When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[SkyWriting]

Worth to duplicate this from a Youtube comment to here:

"1) Why don't you take me step by step how did the dinosaur became a bird . Please include all the fossil evidence"

I refer this to the answers to questions #2, 3, 4 and 5, but since you wanted fossils, here are a few:

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.

To mention a few I know of, but there are several hundreds, if not thousands, of them if you want more....

"2) How many physiological changes it needs to go through to turn into a bird?"

I am not an expert, but I would say 3.

But it depends on what you prefer to call a bird or bird like, most bird features are already present in Eumanorpatoria (including flight), so lose of teeth and tail and fusing the finger digits is all that is needed to be classified as a true bird, all the other bird characteristics was already present in dinosaurs since at least theropods, if not earlier.

If you saw a Oviraptorosaur today such as Avimimus you would confuse it and its behavior with a bird, but it isn't a bird far from. If you saw a Troodontid such as Anchiornis or Dromaeosaur such as Microraptor, you would swear it was a bird, but it isn't. Birds does not have three fingers, tails, teeth and four wings.

Oviraptorsaurs, Troodontids and Dromaeosaurs are not birds, even thou they look like birds to us, they are variation of feathered dinosaurs. Just like birds is another variation of feathered dinosaurs.

"3) How many changes in behavioral traits needs to developed to turn into a bird."

Nothing. They was already present in dinosaurs.

"4) How these changes were seamlessly administered without guidance?"

Not sure what you are asking about, but based on fossil evidence, it seams to be no plan at all, but every possible wired combination you can think of seams to have been tested out by evolution and it just so happen that the present form of feathered dinosaurs (dinosaurs with no teeth and tail, and fused fused finger digits) are the one that remains. I would not call the evolution of birds "guided" but more like a coincident ,that what we today call, birds happens to be the one group of all wired combination that survived.

"5) How many years did each step to be completed?"

They were already present in dinosaurs so they did not had to take any timer to be "completed" in birds since they already was there. You seams to think the step from dinosaurs to bird is a big jump of some sort, but it isn't, it was very gradual and smooth. A bird is a dinosaurs and what you call "bird features" and wonder how they evolved is actually dinosaur features. Birds are dinosaurs, because they have dinosaurs traits, birds never evolved from dinosaurs into bird - they have always been dinosaurs and still are, they are just a variation of dinosaurs (avian dinosaurs - compare this with avian mammals such as bats; you don't ask when bats evolved from mammals to bats do you, because you know they ARE mammals, don't you?). When you look at a bird today, that is pretty much how dinosaurs looked like back then as well (just like a bat looks like AND IS a mammal). Therefore "bird" traits never had to evolve in birds, just as bats never had to evolve mammal traits, because the traits was already present for hundred of millions of years before birds even existed.

What you like to call a "bird" is not an absolute things, but a matter of subjective definition. I refer this back to my answer of question #3.

Our guesses about past events have no influence over what really happened.
Guessing about the future, can.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Or just changes.
How Genetic Switches Work

 

[Abraxos]

The following don't even exist...
Ajanciengenia
Confuschis
Yanoris
Protachera

I like dinosaurs, loved the movies. Noticed Velociraptor was mentioned as evidence, my favourite dinosaur. However most from that list are just illustrations of dinosaurs with feathers but no actual fossil deposits showing they had feathers or showing fossils at all.

Did I miss something here?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If anyone alive knows it would be Collins sense he was director and leading expert in that Arena.

Is there something about the question that you don't understand?

I'm merely asking you if YOU agree with that statement by Francis Collins.
So, do you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

There's no such thing as "mutation theory".

There is just evolution theory, which works through mutation followed by selection.

For natural selection to work, there needs to be something to "select".
And if every replication process produces exact replica's, then there is nothing to select.

So by definition, changes must be made during replication in order of the process of natural selection to have any kind of effect.
These changes are mutations.

You may resume playing the ostrich now...

 

[DogmaHunter]

according to Theistic Evolution DNA is the "Language of God". There is no known natural process that can produce DNA.

Argument from ignorance, again.

ps: if there is no "known process" that can do this, then why are you pretending to know what process did it?

 

[Jimmy D]

The following don't even exist...
Ajanciengenia
Confuschis
Yanoris
Protachera

I like dinosaurs, loved the movies. Noticed Velociraptor was mentioned as evidence, my favourite dinosaur. However most from that list are just illustrations of dinosaurs with feathers but no actual fossil deposits showing they had feathers or showing fossils at all.

Did I miss something here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confuciusornis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanornis

Typos by the look of it.

