Modern platypus so not have teeth. However a fossil platypus did have teeth. Further evidence for evolution. Grow up creationists. Gods kingdom is not full of nitwits, is it?
this is retarded.birds are the only living descendents of dinosaurs? what about crocodiles, komodo dragons and modern day reptiles? according to this vid birds are more dinosaur like than crocks. that's just silly
@icsvortex665 The reptiles you named are not descended from dinosaurs, they just share an ancestry with them. As far as it is known birds are the only descenents of some dinosaurs (most likely therapods). However a bird is not a dinosaur just because there are similarities with some of them doesn't mean that they are the same. If you call a bird a dinosaur you can just as well call us mammal-like reptiles.
@inotaishu1 hahahahaha but some people actually say that birds are living dinosaurs. as for the birds evolving from dinosaurs I don't believe that. I m sure you will make the example of the so called transitional fossil like archaeopteryx witch if you ask me it was just a bird. we have animals today that behave and look like 2 kinds of animals. muddskippers and the platypus for example.odd creatures but I don't think the platypus will change over time into something else
@icsvortex665 Sure Archaeopteryx and similar birds of that time were birds, but they had features no known bird after the end of the cretaceous period had. Whether the platypus changes depends on the conditions of its environment and on the platypus themselves, some species have a very good "ability" to adapt and spread and others are so "set" that they don't. And what is your reasoning behind your statement of birds not being descendents of dinosaurs?
@icsvortex665 - "archaeopteryx...if you ask me...was just a bird."
Then it's a good thing that nobody is asking you, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Name one modern bird which has teeth, a long reptilian tail, large claws on their forearms, and other skeletal features found only in ancient therapod dinosaurs. I'll bet you $100 that you can't.
@dingodavid ok it-s a strange one. but still that doesn t prove your point. all you know is that it s an extinct animal and it died . we have strange animals like that today but they are not considered transitional species : the platypus for example. no fossil prove evolution
@icsvortex665 Wrong. The platypus IS considered to be a transitional species. They are monotremes.
They are warm blooded, they are hairy, they lay eggs, they have venomous spines on their hind legs, and they suckle their babies with mother's milk. They are semi-reptilian. How much more transitional do you want them to be?
@assalane no it was not a joke,obviously there was a creator for the creatures and the creator or do you think the universe juts somehow created itself??
@pinball281 What the first part of your sentence has to do with the other?
I can turn the question right back to you, do you think your creator created himself? Or do you think he is eternal? If it is the later, and if eternal is defined as infinite time, and we know today time and space are 2 faces of the same coin, how do you reconcile that? To put it more simply, without space there is no time.
I don't know how exactly the universe was "created", but I don't put god where my ignorance begins.
People will beleive any nonsense. I still have never seen a dinosaur skull. Anytime they claim to have a skull all they show us is a cartoon drawing. One random bone found somewhere does not make a dinosaur. drawing and animated videos also do not provide proof on any real dinosaur skull. Its also someone from the carnegie or rockefeller foundations with the grant money who decides if a bone came from 'dinosaurs'
@mustaffa1611 No, thats stupid.. and you're stupid if you think that. I grew up going to London's Natural history museum, i've witnessed not just dinosaur skulls but houndreds of intact full dinosaur skeletons.. i dont believe nonsense, i understand how you feel on this matter, as i have never seen god and i do not believe in him for that that reason and many other reasons.. but theres no museums i can go to see him is there?
@StrawberryRizla Youre all over the place dude. All you know is what somebody told you. This may be hard for you to understand at first but you will in time. The wealthiest 1% of the population control over 90% of the wealth in this world. This global elite has an agenda and telling you the truth about things is not one of their objectives. Governments and police are their tools to control the minds of the masses. I once believed in the lie just like you, its ok.
@mustaffa1611 you are an idiot who is not even making a difference, also you are insane if you think that. Insanity can do that to a person, its ok.. just live your sad lie of a life. Also even if you're right, what difference does it make? None, so i think its better if you just live your life as much as you can, seeing as you think these people control the world you must see that there is no point in this. Dinosaurs ARE real, go to the natural history museum, they aren't just drawings there.
@StrawberryRizla You said "even if you're right" which means you don't know. That is a great start to admitting you don't know. Those things they call dinosaurs at the museum are made of plastic and skulptors clay. In a sense they are real models but they are not real bone. Real bone is not made of plastic and bondo. Next time you go to the museum just ask them if they have any real bones that arent plastic. If you want to believe they are real then more power to you.
@mustaffa1611 i said "even" because it cant be proved that you are wrong.. i'm 100% sure you are wrong. Its called an falsifiable hypothesis, its like saying Unicorns are real, but they aren't real.. but the fact that they aren't real means that there is no evidence saying that they aren't real. do you understand? FYI: dinosaurs were discovered before plastic was invented and before even John D Rockafeller was even born.
@StrawberryRizla "it cant be proved" Dude you still have a queen. The best part is that your queen and so called 'royal family' is not even english. They are germans. They changed their name to windsor to fool you. How funny is that. It can be proved because even they still call you "subjects" hahahaha
@mustaffa1611 i'm not, she only owns the land of 1/4 of the world.. ( everyone who lives on her soil is her "subject" as you say ) and she doesn't actually do anything, the royal family are just the royal family.. they do nothing, they dont control us.. they are basically a rich family that the media loves to love. She was born in London, that makes her british.. or do you not understand the concept of nationalities ? and dont disrespect the queen, what did she ever do to you?
@StrawberryRizla Now you are agreeing with me again when you just said it couldnt be proven that a small global elite control over 90% of the wealth. Well thank you for proving me right again by saying your German queen owns 1/4 of the world. So are are you disagreeing with me when you agree with me?
@mustaffa1611 haha, so because i said it cant be proven that either one is the correct one, your one is automatically the correct one? haha your insane i just realised XD
@StrawberryRizla you said it couldnt be proven and then you told me your german queen owned 1/4 of the world. So you are the one making contradictory statements. Those compulsory public skools must of really done a number on you. I like your passion though. Educate yourself some more and then direct your misguided passion somewhere more positive instead of getting angry because you believed in all the lies they taught you. Truthbrigade radio is doing a show soon on the dinosaur hoax...
@StrawberryRizla Your german royal family changed its name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917. Then they passed 'laws' making it illegal for its subjects to even talk about it. Slave... Subject... Citizen... whats the difference?
@StrawberryRizla You are lucky bro. I used to be like you thinking I know everything and talking smack.... then some dude Justin we met told me off and set me straight. Since I realized he knew way more than more I was soon humbled and told him to tell me more. I said 'how am I supposed to know, this is what I was taught.' He then became a good friend till he disappeared one day. You are me and I am Justin all over again. Take care Friend
@StrawberryRizla Watch some of my other videos where I prank call different tv and radio shows.. and please comment. I dont know everything but I know more than most.
one interesting theory behind drastic evolutionary jumps is radiation bursts from exploding suns near our solar system, or massive sun spots on our own sun. The radiation would cause alot of mutation and whatever was successful as a result, would live on.
Ecolution does not propose that humans came from monkeys, or that humans could give birth to anything else other than humans.
What you fail to understand is that humans are monkeys. "Monkey" does not mean primates other than human. Basics of classification : all humans are apes, not all apes are humans. All apes are monkeys but not all monkeys are apes.
It is not possible to "grow out" of one's lineage.
Monkeys are poorly defined, but even so, may be a side branch to the group that sprung the great apes. So yes, we are apes, but saying we are "Monkeys" is highly debatable..
@111E982a well its kinda like one animal evolved into a Monkey species and one of that species kids went on to keep their tails and the others lost their tails and thats what we call an ape, and that ape species children one went on to become human one to become gorrilas one to become chimps ect :P ( but we definitely had tails before we became apes so its most likely we evolved from a monkey species )
@StrawberryRizla no, please, i study evolution. we didn't come from monkeys, we came from a common ancestor that is neither monkey nor ape. you can say that it is an ape-like monkey in a very broad sense, but then it splitted and soon specialize into primitive monkeys and primitive apes.
@111E982a yeah i know what u mean but if we evolved from something that had a tail and it was an primate like creature then it was more of a monkey..... because apes are primates that dont have tails. Obviously we didnt come from any animals that are around today( E.G monkeys ) because they are just as evolved as us,
@111E982a More of a monkey than an ape is what i mean. Obviously it wasn't a monkey because monkeys evolved from the same animal we did, but the fact that monkeys and apes are so similar bone in design shows that we broke off from the same animal.. and the key principle which made us differ to monkeys is that we lost our tails.. so if that common ancestor had a tail its more closely related of a monkey isn't it? which means apes broke off that animal before monkeys did
@StrawberryRizla no, now it isn't the point of all these, i already know all these, the point is that your OP is very misleading and no one will know that you meant more of a monkey.
[well its kinda like one animal evolved into a Monkey species]
&
[ but we definitely had tails before we became apes so its most likely we evolved from a monkey species]
@111E982a yeah remembering that this stuff hasn't been proved and i said "so its most likely" and i was only giving an example with that first one, anyone with a brain would understand what i meant.
"isn't it obvious that birds are descendant of the dinosaur...just look at their..."
You forgot to mention their warm-blood. Since reptiles are cold-blooded, please explain how this transition took place. Was it gradual or quick?
You also suggest it's "obvious" that birds descended from dinos, but that's not what this article says: "Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?" (PhysOrg, Feb 9, 2010).
What evidence makes you so certain? Perhaps you should rephrase your claim to reflect this headline: "Key to Success? Dinosaurs MAY HAVE BEEN Warm-Blooded" (Live Science, Nov 2009).
In other dino news: “T. Rex Plodded Like an Elephant, Nerve Study Says" (National Geographic News, June 29, 2010). So much for Jack Horner's sensational presentation of them in the movie Jurassic Park. And maybe man could have lived along side them after all.
@AA32m7io1 You love to site papers which actually argue against the point you are making. For dinosaurs to have grown to the sizes that they did and still move about for more than a few hours at least, they would have to be warm blooded. Shear body size would dictate that.
As for T'rex not being a 35 mph Predator form Jurassic Park, pointless. The "Velociraptors" in JP are wrong too, they are too big and don't have feathers. It's Hollywood. Not a science documentary.
@AA32m7io1 "And maybe man could have lived along side them after all." If you ignore the fact that they lived 65million years ago at minimum then yes, it's quite possible that if dinosaurs were still in existence today we could co-exist. Humans are VERY adaptable creatures. We'd probably have hunted all the larger Dinosaurs to extinction though, humans don't like large scary creatures (unless we are eating them and not the other way around.) We haven't and cannot however because of a time issue.
That vid is a bunch of baloney! The latest studies say birds did NOT evolve from dinos. That ALL the so called feathered dinos are just birds. Like "ratites". The bird-dino idea just became popular in the media because the public liked the idea. Some paleontologist smelled money and In hopes of getting research grants started supporting it. It has snowballed from there. Despite continued opposition from top avian evolutionist.
@Howie47: The current weight of the evidence is that dinosaurs gave rise to the birds. An OSU professor has an alternative theory, but as far as I can tell no real unambiguous proof, just some coincidences and a hypothesis. He may be right, but he has a long way to go to overthrow the current evidence. The correct hypothesis is the one with the best case, not the one that happens to have the latest papers published. Casting aspersions on the theorists is just dumb; only more digging will tell.
@puncheex Glad to hear your open to change your opinion. Not glad that your opinion rides the wave of cultural popularity instead of good science. The weight of evidence is quality, not quantity! And if the aspersions fit, then guilty parties we must not acquit. OSU Professor (he is far from the only one) said: Dino/bird evo. was made popular by "Triassic Park'. Scientist smelled money and ran with it. After all Evolution is not a development science. It produces nothing. "clarification.web.___
@Howie47: What does cultural popularity have to do with it? It's the weight of the evidence. Right now, that's with the dinosaurs->raptors->birds theory, and both quality and quantity have a part in that. Show me what evidence the birds from reptile theory has; any fossils from the Permian? the Triassic? Show me. Triassic Park (whatever you think that is) doesn't excuse your conspiracy theory, and demos your ignorance.
For what science thinks, see ucmpDOTberkeleyDOTedu/diapsids/avians.html
... As pointed out in the article, Avian development was essentially settled in the 70s, 20 years before Jurassic Park the book or the movie. Show me where movie money ever had a part in it; that was in the dinosaurs, plain and simple.
And then, what's a "development science"? Evolution produces predictions about likely adaptations and species in the future; is that a better or worse development than gravitational theory? I swear, your creationists will create differences out of thin air.
a bird is a reptile! look at its legs and claws! its reptilian eyes! its sharp and slow lizard type movements! the thing is to find the missing link. that creature that actually took flight and got covered in feathers seperating it from other common reptiles. but its still a reptile!! a unique special reptile! look at a starlings face up close. what you see is a tiny flying dinosaur glaring back at you!
"Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?" (ScienceDaily, Feb. 10, 2010)
"The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds...We think the evidence is finally showing that [Raptors] which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
@AA32m7io1: By jingo, it's science at work. The plucky OSU prof with the minority theory that raptors are birds, challenging the heavyweight champion theory, supported by evidence, the science establishment and an ocean of grant money, and doing it not with congresscritters and FOX and local school boards but with peer-reviewed papers. Can you imagine? No lawyered paper barrages, not seeking doctorates in birdology sciences, no flaky senatorial speeches. Just science. What are they thinking? :D
As for Natural Selection, I recommend: "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings" by Jerry Fodor (London Review of Books, October 2007)... and be sure not to miss his rebuttals to the letters he received challenging his conclusion.
"Here's the problem: you can read adaptationism as saying that environments select creatures for their fitness; or you can read it as saying that environments select traits for their fitness."
Basically, all you have is unambiguous proof, some coincidences and a few crummy hypotheses. Please see Paul Davis' article, "Taking Science on Faith" (NYT, 2007)
"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith...the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm...until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
"An OSU professor has an alternative theory, but as far as I can tell no real unambiguous proof, just some coincidences and a hypothesis."
Let me get this straight. You dismiss his work because he lacks direct proof and evidence, right? Okay, then what direct proof and evidence do you have which proves abiogenesis, the initial cause of the Big Bang, or how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes... and then into the complex organisms found in the Cambrian?
@AA32m7io1: Sticking to the issue: No, it's creationists who expect one to see the evolution actually happen before they will think seriously about it. I'm willing to see the fossils of birds in the Permian and Triassic ages, and then I'll say that they are accumulating significant evidence. That evidence is there if their theory is true. It may take a year or maybe 100 years to uncover it, but it will be there if the theory is real.
As for the rest, pick one, make a case and we'll go at it.
Wiki says, "As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a 'protocell' using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life... Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics."
@AA32m7io1: Yup, and as far as I know it's true. So what? Is there something wrong in our world if a theory that explains abiogenesis hasn't yet been pushed to the proof-of -principle stage yet? Let's see - we discovered DNA in 1920s, figured out what it did in 1953, uncovered the human genome in the last decade. It seems to me biology is making spectacular progress in the direction in the past 100 years. If it takes another 100, or 200, well then, that's what it takes. You in a hurry?
So you admit there's absolutely ZERO evidence proving this ever happened, but yet you insist that it did. And you justify this by suggesting that science will eventually find the answer. But in the meantime, without ANY evidence, you are merely reduced to sheer faith that abiogenesis took place based only on your presupposition that creation was not a supernatural event.
PS - And please don't forget about that pesky "chirality problem."
@AA32m7io1: No, I wouldn't say there is zero evidence. We're here arguing, aren't we? And as time goes on, more and more of the gaps are being filled in: Can proteins self assemble? Are amino acids capable of being produced outside life? Can we essay a way to assemble a lipid wall? I believe that science will, fairly soon, be able to reproduce all the steps necessary to create life in a lab. It won't be our life, but it will have all the earmarks of life that you care to declare.
"It seems to me biology is making spectacular progress in the direction in the past 100 years."
Yes, biology is making great progress, but with each step it continues to fail to prove that everything evolved from common ancestor. In fact, the same article says, "It started well... By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory. Ironically, the OPPOSITE happened."
Since then we have learned that DNA is infinitely more complex than anyone realized. See "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life" (New Scientist, Jan 2009) which says:
"MANY biologists now argue that the tree concept is OBSOLETE and needs to be DISCARDED. 'We have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that the tree of life is a reality,' says [Eric] Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."
@AA32m7io1: Since you don't talk about what that "opposite" is, I will (I assume the reference is to that New Scientist you mention later). What it says is that there is more than one way for life to interact. Some life splits, making another being separate from itself. That is the way of the tree branching, the way favored by plants and animals and most other beings in the natural world, and most certainly, though not exclusively, by those who use sex.
... Another way, used by single celled prokayotes and eukaryotes, is by simple chromosomal exchange or gene transfer. There is no doubt that that was used back in the age when the apex species were monocellular, and is still used by them today. In that case the tree is no longer a valid model; propagation becomes more of a network.
... But that manner of "reproduction" is not appropriate for multicellular beings, and the reason must be obvious; any multicellular being that used gene transfer methods would soon disintegrate. The cells would be working to cross purposes, specialization would lead to body-anarchy. Multicellular beings require harmony and common purpose in the cells, trusting that specialized cells aren't going to strike off on their own, and so on.
... So Darwin's tree has a messy ball of intertwined pathways at it's roots. The last gasp of that sort of thing involves the incorporating of primitive prokaryotes symbiotically into more advanced cells, whence came chloroplasts in plants, and mitochondria and other organelles in animal cells. One final lick: sometimes a couple of twigs which recently budded from a common parent can re-engage to produce a hybrid.
... Beyond the mundane examples of the liger, the cama and the mule, mankind itself may well enjoy the fruits of hybridization with chimpanzees and neandertal man in the past.
Does that make the "tree of life" obsolete? No. It is as applicable now as it was before we knew anything about the personal lives of bacteria, and a bacteriologist may have to work it out, but I'm mainly interested in multicellular life, and the tree model works just fine, thank you.
... Does this bother me? Not at all. I am who I am; I don't depend, though I may rejoice, on who my grandparents may have been. And the science works just fine for me. I gleefully admit that this last puts holes into any clean definition of what exactly a species is, but Nature doesn't read or need biology texts to do what she does. I'm content to observe and correct my impressions as better understandings become possible.
“Organic molecules...have spontaneously assembled themselves in these flasks. Neither DNA nor RNA has appeared, but the building blocks of these large molecules, called purines and pyrimidines, have. So have the building blocks of proteins, amino acids. The MISSING LINK for this class of theories is still the ORIGIN OF REPLICATION. The building blocks HAVEN'T come together to form a self-replicating chain like RNA. MAYBE one day they will" (Dawkins, Watchmaker, p 148, 1995)
"I'm content to observe and correct my impressions as better understandings become possible."
Speaking of observing, can any of the events of origins (Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc) ever be "observed"? If not, then how can they ever be tested and falsified?
Seems like step 2 of the scientific process will always be missing from the process which reduces the acceptance of any theories about origins to faith! (Again, see Paul Davies' article: "Taking Science on Faith")
@AA32m7io1: Gods, you wouldn't know facetious if it whacked you on the head. Yet, in a larger sense, we wouldn't be here arguing had it not been for abiogenesis, at least from my side of this discussion.
Sure, it may be what Dawkins said 15 years ago. Do you deny that we have come closer closer in that time? Hasn't announcements from Collins and Ventor's labs brought it closer? Are you in some big rush, for some reason? By "short time" I had in mind something on the order of 50-100 years.
"we wouldn't be here arguing had it not been for abiogenesis, at least from my side of this discussion."
Again, not evidence. And from my side, God determined for us to meet.
"Hasn't announcements from Collins and Ventor's labs brought it closer?"
No! Dr. Venter: "We created a new cell. It's alive. But we DIDN'T CREATE LIFE FROM SCRATCH. We created, as all life on this planet is, out of a living cell." ("Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch,' CNN, May 21, 2010).
@AA32m7io1: No they're right - they didn't. But it's another step. A metaphor: when we went to the moon, we didn't do it in one simple step. We developed three different programs with three different rockets, tested fuels, developed navigation and guidance systems, sent men into LOE, and later into moon orbit. Likewise, biologists take one step at a time, develop this necessary technique or that one, create testing systems, review, and then finally do IT. And that's how it will be, I believe.
Look, I understand your metaphor and believe science will continue to make great progress. But the problem seems to be that each time one mystery is unraveled (e.g., junk DNA actually isn’t junk, but is useful), it only complicates things even further.
BTW, is knowledge about origins necessary for anything we do today? Why is it so important that we find out about the past, especially since (as atheists claim) there is no afterlife and we are all destined for non-existence?
@AA32m7io1: Sure, that's true. So do you think then that we'll never round on the problem as a whole, even given the fact that life is full of unanswered (as yet) questions? I think that that is simply an implication of the fact that the area is so new that we don't really know the scope of the problem yet; that's why I'm giving it a while.
... Is it necessary? Not in a survival meaning; there's nothing crucial about the answers, not like global warming. But as you find it humanly necessary to know your purpose and place vis-a-vis your god, I likewise want to know where I'm from and where I'm going, on a physical plane. Call it curiosity; and I know I'll not hear all of it. That's OK too.
"when we went to the moon, we didn't do it in one simple step."
Speaking of the moon, how did it form? After all, wasn't that one of the main reason we went there?
They have no idea about origins, but they did find water in tiny glass beads which is highly problematic for the Giant Impact Theory. (See "Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past," NPR, July 9, 2008) As Erik Hauri says in the article, "That's a really, really difficult knot to untie."
@AA32m7io1: I think the bets theory of that to date is called the Big Splash theory (physicists can be incorrigible about names). Look it up in wikipedia, and I'd appreciate knowing what you think, apart from the fact that it happened 4.4 billion years ago or so. Going to the moon lead to a lot of that theory; surprisingly, it opened up a lot of the Earth's early history as well. Many of the early periods now defined for that time get their name and their events from investigation of the moon.
Finally, your comment that you "want to know where [you're] from and where [you're] going" perfectly validate Ecclesiastes 3:11 which says: "Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end."
Do you think the animals we supposedly evolved from think about such things? No way! They are just trying to surive by finding their next meal and mate. This is unique to humans.
"I likewise want to know where I'm from and where I'm going, on a physical plane"
Where do you believe you are going? Also, do you agree with what Professor Provine said:
"There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
"Is it necessary? Not in a survival meaning; there's nothing crucial about the answers..."
Since you admit that knowing about origins doesn't contribute anything to the survivability of our species, then why does it matter? Is it helping us find cures for terrible diseases? No. Then why spend billions on that type of research? Sure, dino fossils are cool to look at, but couldn't the money spent on research teams who find them be better utilized to solve real problems?
"apart from the fact that it happened 4.4 billion years ago or so"
That fact alone is a huge problem!
"The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the well-known time scale problem; the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago." (Touma and Wisdom, "Evolution of the Earth-Moon System," The Astronomical Journal, Nov. 1994)
According to uniformitarianism, the moon would have been too close to the earth just 1B years ago to escape its orbit.
Not likely. See "Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes" (PhysOrg, Nov 9, 2010)
Some evidence is backwards. Xu Xing: "We thought previously that we had a relatively simple pattern - as dino[s] became smaller in size they became more birdlike. Now, after the discovery of Gigantoraptor, things get more complicated" ("Massive Birdlike Dinosaur Unearthed in China," NatGeo, 07).
@AA32m7io1: OK, I read it. His thesis is that Darwin was foreshadowed by Matthew. OK, I'll believe it. And perhaps Darwin didn't give as much emphasis to catastrophe as is needed, thereby requiring Gould to invent PE. So, what is the point? For me, science marches on. It corrects its mistakes. Darwin is no god or saint that requires worship. So? Same with Xu Xing: so? there may be changes required to established bird evolution. If the evidence comes, so shall it be.
