When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[joshua 1 9]

The mechanism for evolution is explained in great detail. Your ignorance of this mechanism, is not an argument against it.

I assume your talking natural selection and not the mutation theory.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sure...in the same way hydrogen and oxygen are coded to make water.

Was this a joke? Because if it is your suppose to add a smile face. For the benefit of the lukers: according to Theistic Evolution DNA is the "Language of God". There is no known natural process that can produce DNA.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I assume your talking natural selection and not the mutation theory.

Natural selection and mutation are part of the same evolutionary mechanism, or more specifically, one acts on the other.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Collins has to be slightly more of a moderate.

That doesn't answer the question being asked.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Was this a joke? Because if it is your suppose to add a smile face. For the benefit of the lukers: according to Theistic Evolution DNA is the "Language of God". There is no known natural process that can produce DNA.

Depends on the theistic evolutionist, some aren't of that opinion and others are.

 

[Papias]

Collins has to be slightly more of a moderate.

I only stated that he accepted scientific reality. Accepting science means you can't be a moderate? Is that what you mean? There are lots of moderates who accept science.

 

[46AND2]

Was this a joke? Because if it is your suppose to add a smile face. For the benefit of the lukers: according to Theistic Evolution DNA is the "Language of God". There is no known natural process that can produce DNA.

No, it's not a joke. As I have told you before, DNA is not a computer code. It's a physical molecule, and it's changes are chemical reactions.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, it's not a joke. As I have told you before, DNA is not a computer code. It's a physical molecule, and it's changes are chemical reactions.

Yes but DNA does not make the code for the molecular structure that makes up DNA. It does not make itself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I only stated that he accepted scientific reality. Accepting science means you can't be a moderate? Is that what you mean? There are lots of moderates who accept science.

Collins has to be a moderate for one thing because he is an author and wants to sell book. He has to appeal to the largest number of people that he can. It looks like your not going to grasp the concept anyways so I guess it is not that important.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Depends on the theistic evolutionist, some aren't of that opinion and others are.

Yes there are different theistic evolutionists but Collins seems to have more acceptance than the others. Which is fine with me, we can just go along with his program.

 

[brinny]

When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

i heard on a program this morning that birds are warm blooded and dinosaurs were reptiles, which are cold-blooded, and therefore birds would've never evolved from dinosaurs...there were some other things said, but i remember this the most.

i admit that my knowledge on dinosaurs and birds and the intricacies of each is quite limited.

i found this interesting however.

 

[Aggie]

Are any creationists going to give a substantial response to In Situ's OP?

I'm going to address a creationist counter-argument that I've often seen against part of this argument, even though no creationists at this forum seem to be using it:

Incusvasaurus, caudotheryx, Avimimus, Microvenator, Chirostenotes, Anzu, Protoaechaeopthery, Similicaudipteryx, Caudipteryx, Oviraptor, Citipati, Wulatelong, Khaan, Conchoraptor, Ajanciengenia, Heyuannia, Talos, Sinorhithoides, Gobinvenator, Troodon, Zanabazar, Mei, Byronosaurus, Confuschis, Microraptor, Epidexipteryx, Scansorioptery, Yi, Wellnhoferia, Jeholornis, Sapeornis, Confucisurnis, Yanoris, Balaur, Microraptor, Velociraptor, Buitenraptor, Sinornithosaurus, Protachera, Anchiorni, Jinfengopteryx, Sinovenator, Archaeopteryx, Paracoracias.

The majority of the nonavian dinosaurs on this list lived later than Archaeopteryx, meaning that they can't be direct ancestors of birds. In the 1990s and early 2000s, this was known as paleontology's "temporal paradox": the fact that all complete fossils of the most birdlike dinosaurs were dated to ages more recent than the earliest fossil birds. And so, the argument goes, nobody has ever found a fossil of a nonavian dinosaur that's a candidate for a direct ancestor to birds.

But as of the past few years, the temporal paradox no longer exists. Epidexipteryx, Yi, Anchiornis, Eosinopteryx, and Xiaotingia all are feathered dinosaurs dated to ages 5 to 11 million years older than Archaeopteryx. Epidexipteryx and Yi are a little too anatomically specialized to be directly ancestral to birds, but it's entirely possible for the other three animals. In the case of Anchiornis, there has been some uncertainty over whether it should be classified as a theropod or a primitive bird, which is something else we would expect to see for an animal that is right on the border between the two groups.

i heard on a program this morning that birds are warm blooded and dinosaurs were reptiles, which are cold-blooded, and therefore birds would've never evolved from dinosaurs...there were some other things said, but i remember this the most.

i admit that my knowledge on dinosaurs and birds and the intricacies of each is quite limited.

i found this interesting however.

Since the late 1960s, there has been a lot of research suggesting that some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. (At least compared to modern reptiles--their metabolism seems to have been in between that of reptiles and that of birds.) I don't think it would be possible to summarize this research in a single post, but there is a pretty good overview here.

 

[Papias]

Collins has to be a moderate for one thing because he is an author and wants to sell book. He has to appeal to the largest number of people that he can. It looks like your not going to grasp the concept anyways so I guess it is not that important.

What concept? The concept of an evangelical, Bible believing Christian who accepts the reality of evolution and common descent? I grasp that. Do you?

Yes there are different theistic evolutionists but Collins seems to have more acceptance than the others.

Theistic evolution is widely accepted among scientists. Who are you saying is more accepting of Francis Collins than other Theistic Evolution supporters?

Which is fine with me, we can just go along with his program.

I agree. I think Francis Collins' understanding of our origins is very good. I'm glad to hear you agree with it too.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

Are any creationists going to give a substantial response to In Situ's OP?

If they did, would they still be creationists?

 

[Aggie]

If they did, would they still be creationists?

Well, that's what I'd like to see. This forum used to have a fair number of creationists who felt they could defend their position from a scientific standpoint, but they had a tendency to become very quiet whenever someone posted a thread like this one.

 

[Loudmouth]

I assume your talking natural selection and not the mutation theory.

What is the mutation theory?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes but DNA does not make the code for the molecular structure that makes up DNA. It does not make itself.

Yes, it does. Where do you think the DNA comes from for each new cell?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'll be off for some weeks later today, but specialized structures need specialized code.
Code doesn't write itself.

Code writes itself every time a cell replicates.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, it does. Where do you think the DNA comes from for each new cell?

Molecules are made up of atoms that are held together by chemical bonds. These bonds form as a result of the sharing or exchange of electrons among atoms.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What is the mutation theory?

The incorporation of genetics and Darwin's theory is known as "modern evolutionary synthesis." The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called mutations.