Natural selection v Intelligent design

[pshun2404]

You see? You're still confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The monkeys are an answer to how abiogenesis happens. Countless molecules crashing together throughout the universe eventually smashed together something that, given a bit of juice, became "alive". That's when evolution takes over. They are not the same thing, and I think that you are intentionally misleading the argument by trying to say that they are. Albeit we have a lot less information about abiogenesis than evolution, and it may seem like knocking it down would say something about evolution, but it doesn't.

So don't go trying to mix in evolution to my metaphor.

Nicholas, the utterly not demonstrated and unproven assumption of Abiogenesis is that life arose as result of natural processes from non-living matter. I totally reject, and do not agree with, such a hypothesis. I cannot see how you think abiogenesis is at all within what I posted, ever...

Secondly, the statistical approach only supports the idea that this "smashing together and being sparked" idea is totally unsupported nonsense...I have no problem with evolution as a process only with the Darwinian model....take natural selection for an example (which I see but not from the Darwinian view)....in an area with high hard to reach food, varieties with longer necks get the food and survive, varieties with shorter necks are deprived and die off (makes perfect sense).

But shorter necked creatures after reaching and stretching over 1000s of generations growing and becoming long necked varieties? Absurd, made-up, and unsupported by the actual data... therefore the gradual evolution from dead matter to functional DNA (in fact there is no free floating DNA in nature apart from its presence within living systems which themselves depend on it for their very form and functions) is a misnomer for which there actually is not one iota of evidence or proof...

You see? Zero abiogenesis here... observation, demonstration, AND testing all say "NO!" to abiogenesis...theory says "It must be" but it is not...let the data shape the theory and do not let the theory influence interpretation of the data (as some have done).

 

[stevevw]

Darwin himself admitted “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“ (Origin of Species, Chpt. 6 Difficulties of the Theory) and since this we have noted many species suddenly appearing in the geo-column fully formed with all their functional subsystems in place with no predecessors from which they could have formed via slow mutations. Therefore his theory has been broken down by reality. Now that’s not to say that some speciation (the production of variety) has not occurred, but just Triops Cancriformos and Nautilus clearly have not changed in billions of years and even Gould and the Punctuated Equilibrium crowd admit the sudden appearances of new forms with no apparent predecessors.

I agree there is no evidence for a gradual morphing from one kind to another. The examples that are used show well defined creature each with a number of complex features. Just because some can have similar features doesn't mean one produced the other or was a step in the transition from one to another. Some of the jumps have many stages that would require thousands of beneficial mutations which are rare. But there is no explanation or evidence for how this happened.

 

[paulm50]

To Paulm50

The DNA between us and Apes is very close, between us and Chimps even closer.

And of course it would be. Physically we are all primate...We share about 50% in common with the banana that does not mean they are our long lost cousins!

Bananas aren't, members of the Ape family are.

No they (neanderthals) were varieties of the Hominid family, as are humans.

I along with many will have to disagree..not anatomically the same as what we call modern Sapiens but close only larger

Disagree as much as you like. It's still true. Even truer is their absence from the bible. Unless a lot was created and the writers weren't told about so much that went on.

As part of the even larger Ape Family, we see how evolution works.

Yes we see how Evolutionists invent systems of classification convenient to the theory. Ape and Human are both primates but humans are not apes and apes are not human. Ape-kind did not become man-kind (even Darwin did not believe that).

Darwin started discoveries, we have taken it so much further. You can say Apes are birds, doesn't make it so.

Like some dinosaurs evolving into birds.

Never happened...homology is a man-made system of classification and is not "science" (though many scienTISTS put their faith in it)... in recent decades we have found avian fossils predating the alleged Archaeopteryx by millions of years

Can you link us to them please.

Admitting the existence of "avian fossils predating the alleged Archaeopteryx by millions of years". Are you saying Genesis, bible dating and Creationism are wrong?

