution.

Anyone can say "God did it" but the question is, what did God do? Evolutionists could say "God did it" just the same.

So, when we talk about the theory of evolution, we need to speak in terms of mechanisms and science. And the question returns to the beginning of the discussion, if not evolution, then what is the better mechanism that creationists propose?

lifepsyop said:

if fossils were in different places than they are today, you would simply have a different 'understanding' of how evolution occurred.

Click to expand...

Right. Their location is evidence for the way it works. The key is that the order of fossils fits Darwin's theory, but we only knew that after Darwin had published it. Theories are tested by their predictions. The order of fossils confirms his theory.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YCE Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

lifepsyop said:

knowing this, it's rather awkward to point to their current locations as some kind of amazing vindication for the theory.

Click to expand...

Knowledgeable YECs disagree with you.

Job 33:6 said:

Anyone can say "God did it" but the question is, what did God do? Evolutionists could say "God did it" just the same.

Click to expand...

YECs and theistic evolutionists agree that God did it. The difference is that theistic evolutionists aren't offended by the way He did it.

lifepsyop said:

evolutionists look at the fossil record and say "see! it all fits!", but in a way it's like marveling over how well a fluid like water conforms to the shape of the container you used to hold it, not realizing that a totally different shaped container would hold the water just as well....

Click to expand...

The difference is, the fossil record nicely fits Darwinian theory, and the "tree of life" first noted by Linnaeus, who was not even aware of evolution. Again, fulfilled predictions in the fossil record is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory, as knowledgeable YECs admit.

lifepsyop said:

it's not exactly that simple

Click to expand...

No kidding. For example, Huxley predicted transitional forms between birds and other dinosaurs. Much later, the predictions of the theory were confirmed. Do you understand the difference?

lifepsyop said:

since evolution theory's constraints are imaginary 'common ancestry' nodes

Click to expand...

As you now see, many such predicted nodes have been found long after they were predicted. This is how theories are validated in science.

lifepsyop said:

*edit: there's nothing wrong with modeling your theory around the data, that's expected, actually.

Click to expand...

But as you see, that's not how it works with evolutionary theory. Predictions based on the theory have been repeatedly validated much later. Theory first, data later. Would you like some more examples?

lifepsyop said:

it's just that evolutionists who say "the fossils match with the theory" haven't thought about just how malleable their theory actually in terms of conforming to the shape of fossil data.

Click to expand...

See above. You've been badly misled about how it works. Darwin, in The Descent of Man, predicted the origin of humans in Africa, and predicted transitionals between humans and other apes. Both of those predictions were much later confirmed.

There are many, many more. Would you like to see some more?

River Jordan said:

I'm very confident that if they came up with a vastly superior model that got better results, someone somewhere would take it up and use it.

Click to expand...

Yes. Science is very pragmatic. If something works, it will be used, no matter who objects. If it doesn't work, they won't bother with it.

Job 33:6 said:

Well, the thing is, we have genetics now. If the fossil record didn't align with genetics, then it would basically become nonsense and wouldn't be viable in terms of support of the theory of evolution. But of course that isn't the case. The fossil record exists and it parallels phylogenies of the field of genetics.

Click to expand...

I think the theory is often advertised that way, but it's not really true.

There are not really anything like rigid genetic or 'molecular clocks' that confirm or parallels a timeline of when something supposedly evolved. I think that was actually predicted by geneticists at one point, but eventually given up on because it was a mess.

Genetic similarity generally follows phenotypic similarity, but 'like following like' isn't very surprising, nor is it contingent on any particular order of fossils.

Job 33:6 said:

And with that said, the question becomes, if we have evidence for evolution, but creationists have a problem with that, what is their better explanation?

"God did it". Isn't particularly meaningful. Because God could just use evolution.

Anyone can say "God did it" but the question is, what did God do? Evolutionists could say "God did it" just the same.

So, when we talk about the theory of evolution, we need to speak in terms of mechanisms and science. And the question returns to the beginning of the discussion, if not evolution, then what is the better mechanism that creationists propose?