 

[Aggie]

The following don't even exist...
Ajanciengenia
Confuschis
Yanoris
Protachera

I think In situ probably meant to write Confuciusornis, Yanornis, and Protarchaeopteryx. (I'm not sure what genus he had in mind when he wrote "Ajanciengenia"--maybe he can tell us.)

I like dinosaurs, loved the movies. Noticed Velociraptor was mentioned as evidence, my favourite dinosaur. However most from that list are just illustrations of dinosaurs with feathers but no actual fossil deposits showing they had feathers or showing fossils at all.

Did I miss something here?

No Velociraptor fossils preserve the feathers directly, but one of them has preserved quill knobs, which are feather attachment points. This paper has a photograph of Velociraptor's quill knobs, and a comparison to the quill knobs on a modern bird. On that fossil they're kind of difficult to see, but they're more prominent on a larger dromaeosaurid called Dakotaraptor. (In the Dakotaraptor paper, the arm bone with its quill knobs is shown on the fifth page.)

Some of the other dinosaurs that In situ mentioned in his OP, such as Sinovenator, Sinornithoides and Troodon, don't have direct fossil evidence showing their skin covering. For these animals, the evidence that they're related to birds comes from their skeletal anatomy. These animals are members of the troodontid family, and all troodontids (as well as dromaeosaurids) have a unique bone in their wrist called the semilunate carpal, which allowed them to rotate their hands to the side in the same way that a bird folds its wing. The same bone is also found in primitive birds such as Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis, but modern birds don't have it.

There are other skeletal similarities too, but I think the semilunate carpal is probably the most important one, because birdlike dinosaurs and primitive birds are the only animals in which this bone exists.

 

[rjs330]

And none of this proves evolution. All it proves is that these creatures existed in full form. It is ASSUMED that they are evolved because the evolutionists believe in evolution. There is no proof of any of their theories. Its all guesswork and assumptions based upon a belief in the guise of science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Ophiolite]

And none of this proves evolution. All it proves is that these creatures existed in full form. It is ASSUMED that they are evolved because the evolutionists believe in evolution. There is no proof of any of their theories. Its all guesswork and assumptions based upon a belief in the guise of science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

You seriously need to invest in a some appropriate study and learn what the actual meaning of assumption, proof, theories, guesswork and belief are. None of them have been applied correctly in the foregoing rhetoric. The alternative explanation is unpalatable.

 

[AV1611VET]

And none of this proves evolution. All it proves is that these creatures existed in full form. It is ASSUMED that they are evolved because the evolutionists believe in evolution. There is no proof of any of their theories. Its all guesswork and assumptions based upon a belief in the guise of science.

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

Check out this example:

 

[PsychoSarah]

The following don't even exist...
Ajanciengenia
Confuschis
Yanoris
Protachera

I like dinosaurs, loved the movies. Noticed Velociraptor was mentioned as evidence, my favourite dinosaur. However most from that list are just illustrations of dinosaurs with feathers but no actual fossil deposits showing they had feathers or showing fossils at all.

Did I miss something here?

Literally the first result in a Google search. They're just broken off or decayed, and the quill knobs are small in a picture, making them hard to spot if you aren't familiar with fossil evaluation.

 

[rjs330]

You seriously need to invest in a some appropriate study and learn what the actual meaning of assumption, proof, theories, guesswork and belief are. None of them have been applied correctly in the foregoing rhetoric. The alternative explanation is unpalatable.

Yep connect the dots of there is evolution therefore we can connect the dots to anything we want. Since all things have similarities it's easy to connect dots if you want to. Proof is not there. Its not observable and cannot be duplicated. Its false science. They can't answer the question of how do you KNOW it's not a creature of its own and did not evolve. Its guess work and assumption based upon a belief system. Unless you can tag an animal and watch it evolve into something else evolution cannot be proven.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Aggie]

Yep connect the dots of there is evolution therefore we can connect the dots to anything we want. Since all things have similarities it's easy to connect dots if you want to. Proof is not there. Its not observable and cannot be duplicated. Its false science. They can't answer the question of how do you KNOW it's not a creature of its own and did not evolve. Its guess work and assumption based upon a belief system. Unless you can tag an animal and watch it evolve into something else evolution cannot be proven.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

The most significant thing about finding dinosaur fossils with preserved feathers and/or quill knobs is that paleontologists were able to use the theory of evolution to predict their existence around a decade before they were discovered. Here is one example, from Gregory Paul's book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World:

Note the date on this image, showing that it was drawn in 1988. (That's also the book's publication date.) The first feathered dinosaur fossil ever discovered, Sinosauropteryx, was discovered in 1996. When Gregory Paul illustrated feathered dinosaurs in 1988, feathered dinosaur fossils hadn't been discovered yet, so his prediction that some of them were feathered was based only on the theory that they were closely-related to birds. And that prediction about dinosaurs' skin covering turned out to be right.

