Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[lasthero]

How long is long and how do you know that the earliest bird fossil has been found?

The oldest insect fossils we've found are about 400 million years ago. The oldest reptiles fossils, which birds come from, are about 320 million years ago. The oldest fossil for anything that even resembles a modern-day bird is about 80 millions years. So insects had been around, about, 320 million years before birds came onto the scene.

Is it possible that there's a bird fossil out there that dates back farther than insects? Sure, it's possible. I'm not claiming with absolute certainty that such a thing doesn't exist, but it's extremely unlikely. We've never found a single bird fossil that even comes close to predating insects. Not one. Ever. Not even a hint of a bird being around when insects showed up. Not an egg. Not a feather. Nothing.

The logical conclusion is that they first started appearing long after insects showed up. If there's some other explanation that works just as well, I'd love to hear it.

 

[OllieFranz]

You've never kept birds I take it? I have kept parrots and parakeets and budgies can hover on the spot. Admittedly for a short period of time, but their wings don't shatter?

That is not true hovering. that is a controlled stall. That is why it can not sustain it for more than a few moments. No bird larger than a hummingbird can flap its wings at a speed that allows for true hovering. They are simply too long to sustain the forces involved at a larger scale.

Now back to the birds. Birds have evolved the best way for flight because there is nothing better. Unless of course you have seen a life form that is? Perhaps you feel the Elephant or Reindeer is better equipped for flying, but in my book it's birds every time. If there is nothing better, they must be the best.

Yes, birds are better -- "fitter," if you will -- than elephants and reindeer for flight. And some are "fitter" than others at different types of flight, which just "happen" to be the type of flight that their niche in the ecosystem requires. It is as if something shaped them to "fit" that niche. In fact they are the "fittest" animal in the area for that niche.

Still, there are other ways to fit the same niche. Kangaroos fit the same niche in Australia that deer do on the other continents. And their smaller cousins the wallaby fit the rabbit/hare/jackrabbit niche. And the beast called the Tasmanian Wolf fits the wolf niche, despite not being a true canine. Why weren't those niches filled by deer and rabbits and wolves in Australia? Because Australia was cut off from the other continents, and deer and rabbits could not swim that far, so native life forms had to be adapted to fit those niches. Nature adapts what she has to work with.

It is possible to imagine an animal --a very bird-like animal -- that could be better at "eagling" than an eagle. That does not mean we can expect to see it in real life if it requires systems that the eagle does not currently have and for which no other systems the eagle has can be reasonably substituted.Nature can only adapt what she has to work with

 

[Oncedeceived]

The oldest insect fossils we've found are about 400 million years ago. The oldest reptiles fossils, which birds come from, are about 320 million years ago. The oldest fossil for anything that even resembles a modern-day bird is about 80 millions years. So insects had been around, about, 320 million years before birds came onto the scene.

I believe that a insect (mouth) was about 503 million years ago so you could possibly assume that they go back 503 million or farther than that. The oldest bird fossil (one that is def a bird) might be 150 million years ago. The verdict isn't in as of yet that I know of. While it is considered that birds come from reptiles, we don't know when and where that might have occurred. So if we do take the reptile date of 430 million years ago, we might find that they could go back some hundred years previously and birds could even go back to much closer to that line and make it back to 400 million years. This would mean that insects could realistically be within the same frame of time or even after the arrival of the bird. The reason we could do this tinkering with time lines is that we have found birds going back as far as 150 million years when we only thought that they were present 80 million years ago. That is seventy million years difference in appearances. If an actual seventy millions years is in evidence then we reasonably can assume that we could see another seventy million years farther back. If we can reasonably assume that much why not more? What can we reliably assume?

Is it possible that there's a bird fossil out there that dates back farther than insects? Sure, it's possible. I'm not claiming with absolute certainty that such a thing doesn't exist, but it's extremely unlikely. We've never found a single bird fossil that even comes close to predating insects. Not one. Ever. Not even a hint of a bird being around when insects showed up. Not an egg. Not a feather. Nothing.

While that is true, as we have seen over and over again, the fossil evidence can jump back millions and millions of years. So it is possible and in fact, may be very probable considering how often it happens. All that can truly be said about fossil evidence is that it shows a relatively modest timeline that can and does repeatedly change when new fossil evidence is uncovered.

The logical conclusion is that they first started appearing long after insects showed up. If there's some other explanation that works just as well, I'd love to hear it.

The logical conclusion must be that we have fossil evidence that shows what it shows presently. What it might show in the future can not be known. We don't throw out what we know, but we can not be tethered to what we presently know either. We use what works, with the understanding that what we know might not be all there is to know. So in conclusion, you can not know that insects lived long before birds. You can only claim that with what we have in evidence currently shows that we do not have evidence for birds living prior or during the time insect evidence occurs.

Agreed?

 

[lasthero]

The oldest bird fossil (one that is def a bird) might be 150 million years ago.

Source, please?

we don't know when and where that might have occurred.

Dinosaurs had feathers long before they were able to fly, though, and the oldest dinosaurs we've found with anything even like feathers are 200 millions years. No feathers, no birds.

Based on fossil evidence, we know that the first non-avian theropods with simple, single-filament feathers lived about 190 million years ago, and that non-avian theropods with feathers having a complex branching structure like those of present-day birds

Feather evolution

So there's a little more than 70 million years difference, here, even if I give you that birds first appeared 150 million years ago.

While that is true, as we have seen over and over again, the fossil evidence can jump back millions and millions of years. So it is possible and in fact, may be very probable considering how often it happens. All that can truly be said about fossil evidence is that it shows a relatively modest timeline that can and does repeatedly change when new fossil evidence is uncovered.

True. But it's more than a little telling that birds - some of the most prolific and wide spread animals about - have absolutely no trace of anything from around the time of insects. Not even their eggs. And again, there's also no indication that reptiles developed feathers anywhere near the time that insects first appeared, which pushes back the date even further. Reptiles were around for a long time before they even started to develop traits that could be linked to birds.

You can only claim that with what we have in evidence currently shows that we do not have evidence for birds living prior or during the time insect evidence occurs.

I'm pretty sure I said almost this exact thing.

Is it possible that there's a bird fossil out there that dates back farther than insects? Sure, it's possible. I'm not claiming with absolute certainty that such a thing doesn't exist

See? However, the evidence is extremely in favor of there being no birds around when insects showed up. That could be the case, true, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Actually, you said they were the 'best results'. That implies that you know of other results, that there were other results to choose from and the one that birds have is the best out of the lot. If it was the only result, that would be a rather meaningless statement. So what results are you comparing this to?

So you are now saying that birds are not the best results for flying? then what was?

 

[nuttypiglet]

That is not true hovering. that is a controlled stall. That is why it can not sustain it for more than a few moments. No bird larger than a hummingbird can flap its wings at a speed that allows for true hovering. They are simply too long to sustain the forces involved at a larger scale.



Yes, birds are better -- "fitter," if you will -- than elephants and reindeer for flight. And some are "fitter" than others at different types of flight, which just "happen" to be the type of flight that their niche in the ecosystem requires. It is as if something shaped them to "fit" that niche. In fact they are the "fittest" animal in the area for that niche.

Still, there are other ways to fit the same niche. Kangaroos fit the same niche in Australia that deer do on the other continents. And their smaller cousins the wallaby fit the rabbit/hare/jackrabbit niche. And the beast called the Tasmanian Wolf fits the wolf niche, despite not being a true canine. Why weren't those niches filled by deer and rabbits and wolves in Australia? Because Australia was cut off from the other continents, and deer and rabbits could not swim that far, so native life forms had to be adapted to fit those niches. Nature adapts what she has to work with.

It is possible to imagine an animal --a very bird-like animal -- that could be better at "eagling" than an eagle. That does not mean we can expect to see it in real life if it requires systems that the eagle does not currently have and for which no other systems the eagle has can be reasonably substituted.Nature can only adapt what she has to work with

But we are talking about what exists, not what is in your imagination. I stand by what I said, birds are the best that exist for flight.

 

[lasthero]

And another thing to keep in mind - and it's my fault for not specifying earlier - is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, not reptiles in general. The oldest dinosaur we've found goes back about 230 millions years.

Dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, to sum up - birds showed up after dinosaurs, dinosaurs showed up long after reptiles, the oldest dinosaur we've found dates back 230 millions years, insects first showed up 430 million years ago - and that's being generous and not going with the 500 million year date you provided, OD. Birds can't predate dinosaurs, so that limits them to, AT BEST, 230 million years, based on the current evidence. So that's 200 million years of difference, and that's giving you everything.

 

[lasthero]

So you are now saying that birds are not the best results for flying? then what was?

I never said they were, I asked how you made that judgment. Pterasaurs had a number of flight advantages that birds don't have - for starters, their wings were capable of holding much more weight than any bird's ever gotten.

Powered Flight in Pterosaurs - YouTube

 

[nuttypiglet]

The oldest insect fossils we've found are about 400 million years ago. The oldest reptiles fossils, which birds come from, are about 320 million years ago. The oldest fossil for anything that even resembles a modern-day bird is about 80 millions years. So insects had been around, about, 320 million years before birds came onto the scene.

Is it possible that there's a bird fossil out there that dates back farther than insects? Sure, it's possible. I'm not claiming with absolute certainty that such a thing doesn't exist, but it's extremely unlikely. We've never found a single bird fossil that even comes close to predating insects. Not one. Ever. Not even a hint of a bird being around when insects showed up. Not an egg. Not a feather. Nothing.

The logical conclusion is that they first started appearing long after insects showed up. If there's some other explanation that works just as well, I'd love to hear it.

So where are the transitions of birds from reptiles? there are lots of differences between reptiles and birds, so transitional fossils should be in abundance. There were after all lots of reptiles around and there are certainly lots of birds.

 

[lasthero]

So where are the transitions of birds from reptiles?

Before I even answer that question, I have to ask - what do you consider to be a transitional fossil? Also, it's important to note we're not talking about birds coming from reptiles, but from dinosaurs. There were many reptiles, only dinosaurs evolved in birds.

 

[nuttypiglet]

When you made the cake analogy and said that what the Baker thought didn't matter --only what you thought counted. Go back and look at your post.

If a baker has quoted his cake as the best, but I taste the results of a different baker and it tastes better, which will I consider the best? Again how does that put my opinion above God? That's just simply a stupid statement to make. That's like saying every time you taste something and have a preference, you are putting yourself above God? What total utter rubbish.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Before I even answer that question, I have to ask - what do you consider to be a transitional fossil? Also, it's important to note we're not talking about birds coming from reptiles, but from dinosaurs. There were many reptiles, only dinosaurs evolved in birds.

Just base it on what your opinions are. There's no need for another complete mindless debate on me proving if I know something or not. It's a simple enough question.
So how did the femur become fused to prevent the air sacs collapsing and where is the evidence?

 

[lasthero]

Just base it on what your opinions are. There's no need for another complete mindless debate on me proving if I know something or not. It's a simple enough question.
So how did the femur become fused to prevent the air sacs collapsing and where is the evidence?

I'm in a little bit of rush - heading for work - but here's a good video on the subject - it's actually about transitional fossils in general, but goes into birds at about 4:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

Don't mind the music. I like it, you might not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Source, please?

For? Ah I see the problem. I said that was def a bird. What I meant to say what was def bird characteristics. Sorry. That was my fault. I was talking about Archaeopteryx which I figured you were aware of. Which is now controversial whether it is even a bird transitional.

Dinosaurs had feathers long before they were able to fly, though, and the oldest dinosaurs we've found with anything even like feathers are 200 millions years. No feathers, no birds.

Yes that is true, however, the new discoveries of two dino fossils challenge bird evolution from the Theropods since they pre-date those. So we don't really know how bird evolution came about. It is hard to put a date on something that already has questionable evidence for the evolutionary pathway.

Feather evolution

So there's a little more than 70 million years difference, here, even if I give you that birds first appeared 150 million years ago.

It can be asked that even though dino's had proto feathers and feathers, did birds evolve from them. We don't have evidence that the bird came from any of those lines that have feathers. Right now, we have feathered dino's that pre-date the ones that were said to have been the ones that birds evolved from.

True. But it's more than a little telling that birds - some of the most prolific and wide spread animals about - have absolutely no trace of anything from around the time of insects. Not even their eggs. And again, there's also no indication that reptiles developed feathers anywhere near the time that insects first appeared, which pushes back the date even further. Reptiles were around for a long time before they even started to develop traits that could be linked to birds.

True again, but we do not have any evidence that birds evolved from any of them in existence today. So what we thought we knew about bird evolution is challenged by new fossils. We have like .01% of fossil evidence, so it is hard to say what the next find will be. All we can reliably say is that we don't currently have evidence.

I'm pretty sure I said almost this exact thing.

Yes, but with a lot more doubt.

See? However, the evidence is extremely in favor of there being no birds around when insects showed up. That could be the case, true, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Like I said, with a lot more doubt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So once deceived, in your opinion was Archaeopteryx a bird or not? And why or why not?

It definitely has both bird and dinosaur features. It seems to be a rather good example of a transitional species to me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So once deceived, in your opinion was Archaeopteryx a bird or not? And why or why not?

It definitely has both bird and dinosaur features. It seems to be a rather good example of a transitional species to me.

Those more qualified to answer that are still trying to decide. It seems that it was in then out then in and now out or vice versa. The new findings I believe have it back in but deny that it was a precursor for birds. It seems to me that having some of the features of a bird appears to support that, however, if we look at other such cases we find many times it is independent evolution or horizontal transfer. Since the jury is still out, I think I will take a wait and see stance on it.

 

[OllieFranz]

But we are talking about what exists, not what is in your imagination. I stand by what I said, birds are the best that exist for flight.

OK, it seems a little overly simplistic, but I'll accept that statement. Birds that fly are currently the fittest creatures for most ecological niches that require large flyers.

But then I have to ask, what point that statement serves. It does exactly nothing to support Creationism, and is no better at supporting evolution. Neither does it weaken either argument. If that is the statement you wanted to arrive at when you issued me the challenge, then why bother issuing the challenge?

 

[OllieFranz]

If a baker has quoted his cake as the best, but I taste the results of a different baker and it tastes better, which will I consider the best? Again how does that put my opinion above God? That's just simply a stupid statement to make. That's like saying every time you taste something and have a preference, you are putting yourself above God? What total utter rubbish.

This is the first you mentioned a second baker. And unless you believe in more than one God, each creating a separate collection of creatures, then your analogy collapses if you add another baker. There is only one God.

If you are judging cakes all made by the same baker, and your opinion matter more than His, and the cakes are an analogy for God's creatures, then you are indeed saying that your opinion matters more than God's.

 

[Split Rock]

So where are the transitions of birds from reptiles? there are lots of differences between reptiles and birds, so transitional fossils should be in abundance. There were after all lots of reptiles around and there are certainly lots of birds.

here you go:
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nuttypiglet]

here you go:
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Origin of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That looks like a convincing start to the transition, but lots of changes to go yet. Is the next transition available for view?