Creation vs. Evolution: take 139486

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

There are also fossils of dinosaurs footprints right next to humans, in the same pool of mud. So, why didn't you post that?

As far as the feather imprints and small dinosaurs. I know that there were small dinosaurs. That fact is obviously apparent.
But:
Picture 1: Looks like a painting. Not a reliable source, in my own mind.
Picture 2: Ummm, where are the wing bones or feather markings on this dino? I sure don't see them.... In my own opinion, though.
Picture 3: Great picture! Looks like, a.... Joint, or something.
To me, in my mind, these pictures prove absolutely nothing.
Point please?

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Well then how is it against the rules to think that somebody supporting atheistic views is, well, an atheist?

 

[Mallon]

There are also fossils of dinosaurs footprints right next to humans, in the same pool of mud. So, why didn't you post that?

Because even Answers in Genesis admits the tracks aren't genuine human footprints. See:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/lin.../index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255

Picture 1: Looks like a painting. Not a reliable source, in my own mind.

It's not a painting. It's the type specimen of Microraptor gui, published in Nature and on display in China.

Picture 2: Ummm, where are the wing bones or feather markings on this dino? I sure don't see them.... In my own opinion, though.

In the opinion of real scientists, they're the early stages of feathers, on the type specimen of Sinosauropteryx. You can see close-ups here:

Picture 3: Great picture! Looks like, a.... Joint, or something.

It is. With feathers coming off of it. They're from a tyrannosauroid called Dilong, if you should chose to do some more reading on it.

To me, in my mind, these pictures prove absolutely nothing.
Point please?

Dinosaurs had feathers like birds. Evolution explains why. No other theory does.

 

[Theogonia]

No, it isn't. It's just the beliefs you back up are.... Different from all the christians I know.
I haven't discredited the fact that you ARE christian, but all the threads I've posted in with you, make you out to be an atheist.
I'm sorry for the assumption, and I'm sorry if I offended anybody in this forum(which obviously, I did).

I can see why you would assume I'm not based on some of my other beliefs about things (which admittedly are very different) but merely for accepting evolution?

Then back up your religion and beliefs!

Why does believing there's a god mean I have to deny science?

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

SOME dinosaurs had feathers like birds.
Pictures A and B could just be bone protruding from it's spinal cord, rather than feathers.
And also, the OPINION of real scientists. They could just be spots where mud moved around from the dinosaur hitting the ground, or spurs coming off of their backs.
As for the Microraptor, it could've had wings. I mean, God is a very creative person.

 

[gluadys]

Wow, this made me laugh!!!
Ok, in this hand, you have a bird. A TINY animal that spends most of its time in the AIR!
Now in the other hand, you have a dinosaur. Big, most of them were dumb, and only had enough ambition to survive.

I think ambition is a human trait. I wouldn't think dinosaurs or birds have ambition. Only an instinct to survive.

So please, tell me how you take two completely opposite creatures, and say that the bigger one evolved into the smaller one?

Why not? Do you think evolution is on a one-way track to bigger, bigger, bigger?

Oh, and according to the scientists, didn't the dinosaurs die off when a meteor hit the earth or something of the sort, because they don't believe a global flood happened?

Conclusions about the geological history of the earth have nothing to do with a motive to not believe in a global flood. For the most part it was 19th century Christians who believed in a global flood who verified that the flood could not have been global.

Here is a summary of that history.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

Oh and another thing. If a global flood never happened, then tell me how fossils of seacreatures, sea shells and fishes ended up on top of huge mountains.

They didn't just end up on top of mountains. They are in the mountains. Fossils are part of the rocks that make the mountains. And mountains are formed by uplift as two tectonic plates move toward one another.

The Himalayas, for example, formed as what is now India drifted into the south of Asia.

That movement is still occurring and scientists can measure the current rate of uplift.

Picture 1: Looks like a painting. Not a reliable source, in my own mind.
Picture 2: Ummm, where are the wing bones or feather markings on this dino? I sure don't see them.... In my own opinion, though.
Picture 3: Great picture! Looks like, a.... Joint, or something.
To me, in my mind, these pictures prove absolutely nothing.

Key phrases bolded.

Point please?

Your unschooled opinion based on a single glance at a picture compared to a professional study of the actual fossils is worthless.

Well then how is it against the rules to think that somebody supporting atheistic views is, well, an atheist?

If people who are not atheists support the views in question, then the views are not atheistic views. Is that so hard to follow?

 

[gluadys]

SOME dinosaurs had feathers like birds.

And birds could have inherited their feathers from some of those dinosaurs. No one is claiming that every dinosaur is an ancestor of birds.

As for the Microraptor, it could've had wings. I mean, God is a very creative person.

