When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Are these mutations making them something besides human? Nope. And it's absolutely laughable that genetic differences between parents and children is somehow proof of evolution of one thing changing into,something else.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

your children are a very little bit different to you and your partner. Your child's children will be a very little bit different to your children, who are already a very little bit different to you. Now, repeat that a few tens of thousands of times and you'll see that those very little differences stack up to be all the differences you see in the human race today. Give another million or two generations and you'll see the differences are as wide as they are between us and the other great apes, etc. Not that hard...

 

[Abraxos]

Oh wow, not Carl Werner's garbage.
1. More time passed between Archaeopteryx and T-Rex (90 million years) than passed between T-Rex and humans (65 million years).
2. Birds were already evolving in the Jurassic so it's not surprising they would be found in Cretaceous strata.
3. Boa constrictors are snakes, not birds.
4. The fossils of every type of bird you mentioned has the word 'like' after it. "Owl-like", etc.
5. Your own uncited source notes that the find wasn't a modern duck or goose, but a relative.

These things you're pointing out is kinda stupid though. I mean, according to the geological record, a vast diversity of birds, modern day birds have been found to be walking with dinosaurs up to 200 million years ago. And it isn't just birds, but also salamanders, lizards, flying squirrels, platypus, rabbits, beavers, crayfish, lobster, mayflies and many others. Fossils of modern trees have also been found with the dinosaurs, including sequoias, redwoods, sassafras, walnut and palm. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Here's an Avocet in the dinosaur exhibit at Milwaukee Museum - a rare example of a modern bird in such displays. A living fossil.

If you see the fossil record we should see examples of about 90% dinosaur 10% bird creatures, 80% dinosaur and 20% bird creatures, and then 70% dinosaur and 30% bird creatures... and so on, (and remember, slow and gradual that's how the theory of evolution works.) When we get somewhere in the middle evolutionists like to point to something like an Archaeopteryx which evolutionists believe is one of these transitional forms, then all of a sudden we get a vast diversity of birds.

Now what we actually notice in the fossil record where there should be millions of these "transitional" forms yet we hardly find any. They are called missing links for a reason... they're missing. I think it strange that an evolutionist would try to fool people to actually believe that a dinosaur evolved to a chicken with no evidence whatsoever, yet penguins remained penguins 100 million odd years later? The more we know the less and less the evolutionary theory makes any sense. I really don't know how an evolutionists brain comprehends and willingly accepts this nonsense.

I'll provide you with sources outside of the creation spectrum to denote any apprehension of bias, but simply an acknowledgment of a universal fact regardless of where you stand. There are plenty out there.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080208-bird-origins.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winged-victory/

 

[46AND2]

These things you're pointing out is kinda stupid though. I mean, according to the geological record, a vast diversity of birds, modern day birds have been found to be walking with dinosaurs up to 200 million years ago.

No they haven't. Ancient birds, yes. Modern ones, no.

And it isn't just birds, but also salamanders, lizards, flying squirrels, platypus, rabbits, beavers, crayfish, lobster, mayflies and many others. Fossils of modern trees have also been found with the dinosaurs, including sequoias, redwoods, sassafras, walnut and palm.

No they haven't. Look, if we found these things all over the place, as you suggest, it would be a huge problem for evolution. Since the theory is getting stronger all the time, instead, I'd say it is much more likely that you don't know what you are talking about.

If you see the fossil record we should see examples of about 90% dinosaur 10% bird creatures, 80% dinosaur and 20% bird creatures, and then 70% dinosaur and 30% bird creatures... and so on, (and remember, slow and gradual that's how the theory of evolution works.)

No, that isn't how it works. Did Americans replace Englishmen? Why not the 90-10, 80-20, 70-30 graduation when Americans came to exist? And yes, it is exactly the same idea. SOME dinosaurs became birds, some did not. Different populations.

Nevermind the fact that there is no way to predict what the rate of fossilization for each creature should be relative to others.

When we get somewhere in the middle evolutionists like to point to something like an Archaeopteryx which evolutionists believe is one of these transitional forms, then all of a sudden we get a vast diversity of birds.

Now what we actually notice in the fossil record where there should be millions of these "transitional" forms yet we hardly find any. They are called missing links for a reason... they're missing.

If you actually knew what transitional means, you'd know that every single fossil ever found is "transitional."

 

[Abraxos]

No they haven't. Look, if we found these things all over the place, as you suggest, it would be a huge problem for evolution. Since the theory is getting stronger all the time, instead, I'd say it is much more likely that you don't know what you are talking about.

Uh yeah they have, and it is a huge problem for the evolutionary theory, obviously. I could show you the sources but, I think it best you search for yourself, because I don't think you're ready, because people do have a limit to what they can take, and I don't want to shove everything down your throat.

 

[rjs330]

your children are a very little bit different to you and your partner. Your child's children will be a very little bit different to your children, who are already a very little bit different to you. Now, repeat that a few tens of thousands of times and you'll see that those very little differences stack up to be all the differences you see in the human race today. Give another million or two generations and you'll see the differences are as wide as they are between us and the other great apes, etc. Not that hard...

