When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Hieronymus]

actually they are more for wamrth and decoration originally if you look at the first dinosaurs to have them, you can't look at modern dinosaur feathers, the oldest evidence of feathers were back before the sauropod/therapod split, were they still used for flight back then?

You will only find feathers fit for flight on birds, in fossils and today.
Don't forget there are other kinds of flying animals too.
Assuming they all developed by themselves is foolish.

 

[Shemjaza]

You will only find feathers fit for flight on birds, in fossils and today.
Don't forget there are other kinds of flying animals too.
Assuming they all developed by themselves is foolish.

Every heard of a penguin?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You will only find feathers fit for flight on birds, in fossils and today.
Don't forget there are other kinds of flying animals too.
Assuming they all developed by themselves is foolish.

Every heard of a penguin?

Emu? Ostrich? Dodo? how about the Mammal wannabe, the Kiwi?
https://www.kiwisforkiwi.org/about-kiwi/kiwi-facts-characteristics/honorary-mammals/

 

[loveofourlord]

You will only find feathers fit for flight on birds, in fossils and today.
Don't forget there are other kinds of flying animals too.
Assuming they all developed by themselves is foolish.

Again, feathered dinosaurs that couldn't fly how well did this guy fly? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Sinosauropteryxfossil.jpg

Your assersion is just false, from fossils feathers were decoration/warmth long before the animals could fly.

 

[Hieronymus]

Again, feathered dinosaurs that couldn't fly how well did this guy fly? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Sinosauropteryxfossil.jpg

Your assersion is just false, from fossils feathers were decoration/warmth long before the animals could fly.

Your 'sources' are false.

 

[Abraxos]

I don't know man, there is still no solid evidence that dinosaurs had feathers, the evidence is so sketchy it probably is another hoax that you can add to the evolutionary list.

Here's another conundrum, dinosaurs found with birds in their stomachs; and it gets worse for the evolutionary theory - modern varieties of birds have been found with dinosaurs including boa constrictors, owls, parrots, penguins, loons, even flamingoes. Ducks for another example have been paddling about in primeval swamps when T.rex was king of the dinosaurs, scientists have announced in the journal Nature. Fossil remains of a bird that lived 70 million years ago appear to belong to a relative of modern ducks and geese.

The difficulties this raises for the millions-of-years dino-to-bird idea are obvious. The secular uniformitarian models, based on the idea that ‘the present is the key to the past’, really don’t even begin to make sense of the fossils. Rooting modern birds in the Cretaceous neatly aligned the fossil record with the DNA-based divergence dates. But it raised a vexing question: Why are modern birds able to survive the asteroid impact and it's attendant ecological changes when their more primitive avian cousins and their fellow fliers, the Pterosaurs, were not?

Even on an anatomical level there is a problem, Researchers have made fundamental discoveries about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight -- and the finding's means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Prove it has occurred. Go back,to the beginning and show me where a creature began to,evolve into,something else. What was that creature? And then test it.

You may not have heard, but science doesn't deal in proofs, it deals in testable, consistent models that have explanatory and predictive power for our observations.

We don't have fossils of the first creature, probably because even the earliest cells would have been too fragile to leave a clear record; there's also the problem of defining when the first replicators were complex enough to qualify as 'creatures' - does a self-replicating string of RNA qualify? does it have to be encapsulated? etc.

But we can be confident it (evolution by natural selection) occurred because we have multiple independent lines of evidence supporting it, and an elegant and simple principle connecting them that is the basis of a well-tested and consistent theory that explains and predicts that evidence. Oh, and we've seen it in action - we even use the principle for our own technologies.

If you are really interested, all the necessary resources are available online for a comprehensive understanding of the subject at whatever level you can manage.

But I don't think you're really interested.

 

[loveofourlord]

Your 'sources' are false.

Oh your right, sorry I should totally trust some no name guy on the internet, over the fossil I can clearly see. The arrogance of creationists to think they some how know better then actual scientists, it's pretty pathetic.

 

[USincognito]

No matter how much evolutionists try their evidence never proves anything. Why? Because it's only proof because they say it is.

Actually nothing in science is ever proven. Until you can get that aspect of science correct, we don't have to take anything else you write seriously.

 

[USincognito]

Well it because birds are still birds and monkeys are still,monkeys and humans are,still humans and lizards are still lizards. Robins don't mutate into eagles, monkeys don't mutate into humans and iguanas don't mutate into snakes. Not that difficult to understand really.

No wonder you don't accept evolution. You understand absolutely nothing about it.

Readers digest version:
- Existing taxa do not evolve into other existing or extinct taxa. Doing so would falsify evolution.
- Birds, monkeys, humans and lizards are not stand alone things. They are branches on the tree of life.

 

[USincognito]

Common design is also an explanation and just as good a one as common ancestry. And has as much observable facts as evolution. In fact every single piece of evidence that evolutionists use to promote evolution could be used to promote common design.

1. Common design is ad hoc and unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
2. Use "common design" to explain why all primates, including humans, share a broken GULO gene.
3. Use "common design" to explain why whales have the gene package for hind legs.
4. Use "common design" to explain why mammals have vestigial genes for egg yolk production.

 

[USincognito]

I don't know man, there is still no solid evidence that dinosaurs had feathers, the evidence is so sketchy it probably is another hoax that you can add to the evolutionary list.

"Another hoax"? Please, do go on. Provide us with this 'list'.

Here's another conundrum, dinosaurs found with birds in their stomachs; and it gets worse for the evolutionary theory - modern varieties of birds have been found with dinosaurs including boa constrictors, owls, parrots, penguins, loons, even flamingoes. Ducks for another example have been paddling about in primeval swamps when T.rex was king of the dinosaurs, scientists have announced in the journal Nature. Fossil remains of a bird that lived 70 million years ago appear to belong to a relative of modern ducks and geese.

Oh wow, not Carl Werner's garbage.
1. More time passed between Archaeopteryx and T-Rex (90 million years) than passed between T-Rex and humans (65 million years).
2. Birds were already evolving in the Jurassic so it's not surprising they would be found in Cretaceous strata.
3. Boa constrictors are snakes, not birds.
4. The fossils of every type of bird you mentioned has the word 'like' after it. "Owl-like", etc.
5. Your own uncited source notes that the find wasn't a modern duck or goose, but a relative.

Even on an anatomical level there is a problem, Researchers have made fundamental discoveries about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight -- and the finding's means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

 

[USincognito]

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.

Where did you get the impression that this sort of vacuous rhetoric did anything other than fill up space on the screen?

 

[DARRELX]

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.

Non of those fossils show an interlinking chain of gradual evolution from dinosaur to bird.

The idea is preposterous of course because new information cannot be passed on when species reproduce.

Living fossil show how obvious that is without considering the complexity of the genome.

Just posting a list of extinct species is far from proof for evolution of any kind.

The science for evolution is so blind and presumptuous as seen by this attempt at providing proof for evolution.

 

[loveofourlord]

No wonder you don't accept evolution. You understand absolutely nothing about it.

Readers digest version:
- Existing taxa do not evolve into other existing or extinct taxa. Doing so would falsify evolution.
- Birds, monkeys, humans and lizards are not stand alone things. They are branches on the tree of life.

They never seem to understand it, it's like when they say, "it's still a fish or still a bacteria." as if that isn't thousands of distinct species more unique then any differences in mamals and such heh.

Plus he's mixing species with taxa, robins don't become eagles as thats a modern species.

Monkeys became humans as thatas a taxanomic grouping and infact we still are just as we are still apes.

Thats like saying, "Birds don't become eagles!!....wait...

I wonder if their confusion comes from the term kinds that is so useless that it can be used that way, where monkeys and humans are kinda, and robins and eagles are kinds, even though monkey is such a broadcatagory that includes humans and apes....

 

[loveofourlord]

1. Common design is ad hoc and unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
2. Use "common design" to explain why all primates, including humans, share a broken GULO gene.
3. Use "common design" to explain why whales have the gene package for hind legs.
4. Use "common design" to explain why mammals have vestigial genes for egg yolk production.

some other good ones.

Why do dolphins have genes for smell when they don't use smell genes they use something closer to taste.
why do humans themselves have genes for scents we no longer use, or even genes that would make speach impossible and so on.

 

[loveofourlord]

Non of those fossils show an interlinking chain of gradual evolution from dinosaur to bird.

The idea is preposterous of course because new information cannot be passed on when species reproduce.

Living fossil show how obvious that is without considering the complexity of the genome.

Just posting a list of extinct species is far from proof for evolution of any kind.

The science for evolution is so blind and presumptuous as seen by this attempt at providing proof for evolution.

new information can't be passed on when species reproduce? Ummm what are you talking about? Your children have mutations that your parents didn't have, but inherited from you that you got when your DNA was coppied to make you, these changes in the right spot can add upor do nothing.

 

[rjs330]

some other good ones.

Why do dolphins have genes for smell when they don't use smell genes they use something closer to taste.
why do humans themselves have genes for scents we no longer use, or even genes that would make speach impossible and so on.

Umm... Common design. Prove to me that the dolphins smelling gene is actually a smelling gene and prove they smelled in the past. You,can't. You suppose and assume.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Umm... Common design. Prove to me that the dolphins smelling gene is actually a smelling gene and prove they smelled in the past. You,can't. You suppose and assume.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

...so you Do believe organisms evolve...??

 

[rjs330]

new information can't be passed on when species reproduce? Ummm what are you talking about? Your children have mutations that your parents didn't have, but inherited from you that you got when your DNA was coppied to make you, these changes in the right spot can add upor do nothing.

Are these mutations making them something besides human? Nope. And it's absolutely laughable that genetic differences between parents and children is somehow proof of evolution of one thing changing into,something else.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk