When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[joshua 1 9]

Does it? If so how?

According to the theory of evolution DNA is created though copy mistakes and errors. Which they claim increases information when information is actually lost.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...ad-more-dna-we-do-now-have-we-devolved-003590

 

[Hoghead1]

Almost correct, the point I want to stress is that birds have not changed from one kind into some other kind.

Evolution does not work that way, creatures cannot change, or stop being, what they already are. Birds are just an unique variation of all possible ways to be a dinosaurs. That unique variation we call "birds", but that does not mean birds are a "different kind". They are only a different kind in the respect a dog is different kind of a mammal. Dogs, cows, elephants are all unique ways of being a mammal just as a bird is a unique way of being a dinosaur.

Birds, however, did evolve into different species. And it is widely accepted that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

 

[Speedwell]

According to the theory of evolution DNA is created though copy mistakes and errors. Which they claim increases information when information is actually lost.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...ad-more-dna-we-do-now-have-we-devolved-003590

No. The more random a signal is, the more information it contains. That is basic Information Theory. In short, natural selection decreases the information content of the gene pool, while random processes like mutation increases it.

 

[-57]

Dinosaurs never turned into birds, birds existed at the same time they did.

+1

 

[-57]

Birds, however, did evolve into different species. And it is widely accepted that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

It is also widely accepted by evos that dino;s didn't evolve into birds.....so, what's your point?

 

[-57]

No. The more random a signal is, the more information it contains. That is basic Information Theory. In short, natural selection decreases the information content of the gene pool, while random processes like mutation increases it.

How does a ransom process increase information?

 

[Speedwell]

How does a ransom process increase information?

Because introducing random elements in a signal increases its information content. It's a basic principle of information theory. More precisely, the information content of a signal is proportional to the size of the algorithm required to reconstruct it. A random signal requires the largest algorithm.

 

[In situ]

"How do you know? Were you there?"

From the geological record. And the geological record is still there...

 

[In situ]

Salamanders and lizards have common characteristics, just like some birds and some dinosaurs do.

I still does not understand what you mean with it, do you mean "similar apparence" and why would it be relevant? As far I understand biologist talks about inherent uniqueness, which has nothing to do with similarities, when they classify living beings.

 

[In situ]

No i didnt

Then what did you mean with it?

 

[In situ]

It is also widely accepted by evos that dino;s didn't evolve into birds.....so, what's your point?

A dinosaur is a classification. A dinosaur is not a specific living creature. A specific species is only a representations, just as mammals has representations such as cows, whales, apes (including humans), elephants, dinosaurs has representations as well. Birds is just one of them.

 

[In situ]

How does a ransom process increase information?

The outcome of a random process is the creation of new information, again this is basic information theory.

 

[In situ]

A random signal requires the largest algorithm.

Is the decimal sequence of Pi random? If not, how is the next decimal predicted?

Or a more generic question are chaotic (non-linear) systems random or not?

 

[Ophiolite]

From the geological record. And the geological record is still there...

Sometimes I am not sure why I bother getting up in the morning.

Joshua had made this comment "Dinosaurs never turned into birds, birds existed at the same time they did."

Now that is an incorrect statement and we know this to be the case. Birds are, cladistically, dinosaurs. My challenge to Joshua was to mimic the argument used by YECs and the like when we talk of most geological evidence. It was a gentle mocking, or - if you think I have some hidden agenda - a snide, patronising mocking.

 

[In situ]

Sometimes I am not sure why I bother getting up in the morning.

Joshua had made this comment "Dinosaurs never turned into birds, birds existed at the same time they did."

Now that is an incorrect statement and we know this to be the case. Birds are, cladistically, dinosaurs. My challenge to Joshua was to mimic the argument used by YECs and the like when we talk of most geological evidence. It was a gentle mocking, or - if you think I have some hidden agenda - a snide, patronising mocking.

I recognized the quotation marks and understood it as you describe it. However, I could not let it be hanging in the air. My comment was not directed towards you but for any YEC reading it.

Regarding Joshua's comment that birds existed at the same time as dinosaurs, I believe I made a comment about this; it is a logical necessity birds existed with dinosaurs since birds are dinosaurs.

On thew other hand, I think I know what it is Joshua is fishing for with his comment, and if so, then in his definition of bird he must include dinosaurs with teeth, tail and clawed fingers as "birds" - but only then to make what he think is a "bird" even more dinosaurs-like.

Creatonists seams not to understand or refuse to accept what classification is about. It seams like they somehow reason there is a particular instance of a special species named "bird" and "dinosaurs", and that the this special "dinosaur" somehow stopped being a dinosaur and then changed into something else called "bird". But this is not how evolution works. YEC also acknowledge that this is not how evolution works when they say "dogs only make more dogs". I agree, and mammals only make more mammals. Dogs is one particular variety of mammals to make more mammals. In the same way birds is one particular variety of dinosaurs to make more dinosaurs.

Put in other words, all birds make more dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs makes more birds - in particular the extinct dinosaurs. That means you are all the modification what you ancestor ever been and you can never escape that. There is no such things as evolving from one kind to another kind. Everything is a modification of the same kind. Everything is the same kind.

It is a puzzle to me how people can accept whales, rabbits, and bats all being mammals but not birds being dinosaurs. Maybe it is because YEC invested so much prestige in denying that birds are dinosaurs they simply cannot admit it anymore without losing that prestige. It seams to me they reason is like this; if YEC admit birds are dinosaurs then they must accept the nesting as evidence for common decent which then will have a domino effect and imply that all mammals also have a common ancestor (implying humans and chimpanzees also shares a common ancestor). And for religious doctrine reasons this cannot simply be accepted. If this is the case, then in a sense religion makes you dumb.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is a puzzle to me how people can accept whales, rabbits, and bats all being mammals but not birds being dinosaurs.

Ever since this - the origin of birds - became reasonably well established, I have delighted in consciously thinking of them as such. I enjoy being woken on a spring morning by the singing of dinosaurs in my garden. I am impressed by the intelligence of some dinosaurs, such as parrots and crows. I decided not to get another cat because of their predilection for hunting and killing small dinosaurs. Life as a YEC must be so boring!

 

[Loudmouth]

Amphibians can look like reptiles, and share common characteristics. But they are seperate genres.

Assuming you meant genera instead of genres, there are thousands of genera of Amphibians and reptiles. Chances are, two reptile species are not in the same genus.

At the same time, reptiles and amphibians are in the same clade, along with all other terrestrial tetrapods like humans.

http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

Reptiles, amphibians, and humans are still tetrapods, as was our common ancestor.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to the theory of evolution DNA is created though copy mistakes and errors. Which they claim increases information when information is actually lost.

How are the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps a loss in information?

 

[Loudmouth]

How does a ransom process increase information?

Through a non-random process called selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dinosaurs never turned into birds, birds existed at the same time they did.

Europeans never became Americans. Europeans and Americans exist at the same time.

Catholics never became Protestants. Catholics and Protestants exist at the same time.

Wolves never became Chihuahuas. Wolves and Chihuahuas exist at the same time.

Oh, wait . . .