What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Frank Robert]

"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

Yes the debate is over because of a preponderance of the evidence.

Oh wait did birds come from dinosaurs or vice versa? Or neither?

Birds are avian dinosaurs.

"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution."

He is entitled to his opinion.

Oh look, an honest scientist!
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
Did you read the article? It's a 2010 opinion paper by Rubin of someone else's work from 2003 that lends some evidence to Rubin pet belief. As far as I can tell it does not appear in a peer reviewed journal. Here's a little tidbit about science. Not everyone is going to agree and not all hypotheses on a subject are going to agree. The hypotheses that survive are the ones that best explain the data and that make the best predictions.

 

[Frank Robert]

A question for any creationist
who cares to respond:

Has it ever occurred to you that you might
not know more than any scientist on earth?

Don't you know that belief trumps science.

 

[Frank Robert]

Well I might be a little rusty, but I've gutted and cleaned a lot of birds. And they don't have reptilian organs. So you have to not only add wings you have to get an animal with one type of lungs to become one with a totally different type of lung.

View attachment 297237
Reptiles also lack the air sacs that birds have scattered all over their bodies.

Is anyone outside of the BANDits suggesting that birds are reptiles?

 

[Astrid]

Don't you know that belief trumps science.

Certainly aware that many think so.
Occasionally appendicitis changes
someone's mind.

 

[Frank Robert]

Your "Double Standard" link can take a hike.

The only thing double is that both are based on DNA.

 

[Astrid]

Is anyone outside of the BANDits suggesting that birds are reptiles?

Birds are reptile kind, why not? Nothing in birds is
totally different.
Only the clueless who think facts about anatomy
and physiology are a matter of making things up
fail to understand that.

 

[Frank Robert]

They are reptile kind, why not?

I can see that if we consider their common ancestor as being the original kind, but creationists reject common ancestry.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Well I might be a little rusty, but I've gutted and cleaned a lot of birds. And they don't have reptilian organs. So you have to not only add wings you have to get an animal with one type of lungs to become one with a totally different type of lung.

View attachment 297237
Reptiles also lack the air sacs that birds have scattered all over their bodies.

And yet therapod dinosaurs have those air sacks. And they had them long before the first birds appear in the fossil record.

 

[Astrid]

They are reptile kind, why not?

I can see that if we consider their common ancestor as being the original kind, but creationists reject common ancestry.

Depends. Some have it that all canines are descended from a
common dog- kind like a wolf, via hyperevolution apres flood.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Birds are distantly related to reptiles through Archosaurs their common ancestor but Dinos and reptiles went their separate ways about 150 million years ago.

More like about 250-275 million years. But still.
And reptiles are no longer considered a real clade. More of a "junk drawer" clade, into which 19th and early-mid 20th century scientists threw anything that wasn't a fish, bird, or mammal.

 

[Astrid]

And yet therapod dinosaurs have those air sacks. And they had them long before the first birds appear in the fossil record.

Info not available who only check on creosites,
whose purpose is to deceive the gullible.

 

[Astrid]

More like about 250-275 million years. But still.
And reptiles are no longer considered a real clade. More of a "junk drawer" clade, into which 19th and early-mid 20th century scientists threw anything that wasn't a fish, bird, or mammal.

Today's reptiles are little like the Synapsids or dinosaurs.
FTM today's fish don't much resemble Devonian fish.

Those ( all creationists) whose knowledge of biology is
narrow and shallow get very confused by these niceties.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Oh yeah the fossil record ...where the modern birds appear alongside dinosaurs? The ones they supposedly evolved from?
Seems like evolution believers pick and choose which "evidence" to use to support their claims.

I made this video last year, addressing this very fact.

The first birds appear in the Jurassic.
And they did NOT replace all non-avian dinosaurs. But lived alongside them for several million years, until the K-T event.
For a hundred million years, birds were just another sub-set of dinosaurs.
Some were more bird-like than others. But they were, and still are, part of the theropod lineage.

 

[renniks]

Did you read the article? It's a 2010 opinion paper by Rubin of someone else's work from 2003 that lends some evidence to Rubin pet belief. As far as I can tell it does not appear in a peer reviewed journal. Here's a little tidbit about science. Not everyone is going to agree and not all hypotheses on a subject are going to agree. The hypotheses that survive are the ones that best explain the data and that make the best predictions.

Wow, you have a lot of blind faith in the process! Not so much a sure thing in reality.

 

[renniks]

Is anyone outside of the BANDits suggesting that birds are reptiles?

You are suggesting they are dinosaurs. Go to any dinosaur museum and they will tell you they are a version of reptile.

 

[AV1611VET]

A question for any creationist
who cares to respond:

Has it ever occurred to you that you might not know more than any scientist on earth?

Yes.

But a five-year-old should still be able to look a scientist in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only thing double is that both are based on DNA.

QV please:

DNA can take a hike.

I don't care if chimp DNA is exactly the same as mine (thus giving me a simian twin somewhere). The Bible says otherwise about evolution.

DNA can take a hike.

Let's try this again:

DNA can take a hike.

Scientists called us "animals" long before DNA was discovered.

And for the record, if you want to play the DNA card, why aren't we considered plants as well?

After all, don't plants and animals converge at a common ancestor?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is anyone outside of the BANDits suggesting that birds are reptiles?

What are "BANDits"?

 

[Frank Robert]

Wow, you have a lot of blind faith in the process! Not so much a sure thing in reality.

Why do continue to demean faith. Every time your refer to science as faith you demean the value of your own faith. I gave up trying to bring you up to date on basic science and now you display your misunderstanding of faith. But carry on.

 

[Frank Robert]

What are "BANDits"?

Birds Are Not Dinosaur (BAND)