Click to expand...

right, evolution is *the* natural explanation.
science is methodological naturalism.
thus science applied to history can *only* see an evolutionary explanation, i.e. natural process/development. there are no competitors.

this is a philosophical/ontological question, not a scientific one.

The Barbarian said:

The difference is, the fossil record nicely fits Darwinian theory, and the "tree of life" first noted by Linnaeus, who was not even aware of evolution. Again, fulfilled predictions in the fossil record is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory, as knowledgeable YECs admit.

Click to expand...

uh huh, you keep repeating this and refuse to engage with any criticism of your rosey view of Darwinism.

The Barbarian said:

No kidding. For example, Huxley predicted transitional forms between birds and other dinosaurs. Much later, the predictions of the theory were confirmed. Do you understand the difference?

Click to expand...

good for Huxley,
what else would birds have evolved from? fish? frogs? mammals?

actually there was an older fringe theory that birds did evolve from a type of mammal.

so the bases are always covered. whatever a higher resolution pattern of fossils revealed, evolutionists had a story ready.

The Barbarian said:

As you now see, many such predicted nodes have been found long after they were predicted. This is how theories are validated in science.

Click to expand...

i think you are particularly in love with this theory and have trouble examining it critically, even slightly

The difference is, the fossil record nicely fits Darwinian theory, and the "tree of life" first noted by Linnaeus, who was not even aware of evolution. Again, fulfilled predictions in the fossil record is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory, as knowledgeable YECs admit.

lifepsyop said:

uh huh, you keep repeating this

Click to expand...

It probably seems unfair to YECs that scientists keep harping on evidence like this. Until you engage with the evidence that shows Darwin's theory explains not only the puzzling evidence known at the time, but also evidence found after he proposed his theory. YECs try to avoid that kind of evidence.

lifepsyop said:

this and refuse to engage with any criticism of your rosey view of Darwinism.

Click to expand...

I've shot down a lot of criticism, but I've critiqued his theory myself. He was wrong, for example, about heredity. It was a major flaw in his theory, one that delayed acceptance of his theory until genetics explained how new traits could persist.

For example, Huxley predicted transitional forms between birds and other dinosaurs. Much later, the predictions of the theory were confirmed. Do you understand the difference?

lifepsyop said:

good for Huxley,

Click to expand...

He was skilled in anatomy, and noticed that birds and crocodiles shared key homologies. Since crocodiles and dinosaurs are archosaurs, he concluded that birds are also. Only much later did we find that numerous transitionals exist, confirming his conclusion.

lifepsyop said:

what else would birds have evolved from? fish?

Click to expand...

Not tetrapods, not amniotes. So birds could not have directly evolved from fish.

lifepsyop said:

frogs?

Click to expand...

Not amniotes. Evolved urostyle. So birds could not have directly evolved from frogs.

lifepsyop said:

mammals?

Click to expand...

Not cynodonts. Lack differential teeth. Pneumatized bones. So birds could not have directly evolved from mammals.

lifepsyop said:

actually there was an older fringe theory that birds did evolve from a type of mammal.

Click to expand...

But you can't show us any scientist who supported such an idea? I think I know why. You see, not only did evolutionary theory accurately predict many transitional forms, we never see an transitional forms where they shouldn't be. No mammals with feathers or pneumatized bones.

As you now see, many such predicted nodes have been found long after they were predicted. This is how theories are validated in science.

lifepsyop said:

i think you are particularly in love with this theory and have trouble examining it critically, even slightly

Click to expand...

We see a lot of that kind of projection from YECs. They start with a conclusion and try to justify it. Science is different:

lifepsyop said:

I think the theory is often advertised that way, but it's not really true.

There are not really anything like rigid genetic or 'molecular clocks' that confirm or parallels a timeline of when something supposedly evolved. I think that was actually predicted by geneticists at one point, but eventually given up on because it was a mess.

Click to expand...

Well, as a scientist, I disagree. Anyone can go to WebMD and look at a variety of genomes for comparison. Phylogenies do indeed exist in very clear and structured patterns.

lifepsyop said:

right, evolution is *the* natural explanation.
science is methodological naturalism.
thus science applied to history can *only* see an evolutionary explanation, i.e. natural process/development. there are no competitors.