 

[paulm50]

I agree there is no evidence for a gradual morphing from one kind to another. The examples that are used show well defined creature each with a number of complex features. Just because some can have similar features doesn't mean one produced the other or was a step in the transition from one to another.

There's a mountain of evidence. However each living specimen we find has to be a well defined creature to fit into it's time frame. It's by taking bone structures we see the adaptation and evolution. In some rare cases the development of feathers.

No one did not produce the other in one step, it took many steps. Creatures that didn't adapt died off and we find their remains everywhere.

Those that did adapt over the changes in the Earth's climate, had 100,000s years in which to change, or died out and a lesser species took over at the top.

Mammals existed during the era of the Dinosaurs, an Asteroid hit the Earth, killing off all the large species. Due to a lack of food and the direct aftermath. Mammals took a leap forward filling the gap dinosaurs left. A creature that took a bigger leap forward was a flighless bird. Here's more.

Some of the jumps have many stages that would require thousands of beneficial mutations which are rare. But there is no explanation or evidence for how this happened.

There were no jumps, just small shifts as only the best mated, survived and were born. Average life span of 30 years, over 1,000 years is 33 generations. Now ad some zeros to that.

"5 ft 5 in Average height today.
In fact, over the last 150 years, the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimeters(about four inches). In the first half of the 18th century, the average height of an English male was 165 cm (5 ft 5 in) and the average height of an Irish male was 168 cm (5 ft 6 in)."

Our height has been going up and down over the last 1,000 years. Evolution working as we type.

 

[pshun2404]

I agree there is no evidence for a gradual morphing from one kind to another. The examples that are used show well defined creature each with a number of complex features. Just because some can have similar features doesn't mean one produced the other or was a step in the transition from one to another. Some of the jumps have many stages that would require thousands of beneficial mutations which are rare. But there is no explanation or evidence for how this happened.

Or that it happened and studies done mutating bacteria for many generations have proven fruitless

 

[pshun2404]

Bananas aren't, members of the Ape family are.
Disagree as much as you like. It's still true. Even truer is their absence from the bible. Unless a lot was created and the writers weren't told about so much that went on.Darwin started discoveries, we have taken it so much further. You can say Apes are birds, doesn't make it so.
Can you link us to them please.

Admitting the existence of "avian fossils predating the alleged Archaeopteryx by millions of years". Are you saying Genesis, bible dating and Creationism are wrong?

Nope but please do some homework...

In Richard Monastersky’s “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17. (1993) one fossilized bird from a much earlier time than Archaeopteryx was found in Mongolia and yes it had claws and teeth, but it was still just a bird. In addition some modern birds also have a claw or claws on their wing but they are just birds. And what about Protoavis found in Texas? It is a bird with teeth from millions and millions of years before Arche…is Arche really just a transitional form that shows a certain kind of reptile evolved from birds? Researcher and evolutionist Dr. Sankar Chatterjee, the Curator of Paleontology at Texas Tech University, recorded that Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle along with “a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs.” Anderson, Alan (1991), “


See "Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5. It certainly does threaten it because it means Avians existed 210,000,000 years ago. But who’s counting?


Feduccia and H.B. Tordoff, in Science, 203 (1979), p. 1020, tell us “in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." Also Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones such as a bird has. In fact P. Moody in, Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197, points out that “other extinct birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)."

And A.S. Romer, who actually saw the Archaeopteryx fossils in his Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (1968), p. 144, reveals that despite the common media presentations "This Jurassic bird stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later `proper' birds than before."


Conclusion? "It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." See J. Ostrom, Science News, 112 (1977), p. 198.

 

[pshun2404]

by taking bone structures we see the adaptation and evolution.

“can you link them please?” Only kidding! One can simply let the data stand or via the theory explain the data…. Homology was invented for the convenience of Taxonomic classification. It was not and is not a scientifically established fact. The fact is that the same types of organs and structures are often caused by entirely non-homologous genes in different creatures. 1971 monograph, Homology, An Unsolved Problem (reference Oxford Biology Reader), embryologist, Sir Gavin de Beer, asks “…what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same "patterns", in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes?” This is a question which no EB has been able to answer.

In Vertebrates: Comparative anatomy, function, evolution (McGraw Hill) by K. Kardong (Ph.D., Zoology, University of Illinois), we are told that vertebrae form embryologically in significantly different ways for different classes of vertebrate (such as mammals, birds, amphibians and fish), and even from different groups of early embryonic cells. David swift notes that “these different vertebrate classes are not, in fact, homologous.”

So it is obvious that despite topical appearance of similarity they do not have a common “vertebrae” origin from which they descended. This reality of Homology also calls into question some aspects of the notion of common descent. But regardless of these questions homology indicates it speaks nothing about relationship or heritage. Organs and bones and even external features are all great designs (they work)....

 

[paulm50]

Nope but please do some homework...

In Richard Monastersky’s “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17. (1993) one fossilized bird from a much earlier time than Archaeopteryx was found in Mongolia and yes it had claws and teeth, but it was still just a bird. In addition some modern birds also have a claw or claws on their wing but they are just birds. And what about Protoavis found in Texas? It is a bird with teeth from millions and millions of years before Arche…is Arche really just a transitional form that shows a certain kind of reptile evolved from birds? Researcher and evolutionist Dr. Sankar Chatterjee, the Curator of Paleontology at Texas Tech University, recorded that Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle along with “a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs.” Anderson, Alan (1991), “

See "Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5. It certainly does threaten it because it means Avians existed 210,000,000 years ago. But who’s counting?

Feduccia and H.B. Tordoff, in Science, 203 (1979), p. 1020, tell us “in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." Also Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones such as a bird has. In fact P. Moody in, Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197, points out that “other extinct birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)."

And A.S. Romer, who actually saw the Archaeopteryx fossils in his Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (1968), p. 144, reveals that despite the common media presentations "This Jurassic bird stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later `proper' birds than before."

Conclusion? "It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." See J. Ostrom, Science News, 112 (1977), p. 198.

Dinosaur Nests In Mongolia Found Full Of Eggs Of Big-Clawed 'Therizinosaur' Species

And this is your evidence Genesis is right!!!!!!

 

[paulm50]

by taking bone structures we see the adaptation and evolution.

“can you link them please?” Only kidding! One can simply let the data stand or via the theory explain the data…. Homology was invented for the convenience of Taxonomic classification. It was not and is not a scientifically established fact. The fact is that the same types of organs and structures are often caused by entirely non-homologous genes in different creatures. 1971 monograph, Homology, An Unsolved Problem (reference Oxford Biology Reader), embryologist, Sir Gavin de Beer, asks “…what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same "patterns", in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes?” This is a question which no EB has been able to answer.

In Vertebrates: Comparative anatomy, function, evolution (McGraw Hill) by K. Kardong (Ph.D., Zoology, University of Illinois), we are told that vertebrae form embryologically in significantly different ways for different classes of vertebrate (such as mammals, birds, amphibians and fish), and even from different groups of early embryonic cells. David swift notes that “these different vertebrate classes are not, in fact, homologous.”

So it is obvious that despite topical appearance of similarity they do not have a common “vertebrae” origin from which they descended. This reality of Homology also calls into question some aspects of the notion of common descent. But regardless of these questions homology indicates it speaks nothing about relationship or heritage. Organs and bones and even external features are all great designs (they work)....

Fossil bones evolution.

Dinosaur bones and birds.

Rather than show one site supporting Evolution, I thought it might be better to show 1,000s of sites. Because clearly one site can take the truth and twist it. Still comes down to Genesis being fictional. You're showing evidence to support the theory of evolution. And that we still have a lot more to learn.

 

[paulm50]

Natural Selection. The process of evolution creating creatures that fit into their environment. If that environment suddenly changes, many die out and other take over. The links between Therizinosaurus, Dinosaurs and modern birds is clear, as we find more evidence. Those links become clearer. Not as clear as a god doing it for us, knowledge is never that simple.

Intelligent Design. Is what? A god coming to Earth every so often to change the species. Because no other explanation fits for a designer. Finding evidence of species long gone, only goes to confirm how evolution works.

So unless one accepts the world around us is changing and we fit into it, because we don't control it as the bibles says. Or we perish. We're now losing a huge amount of the natural world due to overpopulation and climate change. Can we control it like the designer theorists claim, or will we become extinct due to lack of food?

 

[pshun2404]

Dinosaur Nests In Mongolia Found Full Of Eggs Of Big-Clawed 'Therizinosaur' Species

And this is your evidence Genesis is right!!!!!!

No! Its my evidence that the variety of bird labelled Archaeopteryx is not demonstrative that reptiles became birds.

 

[pshun2404]

Saurus = Lizard

 

[paulm50]

No! Its my evidence that the variety of bird labelled Archaeopteryx is not demonstrative that reptiles became birds.

Can you provide evidence they didn't evolve from dinosaurs please.

No one says the Evolutionists know everything, we leave that for others to claim. This species is just a new find and redraws the evolution theory.

As for the Creationist theory, it's another nail in it's coffin. The Earth wasn't created in 6 days, the sons of the first humans weren't farmers, and these creature came millions of years before man, not a few days.

 

[pshun2404]

Paulm50 you asked "Can you provide evidence they didn't evolve from dinosaurs please."

Why when there is no evidence (zero, zilch) that they did? Birds obviously existed long before Archaeopteryx (evidence provided) so if Archy IS a transitional form then this alleged dinosaur (terrible LIZARD) evolved from birds not the other way around (this does not speak to other extant reptiles). Similarity in bone structure (though the quality of bone is far different from their aleged reptilian counterparts) does not guarantee either CAME FROM the other (it is an assumption based conclusion made only by those who are interpreting the evidence from the theory and not forming the theory based on the evidence)

As David Pilbeam, curator of paleoanthropology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, points out in his article in Pro-Evolution, Vol. 14, p.127, “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted ”.

Now as for your question go back to Philosophy 101, no one can prove a possibility is not...therefore any intelligent agnostic admits there COULD BE a God, they just do not see or have enough evidence to be assured there is (this is a defendable and rational position)...Atheists (in general) however are not rational, because they accept an unprovable universal negative (that there is not) as "Truth"...and an unprovable positive also as "Truth" (abiogenesis)...

So if you are an atheist of THIS VARIETY you should move to a more honest agnosticism...which says "There COULD BE but I do not need there to be one to explain MOST things"

And yes of course Could be or Might be does not equal IS

 

[pshun2404]

As for the Creationist theory, it's another nail in it's coffin. The Earth wasn't created in 6 days, the sons of the first humans weren't farmers, and these creature came millions of years before man, not a few days.

Good thing I never claimed that!!! I am not a YEC Paul. I see no problem with accepting Yom (day) has other applications. Moses himself uses the word in many ways in the same book...even to mean indeterminate lengths of time...(whole epochs). But if this God were to try and communicate to these ancient humans would He not do so best in simplified language and terms they were intellectually able to grasp relative to their time? Genesis 1 is not a scientific exposition it speaks only of origins and in terms of developments, processes, and cycles...
The word "kind" in ancient Hebrew is the same word in Greek from which we get the original meaning for "species" (before it was changed by EBs to support their theory). The book says universal materials first then stars and planets then on earth the seas and sea life then the land and land life then man and then additional animals...but the point is "In the beginning GOD...". Thats all.

 

[pshun2404]

Birds are now being called dinosaurs? How did this happen?

Biologist and paleontologist, Sir Richard Owen coined the term "Dinosauria" in 1841. The word dinosaur derives from two Greek words (deinos) "terrible, powerful, wondrous" + (sauros) "lizard". Hence forth dinosaur meant terrible or powerful lizard (by which he meant reptile) and nothing more!

Herodotus, Pliny the Elder, Marco Polo and others all wrote that they had seen giant, terrible, lizards only they called them dragons (because the word dinosaurs had not been made up yet).

But as time passed and Evolutionists realized this term would not support the theory of phyletic morphism, they changed the meaning (conveniently in their favor) to vaguely mean terrible or just prehistoric so that now any and all they choose can be called “dinosaur” (albeit the absurdity and that they had done so inappropriately).

They did the same with the word “species” so that “speciation” Can now mean one creature becoming another (meaning amphibians becoming reptiles and so on) so as to fit their unfounded hypothesis of Darwin's phyletic morphism (fish become amphibians, amphibians become reptiles, reptiles become birds, and so on) and thereby allow a looser interpretation.

Actually in factual truth (as supported by observation and demonstration) all speciation actually has shown us is how "variety" forms in one group of creature (variety of the same bacteria, variety of a certain kind of fish, variety of dogs, and so on).

Now speciation certainly does occur, but it only produces variety, and that is all we ever observe, can demonstrate, or that testing/experiments provide as examples. Therefore accept the facts and walk in the truth.

In fact Steven Stanley, paleontologist at John Hopkin’s points this out in his book Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (W. H. Freeman, 1979), declared that “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of Phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition...” Yet we never hear this opinion taught. We actually have not found one example that actually supports the theory yet the theory is continuously imposed.

In the Evolution Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, chapter 17, Appendix pt. B2) they conclude:

"...major flaw in the evolutionary theory. By its very nature, evolution absolutely requires transitional forms! If there are no transitions from one species to another, there is no evolution! Theories may abound, but without evidence the theories are myths. The facts of (1) Cambrian explosion of a variety of complex life formed with no transitional species prior to the Cambrian, and (2) no transitional forms but only gaps between species during and after the Cambrian, and (3) the species always abruptly appear;—these three points utterly destroy any validity evolution might have in the fossil record. And the fossil record is our only record of this world's biologic prehistory."

Speciation only proves variety and at no time has ever demonstrated the becoming of a new organ or type of creature no matter how much wiggle room is created by redefining terms as is convenient to their cause.

The professional rhetoricians for crafty politicians and other propaganda specialists are the one who perfected this approach first, therefore it is automatically suspicious to me whenever some group does this in order to shape (engineer and manipulate) public opinion.

 

[paulm50]

"Chinese scientists have discovered a near-complete fossil of the oldest bird-like dinosaur, and their find suggests such feathered animals were present on Earth more than 150 million years ago."

Scientists find oldest feathered dinosaur yet: Sorry, Archaeopteryx.

Recent prosauropods from Madagascar are the oldest, about 230 million years old.

Oldest Dinosaur Found dated to around 230 million years ago.

Therizinosaurs, which lived about 70 million years ago, sported huge, round guts; stumpy legs; a long neck; and a turtle like head and beak. A relative new boy on the block.

The Oldest Fish in the World Lived 500 Million Years Ago.

3.5-Billion-Year-Old Fossil Microbial Community Found.

"therefore any intelligent agnostic admits there COULD BE a God, " There very well could be a god. My viewpoint is confirmed by you. The Genesis writers had no contact with him. As you point out real life on Earth is 100s of millions old, maybe a billion, and here long before Humans arrived, too far back even for the Genesis writers to have stories passed down to them.

As for the more recent reports of dinosaurs, we would be finding bones with recoverable DNA and not bones that had been turned into rock. If everything written was true, it would change a lot.

So if there was no evolution, how do you explain will the millions of different species in very different time frames?

As for engineering and manipulating public opinion, that could be what the bible belt preachers and teachers are doing to Creationists.

 

[pshun2404]

As to this first reference you give you should do more than take the media for its word (whose job it is to shape public opinion, i.e., manipulate and engineer what they want you to think). You do realize that despite the media hype, most who have seen the fossil and actually worked with it, have declared it avian (a bird), and the continued “failure to secure rigorous provenance information” (which is so important in light of the long string of hoaxes in China and elsewhere) casts doubt even on the claim that Aurornis is 160 million years old? This fossil has been a round over 2 years and has been discussed at great lengths and still has not been confirmed to be anything but a bird.

The Phyletic studies done (Ian Sample, "Early bird called Dawn beat Archaeopteryx to worm by 10m years", The Guardian (May 29, 2013), found that it belongs in the bird lineage. According to the article by Jonathan Amos (science correspondent for the BBC News) , May 29, 2013, in "Archaeopteryx restored in fossil reshuffle", tells us the study compared “almost 1500 characteristics”, and guess what…it’s a bird! Paul Barrett of the Natural History Museum in London, because of the recent blurring of the definitions of formerly commonly understood terms by EBs says that Aurornis “…is certainly an older member of the bird lineage…and it's fair to call it a very primitive bird.”

Your second article on the oldest dinosaur found shows me that the earliest findable Reptiles and the earliest findable Avians (birds) were probably present at the same time period (230,000,000 years ago)....Thanks I will have to keep that one in my repetoire.

Number three gives reptiles an edge by 10 million if proven to be true (and the race continues)…Number 4 describes a find of NON-Avian Therapods…Number 5 are fish…Number 6 early Microbes…

Absolutely none of this contradicts what I have told you and certainly not one thing indicates reptiles became birds OR that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form.

There very well could be a god. My viewpoint is confirmed by you. The Genesis writers had no contact with him. As you point out real life on Earth is 100s of millions old, maybe a billion, and here long before Humans arrived, too far back even for the Genesis writers to have stories passed down to them.

A totally assumption based conclusion regarding your lack of understanding as to how such a being would relate to these early people. Early writers or those who passed down the book of the generations of Adam believed their predecessors had had some contact with this being.

So if there was no evolution, how do you explain will the millions of different species in very different time frames?

I did not say there was NO evolution, just no slow transformation from one creature to another totally different form of creature. I was a zygote which became an Embryo, which became a Fetus, which was born as a human infant and so on. Is not this evolution? It does not mean a banana was my cousin because the genetic material we both draw on to give us form is shared some 50%.

As for engineering and manipulating public opinion, that could be what the bible belt preachers and teachers are doing to Creationists.

Indeed some are and that is why it is important you read it non-critically first for what it is trying to say and so not believe everything you are told.

If a scientist made a statement of what they had discovered after following certain instructions (protocols if you will) an then 65 other accounts came in confirming this conclusion, you would no doubt accept it readily as “probably” true. That’s exactly what we have in the Bible. 66 different accounts by over 30 different authors over 1500 years (most of whom never knew one another) from a societal cross both genders who have followed the alleged protocols or instructions and came to the same conclusion.

 

[stevevw]

Modern birds were around with the dinos. This suggests that birds evolved at the very least at the same time as the dinos. If this is the case then Dino's didn't produce birds and there must be another explanation for where birds came from. The similarities are just common features that animals have within their kinds. The Dino type birds may just be a bird types similar to the Do do or emu or other bird types that we have today.

Some dinos had feathers but evolutionists quickly jump on this as evidence for a transition between dinos and birds. But these dinos were just dinos and were not transitioning into birds. They just happen to have some bird like features within their kind. This is the problem with using visual evidence and an assumed theory. Evolutionists like bias all the evidence towards what they believe and it may not be true.
Modern Birds Existed Before Dinosaur Die-Off
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080208-bird-origins.html
The scientists who made the discovery, reported in the journal Science, believe the existence of a 220 million-year-old fossil with feathers blows a hole in the idea that birds are "living dinosaurs".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...rds-did-not-evolve-from-dinosaurs-713382.html
This is another example of how evolution mis- interprets fossils and gears all discoveries towards fitting them into an pre assumed theory.

 

[paulm50]

So rather than tell us what didn't happen, explain in some detail, in your opinion, what did happen.