And they will still be human. The problem is we always consider we are evolving into something better. The problem is we are not. Current discoveries are flying in the face of evolution.
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/sc...humanity-is-getting-dumber-smaller-and-weaker




Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

And they will still be human. Human beings haven't changed all that much. You claim very different. Human beings haven't changed all that drastically over the last 10,000 years. They were humans then and still are.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I agree. Evolution states that you and all your descendants will forever be human. Just like we'll always be Apes, we'll also always be Mammals, Animals, Eukaryotes, etc. Humans have been around upwards of 70,000 - 150,000 years, in that time there's been plenty of time for creeping change. Before that and up to as little as 30,000 years ago, there were other forms of hominids besides us Homo Sapiens. it just so happens we were able to out compete them for the same territories and resources - hence we're the success story for the Apes of the great plains! We've since expanded out from Africa to become all the forms of humans on the planet today. Africans, Asians, Indians, Europeans, Pigmys, Islanders, Aborigines, Mediterranean, etc.

 

[46AND2]

Uh yeah they have, and it is a huge problem for the evolutionary theory, obviously. I could show you the sources but, I think it best you search for yourself, because I don't think you're ready, because people do have a limit to what they can take, and I don't want to shove everything down your throat.

What's that? I can't understand what you're saying through all the sand.

 

[loveofourlord]

Umm... Common design. Prove to me that the dolphins smelling gene is actually a smelling gene and prove they smelled in the past. You,can't. You suppose and assume.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

thats just stupid design if it was designed, thats like building a car from a ford truck then using all the parts from the truck in the car, just welding parts not used happhazardly.

 

[loveofourlord]

Are these mutations making them something besides human? Nope. And it's absolutely laughable that genetic differences between parents and children is somehow proof of evolution of one thing changing into,something else.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

we will always be humans, just as we will always be apes and monkeys and that is what evolution is, genetic differences adding up over time, so yes by definition thats what evolution is. Or are you saying it's impossible to walk a mile by taking small steps.

 

[USincognito]

These things you're pointing out is kinda stupid though. I mean, according to the geological record, a vast diversity of birds, modern day birds have been found to be walking with dinosaurs up to 200 million years ago.

Utter poppycock. There are no modern birds being found in Jurassic strata. There are no modern species found in Cretaceous strata.

Here's an Avocet in the dinosaur exhibit at Milwaukee Museum - a rare example of a modern bird in such displays. A living fossil.

Yep, I called it. You're parroting Carl Werner. Question for you about his photo of the avocet reconstruction. Where are the dinosaurs in that photo? He claims it's in the same exhibit, but all we can see is the bird.

If you see the fossil record we should see examples of about 90% dinosaur 10% bird creatures, 80% dinosaur and 20% bird creatures, and then 70% dinosaur and 30% bird creatures... and so on, (and remember, slow and gradual that's how the theory of evolution works.) When we get somewhere in the middle evolutionists like to point to something like an Archaeopteryx which evolutionists believe is one of these transitional forms, then all of a sudden we get a vast diversity of birds.

You really should keep up with this stuff if you're going to comment on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

They are called missing links for a reason... they're missing.

Actually it's due to the ignorance of the person using that phrase.
1. Missing link is an outdated 19th Century concept that has given way to the more accurate transitional fossil (or form).
2. We have found dozens of specimens. There's 40 listed in the feathered dinosaur link I provided.

I think it strange that an evolutionist would try to fool people to actually believe that a dinosaur evolved to a chicken with no evidence whatsoever, yet penguins remained penguins 100 million odd years later? The more we know the less and less the evolutionary theory makes any sense. I really don't know how an evolutionists brain comprehends and willingly accepts this nonsense.

What a fascinating opinion.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=bird+dinosaur+evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,31&as_sdtp=

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Funny thing about the evidence. There isn't any. I think it's quite funny how evolutionists use this or that as evidence, when it's really not. Oh look we have an animal, oh look we have another animal that similar, proof! This animal has feathers or at least we think it had feathers proof! Look monkeys have five fingers and so do we! Proof!

Ha! I'm poking fun! Seriously though I love it when science makes all kinds of claims about something when there really is no evidence of it. Like I said, I've been looking at this For 30 years. Man thinks he's so smart, when the truth is he is quite dumb really.

All the theories of science remain guess work until it is proven by actual observation or experimentation. Since science has not been able to duplicate Evolution by chance it's remains a theory and nonsense. It's a joke on all mankind perpetuated by false assumptions and false science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

The above denial of evidence for evolution was presented to us by a human with a coccyx.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . The fact that human experimenters were involved is strongly suggests that evolution requires a transcendental mind, i.e., God. . . . ..

Well that's silly. Because, if evolution could occur naturally, then of course evolution could occur also in a laboratory setting. So the fact that evolution has occurred in a a laboratory setting does not in any way argue against the possibility of evolution in a natural setting.

Reason rightly.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I have never seen a beneficial mutation.

Can you digest milk? Your ability to do that as an adult is the result of a beneficial mutation.