Click to expand...

lifepsyop said:

this is a philosophical/ontological question, not a scientific one.

Click to expand...

Sure. So in terms of how God created life, what is your issue with God using these observable natural mechanisms?

With admittedly, no competitors, why not let it be the most probable way that God did it?

There are naturalistic explanations for how babies are born, and I accept them as a mechanism most probable for how God creates life. I don't argue against that and imagine hypothetical miracles where they need not be.

Job 33:6 said:

The fossil record exists and it parallels phylogenies of the field of genetics.

Click to expand...

lifepsyop said:

I think the theory is often advertised that way, but it's not really true.

Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look...


Looks pretty close to me.

lifepsyop said:

There are not really anything like rigid genetic or 'molecular clocks' that confirm or parallels a timeline of when something supposedly evolved. I think that was actually predicted by geneticists at one point, but eventually given up on because it was a mess.

Click to expand...

See above.

lifepsyop said:

right, evolution is *the* natural explanation.
science is methodological naturalism.

Click to expand...

So is plumbing. For the same reasons.

lifepsyop said:

thus science applied to history can *only* see an evolutionary explanation,

Click to expand...

There was science before evolutionary theory. You were badly misled about that.

lifepsyop said:

i.e. natural process/development. there are no competitors.

Click to expand...

It's at least conceptually possible that hydraulic fairies make my shower work. But it's not much use to the guys redoing my bathroom.

lifepsyop said:

this is a philosophical/ontological question, not a scientific one.

Click to expand...

Which is why science and plumbing stick to observable phenomena to make it work. Go figure.

Creationists really just don't have a good reason to be creationists. And, it really isn't hard to see it.

Evolution has evidence. Creationism doesn't.

It's just not hard to see this.

And they might say, as an alternative, "God did it", but if they aren't basing their opinion on evidence, then who's to say that when "God did it" that God didn't do evolution?

It's really plain and simple logic at play.

If a plumber comes over and fixes your pipes, or a doctor performs surgery and fixes your body, we could say "God did it". But alternatively, couldn't we just say that God worked through a natural process (plumbing and surgery) to accomplish His goals?

It just doesn't make sense to say, "God did it, and it cannot possibly be through natural mechanisms." Because the evidence favors natural mechanisms having been involved.

And without a competitor, that is, supernatural mechanisms that can be explained, they become the less likely or less probable explanation for how God did it.

Or at the very least, the supernatural beliefs do not replace natural explanations. They can only compliment them.

The Barbarian said:

Not tetrapods, not amniotes. So birds could not have directly evolved from fish.

Not amniotes. Evolved urostyle. So birds could not have directly evolved from frogs.

Not cynodonts. Lack differential teeth. Pneumatized bones. So birds could not have directly evolved from mammals.

Click to expand...

you're thinking too rigidly - the imagined ancestral nodes and lineages can be shifted closer or further away from an existing group, without having to claim it evolved 'directly' from that group

evolution has a lot of fluidity like that. one group is never said to have 'directly evolved from another group. it's always a matter of sharing a mysterious common ancestor.

The Barbarian said:

But you can't show us any scientist who supported such an idea? I think I know why. You see, not only did evolutionary theory accurately predict many transitional forms, we never see an transitional forms where they shouldn't be. No mammals with feathers or pneumatized bones.

Click to expand...

it was a serious proposition at one time - that birds are more closely related to mammals then reptiles/dinosaurs.

it used to be easy to find the articles on this, but now it's as if it's been scrubbed from the internet. the clade had a proposed name that began with an H, that was long and hard to pronounce - like, hymnepotheria or something... I'll let you know if I can find it again. I'm actually surprised you've never heard of it.

(suggestion that birds might have evolved from mammals)

Not tetrapods, not amniotes. So birds could not have directly evolved from fish.

Not amniotes. Evolved urostyle. So birds could not have directly evolved from frogs.