... I see no reason why either of these negates what I said about evidence being found if a change in the theory is required. Matthew said that catastrophes have to be handled; Darwin didn't think they did. We find they do; PE does that. Point? Xu finds that an idea in bird evo is wrong - needs a rethink. So? Neither does anything to dislodge the ToE from science as far as I can see.
Hey, did you happen to catch the article: "Mammals beat reptiles in battle of evolution" (LiveScience, July 31, 2009)?
Mammals, birds and fish are among evolutions "winners," while crocodiles and other reptiles have ended up on the losing end, a new study suggests. "Our results indicate that mammals are special," said study leader Michael Alfaro of UCLA...
The timing of the rate increases does not correspond to the appearance of key characteristics that have been invoked to explain the evolutionary success of these groups, such as hair on mammals or mammals' well-coordinated chewing ability or feathers on birds. Our results suggest that something more recent is the cause of the biodiversity. It may be that something more subtle explains the evolutionary success of mammals, birds and fish. We need to look for new explanations.
Intresting. And your point is? If you think this works as evidence against evolutionary theory, you are wrong. The fact of evolution is too visible to deny even though the theory - as any scientific explanation - is continuously questioned as it should in order to keep the science progressing.
Also, though mammals have some excellent characteristics, being endothermic does come with a cost (ie. we need to eat more often than exothermic animals do.)
Actually, I didn't suggests this "works against evolution." I was just curious for your thoughts. I did, however, find it interesting to see the timing of the rate increases don't correspond with characteristics such as feathers on birds. Also that their findings "suggest that something more recent is the cause of the biodiversity," and that "new explanations" are needed.
Again, not proof again evolution, just interesting to think about.
I'll look up the paper when I got more time, it might point a few things not mentioned in the article itself. It's always more useful to see the whole study, since articles have to cut off some to fit the main idea.
@AA32m7io1 i left a message already, but i'll respond to this one too. Radiation would be a possible explanation for rapid evolution and diversity. Massive sun spots, meteors, and super novas of neighboring stars would result in radiation levels that could trigger rapid mutation. Alot of the mutations were subtle creating many variations of every type of animal, but there would have also been massive mutation that,if successful, would create amazing evolutions that actually worked to benefit.
"Radiation would be a possible explanation for rapid evolution and diversity. "
Can you please explain how so much radiation was able to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere to trigger rapid mutations since it has been shown there was “abundant oxygen” at 3.46 B years, and that the “atmosphere was as oxygen rich as it is today”? If early atmosphere was similar to today, wouldn't it block the radiation?
See: “Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth" (PhysOrg, Mar. 24, 2009)
@AA32m7io1 even with our atmosphere now, radiation from the sun gets in. There's a documentary i watched that mentioned that if a nearby sun went super nova, that it would effect the earth. Same goes when sunspots occur on our own sun. Usually they're small bursts, but there is the occasional large one and the radiation from it is stronger. Our atmosphere doesn't protect against all the radiation, only a certain amount of it.
“Our atmosphere doesn't protect against all the radiation, only a certain amount of it.”
I agree. But wouldn’t an increased amount of radiation kill developing life?
As for “creat[ing] amazing evolutions that actually worked to benefit,” fruit flies have been zapped by radiation but the results are terrible. It basically resulted in numerous deformities (short wings, blindness, etc)...but it NEVER resulted in the fruit flies evolving into anything other than more fruit flies.
@AA32m7io1 It would for sure kill off alot of life. But some would survive. Mind you, it wouldn';t have to be a massive increase in radiation. Just enough to increase the rate of mutation slightly. In a lab, scientists only irradiate a few flies, in a controlled lab. In the wild, there's too many factors to account for that could result in mutations that work and stay. Anyways, it's just a theory. Just like everything else regarding why evolution makes such big jumps.
Creationists or what ever - stop posting your retarded arguments here - there is nothing new you could throw at me. I've done this for 5 frigging years.
Go see AronRa - he's better qualified than me. I'm just a humble scholar who doesn't give a fuck. I'd just rather educate others and myself than explain things that have been explained trououghly multiple times before.
My site is not for or about creationists - it's pure science - documentaries old and new! End of line.
And I do understand the theories that preCambrian fossils must not have formed because they were soft bodied with no bones or shells (although many have now been found in China and Greenland).
So how do you explain the sudden explosion in the Cambrian fossil record? Am I oversimplifying things again?
"The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years [not 50], nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash." Stephen Jay Gould, "An Asteroid to Die For," Discover, October 1989
And what do you think about the new theory: Partial penetrance?
"How Evolution Can Allow For Large Developmental Leaps" (ScienceDaily, July 21, 2009)
That just sounds like another fancy scientific term to explain away the gaps. While the study is interesting, it does not seem to account for how new genetic information is created.
And speaking of the Ediacaran period, I found this fun quote:
"The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity [280 lenses] or acuity by later arthropods... I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record."
Stephen Jay Gould, "The Ediacaran Experiment," Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 2223
Trilobite eyes are not found in the natural world today because their lineage went extinct.
Once again : use only new sources - not 20 year old ones. Secondly, don't quote mine.
Third: view videos from AronRa and Thunderfoot. Especially the first mentioned has a series explaining these things in much better detail than what I can stuff into 500 characters.
You're probably just going to brag to your pals how I gave up -but hey, that it's like to play chess with a pidgeon.
"You're probably just going to brag to your pals how I gave up"
Not at all. I appreciate the the conversation. As for cliches, just remember that Nebraska Man was the only pig that made a monkey out of man. (ha - I love that one!)
Well, with genetic sciences evolving at an alarming rate, it's still VERY imporabable that we could extract enough DNA from fossils and clone them to make dinosaurs. The problem is, we can't create a whole line of DNA without knowing all of the sequence, and you can't get that in fossils over 100,000 years old. However, scientists have discovered that birds have the old genes of dinosaurs still in them, it's just a matter of learning how to reactivate them!
I'm not saying we couldn't recreate dinosaurs, but I am saying we most likely can't do so by collecting genes from fossils. Cloning a sheep is easy because we have all of their DNA, but we can't get that from dinosaurs. I think, if we do recreat dinosaurs, it'll be by activating old bird genes.
Well, I never said we could clone dinosaurs using fossils, but Bird DNA sounds more of a likely choice, although there are still a bunch of Problems with that, problems that hopefully may eventually be solved with the progression of Mankind and Science. I know scientist have considered cloning the Woolly Mammoth, but that has proven to be very complicated as well.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
(ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009)
Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight - and the finding means it's UNLIKELY that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
The conclusions... may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs.
That birds are not descended directly from theropod dinosaurs doesn't mean they couldn't be descended from dinosaurs or a branch that diversed into theropods and birds. There is no known theropod in the fossil record that we could surely say is the ancestor of birds. It is still likely that birds are reptile descendants, even dinosaurs even if not actual theropods.
The article mentioned birds possibly started as aparaller path alongside dinosaurs - possibly from a common ancestor they share with dinosaurs. Reptilian ancestry has little doubt, after all, birds have the genes to make teeth and tail which are quite un-acian features.
You say "There is no known theropod in the fossil record that we could surely say is the ancestor of birds." So then how can you be certain that birds evolved from reptile descendants?
John Ruben said in his report, "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from. That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories."
Modern platypus so not have teeth. However a fossil platypus did have teeth. Further evidence for evolution. Grow up creationists. Gods kingdom is not full of nitwits, is it?
BattleBits 4 days ago
:(..... Please stop using the word "design".
Amashkitotamoes 3 months ago
this is retarded.birds are the only living descendents of dinosaurs? what about crocodiles, komodo dragons and modern day reptiles? according to this vid birds are more dinosaur like than crocks. that's just silly
icsvortex665 6 months ago
@icsvortex665 The reptiles you named are not descended from dinosaurs, they just share an ancestry with them. As far as it is known birds are the only descenents of some dinosaurs (most likely therapods). However a bird is not a dinosaur just because there are similarities with some of them doesn't mean that they are the same. If you call a bird a dinosaur you can just as well call us mammal-like reptiles.
inotaishu1 6 months ago
@inotaishu1 hahahahaha but some people actually say that birds are living dinosaurs. as for the birds evolving from dinosaurs I don't believe that. I m sure you will make the example of the so called transitional fossil like archaeopteryx witch if you ask me it was just a bird. we have animals today that behave and look like 2 kinds of animals. muddskippers and the platypus for example.odd creatures but I don't think the platypus will change over time into something else
icsvortex665 6 months ago
@icsvortex665 Sure Archaeopteryx and similar birds of that time were birds, but they had features no known bird after the end of the cretaceous period had. Whether the platypus changes depends on the conditions of its environment and on the platypus themselves, some species have a very good "ability" to adapt and spread and others are so "set" that they don't. And what is your reasoning behind your statement of birds not being descendents of dinosaurs?
inotaishu1 6 months ago
@icsvortex665 - "archaeopteryx...if you ask me...was just a bird."
Then it's a good thing that nobody is asking you, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Name one modern bird which has teeth, a long reptilian tail, large claws on their forearms, and other skeletal features found only in ancient therapod dinosaurs. I'll bet you $100 that you can't.
dingodavid 3 months ago
@dingodavid ok it-s a strange one. but still that doesn t prove your point. all you know is that it s an extinct animal and it died . we have strange animals like that today but they are not considered transitional species : the platypus for example. no fossil prove evolution
icsvortex665 3 months ago
@icsvortex665 Wrong. The platypus IS considered to be a transitional species. They are monotremes.
They are warm blooded, they are hairy, they lay eggs, they have venomous spines on their hind legs, and they suckle their babies with mother's milk. They are semi-reptilian. How much more transitional do you want them to be?
dingodavid 3 months ago
at 6:06 he says DESIGN!!!
yes the birds were a very intelligent design by the creator
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281 That was a joke right?
assalane 4 months ago
@assalane no it was not a joke,obviously there was a creator for the creatures and the creator or do you think the universe juts somehow created itself??
pinball281 4 months ago
@pinball281 What the first part of your sentence has to do with the other?
I can turn the question right back to you, do you think your creator created himself? Or do you think he is eternal? If it is the later, and if eternal is defined as infinite time, and we know today time and space are 2 faces of the same coin, how do you reconcile that? To put it more simply, without space there is no time.
I don't know how exactly the universe was "created", but I don't put god where my ignorance begins.
assalane 4 months ago
People will beleive any nonsense. I still have never seen a dinosaur skull. Anytime they claim to have a skull all they show us is a cartoon drawing. One random bone found somewhere does not make a dinosaur. drawing and animated videos also do not provide proof on any real dinosaur skull. Its also someone from the carnegie or rockefeller foundations with the grant money who decides if a bone came from 'dinosaurs'
mustaffa1611 8 months ago
@mustaffa1611 Infinite laughter at your ignorance.
massimmortal 8 months ago
@massimmortal Thanks for the reply. Check out my lastest video "Dinosaurs never existed part 2" and please respond. Id love to hear your thoughts.
mustaffa1611 8 months ago
@mustaffa1611 No, thats stupid.. and you're stupid if you think that. I grew up going to London's Natural history museum, i've witnessed not just dinosaur skulls but houndreds of intact full dinosaur skeletons.. i dont believe nonsense, i understand how you feel on this matter, as i have never seen god and i do not believe in him for that that reason and many other reasons.. but theres no museums i can go to see him is there?
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla Youre all over the place dude. All you know is what somebody told you. This may be hard for you to understand at first but you will in time. The wealthiest 1% of the population control over 90% of the wealth in this world. This global elite has an agenda and telling you the truth about things is not one of their objectives. Governments and police are their tools to control the minds of the masses. I once believed in the lie just like you, its ok.
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611 you are an idiot who is not even making a difference, also you are insane if you think that. Insanity can do that to a person, its ok.. just live your sad lie of a life. Also even if you're right, what difference does it make? None, so i think its better if you just live your life as much as you can, seeing as you think these people control the world you must see that there is no point in this. Dinosaurs ARE real, go to the natural history museum, they aren't just drawings there.
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla You said "even if you're right" which means you don't know. That is a great start to admitting you don't know. Those things they call dinosaurs at the museum are made of plastic and skulptors clay. In a sense they are real models but they are not real bone. Real bone is not made of plastic and bondo. Next time you go to the museum just ask them if they have any real bones that arent plastic. If you want to believe they are real then more power to you.
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611 i said "even" because it cant be proved that you are wrong.. i'm 100% sure you are wrong. Its called an falsifiable hypothesis, its like saying Unicorns are real, but they aren't real.. but the fact that they aren't real means that there is no evidence saying that they aren't real. do you understand? FYI: dinosaurs were discovered before plastic was invented and before even John D Rockafeller was even born.
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla "it cant be proved" Dude you still have a queen. The best part is that your queen and so called 'royal family' is not even english. They are germans. They changed their name to windsor to fool you. How funny is that. It can be proved because even they still call you "subjects" hahahaha
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611 LOOOL you are such an idiot XD AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla I may be an idiot but at least I'm not the subject to a German queen.
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611 i'm not, she only owns the land of 1/4 of the world.. ( everyone who lives on her soil is her "subject" as you say ) and she doesn't actually do anything, the royal family are just the royal family.. they do nothing, they dont control us.. they are basically a rich family that the media loves to love. She was born in London, that makes her british.. or do you not understand the concept of nationalities ? and dont disrespect the queen, what did she ever do to you?
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla Now you are agreeing with me again when you just said it couldnt be proven that a small global elite control over 90% of the wealth. Well thank you for proving me right again by saying your German queen owns 1/4 of the world. So are are you disagreeing with me when you agree with me?
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611 haha, so because i said it cant be proven that either one is the correct one, your one is automatically the correct one? haha your insane i just realised XD
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla you said it couldnt be proven and then you told me your german queen owned 1/4 of the world. So you are the one making contradictory statements. Those compulsory public skools must of really done a number on you. I like your passion though. Educate yourself some more and then direct your misguided passion somewhere more positive instead of getting angry because you believed in all the lies they taught you. Truthbrigade radio is doing a show soon on the dinosaur hoax...
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611 it cant be proven! :D Thats what ive been saying this whole time, but it doesnt mean its real :P My queen is not german thank you.
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla Your german royal family changed its name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917. Then they passed 'laws' making it illegal for its subjects to even talk about it. Slave... Subject... Citizen... whats the difference?
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611 right and where did you find this out then?
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla You are lucky bro. I used to be like you thinking I know everything and talking smack.... then some dude Justin we met told me off and set me straight. Since I realized he knew way more than more I was soon humbled and told him to tell me more. I said 'how am I supposed to know, this is what I was taught.' He then became a good friend till he disappeared one day. You are me and I am Justin all over again. Take care Friend
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
@mustaffa1611 "I used to be like you thinking I know everything and talking smack...." this is what you are still doing.
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla Watch some of my other videos where I prank call different tv and radio shows.. and please comment. I dont know everything but I know more than most.
mustaffa1611 6 months ago
this whole debate is totally for the birds!
anim8rguy72 8 months ago
one interesting theory behind drastic evolutionary jumps is radiation bursts from exploding suns near our solar system, or massive sun spots on our own sun. The radiation would cause alot of mutation and whatever was successful as a result, would live on.
spiderweb20 8 months ago
I knew that was a Rough-legged hawk before they said it:. Yay me!
falcoperegrinus82 10 months ago
Love to all our feather'd friends on this earth. <3
BlueLimeMan 11 months ago
so if birds are dinosaurs
we eat dinosaurs O_O
darkguy483 1 year ago
Lol! People think they came from monkeys! last I checked monkeys produce monkeys and humans produce humans-crazy ones, yes, but humans nonetheless.
123ecks 1 year ago
@123ecks
Ecolution does not propose that humans came from monkeys, or that humans could give birth to anything else other than humans.
What you fail to understand is that humans are monkeys. "Monkey" does not mean primates other than human. Basics of classification : all humans are apes, not all apes are humans. All apes are monkeys but not all monkeys are apes.
It is not possible to "grow out" of one's lineage.
pienipaha 1 year ago
@pienipaha
Monkeys are poorly defined, but even so, may be a side branch to the group that sprung the great apes. So yes, we are apes, but saying we are "Monkeys" is highly debatable..