Indeed, and birds may have inherited their wings from Microraptor (or one of Microraptor's cousins who also had wings).

 

[Mallon]

SOME dinosaurs had feathers like birds.

Right. Not all of them did. Some small, carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers, and it is from that lineage that birds arose.
Did you mistakenly thinking that scientists advocated that ALL dinosaurs gave rise to birds? Because no one has ever said that.

Pictures A and B could just be bone protruding from it's spinal cord, rather than feathers.

No, because despite the fact that those filaments don't even look like bone, scientists have tested the chemical signature of these traces before and found they were composed of beta-keratin -- the same type of keratin found in bird feathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuvuuia).

And also, the OPINION of real scientists. They could just be spots where mud moved around from the dinosaur hitting the ground, or spurs coming off of their backs.

That still wouldn't explain the beta-keratin composition of those structures.

As for the Microraptor, it could've had wings. I mean, God is a very creative person.

It did have wings. In fact, it had four wings, like this:

It also had teeth, a bony tail, and hand claws like any other theropod dinosaur. Microraptor is a perfect dino-bird transitional. Sure, you might say that God was just being creative. But palaeontology predicted this kind of thing nearly 100 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor#Implications). Special creationism predicted nothing of the sort. Your saying "Well, God was maybe just being creative" is completely reactionary.

 

[Melethiel]

Dial it back a notch.

- You may NOT call people names
- You may NOT tell self-identified Christians that they are not.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

And birds could have inherited their feathers from some of those dinosaurs. No one is claiming that every dinosaur is an ancestor of birds.




Indeed, and birds may have inherited their wings from Microraptor (or one of Microraptor's cousins who also had wings).

Or.... Maybe birds got their wings from... BIRDS!!!
Birds didn't HAVE to evolve from dinosaurs, as you people say. (Lets make it so there's no confusion. I believe God created everything and that adaptation and specification happened within the species itself)
But, lets pretend here that I believed in evolution. This is what I'd say:

"Birds most likely came from birds. It's that simple. Although dinosaurs may have evolved into things like Crocodiles, alligators, Kamodo Dragons, and things of the sort, birds would not be a choice.
Pterydactyls in my mind, are like oversized bats. Yes, they were dinosaurs, but the fact that they could glide amazing distances and took care of their young, just like a bird did, would lead me to believe that it was just a prehistoric bird."

Ok, that's my argument if I WAS supporting evolution. Before I continue, I want to know if that would be close to correct.

 

[Hentenza]

If the personal attacks continue the thread will be closed for clean up. Please address the topic and not each other. Also, accusing a professed Christian of not being a Christian is against the rules. The Theology forums rules can be found by following this link.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Right. Not all of them did. Some small, carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers, and it is from that lineage that birds arose.
Did you mistakenly thinking that scientists advocated that ALL dinosaurs gave rise to birds? Because no one has ever said that.


No, because despite the fact that those filaments don't even look like bone, scientists have tested the chemical signature of these traces before and found they were composed of beta-keratin -- the same type of keratin found in bird feathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuvuuia).


That still wouldn't explain the beta-keratin composition of those structures.


It did have wings. In fact, it had four wings, like this:

It also had teeth, a bony tail, and hand claws like any other theropod dinosaur. Microraptor is a perfect dino-bird transitional. Sure, you might say that God was just being creative. But palaeontology predicted this kind of thing nearly 100 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor#Implications). Special creationism predicted nothing of the sort. Your saying "Well, God was maybe just being creative" is completely reactionary.

Quick question....
How could it be predicted, if it happened faaaaar before 100 years ago?

 

[Mallon]

But, lets pretend here that I believed in evolution. This is what I'd say:

"Birds most likely came from birds. It's that simple. Although dinosaurs may have evolved into things like Crocodiles, alligators, Kamodo Dragons, and things of the sort, birds would not be a choice.
Pterydactyls in my mind, are like oversized bats. Yes, they were dinosaurs, but the fact that they could glide amazing distances and took care of their young, just like a bird did, would lead me to believe that it was just a prehistoric bird."

Ok, that's my argument if I WAS supporting evolution. Before I continue, I want to know if that would be close to correct.

Not even close.
Theropod dinosaurs have much more in common with birds than they do with crocs, alligators, or monitor lizards. In fact, here's a list of features that birds share with Velociraptor not also shared with other lizards or reptiles:

1. Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot".
2. Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands).
3. Large orbits (eye openings in the skull).
4. Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone).
5. Hollow, thin-walled bones.
6. 3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes.
7. Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail.
8. Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes).
9. S-shaped curved neck.
10. Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
11. Similar eggshell microstructure.
12. Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown.
13. Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally).
14. Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull.
15. Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip).
16. Straplike scapula (shoulder blade).
17. Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone).
18. Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane.
19. Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat).
20. Possibly feathers... this awaits more study. Small, possibly feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."

There is little doubt that dinosaurs gave rise to birds rather than other living groups of reptiles (in fact, besides having scaly skin, dinosaurs and lizards are VERY different in most morphological aspects).
Secondly, not only are pterosaurs (not "pterydactyls") not dinosaurs, they're also nothing like bats. Sure, they both have membranous wings, but bats are undoubtedly mammals, and pterosaurs are undoubtedly reptiles.
Here's a bat:

Here's a pterosaur:

Sure, they look superficially similar. But palaeontology looks well beyond superficial similarities when trying to discern evolutionary relationships. A detailed look at their bones shows they are quite dissimilar.

 

[Mallon]

Quick question....
How could it be predicted, if it happened faaaaar before 100 years ago?

It was predicted what would be found in the fossil record based on an evolutionary model.
Just like Neil Shubbin predicted where he would find Tiktaalik several years ago based on an evolutionary model.
We can use cladograms like this to predict which strata we would expect to find certain fossil ancestors in:

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

It was predicted what would be found in the fossil record based on an evolutionary model.
Just like Neil Shubbin predicted where he would find Tiktaalik several years ago based on an evolutionary model.
We can use cladograms like this to predict which strata we would expect to find certain fossil ancestors in:

That seems obvious enough. But I want to make sure I understand you.
You use this chart to help you figure out which species/class that creatures belong to in certain rock layers, right?

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Not even close.
Theropod dinosaurs have much more in common with birds than they do with crocs, alligators, or monitor lizards. In fact, here's a list of features that birds share with Velociraptor not also shared with other lizards or reptiles:
[/LIST]There is little doubt that dinosaurs gave rise to birds rather than other living groups of reptiles (in fact, besides having scaly skin, dinosaurs and lizards are VERY different in most morphological aspects).
Secondly, not only are pterosaurs (not "pterydactyls") not dinosaurs, they're also nothing like bats. Sure, they both have membranous wings, but bats are undoubtedly mammals, and pterosaurs are undoubtedly reptiles.
Here's a bat:

Here's a pterosaur:

Sure, they look superficially similar. But palaeontology looks well beyond superficial similarities when trying to discern evolutionary relationships. A detailed look at their bones shows they are quite dissimilar.

And if you're talking about dinosaurs turning into birds, then how is it out of whack that just maybe a four legged dinosaur could've turned into an alligator, or Iguana?

 

[Mallon]

That seems obvious enough. But I want to make sure I understand you.
You use this chart to help you figure out which species/class that creatures belong to in certain rock layers, right?

Sort of. The main axis (or trunk) of the cladogram is essentially a timeline (though time isn't marked on the cladogram I posted). If we want to find the common ancestor of two taxa (say, the perch and the chimp), we simply trace their lineages back to where they meet on the main axis. This will give us an estimate of how long ago their common ancestor lived, and we can look in rocks of the right age to find that ancestor. Where do we look for rocks of the right age? For that, we appeal to palaeobiogeography, which is a whole other field that I don't have time to get into.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Sort of. The main axis (or trunk) of the cladogram is essentially a timeline (though time isn't marked on the cladogram I posted). If we want to find the common ancestor of two taxa (say, the perch and the chimp), we simply trace their lineages back to where they meet on the main axis. This will give us an estimate of how long ago their common ancestor lived, and we can look in rocks of the right age to find that ancestor. Where do we look for rocks of the right age? For that, we appeal to palaeobiogeography, which is a whole other field that I don't have time to get into.

I remember this stuff now!
Brings me back to 9th grade Earth science class.

But as far as evolution. Would you call dominate traits evolution then?
Because most dominate traits will be passed on to the child/offspring, and that includes traits that would aid it in survival. Like, for instance look at a common moth. Now, you have soo many different kinds of moths that it's unreal. But, throughout the different species, these things have amazing camo for different types of terrain.
Evolution, or adaptation?

 

[Theogonia]

Adaptation is evolution.

 

[Mallon]

And if you're talking about dinosaurs turning into birds, then how is it out of whack that just maybe a four legged dinosaur could've turned into an alligator, or Iguana?

Because dinosaurs have skeletal features that very clearly distinguish them from alligators or iguanas (actually, alligators are more closely related to dinosaurs than iguanas are), and exlude them from being their ancestors. Your question appears to be of the form "What makes a dinosaur a dinosaur, and a lizard a lizard?" Here's some reading to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Distinguishing_features
http://paleobiology.si.edu/dinosaurs/info/everything/what.html
http://paleobiology.si.edu/dinosaurs/info/everything/gen_anatomy.html

Here's a cladogram that shows where dinosaurs and birds fit on the family tree: