Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds!! Really??

[bluefete]

But in any event explain to me whats so bad if you evolved from an animal?

humans are mammals, which are animals.

EXACTLY which animal again?

[Silvermike]

^ not random. Natural selection.

[bluefete]

^ not random. Natural selection.

[Silvermike]

But in any event explain to me whats so bad if you evolved from an animal?

humans are mammals, which are animals.

EXACTLY which animal again?

Homosapiens

[rspann]

Whatever yuh smoking in yuh avatar, stop it!

[Silvermike]

^ not random. Natural selection.

That's the long and short of it.

Those who adapt best thrive. Those who struggle lessen in numbers and possibly go extinct.

[Silvermike]

so to add fuel to this.

dinosaurs did not evolve "into" birds.

dinosaurs were birds. just really old (large in some cases) dead ones. Modern day birds are descendants of theropods evolved during the Mesozoic era.

Nope, won't find defining characteristics of Aves in the majority of dino species. These features all by and large contribute and define what makes it possible for the amazing phenomenon of flight in almost every aspect of the organism, down to morphology, bone structure and even respiratory functions.

food for thought Shuvuuia deserti

I guess its arguable, but i sit on the birds = dino side of the fence.

[meccalli]

If you look at ave physiology, the unseen becomes obvious- rather than grasping at feather structure and sacral fusing, the simple fact that all these apparent transitional forms lacked a practically immovable femur that facilitates air sac/lung function in birds that prevent them from collapsing during terrestrial movement. Much recent research is constantly widening the gap between theropods and birds, many modern zoologists are outright denying the connection as a result. If you want to put it in evolutionary terms, the possibility lies in an undiscovered common ancestor( that they will never find lol.) but as for your claim that dinosaurs are birds is horribly wrong by evolution's mechanisms and established terms of taxonomy.

[Silvermike]

Im unsure about what u quoted as I dont know what a leg bone has to do with the air sac. What I do know about airsacs is that Aerosteon has a very bird-like system.

My main idea with Shuvuuia deserti is that you have a none avian dino that has the same beta-keratin as modern day bird feathers.

Anyways. as i said, its arguable. Im not publishing a paper, Im just saying my opinion

[meccalli]

Its basic bird anatomy, there wouldn't be enough abdominal air capacity to allow flight if it weren't for that simple yet crucial distinction. You find beta keratin structures in modern aves and reptiles as well.

edit; if you do a quick google, you don't need to publish, what I'm telling you here already is and it's quite a shame that most self professing evolutionists that harp on this faction aren't aware of the dissent happening for a long time now within the practising and professional community.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

But in any event explain to me whats so bad if you evolved from an animal?

humans are mammals, which are animals.

EXACTLY which animal again?

Australopithecus

BTW bluefete I am trying to understand why would you even doubt the scientific community?

Scientists are clearly smarter and far more educated than we are, so it stands to reason that we should not question these guys when we don't have as much as a semi retarded argument against them.

[Silvermike]

There are birds that dont fly tho. Just like there were dinos that did. The ability tp fly does not define birds.

[bluefete]

But in any event explain to me whats so bad if you evolved from an animal?

humans are mammals, which are animals.

EXACTLY which animal again?

Australopithecus

BTW bluefete I am trying to understand why would you even doubt the scientific community?

Scientists are clearly smarter and far more educated than we are, so it stands to reason that we should not question these guys when we don't have as much as a semi retarded argument against them.

So because I am not too smart In science I must believe everything the scientists tell us.

Let me use your own words and give you TODAY'S SCIENCE NEWS, NOT science news from 90 years ago:

Definition first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

Australopithecus is an extinct genus of hominids

Australopithecus: Gracile australopiths shared several traits with modern apes and humans, and were widespread throughout Eastern and Northern Africa around 3.5 million years ago. The earliest evidence of fundamentally bipedal hominids can be observed at the site of Laetoli in Tanzania. This site contains hominid footprints that are remarkably similar to those of modern humans and have been dated to as old as 3.6 million years.[3] The footprints have generally been classified as australopith because that is the only form of prehuman known to have existed in that region at that time.

Now today's news:

http://www.examiner.com/article/ct-scan ... ht?cid=rss


News
Science & Space

CT scans show Australopithecus africanus not as 'human' as thought

August 25, 2014

The 3-million-year old skull of the Taung Child considered the premiere evidence that Australopithecus africanus was distinctively human has been shown to be not too human after all.

Ralph L. Holloway with the Department of Anthropology at Colombia University in New York and colleagues have produced convincing evidence that the Taung Child skull does not show human-like development that has been claimed for the last 90 years.

The research was published in the Aug. 25, 2014, edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Taung Child was found in Taung, South Africa in 1924 and described by Raymond Dart of Wits University. Dart described a cast of the interior of the Taung Child’s skull as being proof that the fossil was an intermediate form between humans and apes.

The Taung Child was described as “the missing link.” The description was based on the brain structure of the fossil that indicated a high a high degree of expansion of the prefrontal lobe. The prefrontal lobe is known to be the locus of many of the behaviors that are distinctively human.

Holloway and colleagues performed the first high-resolution CT scans on the Taung Child’s skull. The fossil is thought to have been a child of three to four years of age.

The CT analysis does not indicate that any development that is even near human exists in the Taung Child fossil. Comparison of known hominin fossils and chimpanzees to the Taung Child also support the claim that this is not a human ancestor.

The research leaves a gap in human evolution.

The developmental features of human skulls and brains do not have a direct link between humans and apes that has been found in the fossil record. Dart has been proven to be wrong. Dart did not have the equipment that is available today and he may have wanted to be famous. Those who will opt to make the claim that evolution is a fabrication based on this new research must also prove that all other hominin fossils, Neanderthals, and Devonians never existed.


Now what were you asking me about doubting the scientific community, Mr. Smartypants???????????????????????????

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Hmm interesting observation there.

[bluefete]

Actually, they knew more than a year ago!

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/ju ... uman-brain

Study Raises Questions About Evolution of the Human Brain

Mon, Aug 25, 2014

Scientists say the famous Taung Child's skull not human-like in expansion.
Study Raises Questions About Evolution of the Human Brain

There may be a fly in the ointment for some evolutionists when it comes to early brain adaptations in human evolutionary theory.

It revolves around a recent study of the endocast (internal cast of the space occupied by the brain in the skull) of the famous 3 million-year-old 'Taung Child' fossil discovered in South Africa in 1924.

This find was advanced by Wits University Professor Raymond Dart in 1925 as evidence of an early hominin or "ape-man" species (Australopithecus africanus), a forerunner in human evolutionary beginnings.

Among other things, it has been cited as having "historical and scientific importance in the fossil record as the first and best example of early hominin brain evolution".*

The theory is that it exhibits key cranial adaptations in its morphology that suggest, like modern human infants and toddlers, that certain features of the infant cranium provided the flexibility for continued growth and development in the prefrontal region of the brain, the region responsible for complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behavior, during infancy. In short, the Taung Child may have exhibited the first signs of 'becoming human' in terms of the human brain.

But not so fast, say a team of scientists..........

To test the ancientness of this evolutionary adaptation, Dr Kristian J. Carlson, Senior Researcher from the Evolutionary Studies Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand, Professor Ralph L. Holloway from Colombia University and Douglas C. Broadfield from Florida Atlantic University, performed an in silico dissection of the Taung fossil using high-resolution computed tomography at the Wits University Microfocus X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) facility. It was the first such examination ever conducted on the Taung Child fossil specimen.

“A recent study has described the roughly 3 million-year-old fossil, thought to have belonged to a 3 to 4-year-old, as having a persistent metopic suture and open anterior fontanelle, two features that facilitate post-natal brain growth in human infants when their disappearance is delayed,” said Carlson, referring to a study published in 2012 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Dean Falk of Florida State University and colleagues.

The CT scans conducted by Carlson and his colleagues, however, showed otherwise. Citing deficiencies in how the Taung fossil material has been recently assessed as presented in the 2012 study report, the researchers suggest physical evidence does not incontrovertibly link features of the Taung skull, or its endocast, to early prefrontal lobe expansion.

_______________________________

The Taung Child fossil

The Taung Child fossil at the Evolutionary Studies Institute at Wits University. Credit: WITS UNIVERSITY

______________________________

"In sum, we believe the claim of high frequencies of metopic sutures in early hominins is premature, and thus the proposition that delayed metopic suture closure may have conferred a selective advantage in early hominin evolution is equally premature," write the researchers in their report.*

Thus, results of the new study show that there is still no evidence for this kind of skull adaptation that evolved before Homo (the genus that includes modern humans and species closely related to them), nor is there evidence for a link between such skull characteristics and the proposed accompanying early prefrontal lobe expansion, Carlson said.

The study is published online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), in an article titled: New high resolution CT data of the Taung partial cranium and endocast and their bearing on metopism and hominin brain evolution.

_________________________________________

*Holloway, R.L., Broadfield, D.C., Carlson, K.J., New high resolution CT data of the Taung partial cranium and endocast and their bearing on metopism and hominin brain evolution; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 25 August 2014.

Article written with adaptations and edits from a University of Witwatersrand press release.

Cover Photo, Top Left: Endocranium, face and mandible of the Taung Child (Australopithecu africanus). Didier Descouens, Wikimedia Commons

[COROLLA KID]

[bluesclues]

^ not random. Natural selection.

lookup definition of the word natural/nature

it suggests intelligent intervention. this is what evolutionists fail to realise about darwin's theory. he used natural selection as the term to link the logical with the intelligent contingencies observed in real life. call it a fluke, a lapse in judgement, or trying to pull a fast one. but anytime u use the word natural u suggest intelligence is involved.

[Silvermike]

Oh geez. Does this mean radioactive decay is by design now?

[meccalli]

There are birds that dont fly tho. Just like there were dinos that did. The ability tp fly does not define birds.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0044012
You really shouldn't be making the case for a theory that science is constantly whittling down with new findings.
And yes, largely defined by characteristics specialised for flight capability, large terrestrial birds are fast for this very reason. http://www.scienceinschool.org/2011/issue21/ostrich

[Silvermike]

Two very interesting links. But has nothing to do with the idea that birds may or maynot be dinos.

[meccalli]

you realise what the paper findings show right?

[Silvermike]

i must admit, i skimmed them. this is what i got

1) dinos eat eachother
2) ostriches can run fast

i may have missed the point you were trying to make. please, explain.

[rabiesebola]

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools"

[sMASH]

The the taung child is not a human ancestor , but a member of a different lineage .

At least they're honest enough to put things in as best a realistic perspective.

But that is not to avoid egg on their faces, in the face of creationists.

[meccalli]

I guess you did, the point of the ostrich link was to present you with a basic understanding of bird anatomy and why an ostrich represents its flying relatives despite being ground dwelling, what you see moving on an ostrich's legs are actually its ankle and 'knee' joints. Its femur remains somewhat fixed to still maintain its air sac integrity and give the ostrich its ave characteristic multi chamber respiratory system.
The paper highlights the finding of the late cretaceous Sinocalliopteryx feeding on a full on bird basically in the form or confuciusornis. What you are suggesting is either true or this finding didn't exist. Birds aren't dinosaurs, sorry.

[Habit7]

These guys reject the supernatural accounts of the Bible but shoehorn the supernatural into the theorised accounts of evolution.

[bluesclues]

i must admit, i skimmed them. this is what i got

1) dinos eat eachother
2) ostriches can run fast

i may have missed the point you were trying to make. please, explain.

the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one lol

[Silvermike]

ok, since you all insist on being stupid.

" Confuciusornis, genus of extinct crow-sized birds that lived during the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous (roughly 161 million to 100 million years ago). Confuciusornis fossils were discovered in the Chaomidianzi Formation of Liaoning province, China, in ancient lake deposits mixed with layers of volcanic ash. These fossils were first described by Hou Lianhai and colleagues in 1995. Confuciusornis was about 25 cm (roughly 10 inches) from beak to pelvis. It possessed a small triangular snout and lacked teeth.

Confuciusornis held a number of physical characteristics in common with modern birds but possessed some striking differences. Beautifully preserved specimens show impressions of its feathers, from which it can be inferred that the wings were of comparable size to those of similar flying birds today. Unlike modern birds, however, the forearm of Confuciusornis was shorter than both its hand and upper arm bone (humerus). It also retained the feature of having three free fingers on the hand, like Archaeopteryx and other theropod dinosaurs."

Also, since you brought up good taxonomy.

"direct descendants of a single common ancestor are classed within the same group"

Thus birds are dinos = Thus a dinosaur ate a dinosaur. congratulations.

... and yes, an ostrich is a bird.

i must admit, i skimmed them. this is what i got

1) dinos eat eachother
2) ostriches can run fast

i may have missed the point you were trying to make. please, explain.

the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one lol

its a thing of beauty when something goes so far over your head that you actually think you're right.

[Silvermike]

These guys reject the supernatural accounts of the Bible but shoehorn the supernatural into the theorised accounts of evolution.

Never-minding you gross misunderstanding of anything to do with science, whats truly funny is that you seem to have a problem with the supernatural when its convenient to you.

[rabiesebola]

statistics have proven time and time again that geographical constraints dont necessarily correlate with past genome structures. so this in my opinion will negate this theory