Justin Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 You folks want to have a field day, go and read the shit on this site. In the link below, they are trying to say that dinosaurs never evolved into birds, primarily because such and such feathered dinosaur and supposed bird ancestor is dated as existing after Protoavis and Archaeopteryx lived. Now, i've just started reading up on evolution so i don't know a whole lot, but this doesn't have anything to do with anything, right? Several dinosaur species throughout the Mesozoic could have given rise to birds. Just because you have, say Protoavis in the Triassic, doesn't mean that Oviraptor in the Cretaceous couldn't have given rise to birds to. http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29...ptiles_to_birds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outback Jack Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I'm no expert, but I'd say that your reasoning is correct. We're not sure of the exact evolution of birds. But there is nothing to keep several feathered dinosaurs from evolving at the same time. One point I did find amusing was this, It is commonly claimed that feathers evolved from scales, but their differences make such a claim ridiculous. Feathers grow from a follicle, as hair does. Scales, on the other hand, are just folds in the skin. Furthermore the DNA for feathers and scales are from different genes. The best evolutionists can do is point to similarities in chemical composition while ignoring all of the above problems with the theory. I have to wonder if they've ever looked at a chicken's legs. Those are scales down there people!!! And those are feathers sprouting just above the scales! Scales and feathers on the same animal kind of point to the ability to evolve one from the other. Also, AFAIK the DNA from a chicken's scales and feathers should be identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 You also have to keep in mind that they are probably referring to the last common ancestor(LCA) between the lineage from which birds arose and the rest of the dinosaurs. This LCA did not have to have feathers or any bird-esque features. And, unless I am mistaken, it seems unlikely that the LCA would have bird-like features because it would take time for those features to evolve. As for their DNA arguments, they are, as always totally wrong. Technically, they are correct in that it is not the exact same gene for scales and feathers. I don't remember specific details, but it is not a big change from scales to feathers. I don't know why they even made this argument since we know of many dinosaur species that had feathers, even ones that are not thought to be closely related to birds. So we know it happened many times. Speaking of DNA, how do they explain birds having the genes for teeth? Don't forget that we are dealing with people who probably don't think mutations can add information to a genome, which is beyond ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The evolution of birds would not cause the extinction of dinosaurs. Birds are a species of dinosaur, which is the way I've heard it told, not that birds evolved from dinosaurs. When we see a turkey or a chicken or the spring Robin, we are looking at distinct species of dinosaurs with feathers! Dinosaurs never went completely extinct. Raptors were when chickens had lips! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The evolution of birds would not cause the extinction of dinosaurs. Birds are a species of dinosaur, which is the way I've heard it told, not that birds evolved from dinosaurs. When we see a turkey or a chicken or the spring Robin, we are looking at distinct species of dinosaurs with feathers! Dinosaurs never went completely extinct. Raptors were when chickens had lips! That is an interesting way of looking at it. I'm not sure I agree with it since the taxonomy I have seen places birds in a different class than dinosaurs. I think the problem is that the lines we use to divide different classes, and other orders, are defined somewhat arbitrarily. When we compare, for example, a T. rex and a mallard duck the differences are obvious. But when we start looking at the "transitional" species, it becomes increasingly difficult to draw a line that isn't completely arbitrary. Because of this, we really could say that dinosaurs, birds, humans, and every other tetrapod are just specific species of fish. In a certain context, it is true, but it isn't very clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts