When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[-57]

Through a non-random process called selection.

I consider that a cop out answer. The mutation that produced the change would have been random.

 

[-57]

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 . . .

Primates never became humans....humans and primates exist at the same time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Primates never became humans....humans and primates exist at the same time.

Humans are primates.

 

[46AND2]

I consider that a cop out answer. The mutation that produced the change would have been random.

The only cop out is the insistence on ignoring the mechanism which makes the event non-random; selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

I consider that a cop out answer. The mutation that produced the change would have been random.

And that is followed by non-random selection of mutations, resulting in a non-random distribution of alleles. It is that non-random distribution of alleles that we call evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Primates never became humans....humans and primates exist at the same time.

As others have mentioned, humans are primates, just as we are also mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, and eukaryotes.

Also . . .

Protestantism didn't come from Catholicism. They coexist.

Americans didn't come from Europeans. They coexist.

Chihuahuas didn't come from Wolves. They coexist.

 

[rjs330]

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.

Birds are dinosaurs? Please clarify. Were all dinosaurs birds or just some. Of some which ones? Was T-rex a bird? How about the pterodactyl? Which ones were reptiles and which were birds.?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

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.

So what if a bird is also considered a dinosaur? Doesn't prove evolution is real anymore than a lion being an animal proves evolution. Or a goldfish being a fish proves evolution. There were all kinds of dinosaurs. Some reptiles some birds some fish. None of that makes evolution real.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

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.

What was our common ancestor?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Humans are primates.

So?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

... what are you getting at? As Loudmouth pointed out, humans are primates, just as we are mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, and eukaryotes.

 

[Ophiolite]

Birds are dinosaurs? Please clarify. Were all dinosaurs birds or just some. Of some which ones? Was T-rex a bird? How about the pterodactyl? Which ones were reptiles and which were birds.?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Birds are a sub-set of dinosaurs. Therefore, only some dinosaurs are birds. T-Rex was assuredly not a bird. Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs. As wikipedia notes, "The evolution of birds began in the Jurassic Period, with the earliest birds derived from a clade of theropoda dinosaurs named Paraves." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds). They (non-avian dinosaurs and birds) are all reptiles.

 

[Loudmouth]

Birds are dinosaurs? Please clarify. Were all dinosaurs birds or just some. Of some which ones? Was T-rex a bird? How about the pterodactyl? Which ones were reptiles and which were birds.?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

For a comparison, think of dogs. Chihuahuas are dogs, but not all dogs are Chihuahuas.

 

[Loudmouth]

Birds are a sub-set of dinosaurs. Therefore, only some dinosaurs are birds. T-Rex was assuredly not a bird. Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs. As wikipedia notes, "The evolution of birds began in the Jurassic Period, with the earliest birds derived from a clade of theropoda dinosaurs named Paraves." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds). They (non-avian dinosaurs and birds) are all reptiles.

We are at that interesting cross over point in biology where we are moving from Linnaean taxonomy to cladistics, and all for the better IMHO. As it turns out, they have kept the traditional Reptile group somewhat intact, with everything from turtles to dinosaurs in the Reptilia clade. However, mammals have long been described as having reptiles as our ancestors. To keep things somewhat consistent, the Reptiliomorpha clade includes mammals (Synapsids) and reptiles (Reptilia).

http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

Part of the confusion that some people have can be attributed to the inconsistency between Linnaean taxonomy and the true branching structure of evolution.

 

[rjs330]

... what are you getting at? As Loudmouth pointed out, humans are primates, just as we are mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, and eukaryotes.

What I am getting at is often the phrase "humans are primates" is used to promote the idea that we and monkeys have a common ancestor. My point is so what if we classified ourselves as primates. That doesn't mean we have a common ancestor anymore than classifying us as animals means we have a common ancestor with a dog.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Gene2memE]

What I am getting at is often the phrase "humans are primates" is used to promote the idea that we and monkeys have a common ancestor. My point is so what if we classified ourselves as primates. That doesn't mean we have a common ancestor anymore than classifying us as animals means we have a common ancestor with a dog.

But, we do have a common ancestor with the dog. It's just further back in time than the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What I am getting at is often the phrase "humans are primates" is used to promote the idea that we and monkeys have a common ancestor. My point is so what if we classified ourselves as primates. That doesn't mean we have a common ancestor anymore than classifying us as animals means we have a common ancestor with a dog.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

We did have a common ancestor with apes, and to a lesser extent monkeys. We also have a common ancestor with dogs, with insects, with plants, etc. but we have to go much, much, MUCH further back in the DNA timeline to get to the point where the split began.

Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[Veera Chase]

Reasoning with creationists is like trying to teach a dog to boil an egg, it may be the simplest thing to do but they just can't follow what you're saying, plus they have been told that their denial of the evidence will somehow get them into heaven.

 

[rjs330]

Reasoning with creationists is like trying to teach a dog to boil an egg, it may be the simplest thing to do but they just can't follow what you're saying, plus they have been told that their denial of the evidence will somehow get them into heaven.

Being an evolutionist requires faith just like being a creationist. Because there is no proof that something can evolve into something else. Evolution has never been proven to be a fact. No matter how hard evolutionists try they cannot duplicate it or test it. All things are what they are and no matter what science does they can't make them into something else. And they cannot present any proof that they ever were something else. No one observed evolution and it cannot be observed or tested today. Evolution is based presumptive and assumptive evidence. Its a belief system.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Veera Chase]

Being an evolutionist requires faith just like being a creationist.

Yes of course it does, except when it doesn't.

Because there is no proof that something can evolve into something else.

None what so ever, unless you look at the evidence.

Evolution has never been proven to be a fact.

Not once, but millions of times.

No matter how hard evolutionists try they cannot duplicate it or test it.

That would seem to be oh so true, but it's not.

All things are what they are and no matter what science does they can't make them into something else.

Never a truer word was spoken, unless we count the dogs that can't inter breed.

And they cannot present any proof that they ever were something else.

Absolutely none, unless again you look at the evidence.

No one observed evolution and it cannot be observed or tested today.

Never have and never will, except that it can and has been.

Evolution is based presumptive and assumptive evidence.

Tens of thousands of scientists all over the world have been hoodwinked into accepting nonsense, but have they?

Its a belief system.

Not quite, to clarify, people don't believe in evolution they accept it as being the best explanation.