Lagomort 11 months ago
@pienipaha humans/ apes aren't monkeys, we share ancestors with monkeys and didn't came from them.
111E982a 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@111E982a You might want to watch: watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8
rowenclaw1 7 months ago
@111E982a well its kinda like one animal evolved into a Monkey species and one of that species kids went on to keep their tails and the others lost their tails and thats what we call an ape, and that ape species children one went on to become human one to become gorrilas one to become chimps ect :P ( but we definitely had tails before we became apes so its most likely we evolved from a monkey species )
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla no, please, i study evolution. we didn't come from monkeys, we came from a common ancestor that is neither monkey nor ape. you can say that it is an ape-like monkey in a very broad sense, but then it splitted and soon specialize into primitive monkeys and primitive apes.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a yeah i know what u mean but if we evolved from something that had a tail and it was an primate like creature then it was more of a monkey..... because apes are primates that dont have tails. Obviously we didnt come from any animals that are around today( E.G monkeys ) because they are just as evolved as us,
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla a creature that is more of a monkey isn't a monkey. That meaning your OP was wrong and we didn't came from monkeys.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a More of a monkey than an ape is what i mean. Obviously it wasn't a monkey because monkeys evolved from the same animal we did, but the fact that monkeys and apes are so similar bone in design shows that we broke off from the same animal.. and the key principle which made us differ to monkeys is that we lost our tails.. so if that common ancestor had a tail its more closely related of a monkey isn't it? which means apes broke off that animal before monkeys did
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla no, now it isn't the point of all these, i already know all these, the point is that your OP is very misleading and no one will know that you meant more of a monkey.
[well its kinda like one animal evolved into a Monkey species]
&
[ but we definitely had tails before we became apes so its most likely we evolved from a monkey species]
get it?
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a yeah remembering that this stuff hasn't been proved and i said "so its most likely" and i was only giving an example with that first one, anyone with a brain would understand what i meant.
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla woah woah woah, not proven? and i have no brain? please feel free to research and see if what i've said is true or not.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a you havn't actually said anything worth researching
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla poor troll.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a hahahaha XD
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla ha your lanjiao.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a ^^ idiot
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla poor troll, just because someone speaks in his native tongue, he's an idiot.. hahas.. boohoo, now go suck jesus's dick.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a why dont you go suck jesus dick since your interrested in it
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla nah i know you love his pussy.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a i prefer to fuck allah and jesus at the same time their both have tight assholes :P
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla racist bastard.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a how am i racist? i never said anything about any race of anything.
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla feeling pissed?
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a pissed at what?
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla racist bastard.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a how am i racist
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
@StrawberryRizla hahas, we can do this for the whole of this month.
111E982a 6 months ago
@111E982a how am i racist?
StrawberryRizla 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StrawberryRizla hahas, we can do this for the whole of this month.
111E982a 6 months ago
@123ecks Do you neighbours know you watch them produce humans?
gamesbok 11 months ago
@123ecks
fuck you stupid, damn.
YojimboAuron 9 months ago
@YojimboAuron
Thanks you for the clarification
123ecks 9 months ago
@YojimboAuron
Like I said, "crazy ones"...thanks Yojimbo.
123ecks 9 months ago
@123ecks Dude your nuts. All the corporate grant money proves evolution. Its called science. Maybe u heard of it.
mustaffa1611 8 months ago
@123ecks Wow you clearly have no idea how evolution...
jajacob410 5 months ago
isn't it obvious that birds are descendant of the dinosaur...just look at their paws, claws and eyes!
Pregarios 1 year ago
@Pregarios
"isn't it obvious that birds are descendant of the dinosaur...just look at their..."
You forgot to mention their warm-blood. Since reptiles are cold-blooded, please explain how this transition took place. Was it gradual or quick?
You also suggest it's "obvious" that birds descended from dinos, but that's not what this article says: "Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?" (PhysOrg, Feb 9, 2010).
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 dinosaurs are almost certainly warm-blooded
DaKook14 1 year ago
@DaKook14
"almost certainly"?
What evidence makes you so certain? Perhaps you should rephrase your claim to reflect this headline: "Key to Success? Dinosaurs MAY HAVE BEEN Warm-Blooded" (Live Science, Nov 2009).
In other dino news: “T. Rex Plodded Like an Elephant, Nerve Study Says" (National Geographic News, June 29, 2010). So much for Jack Horner's sensational presentation of them in the movie Jurassic Park. And maybe man could have lived along side them after all.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 You love to site papers which actually argue against the point you are making. For dinosaurs to have grown to the sizes that they did and still move about for more than a few hours at least, they would have to be warm blooded. Shear body size would dictate that.
As for T'rex not being a 35 mph Predator form Jurassic Park, pointless. The "Velociraptors" in JP are wrong too, they are too big and don't have feathers. It's Hollywood. Not a science documentary.
Gibbons3457 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 "And maybe man could have lived along side them after all." If you ignore the fact that they lived 65million years ago at minimum then yes, it's quite possible that if dinosaurs were still in existence today we could co-exist. Humans are VERY adaptable creatures. We'd probably have hunted all the larger Dinosaurs to extinction though, humans don't like large scary creatures (unless we are eating them and not the other way around.) We haven't and cannot however because of a time issue.
Gibbons3457 1 year ago
That vid is a bunch of baloney! The latest studies say birds did NOT evolve from dinos. That ALL the so called feathered dinos are just birds. Like "ratites". The bird-dino idea just became popular in the media because the public liked the idea. Some paleontologist smelled money and In hopes of getting research grants started supporting it. It has snowballed from there. Despite continued opposition from top avian evolutionist.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47: The current weight of the evidence is that dinosaurs gave rise to the birds. An OSU professor has an alternative theory, but as far as I can tell no real unambiguous proof, just some coincidences and a hypothesis. He may be right, but he has a long way to go to overthrow the current evidence. The correct hypothesis is the one with the best case, not the one that happens to have the latest papers published. Casting aspersions on the theorists is just dumb; only more digging will tell.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Glad to hear your open to change your opinion. Not glad that your opinion rides the wave of cultural popularity instead of good science. The weight of evidence is quality, not quantity! And if the aspersions fit, then guilty parties we must not acquit. OSU Professor (he is far from the only one) said: Dino/bird evo. was made popular by "Triassic Park'. Scientist smelled money and ran with it. After all Evolution is not a development science. It produces nothing. "clarification.web.___
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47: What does cultural popularity have to do with it? It's the weight of the evidence. Right now, that's with the dinosaurs->raptors->birds theory, and both quality and quantity have a part in that. Show me what evidence the birds from reptile theory has; any fossils from the Permian? the Triassic? Show me. Triassic Park (whatever you think that is) doesn't excuse your conspiracy theory, and demos your ignorance.
For what science thinks, see ucmpDOTberkeleyDOTedu/diapsids/avians.html
puncheex 1 year ago
... As pointed out in the article, Avian development was essentially settled in the 70s, 20 years before Jurassic Park the book or the movie. Show me where movie money ever had a part in it; that was in the dinosaurs, plain and simple.
And then, what's a "development science"? Evolution produces predictions about likely adaptations and species in the future; is that a better or worse development than gravitational theory? I swear, your creationists will create differences out of thin air.
puncheex 1 year ago
flying Dinosaurs- bear cavarly aint got a chance!
wizzzer1337 1 year ago
"or something like feathers".....
grfield1 1 year ago
why would God put feathers on dinosaurs? does anyone know? i can't find it on the Bible.
billjesusgates 1 year ago
2- 'and, birds are brightly colored just like theyre ground dwelling ancient grand daddys!
acerb45666555 1 year ago
a bird is a reptile! look at its legs and claws! its reptilian eyes! its sharp and slow lizard type movements! the thing is to find the missing link. that creature that actually took flight and got covered in feathers seperating it from other common reptiles. but its still a reptile!! a unique special reptile! look at a starlings face up close. what you see is a tiny flying dinosaur glaring back at you!
acerb45666555 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"a bird is a reptile!"
"Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?" (ScienceDaily, Feb. 10, 2010)
"The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds...We think the evidence is finally showing that [Raptors] which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: By jingo, it's science at work. The plucky OSU prof with the minority theory that raptors are birds, challenging the heavyweight champion theory, supported by evidence, the science establishment and an ocean of grant money, and doing it not with congresscritters and FOX and local school boards but with peer-reviewed papers. Can you imagine? No lawyered paper barrages, not seeking doctorates in birdology sciences, no flaky senatorial speeches. Just science. What are they thinking? :D
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex 3 of 3
As for Natural Selection, I recommend: "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings" by Jerry Fodor (London Review of Books, October 2007)... and be sure not to miss his rebuttals to the letters he received challenging his conclusion.
"Here's the problem: you can read adaptationism as saying that environments select creatures for their fitness; or you can read it as saying that environments select traits for their fitness."
So which is it, and why?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@puncheex 2 of 3
Basically, all you have is unambiguous proof, some coincidences and a few crummy hypotheses. Please see Paul Davis' article, "Taking Science on Faith" (NYT, 2007)
"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith...the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm...until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@puncheex 1 of 3
"An OSU professor has an alternative theory, but as far as I can tell no real unambiguous proof, just some coincidences and a hypothesis."
Let me get this straight. You dismiss his work because he lacks direct proof and evidence, right? Okay, then what direct proof and evidence do you have which proves abiogenesis, the initial cause of the Big Bang, or how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes... and then into the complex organisms found in the Cambrian?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: Sticking to the issue: No, it's creationists who expect one to see the evolution actually happen before they will think seriously about it. I'm willing to see the fossils of birds in the Permian and Triassic ages, and then I'll say that they are accumulating significant evidence. That evidence is there if their theory is true. It may take a year or maybe 100 years to uncover it, but it will be there if the theory is real.
As for the rest, pick one, make a case and we'll go at it.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex B of B
"As for the rest, pick one..."
Abiogenesis
Wiki says, "As of 2010, no one has yet synthesized a 'protocell' using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life... Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics."
Short on specifics?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: Yup, and as far as I know it's true. So what? Is there something wrong in our world if a theory that explains abiogenesis hasn't yet been pushed to the proof-of -principle stage yet? Let's see - we discovered DNA in 1920s, figured out what it did in 1953, uncovered the human genome in the last decade. It seems to me biology is making spectacular progress in the direction in the past 100 years. If it takes another 100, or 200, well then, that's what it takes. You in a hurry?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex 3 of 3
RE abiogenesis: "So what?"
So you admit there's absolutely ZERO evidence proving this ever happened, but yet you insist that it did. And you justify this by suggesting that science will eventually find the answer. But in the meantime, without ANY evidence, you are merely reduced to sheer faith that abiogenesis took place based only on your presupposition that creation was not a supernatural event.
PS - And please don't forget about that pesky "chirality problem."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: No, I wouldn't say there is zero evidence. We're here arguing, aren't we? And as time goes on, more and more of the gaps are being filled in: Can proteins self assemble? Are amino acids capable of being produced outside life? Can we essay a way to assemble a lipid wall? I believe that science will, fairly soon, be able to reproduce all the steps necessary to create life in a lab. It won't be our life, but it will have all the earmarks of life that you care to declare.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex 2 of 3
"It seems to me biology is making spectacular progress in the direction in the past 100 years."
Yes, biology is making great progress, but with each step it continues to fail to prove that everything evolved from common ancestor. In fact, the same article says, "It started well... By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory. Ironically, the OPPOSITE happened."
Ironic, indeed!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@puncheex 1 of 3
"we discovered DNA in 1920s..."
Since then we have learned that DNA is infinitely more complex than anyone realized. See "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life" (New Scientist, Jan 2009) which says:
"MANY biologists now argue that the tree concept is OBSOLETE and needs to be DISCARDED. 'We have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that the tree of life is a reality,' says [Eric] Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: Since you don't talk about what that "opposite" is, I will (I assume the reference is to that New Scientist you mention later). What it says is that there is more than one way for life to interact. Some life splits, making another being separate from itself. That is the way of the tree branching, the way favored by plants and animals and most other beings in the natural world, and most certainly, though not exclusively, by those who use sex.
puncheex 1 year ago
... Another way, used by single celled prokayotes and eukaryotes, is by simple chromosomal exchange or gene transfer. There is no doubt that that was used back in the age when the apex species were monocellular, and is still used by them today. In that case the tree is no longer a valid model; propagation becomes more of a network.
puncheex 1 year ago
... But that manner of "reproduction" is not appropriate for multicellular beings, and the reason must be obvious; any multicellular being that used gene transfer methods would soon disintegrate. The cells would be working to cross purposes, specialization would lead to body-anarchy. Multicellular beings require harmony and common purpose in the cells, trusting that specialized cells aren't going to strike off on their own, and so on.
puncheex 1 year ago
... So Darwin's tree has a messy ball of intertwined pathways at it's roots. The last gasp of that sort of thing involves the incorporating of primitive prokaryotes symbiotically into more advanced cells, whence came chloroplasts in plants, and mitochondria and other organelles in animal cells. One final lick: sometimes a couple of twigs which recently budded from a common parent can re-engage to produce a hybrid.
puncheex 1 year ago
... Beyond the mundane examples of the liger, the cama and the mule, mankind itself may well enjoy the fruits of hybridization with chimpanzees and neandertal man in the past.
Does that make the "tree of life" obsolete? No. It is as applicable now as it was before we knew anything about the personal lives of bacteria, and a bacteriologist may have to work it out, but I'm mainly interested in multicellular life, and the tree model works just fine, thank you.
puncheex 1 year ago
... Does this bother me? Not at all. I am who I am; I don't depend, though I may rejoice, on who my grandparents may have been. And the science works just fine for me. I gleefully admit that this last puts holes into any clean definition of what exactly a species is, but Nature doesn't read or need biology texts to do what she does. I'm content to observe and correct my impressions as better understandings become possible.
puncheex 1 year ago
... I fully understand how that can be upsetting to someone requiring constancy and a "firm bedrock" for their lives; I guess I'm just lucky.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex B of B
“Organic molecules...have spontaneously assembled themselves in these flasks. Neither DNA nor RNA has appeared, but the building blocks of these large molecules, called purines and pyrimidines, have. So have the building blocks of proteins, amino acids. The MISSING LINK for this class of theories is still the ORIGIN OF REPLICATION. The building blocks HAVEN'T come together to form a self-replicating chain like RNA. MAYBE one day they will" (Dawkins, Watchmaker, p 148, 1995)
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: Amen, brother.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
"I'm content to observe and correct my impressions as better understandings become possible."
Speaking of observing, can any of the events of origins (Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc) ever be "observed"? If not, then how can they ever be tested and falsified?
Seems like step 2 of the scientific process will always be missing from the process which reduces the acceptance of any theories about origins to faith! (Again, see Paul Davies' article: "Taking Science on Faith")
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@puncheex A of B
"No, I wouldn't say there is zero evidence. We're here arguing, aren't we?"
LOL! That is not evidence for abiogenesis!!
"I believe that science will, fairly soon, be able to reproduce all the steps necessary to create life in a lab."
Isn't that exactly what Dawkins said in Watchmaker 15 years ago?...
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: Gods, you wouldn't know facetious if it whacked you on the head. Yet, in a larger sense, we wouldn't be here arguing had it not been for abiogenesis, at least from my side of this discussion.
Sure, it may be what Dawkins said 15 years ago. Do you deny that we have come closer closer in that time? Hasn't announcements from Collins and Ventor's labs brought it closer? Are you in some big rush, for some reason? By "short time" I had in mind something on the order of 50-100 years.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
"we wouldn't be here arguing had it not been for abiogenesis, at least from my side of this discussion."
Again, not evidence. And from my side, God determined for us to meet.
"Hasn't announcements from Collins and Ventor's labs brought it closer?"
No! Dr. Venter: "We created a new cell. It's alive. But we DIDN'T CREATE LIFE FROM SCRATCH. We created, as all life on this planet is, out of a living cell." ("Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch,' CNN, May 21, 2010).