When I ask Christians why they believe that the Bible is accurate, the most common reason they've given me is that it contains prophecies that were later fulfilled, such as the prediction that Israel would eventually be re-created as a country. If accurate predictions like that are evidence for the Bible being accurate, then the same principle applies to the theory of evolution. The theory that dinosaurs are ancestors of birds has also made predictions that were later fulfilled, such as the one that I described above. I've yet to see a creationist explain why they trust the Bible because it's made accurate predictions, yet they won't apply the same standard to evolution.

 

[AirPo]

Any port in a storm. No one else seems to want to have a serious conversation about the subject that this forum was developed to discuss.

That doesn't answer the question being asked.

Well of course not. No one on this forum wants to have a serious discussion.

 

[Hoghead1]

And none of this proves evolution. All it proves is that these creatures existed in full form. It is ASSUMED that they are evolved because the evolutionists believe in evolution. There is no proof of any of their theories. Its all guesswork and assumptions based upon a belief in the guise of science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

There, however, many examples of transitional fossils, if that is what you are looking for.

 

[rjs330]

There, however, many examples of transitional fossils, if that is what you are looking for.

No there aren't. Evolutionists use fully formed fossils and claim they are transitions because they believe in evolution. They don't know they are transitional fossils cause they were not there to observe the changes necessary for the offspring to evolve into something else. Its supposition and assumption. They don't know the creatures were not always the creatures for as long as they existed. Fossil evidence is only evidence that that particular creature existed at that time. It is not proof that it evolved from anything else. Unless you believe in evolution. Of so then everything is proof of evolution. Evolution is a dogma. It is not science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hoghead1]

Yep connect the dots of there is evolution therefore we can connect the dots to anything we want. Since all things have similarities it's easy to connect dots if you want to. Proof is not there. Its not observable and cannot be duplicated. Its false science. They can't answer the question of how do you KNOW it's not a creature of its own and did not evolve. Its guess work and assumption based upon a belief system. Unless you can tag an animal and watch it evolve into something else evolution cannot be proven.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Hmmm. Very interesting. From what you say, it would appear to be the case that you, a lay person, are way smarter and better informed than all these scientists and therefore qualified to sit in judgment on them. Hmmm. Very interesting.

 

[Hoghead1]

No there aren't. Evolutionists use fully formed fossils and claim they are transitions because they believe in evolution. They don't know they are transitional fossils cause they were not there to observe the changes necessary for the offspring to evolve into something else. Its supposition and assumption. They don't know the creatures were not always the creatures for as long as they existed. Fossil evidence is only evidence that that particular creature existed at that time. It is not proof that it evolved from anything else. Unless you believe in evolution. Of so then everything is proof of evolution. Evolution is a dogma. It is not science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

No, that is not at all the way science works. Again, you assume you know far more about it than science does. To me, that is about the epitome of hubris.

 

[rjs330]

The most significant thing about finding dinosaur fossils with preserved feathers and/or quill knobs is that paleontologists were able to use the theory of evolution to predict their existence around a decade before they were discovered. Here is one example, from Gregory Paul's book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World:

Note the date on this image, showing that it was drawn in 1988. (That's also the book's publication date.) The first feathered dinosaur fossil ever discovered, Sinosauropteryx, was discovered in 1996. When Gregory Paul illustrated feathered dinosaurs in 1988, feathered dinosaur fossils hadn't been discovered yet, so his prediction that some of them were feathered was based only on the theory that they were closely-related to birds. And that prediction about dinosaurs' skin covering turned out to be right.

When I ask Christians why they believe that the Bible is accurate, the most common reason they've given me is that it contains prophecies that were later fulfilled, such as the prediction that Israel would eventually be re-created as a country. If accurate predictions like that are evidence for the Bible being accurate, then the same principle applies to the theory of evolution. The theory that dinosaurs are ancestors of birds has also made predictions that were later fulfilled, such as the one that I described above. I've yet to see a creationist explain why they trust the Bible because it's made accurate predictions, yet they won't apply the same standard to evolution.

All that proves is that there were feathered dinosaurs. When looking at the fossils you could see similarities to birds. So you could predict you might find some big dinosaur birds. That doesn't mean they evolved. All it means is that we found something cool. Dinosaurs were amazing creatures and there were so many different kinds. Just like there are tons of different kinds of birds or insects. None of it proves evolution.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk