When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Subduction Zone]

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

Really? Prove it. From what I have seen the work was never wild. I doubt if you looked at the actual work yourself.

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

Sorry, your source is bogus. Their workers are not allowed to use the scientific method, making there claims rather useless. Do you have anything from a valid source? One that encourages the scientific method instead of banning it?

 

[46AND2]

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

Uh, what does this have to do with the fused chromosome?

 

[Aggie]

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.

Birds are considered to be descended from bipedal carnivorous dinosaurs (theropods), which belong to the larger group Saurischia. Sauropods are the gigantic long-necked dinosaurs such as Apatosaurus and Brachiosaurus. As far as I know, sauropods have never seriously been suggested as bird ancestors.

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.

I guess it depends on what you consider a "popular account". Most of the books about dinosaurs that I own are pretty upfront about the fact that birds are considered to be descended from theropods, and that theropods are saurischians.

The Answers in Genesis article that you're citing leaves out something important. It's true that ornithischian dinosaurs have a superficially birdlike hip structure, and that most saurischian dinosaurs have one that's relatively un-birdlike. But what AiG doesn't mention is that this is not true of all saurischian dinosaurs. In the theropod families that are considered to be birds' closest relatives (dromaeosaurids and troodontids), the pubic bone points towards the rear, as it does in birds. Even though the position of the pubis is what the group Saurischia is named after ("Saurischia" means "reptile-hipped"), the angle of the pubis varies a moderate amount within this group. (Therizinosaurs are another exception.)

Here's a skeletal diagram of Velociraptor mongoliensis, a dromaeosaurid, that shows which direction its pubis points. The pubis is the longer of the two bones projecting down from the animal's hip joint, behind its legs.

And for comparison, here's a skeletal diagram of Allosaurus, which has a more typical saurischian-style pubis.

In case you think there's any speculation involved in restoring Velociraptor this way, the angle of the pubis is clearly preserved in the "fighting dinosaurs" specimen. You can see it in this photograph:

 

[-57]

Really? Prove it. From what I have seen the work was never wild. I doubt if you looked at the actual work yourself.



Sorry, your source is bogus. Their workers are not allowed to use the scientific method, making there claims rather useless. Do you have anything from a valid source? One that encourages the scientific method instead of banning it?

I've noticed you say a lot of nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've noticed you say a lot of nothing.

With one exception.

Since God created ex nihilo ... out of nothing ... you won't find them wanting to say a lot about it.

At least nothing positive.

 

[Robert Palase]

With one exception.

Since God created ex nihilo ... out of nothing ... you won't find them wanting to say a lot about it.

At least nothing positive.

No one can beat magic unless they have better magic.

 

[Loudmouth]

No because the evidence does not exist.

Only if you stick your head in the sand.

You use a lot of links to places that proclaim the evidence,yet the evidence is not really there.

Then show me how there are not over 200,000 ERV insertions in the human genome, and how they are not found at orthologous locations in the chimp genome.

There is a ton of smoke and mirrors and but when you boil it all down it is still assumption.

Sorry, but false allegations do not make the facts go away. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend these things don't exist.

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.

How so?

And I posted a link to a site debunking the retro virus theory.

I already covered all of those in this thread:

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

Even in that retrovirus theory it makes a ton of assumptions based on the fact that evolution is real.

Name one such assumption. I bet you can't do it.

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.

Evolution has been proven in this thread.

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

I see that you still haven't addressed the opening post in that thread.

The mountains of evidence you refer to always boil down to a basic assumption that this or that occurred.

And yet you can't name one of those assumptions.

 

[Loudmouth]

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 does prove evolution, and I show just that in this thread:

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

I dare you to go to that thread and demonstrate that the conclusion is based on assumptions. Bet you can't do it.

It assumes. And I provided a link to show its not real proof.

I debunk all of the creationist arguments in this thread:

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

We have never been able to observe evolution.

You don't observe the hypothesis. That's not how the scientific method works. You use observations to TEST the hypothesis, and that is exactly what genetics allows us to do. Our genomes and the genomes of other species are direct records of their ancestry, and we can use that record to test the hypothesis of common ancestry and evolution.

Fossils don't prove it because we can't say the fossils were not their own creature.

That is not how the theory is tested. The theory of evolution predicts which combinations of features we should see in fossils and which we should not. The prediction is that the fossils will fit into the same nested hierarchy that living species fit into.

If you are going to argue against evolution, at least learn what the theory actually says.

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.

That is proven. All of the evidence in biology and genetics demonstrates that we are different species from other apes because of the mutations in our genome.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Again, more claims without any evidence to back them.

 

[-57]

No one can beat magic unless they have better magic.

The Evs rely on magic mutations..

 

[Loudmouth]

The Evs rely on magic mutations..

What is magic about them? We can observe them happening in the lab and in real populations. We can even directly measure the human mutation rate by comparing the genomes of parents and offspring.

 

[-57]

What is magic about them? We can observe them happening in the lab and in real populations. We can even directly measure the human mutation rate by comparing the genomes of parents and offspring.

Descent with modification requires mutations occurring in just the right place at just the right time..overcomming enourmous odds.
Sound like magic to me. Then again you already knew that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Descent with modification requires mutations occurring in just the right place at just the right time..overcomming enourmous odds.

Yet another claim with zero evidence to back it.

 

[Speedwell]

Descent with modification requires mutations occurring in just the right place at just the right time..overcomming enourmous odds.
Sound like magic to me. Then again you already knew that.

That would only be true if the evolutionary process was targeted to a particular outcome. As it is, the "right" place is any place which improves the fitness of the creature in any way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have given proper reasoning. Evolutionists point to this or that as proof when it's not. It was never observed.

-_- I've done evolution experiments myself. I just don't think you understand evolution well enough to realize that, when I expose a bacterial colony to an antibiotic, which kills off most of its population, and I let the survivors reproduce, add the antibiotic, and find that almost none of the bacteria are killed by it, that it demonstrates evolution. If you're going to say "no, that's adaptation", then why did so many die at the start of the experiment, and why can we pick out GENES directly connected with antibiotic resistance? The only way it wouldn't be evolution is if they survived because of a NONGENETIC trait, or if the survival rate never changed. Obviously, that isn't what I preserved. If you doubt me, if you think I am lying about the results, buy a petri dish, swab your mouth, let the bacteria grow, and expose the established colonies to an antibiotic of your choice, and see if you can get the same results as me.

Retrovirus idea is assumptive because it doesn't prove anything. It assumes.

1. As if you are not making a ton of assumptions to believe the bible is true, such as assuming that the supposedly "witnessed" events actually happened, because those "witnesses" certainly aren't the authors.
2. Not all assumptions are equal. I assume that the sun is going to rise and set every day, and you wouldn't consider me stupid for it. Yet, there is a chance, albeit a very small one, that I am in fact wrong, and I willfully acknowledge that. However, all of the alternative propositions are exceedingly less likely than the sun not rising and setting, so I retain my stance that the sun will in fact continue to rise in set for the rest of my life. We directly witness retroviruses leave behind their DNA in cells that do not proceed to die or become virus factories, including reproductive cells, and we witness that these insertion points are pretty darn random and such events are rather infrequent. Give the size of the human genome and that of other apes, it is so statistically improbable that these shared ERV placements are by random chance than through a shared evolutionary history that I would rather place my bets on the sun going out next week, because the odds of that happening are better than any of the alternative explanations for the ERVs being right.

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.

Reproduce the entire evolutionary history of our planet? No. Demonstrate evolution in the lab? Yes, I've done it myself. That you don't like the evidence sounds like a personal problem.

Evolution no matter how you slice it is something evolving into something else.

No, because we don't live in the world of Pokemon. Species and other taxonomic labels are a human invention, and it is not uncommon for the evolutionary relationships of organisms to make shoving them into these categories rather difficult. Basically, the process is too gradual to ever pinpoint an exact place in which a population has become a different species than it started out as after a number of generations have come and gone. Furthermore, the majority of traits are retained, such that no living thing is so alien from any other as to be entirely different. Yes, even between a bacteria and a human, there are many similar traits retained.

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.

Actually, that's universal ancestor theory, and it's just often coupled with evolution rather than being an inherent part of the theory. I personally contend that stance myself, so I won't defend it.

Thus changing into something else. Yet we have never observed such a thing nor have we reproduced such a thing.

Actually, we did it with Italian wall lizards. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/ in just 36 years after the species was introduced to an island, it changed completely. Their digestive tract is nothing like that of the original lizards introduced anymore. Basically, it was a combination of severe bottleneck (five pairs, for a total of 10 individuals, gave rise to the entire population of this lizard on the island), extreme differences in environment, few predators, and fast reproductive rate.

Fossils don't prove it because we can't say the fossils were not their own creature.

All fossils are and are supposed to be of complete animals. Arm evolution in humans did not start with a fully developed wrist with no fingers or any other such nonsense. Crocoduck and other crazy combos are not only not required to demonstrate evolution, but they would actually defy it.

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.

The fact that they can change our physiology does demonstrate that over time, mutations can build up and make a modern population a distinct species from its ancestral population.

It is only by assumption that any of this works.

The fact that populations change is not the assumption, but the OBSERVATION that lead to the development of the theory of evolution in the first place. You heard me right, that observation PREDATES evolutionary theory. WHY and HOW these populations change is the theory; a theory which has been challenged and tested since its inception, and never been disproven.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Descent with modification requires mutations occurring in just the right place at just the right time..overcomming enourmous odds.
Sound like magic to me. Then again you already knew that.

I already told you that this isn't true. Most genes are highly redundant, making mutations on specific genes able to have the same effect regardless as to which of the many copies has it. So, too, are gene sequences, so that often two different sequences will produce the same amino acid in the protein being generated. There are so many different combinations of genetic sequences that would result in you, specifically, that you'd have to limit chromosome number before I would have any hope of typing out the number in my lifetime.

 

[Robert Palase]

Descent with modification requires mutations occurring in just the right place at just the right time..overcomming enourmous odds.
Sound like magic to me. Then again you already knew that.

If you knew anything about evolution you would see how ridiculous your objections really are, your beliefs are getting in the way of your understanding.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you knew anything about evolution you would see how ridiculous your objections really are, your beliefs are getting in the way of your understanding.

Understandind what?

That we've had 200,000 years of hominid evolution, based on a skull here, a tooth there, and a leg bone or two in some museums?

 

[Shemjaza]

Understandind what?

That we've had 200,000 years of hominid evolution, based on a skull here, a tooth there, and a leg bone or two in some museums?

Hundreds of skeletons, some with DNA, all with consistent morphology and time lines with the modern genetic evidence linking humans to other living primates.

You comment was reductive to the point of dishonesty.

 

[rjs330]

What is magic about them? We can observe them happening in the lab and in real populations. We can even directly measure the human mutation rate by comparing the genomes of parents and offspring.

Yep, parents and offspring who are still the same,creature. Parents do not give birth to something else despite these mutations you speak of. Quite frankly I think the whole idea of all these mutations are hogwash. Im not saying there are not any differences that take place between creatures of the same kind. But the interpretation is what I take issue with. Again evolution assumes these differences are evidence of evolution. Whereas all they are are proof of the great variety amongst creatures of a kind. These mutations are nothing more than nature proclaiming the greatness of God in not making everything exactly the same. They also can be evidence ( when the mutation is harmful) that the world was cursed at the fall of man.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk