When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[rjs330]

Already disproven. All you need is 20 million mutations in the human lineage which is easily achievable.

And yet it hasn't been achieved. In fact none of the mutations which lead one creature to become another has never been proven to have been achieved unless you assume it has. Evolution still cannot be proven by observation or by being reproduced. It has never been testable. Its nothing but one big assumption.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok I did misunderstand your post. I get,it. We didn't come from chimps specifically but from a common ancestor.

But that is an assumption.

It is a conclusion based on mountains of evidence. Assumptions are claims made without proof. We have the proof.

The assumption is we came from a common ancestor is based upon similarities.

No, it isn't. It is based on phylogenies. I discuss this very topic in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/evolution-is-not-evidenced-simply-by-similarity.7943258/

But we do not know that any mutation occurred to create this. We assume it did.

We conclude it did, based on mountains of evidence. We don't assume.

Every single mutation that occurs in the human DNA does not lead us to become something else. We are still humans. Monkeys could have all kinds of mutations and they are still monkeys.

Our descendants will always be humans, just as our common ancestor with other mammals was a mammal, and we are still mammals. What can happen is that the variation of human species will increase over time, just as the variation in mammal species increased over time.

Evolution is based on the belief that we evolved from something.

It is based on mountains of evidence which you seem to avoid like the plague.

We were not always human.

Chihuahuas were not always Chihuahuas.

Yet science cannot prove that. They cannot test that and they do not observe that.

We can test it, and we have tested it. I explain the evidence in the following thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/

Just with ERVs, we have over 200,000 pieces of proof.

They love to use mutations within one creature to try and prove that creature came from something else. It just laughable. Because no,matter how hard they try they can't prove any of it. As if 40 million mutations proves we came from a common ancestor is if they know. They don't. They assume because they have not been able to,observe any,mutations causing one creature to,become anything else but than same creature with perhaps some adaptation. Its all junk science because it remains unproven.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Are you going to continue the evidence that exists?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Already disproven. All you need is 20 million mutations in the human lineage which is easily achievable.

Even if "ALL" you need is 20 million you do not even have one. By mutation I mean new information. IN fact as time goes on information is lost not gained. The average onion has more DNA then humans. Amoebas oozing along in shallow ponds boast a genome 200 times as large as those of Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. How do you explain the fact that DNA is lost not gained? Everything was there in the beginning.

Ancient Humans Had A Lot More DNA Than We Do

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/ancestral-human-genome-contained-lot-more-dna-ours

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet it hasn't been achieved.

Yes, it has. There are 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans, 20 million in each lineage (approx.).

In fact none of the mutations which lead one creature to become another has never been proven to have been achieved unless you assume it has.

It has been proven. It isn't our fault that you stick your head in the sand and refuse to face the proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

Even if "ALL" you need is 20 million you do not even have one.

We have all of them. The chimp and human genome have been sequenced.

By mutation I mean new information. IN fact as time goes on information is lost not gained. The average onion has more DNA then humans. Amoebas oozing along in shallow ponds boast a genome 200 times as large as those of Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. How do you explain the fact that DNA is lost not gained? Everything was there in the beginning.

It is your claim that every mutation leads to a loss in information. It is your burden of proof to support that claim.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It is your claim that every mutation leads to a loss in information. It is your burden of proof to support that claim.

Most mutation are considered to be neutral. Chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46. Unless your math is different then mine that is a loss of two chromosomes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Most mutation are considered to be neutral. Chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46. Unless your math is different then mine that is a loss of two chromosomes.

No DNA was lost. Two chromosomes fused into one. Did they lose 4 books when the Torah was formed?

 

[Hoghead1]

And yet it hasn't been achieved. In fact none of the mutations which lead one creature to become another has never been proven to have been achieved unless you assume it has. Evolution still cannot be proven by observation or by being reproduced. It has never been testable. Its nothing but one big assumption.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

It has been carried out in the lab with bacteria, however. The reason is that bacteria move faster. You would have to wait millions of years to see such changes in larger organisms.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok I did misunderstand your post. I get,it. We didn't come from chimps specifically but from a common ancestor.

But that is an assumption. The assumption is we came from a common ancestor is based upon similarities. But we do not know that any mutation occurred to create this. We assume it did. Every single mutation that occurs in the human DNA does not lead us to become something else. We are still humans. Monkeys could have all kinds of mutations and they are still monkeys.

It's not based on similarities in physical traits, but in homologous DNA sequences from viral insertions and general junk that has no function and no biological benefit or detriment to being present in the same patterns. It's statistically insane to view the extremely slim chance that all these sequences are the same for some reason other than common ancestry; not all assumptions are equal. I assume that you know what 2+2 equals; is my assumption stupid, or are the statistical chances of a literate person not knowing the correct answer to that so low that it is actually more logical for me to assume that you do know the answer than for me to waste my time asking, or worse, assume that you don't? And science is always asking. Yes, there are other possibilities for these uncanny shared, useless sequences, but the probability of any of them, no, even all their probabilities combined, don't even amount to a 1% chance. No one denies these possibilities, but only a fool goes for the options with such low odds when the reward is the same regardless as to what you put your stock in.

Evolution is based on the belief that we evolved from something. We were not always human. We came from something else. Yet science cannot prove that. They cannot test that and they do not observe that. Evolution is a belief system that remains unproven and unprovable.

We came from an ape, we are still apes. We came from a vertebrate, we are still vertebrates. However, species designations are not some natural phenomena independent of our own categorization, which is why it is actually very common to see organisms have breeding patterns that completely mess with that system. Bird A and bird B being able to breed, and bird B and bird C being able to breed, but bird A and bird C cannot breed (their populations, not specific individuals). Evolution is subtle and relatively slow. However, we can see genus transitions in bacteria pretty easily; the equivalent of a nonhuman population eventually giving rise to a human one. Creationists just like to get hung up on them still being bacteria, failing to understand that a transition on the Kingdom level would be like expecting a plant population to give rise to a mouse population within 30 generations... which is ridiculous. I don't think we even understand natural selection well enough to provide an environment that would eventually lead to that type of transition after hundreds of millions of years. That degree of change is hardly necessary to demonstrate evolution, and I can only attribute people's constant assertion that there is some problem with them "staying bacteria" due to those people either not understanding the implications of those populations becoming something that isn't classifiable as a bacteria, or they ignore them.

They love to use mutations within one creature to try and prove that creature came from something else. It just laughable. Because no,matter how hard they try they can't prove any of it. As if 40 million mutations proves we came from a common ancestor is if they know. They don't. They assume because they have not been able to,observe any,mutations causing one creature to,become anything else but than same creature with perhaps some adaptation. Its all junk science because it remains unproven.

There are mutations that will cause people to have webbed fingers, a condition called syndactyly http://www.eatonhand.com/jpg/1200_3302704.jpg
or born with tails (warning, exposed baby bottom) https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...g_north,h_358,q_80,w_636/1883d6jlb7tb0jpg.jpg
or horns http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2015/08/6b2bd363a2f84537d13ecded98ec2fba900886bb.jpg
or thick hair all over their bodies http://theinfong.com/wp-content/uploads/ovie_o/07/alg-supatra-sasuphan-jpg.jpg
a lot of these are caused by just a small number of mutations. Just imagine what 40 million could do.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It has been carried out in the lab with bacteria, however. The reason is that bacteria move faster. You would have to wait millions of years to see such changes in larger organisms.

You mean reproduce much, much faster. Interestingly, the mutation rate in most bacterial species is actually lower than in eukaryotic species, it's just the rate of reproduction that makes up for it.

 

[rjs330]

It is a conclusion based on mountains of evidence. Assumptions are claims made without proof. We have the proof.



No, it isn't. It is based on phylogenies. I discuss this very topic in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/evolution-is-not-evidenced-simply-by-similarity.7943258/



We conclude it did, based on mountains of evidence. We don't assume.



Our descendants will always be humans, just as our common ancestor with other mammals was a mammal, and we are still mammals. What can happen is that the variation of human species will increase over time, just as the variation in mammal species increased over time.



It is based on mountains of evidence which you seem to avoid like the plague.



Chihuahuas were not always Chihuahuas.



We can test it, and we have tested it. I explain the evidence in the following thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/

Just with ERVs, we have over 200,000 pieces of proof.



Are you going to continue the evidence that exists?

No because the evidence does not exist. You use a lot of links to places that proclaim the evidence,yet the evidence is not really there. There is a ton of smoke and mirrors and but when you boil it all down it is still assumption. I don't refer solely to similarities like we all have eyeballs or that chimps and we have five fingers. I refer to the phylogeny idea too. It is all presumptive.

And I posted a link to a site debunking the retro virus theory. Even in that retrovirus theory it makes a ton of assumptions based on the fact that evolution is real. Evolutionary hypothesis has become fact in science so everything evolves around that and so every discovery assumes evolution is true.

Evolution has not been proven because it cannot be tested or observed or confirmed. The mountains of evidence you refer to always boil down to a basic assumption that this or that occurred. Its not based on real scientific proof, but only guesswork based on assumption.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[PsychoSarah]

No because the evidence does not exist. You use a lot of links to places that proclaim the evidence,yet the evidence is not really there. There is a ton of smoke and mirrors and but when you boil it all down it is still assumption. I don't refer solely to similarities like we all have eyeballs or that chimps and we have five fingers. I refer to the phylogeny idea too. It is all presumptive.

Phylogeny is not presumptive when we have the DNA. True, most fossil species did not leave behind DNA, but a few did. The oldest human DNA we have is more than five thousand years old, and guess what? They don't have massively bigger genomes than us.

And I posted a link to a site debunking the retro virus theory. Even in that retrovirus theory it makes a ton of assumptions based on the fact that evolution is real. Evolutionary hypothesis has become fact in science so everything evolves around that and so every discovery assumes evolution is true.

The retrovirus OBSERVATIONS don't make sense outside of evolutionary theory. No other idea proposed as an explanation gets even close to the theory level. We know how retroviruses work, we know what their sequences look like, and we know they often leave behind pieces of their genes when they infect cells (a process which frequently fails and just leaves behind viral sequences without the cells dying or becoming virus factories).

Evolution has not been proven because it cannot be tested or observed or confirmed. The mountains of evidence you refer to always boil down to a basic assumption that this or that occurred. Its not based on real scientific proof, but only guesswork based on assumption.

You make this claim a lot. Where's the evidence to back what you say? You don't get to just disregard something without giving the proper reasoning why you do it, and this alone just amounts to your opinion.

 

[-57]

No DNA was lost. Two chromosomes fused into one.

That has been shown to be false. If you really care, I can find several articles on that topic which shows your error....perhaps even a video or two.

 

[Cearbhall]

Worth to duplicate this from a Youtube comment to here:

"1) Why don't you take me step by step how did the dinosaur became a bird . Please include all the fossil evidence"

I refer this to the answers to questions #2, 3, 4 and 5, but since you wanted fossils, here are a few:

Shhh, Mr. YouTube Guy wants to believe that he's the only person intelligent enough to have pondered this question, and that there can't possibly be an answer if he doesn't know it already...

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has been shown to be false. If you really care, I can find several articles on that topic which shows your error....perhaps even a video or two.

I am sure that you cannot find a valid source that shows that to be an error.

Please note, sites that require their employees not to use the scientific method are of no value in a scientific argument. That should be fairly obvious.

 

[46AND2]

That has been shown to be false. If you really care, I can find several articles on that topic which shows your error....perhaps even a video or two.

Instead, why don't you present the argument against it in your own words. Show that you understand both the argument for and against the chromosome fusion.

 

[rjs330]

Phylogeny is not presumptive when we have the DNA. True, most fossil species did not leave behind DNA, but a few did. The oldest human DNA we have is more than five thousand years old, and guess what? They don't have massively bigger genomes than us.


The retrovirus OBSERVATIONS don't make sense outside of evolutionary theory. No other idea proposed as an explanation gets even close to the theory level. We know how retroviruses work, we know what their sequences look like, and we know they often leave behind pieces of their genes when they infect cells (a process which frequently fails and just leaves behind viral sequences without the cells dying or becoming virus factories).


You make this claim a lot. Where's the evidence to back what you say? You don't get to just disregard something without giving the proper reasoning why you do it, and this alone just amounts to your opinion.

I have given proper reasoning. Evolutionists point to this or that as proof when it's not. It was never observed. Retrovirus idea is assumptive because it doesn't prove anything. It assumes. And I provided a link to show its not real proof. We have never been able to observe evolution. We have never been able to reproduce evolution. Evolution no matter how you slice it is something evolving into something else. The common ancestor is proof of that. Follow evolution All the way back to the beginning and all things came from one thing which,over time evolved into all that ever lived. Thus changing into something else. Yet we have never observed such a thing nor have we reproduced such a thing. Fossils don't prove it because we can't say the fossils were not their own creature. Mutational differences cannot prove it because we are not able to prove our mutations are turning us or anything else into anything but that which we already are.

It is only by assumption that any of this works.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[-57]

Instead, why don't you present the argument against it in your own words. Show that you understand both the argument for and against the chromosome fusion.

You would think it would have been the two legged dinosaurs Saurischia rather than the 4 legged Sauropods dinosaurs that evolved into birds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would think it would have been the two legged dinosaurs Saurischia rather than the 4 legged Sauropods dinosaurs that evolved into birds.

Why? Many of the dinosaurs that stood on two legs had weakly developed upper bodies. Upper body strength is needed for flight. It makes more sense that a four legged dinosaur went from running on four legs and sometimes gliding to more and more development of the upper body along with longer glides and eventually flight.

 

[-57]

Why? Many of the dinosaurs that stood on two legs had weakly developed upper bodies. Upper body strength is needed for flight. It makes more sense that a four legged dinosaur went from running on four legs and sometimes gliding to more and more development of the upper body along with longer glides and eventually flight.

There are many path one could argue...but all are based upon wild asertions and speculation.

All dinosaurs are divided into two major groups based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard-hipped dinosaurs (saurischians) and the bird-hipped dinosaurs (ornithiscians). The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird-hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as it is in birds) rather than entirely to the front (as it is in mammals and reptiles).

But in most other respects, the bird-hipped dinosaurs, including such bizarre creatures as the armor-plated ankylosaurs and the horned ceratopsian dinosaurs, are even less bird-like than the lizard-hipped, bipedal dinosaurs such as the theropods. This point is rarely emphasized in popular accounts of dinosaur/bird evolution. ref