Dinosaurs to birds: Queries

[Erasmus7]

Hi all,

I have posted to the creation-evolution forum a few times before, this in an ongoing attempt to sort out the debate in my mind once and for all.

For my third posting I have a question regarding the idea of dinosaur-to-bird evolution.

The pro-evolution argument runs (unless I am mistaken) that the extinction event of 70 mill years ago (understood to be a meteorite that struck off the coast of Mexico) wiped out 90 percent of dinosaurs. Consequently, only the smaller ones survived, due to their ability to escape to less threatened areas, etc., and consequently evolved into the birds we know today, this being the chosen adaptive path of the dino DNA.

Regarding this, I have several questions I would like to put to the group:

1. Is it true, and does the evidence support the notion, that dinosaurs started resembling birds as one draws closer to the crucial 70 million year point.

2. There is also the issue of feathered dinosaurs. Would I be correct that the argument here is that the DNA started to move toward a feather covering as the start of the move toward evolving to birds? Would this imply, further, that dinosaurs started bearing feathers toward the end of the dinosaur age, that is, approaching 70 million years ago. Furthermore, does this also imply that most of the feathered type of dinosaur was also a bird-type?
To this end, where could I find a complete list of feathered dinosaurs, their ages, whether they were avian or not, etc.?

3. I also think it is interesting that none of the dinosaur bird-types survived (again, unless I am mistaken). If evolving into a bird was the best adaptive way of surviving the catastrophe, then one might think that at least some of the bird-dinosaurs might have survived.

4. I believe there are also various anatomical and biological similarities between dinosaurs and birds, usually proffered to show that the various body parts were starting to evolve in that direction. Now do these bodily similarities only start to appear just before the 70 mill year extinction catastrophe, or are there any such bird-like body parts in evidence significantly before this?

Once again, I am not a scientist (my area being theology) so please forgive any misunderstandings of ideas above.

I would, then, appreciate input on these questions from all sides.

Regards,
Erasmus

 

[4x4toy]

Hi all,

I have posted to the creation-evolution forum a few times before, this in an ongoing attempt to sort out the debate in my mind once and for all.

For my third posting I have a question regarding the idea of dinosaur-to-bird evolution.

The pro-evolution argument runs (unless I am mistaken) that the extinction event of 70 mill years ago (understood to be a meteorite that struck off the coast of Mexico) wiped out 90 percent of dinosaurs. Consequently, only the smaller ones survived, due to their ability to escape to less threatened areas, etc., and consequently evolved into the birds we know today, this being the chosen adaptive path of the dino DNA.

Regarding this, I have several questions I would like to put to the group:

1. Is it true, and does the evidence support the notion, that dinosaurs started resembling birds as one draws closer to the crucial 70 million year point.

2. There is also the issue of feathered dinosaurs. Would I be correct that the argument here is that the DNA started to move toward a feather covering as the start of the move toward evolving to birds? Would this imply, further, that dinosaurs started bearing feathers toward the end of the dinosaur age, that is, approaching 70 million years ago. Furthermore, does this also imply that most of the feathered type of dinosaur was also a bird-type?
To this end, where could I find a complete list of feathered dinosaurs, their ages, whether they were avian or not, etc.?


3. I also think it is interesting that none of the dinosaur bird-types survived (again, unless I am mistaken). If evolving into a bird was the best adaptive way of surviving the catastrophe, then one might think that at least some of the bird-dinosaurs might have survived.

4. I believe there are also various anatomical and biological similarities between dinosaurs and birds, usually proffered to show that the various body parts were starting to evolve in that direction. Now do these bodily similarities only start to appear just before the 70 mill year extinction catastrophe, or are there any such bird-like body parts in evidence significantly before this?

Once again, I am not a scientist (my area being theology) so please forgive any misunderstandings of ideas above.

I would, then, appreciate input on these questions from all sides.

Regards,
Erasmus

There were plenty of flying dinosaurs , kinda reminds me of bats except huge ..

 

[Dave-W]

There were plenty of flying dinosaurs , kinda reminds me of bats except huge ..

There were dozens of different species of pterosaurs. THe most commonly known was the pterodactyl family with the big bony fin on top of the head.

But there were many others.

 

[EmmaCat]

Those pterodactyls do not look like they could EVEN fly! They're so bony!

All good things
Emmy

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Those pterodactyls do not look like they could EVEN fly! They're so bony!

All good things
Emmy

If it weren't for bats, I'd agree with you.

 

[4x4toy]

If it weren't for bats, I'd agree with you.

I saw some where recently that there is some bat recorded as the fastest animal alive .. Except for me at chow time of course

 

[Papias]

Wecome back, Erasmus! Sorry that so far your good questions have gone unanswered on this thread.

Before I get to your questions, I'll mention that the pterosaurs are not really relevant - they are a separate branch on the dinosaur family tree. It was the theropod dinosaurs which evolved into birds.

OK, your questions.

the extinction event of 70 mill years ago (understood to be a meteorite that struck off the coast of Mexico) wiped out 90 percent of dinosaurs. Consequently, only the smaller ones survived, due to their ability to escape to less threatened areas, etc., and consequently evolved into the birds we know today, this being the chosen adaptive path of the dino DNA.

Pretty much right. It was 65 mya, and only smaller animals survived not because of "escaping" (impossible as the consequences of the impact hit most of the world), but for the simple and logical reason that when food chains collapse, little food is available - and so big animals (which need more food) go extinct.

Oh, and DNA doesn't make "choices". Some animals survive better than others because the animals are different. The animals are different due to different DNA, hence, the DNA that makes helpful features (such as a smaller size) makes it to the next generation. No "choices" are involved.

1. Is it true, and does the evidence support the notion, that dinosaurs started resembling birds as one draws closer to the crucial 70 million year point.

No. Some dinosaurs evolved into birds long before the extinction. The dinosaurs split into several different evolving groups - some, like the group with triceratops, were not bird like at all. One group, the theropod dinosaurs (T. Rex, allosaurus, etc.), included a group that were already a lot like modern birds. When the asteroid hit, the only dinosaur group to survive were these birds - partly because they were small. Just google (images, "cretaceous birds"), and see that these dinosaurs already looked a lot like the birds we see today. (ignore any pterosaur images).

2. There is also the issue of feathered dinosaurs. Would I be correct that the argument here is that the DNA started to move toward a feather covering as the start of the move toward evolving to birds? Would this imply, further, that dinosaurs started bearing feathers toward the end of the dinosaur age, that is, approaching 70 million years ago. Furthermore, does this also imply that most of the feathered type of dinosaur was also a bird-type?
To this end, where could I find a complete list of feathered dinosaurs, their ages, whether they were avian or not, etc.?

Again, the DNA didn't "choose" to do anything. Feathers evolved in dinsaurs by 150 mya, which is a full 95 million years before the asteroid impact.

Yes, there are plenty (dozens) of feathered dinosaurs, some (especially later) are a lot like modern birds. Plenty are partway in-between. Here is a list of about 40 of them - many of the names are links you can click on to see what they looked like.

http://flyingdinosaurs.net/a-z-of-feathered-dinosaurs/

3. I also think it is interesting that none of the dinosaur bird-types survived (again, unless I am mistaken). If evolving into a bird was the best adaptive way of surviving the catastrophe, then one might think that at least some of the bird-dinosaurs might have survived.

It's not common for any animal to go dozens of millions of years without evolving, though it certainly happens (dragonfies come to mind). With such change in the world as the asteroid impact caused, it's no surprise that nearly all the birds at the time changed. However, some, like the hoatzin, are still similar - and still have claws on their wings, etc. Plus, as we saw above, many of them looked a lot like modern birds. Most of the evolution from what we think of as a "dinosaur" into a "bird" happened millions of years before the asteroid impact.

4. I believe there are also various anatomical and biological similarities between dinosaurs and birds, usually proffered to show that the various body parts were starting to evolve in that direction.

yes, you are right. In addition to the tons of fossils, these are why practically all dinosaur and bird scientists agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Some of the many features that show birds evolved from dinosaurs include:
feathers
skeletal features like the hip
sleeping posture
reproductive methods
molecular evidence
These are explained well on this page, just page down a bit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

......Now do these bodily similarities only start to appear just before the 70 mill year extinction catastrophe, or are there any such bird-like body parts in evidence significantly before this?

No. They appear gradually during the dinosaur time, as a group of dinosaurs slowly evolved to be more bird-like. Changes in that direction can be seen in Archeopteryx, which is 150 mya.

I hope all that helps.

Best-

-Papias

 

[loveofourlord]

There were plenty of flying dinosaurs , kinda reminds me of bats except huge ..

outside of birds there are no flying dinosaurs, your thinking flying reptiles, the pterasaurs are reptile not dinosaur.

 

[Radrook]

outside of birds there are no flying dinosaurs, your thinking flying reptiles, the pterasaurs are reptile not dinosaur.

You are 100% right:
Calling a pterosaur a dinosaur is an error of the same order of magnitude as saying that our species is a marsupial

Read more: Why a Pterosaur is Not a Dinosaur | Science | Smithsonian

Dinosaurs vs. Lizards | Genesis Park

 

[loveofourlord]

You are 100% right:
Calling a pterosaur a dinosaur is an error of the same order of magnitude as saying that our species is a marsupial

Read more: Why a Pterosaur is Not a Dinosaur | Science | Smithsonian

also Plesiosaurus arn't dinosaurs, but aquatic reptiles.

 

[Radrook]

also Plesiosaurus arn't dinosaurs, but aquatic reptiles.

I had always thought that they were bigger.

On the other hand this article describes a much larger kind of Plesiosaur.
Mauisaurus - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

If it weren't for bats, I'd agree with you.

Very true! Who would expect such an ugly creature to fly?

 

[loveofourlord]

I had always thought that they were bigger.

On the other hand this article describes a much larger kind of Plesiosaur.
Mauisaurus - Wikipedia

hehe here's a fun fact about them, even if there was something at the loch ness it couldn't be one, they can't bend their necks.

 

[-57]

Hi all,

I have posted to the creation-evolution forum a few times before, this in an ongoing attempt to sort out the debate in my mind once and for all.

For my third posting I have a question regarding the idea of dinosaur-to-bird evolution.

The pro-evolution argument runs (unless I am mistaken) that the extinction event of 70 mill years ago (understood to be a meteorite that struck off the coast of Mexico) wiped out 90 percent of dinosaurs. Consequently, only the smaller ones survived, due to their ability to escape to less threatened areas, etc., and consequently evolved into the birds we know today, this being the chosen adaptive path of the dino DNA.

Regarding this, I have several questions I would like to put to the group:

1. Is it true, and does the evidence support the notion, that dinosaurs started resembling birds as one draws closer to the crucial 70 million year point.

2. There is also the issue of feathered dinosaurs. Would I be correct that the argument here is that the DNA started to move toward a feather covering as the start of the move toward evolving to birds? Would this imply, further, that dinosaurs started bearing feathers toward the end of the dinosaur age, that is, approaching 70 million years ago. Furthermore, does this also imply that most of the feathered type of dinosaur was also a bird-type?
To this end, where could I find a complete list of feathered dinosaurs, their ages, whether they were avian or not, etc.?

3. I also think it is interesting that none of the dinosaur bird-types survived (again, unless I am mistaken). If evolving into a bird was the best adaptive way of surviving the catastrophe, then one might think that at least some of the bird-dinosaurs might have survived.

4. I believe there are also various anatomical and biological similarities between dinosaurs and birds, usually proffered to show that the various body parts were starting to evolve in that direction. Now do these bodily similarities only start to appear just before the 70 mill year extinction catastrophe, or are there any such bird-like body parts in evidence significantly before this?

Once again, I am not a scientist (my area being theology) so please forgive any misunderstandings of ideas above.

I would, then, appreciate input on these questions from all sides.

Regards,
Erasmus

No. This isn't true. Bird didn't evolve from dinosaurs. Birds were created on day 5.

The concept of 70 million years ago goes away.....soft...stretchy...tissue from dinasaurs have been discovered from rocks dated to that so-called time period.
Biological tissue doesn't have the ability to survive for 65 MY's with out decaying or fossilizing.

 

[loveofourlord]

No. This isn't true. Bird didn't evolve from dinosaurs. Birds were created on day 5.

The concept of 70 million years ago goes away.....soft...stretchy...tissue from dinasaurs have been discovered from rocks dated to that so-called time period.
Biological tissue doesn't have the ability to survive for 65 MY's with out decaying or fossilizing.

right....all we discoverd is tissue lasts 70 million years under right conditions, but of course you already know this.

 

[-57]

right....all we discoverd is tissue lasts 70 million years under right conditions, but of course you already know this.

It's often difficult to tell a fellow christian that they're wrong....but you are loveofourlord.
Hmmm, right conditions.....why would the conditions be any diffferent a fraction of an inch from the soft tissue where the rest of the tissue has decayed or fossilized?
My hint for you would be to believe your bible and don't filter it through the religious views of evolutionism.

 

[loveofourlord]

It's often difficult to tell a fellow christian that they're wrong....but you are loveofourlord.
Hmmm, right conditions.....why would the conditions be any diffferent a fraction of an inch from the soft tissue where the rest of the tissue has decayed or fossilized?
My hint for you would be to believe your bible and don't filter it through the religious views of evolutionism.

unlike creationists, scientists don't go, "Oh well X wasn't what we 100% thought it was, abandon all of science." They look into things and figure out what happened, the fact they know why dinosaur tissue can last millions of years some times, is a sucess of science not something for you to mock or derise.

 

[-57]

unlike creationists, scientists don't go, "Oh well X wasn't what we 100% thought it was, abandon all of science." They look into things and figure out what happened, the fact they know why dinosaur tissue can last millions of years some times, is a sucess of science not something for you to mock or derise.

You avoided the question....even found a way to paint creationist in a bad way with your reply.

 

[loveofourlord]

It's often difficult to tell a fellow christian that they're wrong....but you are loveofourlord.
Hmmm, right conditions.....why would the conditions be any diffferent a fraction of an inch from the soft tissue where the rest of the tissue has decayed or fossilized?
My hint for you would be to believe your bible and don't filter it through the religious views of evolutionism.

that was the section they tested, and because it was burried within the fossil usually the last place to fossilize, seems weird question, do you have a clue as to what would disprove fossilization over millions of years? How many years have you studied to know why this is impossible unless young earth?

 

[-57]

that was the section they tested, and because it was burried within the fossil usually the last place to fossilize, seems weird question, do you have a clue as to what would disprove fossilization over millions of years? How many years have you studied to know why this is impossible unless young earth?

It appears to me the bible was right after all. It's a young earth.