Not cynodonts. Lack differential teeth. Pneumatized bones. So birds could not have directly evolved from mammals.

lifepsyop said:

you're thinking too rigidly

Click to expand...

You know how scientists are about nature. If it's not supported by evidence, it's not going to be accepted. Imagination is fun, but it doesn't work in the real world without evidence.

lifepsyop said:

the imagined ancestral nodes and lineages can be shifted closer or further away from an existing group, without having to claim it evolved 'directly' from that group

Click to expand...

Nope. Those facts would pretty much kill any notion that birds evolved from mammals. I notice you can't show even one scientist who said they did.

lifepsyop said:

it was a serious proposition at one time - that birds are more closely related to mammals then reptiles/dinosaurs.

Click to expand...

So the claim has shifted a bit. But you still can't find one scientist who says so? Here's why:

Mammals are synapsids, having split off early from basal amniotes. The very structure of their skulls set them apart from diapsids and anapsids. Rather basic anatomical fact. Who would be that ignorant. Archosaurs like birds and other dinosaurs and crocodiles, are diapsids.

You've confused analogy with homology. Some fish are also warm-blooded. But that doesn't make them descendants of mammals.

lifepsyop said:

it used to be easy to find the articles on this, but now it's as if it's been scrubbed from the internet.

Click to expand...

It's not a worldwide science conspiracy, like the guys covering up a flat Earth. I now realize that you're talking about homeotherms. It's a polyphyletic term, not a term indicating common descent. Cladistics is not about descent; it makes a distinction between:

1. Monophyly, referring to a group that includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants.
2. Paraphyly, referring to a group that includes a common ancestor but not all of its descendants.
3. Polyphyly, referring to a group that does not share a recent common ancestor.

Birds and mammals comprise a polyphyletic group, because they are homeotherms. Tuna are not part of this polyphyletic group. While they are warm-blooded they don't maintain a constant body temperature.

Glad we could clear that up.

lifepsyop said:

I'm actually surprised you've never heard of it.

Click to expand...

I'm not that deep into cladistics, but this is pretty basic biology.

The Barbarian said:

Mammals are synapsids, having split off early from basal amniotes. The very structure of their skulls set them apart from diapsids and anapsids. Rather basic anatomical fact. Who would be that ignorant. Archosaurs like birds and other dinosaurs and crocodiles, are diapsids.

Click to expand...

this is why I sometimes wonder how well you understand evolution theory. something like skull morphology can easily be chalked up to convergent evolution if necessary.

you also don't understand your theory well enough to know that a bird lineages could hypothetically be placed in either synapsid and diapsid. they would be more similar to one or the other. the traits that appear mismatched would be chalked up to independent convergence.

you seem to only know how to interpret evolution theory in an ad-hoc way, based on things we know today... this makes it difficult for you to understand how impressive the existence of the model is or isnt...

it's like you're always sitting at the destination, marveling that you chose 'just the right path' to get there, with no understanding that there were a near infinite amount of routes that could also have led to that same destination... i.e. evolution had an infinite number of potential stories to tell, and simply adapted to the most plausible one.

The Barbarian said:

You've confused analogy with homology. Some fish are also warm-blooded. But that doesn't make them descendants of mammals.

Click to expand...

sure, nor does sharing a vertebrate make you a descendant of something like a fish.

The Barbarian said:

It's not a worldwide science conspiracy, like the guys covering up a flat Earth. I now realize that you're talking about homeotherms.

Click to expand...

nope, definitely not that. it was an actual proposition, based on phylogenetic analysis, that birds were more closely related to mammals than reptiles. mammal-bird similarities were emphasized as the product of shared ancestry while archosaur similarities were attributed to some level of convergence.

i'll find the article eventually, and then you'll just shrug and say "well they were wrong and the dinosaur-bird people were right", completely avoiding the point that no matter what, evolutionists were going to say birds evolved from *something*

Mammals are synapsids, having split off early from basal amniotes. The very structure of their skulls set them apart from diapsids and anapsids. Rather basic anatomical fact. Who would be that ignorant. Archosaurs like birds and other dinosaurs and crocodiles, are diapsids.

lifepsyop said:

this is why I sometimes wonder how well you understand evolution theory. something like skull morphology can easily be chalked up to convergent evolution if necessary.

Click to expand...

No, you're still confusing analogy with homology. It's not the fenestrations that matter; it's the bones and tissues involved that indicate descent. For example, there are fossils of organisms that should be diapsids, but only have one fenestration on each side of the skull. But they have the diapisd fenstration for the remaining opening, and traces where the other fenestrtion existed.


Notice the homologies. No way to put that on convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is like wings on bats, birds, and pterosaurs. In that case they are analogous, but the structures are different.

lifepsyop said:

nope, definitely not that. it was an actual proposition, based on phylogenetic analysis, that birds were more closely related to mammals than reptiles. mammal-bird similarities were emphasized as the product of shared ancestry while archosaur similarities were attributed to some level of convergence.

Click to expand...

The term you were using, but misspelled is "homeotherm." As you learned, they comprise a polyphyletic group. It never was to set birds as descended from mammals. Indeed, by the late 1800s, it was hypothesized that birds evolved from other dinosaurs. Which was later confirmed. I get the confusion, but you got it wrong.

lifepsyop said:

i'll find the article eventually, and then you'll just shrug and say "well they were wrong and the dinosaur-bird people were right", completely avoiding the point that no matter what, evolutionists were going to say birds evolved from *something*

Click to expand...

The outlier on bird evolution was Alan Feduccia, who argued that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor. That's pretty much dead.
But do show us, if you find that theory about birds evolving from mammals.

lifepsyop said:

completely avoiding the point that no matter what, evolutionists were going to say birds evolved from *something*

Click to expand...

The divergence of opinions in my lifetime have been dinosaurs or thecodonts.

lifepsyop said:

mammal-bird similarities were emphasized as the product of shared ancestry while archosaur similarities were attributed to some level of convergence.

Click to expand...

In fact, I would be interested to see if you can find even one character of birds that is not found in other dinosaurs. They differ from mammals in

Diapsid vs. synapsid
feathers vs hair
flow-through respiration vs. two-way respiration
pneumatized bones vs. sold bones
toothless or uniform teeth vs. differentiated teeth
diapsid ear vs. mammalian ear
multi-bone jaw vs. single bone jaw
(long list)

And all those features are shared with other diapsids.

lifepsyop said:

hymnepotheria

Click to expand...

Close, but it's homeothermia.

Hi
So what dose Gods word have to say on the subject

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Deu 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Mrk 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

So I thing its plain to see from scripture that God is the creator of everything that is

Love and Peace
Dave

The Barbarian said:

It's not a worldwide science conspiracy, like the guys covering up a flat Earth. I now realize that you're talking about homeotherms. It's a polyphyletic term, not a term indicating common descent. Cladistics is not about descent; it makes a distinction between:

1. Monophyly, referring to a group that includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants.
2. Paraphyly, referring to a group that includes a common ancestor but not all of its descendants.
3. Polyphyly, referring to a group that does not share a recent common ancestor.

Birds and mammals comprise a polyphyletic group, because they are homeotherms. Tuna are not part of this polyphyletic group. While they are warm-blooded they don't maintain a constant body temperature.

Click to expand...

HAEMATOTHERMIA: WARM-BLOODED AMNIOTES​

There have been attempts to make it monophyletic here and there over the course the late 19th to late 20th century. Nothing ever came of it. And it's after Huxley's original and correct classification. More than anything it's been more closely associated with creationism. The main reason it existed so late in science was the lack of avian dinosaur fossils. In 1993 when the last paper on it was published there were only 3 avian dino fossils 2 sucked, 1 is famous. Then in the 90s and 2000s scientist kept finding more and more. Which makes it a very obscure idea in the 21st century.

No students were ever taught about haematothermia or other similar hypothetical taxa. The general consensus has always been(since the early days of darwin and huxley) that birds are dinosaurs. But it always came with a warning that the evidence was less than spectacular. Now the evidence is spectacular. I really wish china would lend out their collection.

AaronClaricus said:

HAEMATOTHERMIA: WARM-BLOODED AMNIOTES​

Click to expand...

Thank you! I thought I was going crazy, I could not find it anywhere.

AaronClaricus said:

There have been attempts to make it monophyletic here and there over the course the late 19th to late 20th century. Nothing ever came of it. And it's after Huxley's original and correct classification. More than anything it's been more closely associated with creationism. The main reason it existed so late in science was the lack of avian dinosaur fossils. In 1993 when the last paper on it was published there were only 3 avian dino fossils 2 sucked, 1 is famous. Then in the 90s and 2000s scientist kept finding more and more. Which makes it a very obscure idea in the 21st century.

No students were ever taught about haematothermia or other similar hypothetical taxa. The general consensus has always been(since the early days of darwin and huxley) that birds are dinosaurs. But it always came with a warning that the evidence was less than spectacular. Now the evidence is spectacular. I really wish china would lend out their collection.

Click to expand...

Quite right, but from Gardiner's 1993 paper we can see quite clearly that evolutionists were prepared to follow an alternate story of birds branching off somewhere closer to mammals, if they were forced into that conclusion.

**There was never going to be a "oh no! there is no evolutionary transition to birds! evolution is debunked!" moment. **

If the "dinosaur-bird" transition story did not exist, then the evolutionary community would simply fall back to the next most 'plausible' bird evolution narrative.



This is a crucial point to understand about evolution theory. It's a story that simply adapts to the most plausible scenario, but is never truly being tested to any kind of potential breaking point.




images from Gardiner's 1993 paper from the journal of Cladistics: "HAEMATOTHERMIA: WARM-BLOODED AMNIOTES"

davetaff said:

So I thing its plain to see from scripture that God is the creator of everything that is

Click to expand...

Yep. The controversy is over the way He did it.

lifepsyop said:

Quite right, but from Gardiner's 1993 paper we can see quite clearly that evolutionists were prepared to follow an alternate story of birds branching off somewhere closer to mammals, if they were forced into that conclusion.

Click to expand...

All about evidence. There might someday be a better explanation for the evidence than evolution. But like hydraulic fairies in your shower, not too likely.

lifepsyop said:

**There was never going to be a "oh no! there is no evolutionary transition to birds! evolution is debunked!" moment. **

Click to expand...

Pretty much like there was never going to be a "oh no! there is another planet out there! gravity is debunked!" moment. For the same reason. Nothing in Newton's theory says there can't be more planets. Nothing in Darwin's theory says that mammals couldn't be a sister taxon to birds. But as you learned, your original claim of birds from mammals is not sustainable in any way.

This is a crucial point to understand about scientific theories.

lifepsyop said:

It's a story that simply adapts to the most plausible scenario

Click to expand...

It seemed highly implausible that bird are dinosaurs. Yet Huxley's prediction, based on evolutionary theory, is vindicated. It seemed highly implausible that a new trait could become established in a population, given scientists early assumptions about heredity. Then the discovery of genetics confirmed Darwin's prediction.

lifepsyop said:

but is never truly being tested to any kind of potential breaking point.

Click to expand...

If it could be proven that any feature in an organism was for the exclusive benefit of a different species, that would conclusively destroy the theory, as Darwin pointed out. A rabbit in Cambrian strata, as Haldane supposedly remarked, would do it.

Actual example of a real error; New World and Old World vultures are not monophyletic, as once assumed.

lifepsyop said:

Thank you! I thought I was going crazy, I could not find it anywhere.



Quite right, but from Gardiner's 1993 paper we can see quite clearly that evolutionists were prepared to follow an alternate story of birds branching off somewhere closer to mammals, if they were forced into that conclusion.

**There was never going to be a "oh no! there is no evolutionary transition to birds! evolution is debunked!" moment. **

Click to expand...

That's not what we see at all. It's one guy that disagrees with consensus. There's scientists that still disagree that tobacco smoke causes cancers. These people are not part of the general process of science.

I can show you textbooks from every decade that argue birds are dinosaurs. No textbooks used in schools argue similarities between mammals and birds except creationism ones.