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: No they're right - they didn't. But it's another step. A metaphor: when we went to the moon, we didn't do it in one simple step. We developed three different programs with three different rockets, tested fuels, developed navigation and guidance systems, sent men into LOE, and later into moon orbit. Likewise, biologists take one step at a time, develop this necessary technique or that one, create testing systems, review, and then finally do IT. And that's how it will be, I believe.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex 2 of 2
Look, I understand your metaphor and believe science will continue to make great progress. But the problem seems to be that each time one mystery is unraveled (e.g., junk DNA actually isn’t junk, but is useful), it only complicates things even further.
BTW, is knowledge about origins necessary for anything we do today? Why is it so important that we find out about the past, especially since (as atheists claim) there is no afterlife and we are all destined for non-existence?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: Sure, that's true. So do you think then that we'll never round on the problem as a whole, even given the fact that life is full of unanswered (as yet) questions? I think that that is simply an implication of the fact that the area is so new that we don't really know the scope of the problem yet; that's why I'm giving it a while.
puncheex 1 year ago
... Is it necessary? Not in a survival meaning; there's nothing crucial about the answers, not like global warming. But as you find it humanly necessary to know your purpose and place vis-a-vis your god, I likewise want to know where I'm from and where I'm going, on a physical plane. Call it curiosity; and I know I'll not hear all of it. That's OK too.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex 1 of 2
"when we went to the moon, we didn't do it in one simple step."
Speaking of the moon, how did it form? After all, wasn't that one of the main reason we went there?
They have no idea about origins, but they did find water in tiny glass beads which is highly problematic for the Giant Impact Theory. (See "Glass Beads From Moon Hint Of Watery Past," NPR, July 9, 2008) As Erik Hauri says in the article, "That's a really, really difficult knot to untie."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: I think the bets theory of that to date is called the Big Splash theory (physicists can be incorrigible about names). Look it up in wikipedia, and I'd appreciate knowing what you think, apart from the fact that it happened 4.4 billion years ago or so. Going to the moon lead to a lot of that theory; surprisingly, it opened up a lot of the Earth's early history as well. Many of the early periods now defined for that time get their name and their events from investigation of the moon.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex D of D
Finally, your comment that you "want to know where [you're] from and where [you're] going" perfectly validate Ecclesiastes 3:11 which says: "Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end."
Do you think the animals we supposedly evolved from think about such things? No way! They are just trying to surive by finding their next meal and mate. This is unique to humans.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@puncheex C of D
"I likewise want to know where I'm from and where I'm going, on a physical plane"
Where do you believe you are going? Also, do you agree with what Professor Provine said:
"There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@puncheex B of D
"Is it necessary? Not in a survival meaning; there's nothing crucial about the answers..."
Since you admit that knowing about origins doesn't contribute anything to the survivability of our species, then why does it matter? Is it helping us find cures for terrible diseases? No. Then why spend billions on that type of research? Sure, dino fossils are cool to look at, but couldn't the money spent on research teams who find them be better utilized to solve real problems?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@puncheex A of D
"apart from the fact that it happened 4.4 billion years ago or so"
That fact alone is a huge problem!
"The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the well-known time scale problem; the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago." (Touma and Wisdom, "Evolution of the Earth-Moon System," The Astronomical Journal, Nov. 1994)
According to uniformitarianism, the moon would have been too close to the earth just 1B years ago to escape its orbit.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@puncheex A of B
"evidence is there if their theory is true."
Not likely. See "Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes" (PhysOrg, Nov 9, 2010)
Some evidence is backwards. Xu Xing: "We thought previously that we had a relatively simple pattern - as dino[s] became smaller in size they became more birdlike. Now, after the discovery of Gigantoraptor, things get more complicated" ("Massive Birdlike Dinosaur Unearthed in China," NatGeo, 07).
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
Comment removed
puncheex 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1: OK, I read it. His thesis is that Darwin was foreshadowed by Matthew. OK, I'll believe it. And perhaps Darwin didn't give as much emphasis to catastrophe as is needed, thereby requiring Gould to invent PE. So, what is the point? For me, science marches on. It corrects its mistakes. Darwin is no god or saint that requires worship. So? Same with Xu Xing: so? there may be changes required to established bird evolution. If the evidence comes, so shall it be.
puncheex 1 year ago
... I see no reason why either of these negates what I said about evidence being found if a change in the theory is required. Matthew said that catastrophes have to be handled; Darwin didn't think they did. We find they do; PE does that. Point? Xu finds that an idea in bird evo is wrong - needs a rethink. So? Neither does anything to dislodge the ToE from science as far as I can see.
puncheex 1 year ago
One of my deepest passion of my life: the evolution! Great film!
MacKlaus71 2 years ago
" or something like feathers"
JesusVencera 2 years ago
1 of 2
Hey, did you happen to catch the article: "Mammals beat reptiles in battle of evolution" (LiveScience, July 31, 2009)?
Mammals, birds and fish are among evolutions "winners," while crocodiles and other reptiles have ended up on the losing end, a new study suggests. "Our results indicate that mammals are special," said study leader Michael Alfaro of UCLA...
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
2 of 2
The timing of the rate increases does not correspond to the appearance of key characteristics that have been invoked to explain the evolutionary success of these groups, such as hair on mammals or mammals' well-coordinated chewing ability or feathers on birds. Our results suggest that something more recent is the cause of the biodiversity. It may be that something more subtle explains the evolutionary success of mammals, birds and fish. We need to look for new explanations.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Intresting. And your point is? If you think this works as evidence against evolutionary theory, you are wrong. The fact of evolution is too visible to deny even though the theory - as any scientific explanation - is continuously questioned as it should in order to keep the science progressing.
Also, though mammals have some excellent characteristics, being endothermic does come with a cost (ie. we need to eat more often than exothermic animals do.)
pienipaha 2 years ago
Actually, I didn't suggests this "works against evolution." I was just curious for your thoughts. I did, however, find it interesting to see the timing of the rate increases don't correspond with characteristics such as feathers on birds. Also that their findings "suggest that something more recent is the cause of the biodiversity," and that "new explanations" are needed.
Again, not proof again evolution, just interesting to think about.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
yes indeed - interesting.
I'll look up the paper when I got more time, it might point a few things not mentioned in the article itself. It's always more useful to see the whole study, since articles have to cut off some to fit the main idea.
pienipaha 2 years ago
@AA32m7io1 i left a message already, but i'll respond to this one too. Radiation would be a possible explanation for rapid evolution and diversity. Massive sun spots, meteors, and super novas of neighboring stars would result in radiation levels that could trigger rapid mutation. Alot of the mutations were subtle creating many variations of every type of animal, but there would have also been massive mutation that,if successful, would create amazing evolutions that actually worked to benefit.
spiderweb20 8 months ago
@spiderweb20
"Radiation would be a possible explanation for rapid evolution and diversity. "
Can you please explain how so much radiation was able to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere to trigger rapid mutations since it has been shown there was “abundant oxygen” at 3.46 B years, and that the “atmosphere was as oxygen rich as it is today”? If early atmosphere was similar to today, wouldn't it block the radiation?
See: “Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth" (PhysOrg, Mar. 24, 2009)
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 even with our atmosphere now, radiation from the sun gets in. There's a documentary i watched that mentioned that if a nearby sun went super nova, that it would effect the earth. Same goes when sunspots occur on our own sun. Usually they're small bursts, but there is the occasional large one and the radiation from it is stronger. Our atmosphere doesn't protect against all the radiation, only a certain amount of it.
spiderweb20 8 months ago
@spiderweb20
“Our atmosphere doesn't protect against all the radiation, only a certain amount of it.”
I agree. But wouldn’t an increased amount of radiation kill developing life?
As for “creat[ing] amazing evolutions that actually worked to benefit,” fruit flies have been zapped by radiation but the results are terrible. It basically resulted in numerous deformities (short wings, blindness, etc)...but it NEVER resulted in the fruit flies evolving into anything other than more fruit flies.
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 It would for sure kill off alot of life. But some would survive. Mind you, it wouldn';t have to be a massive increase in radiation. Just enough to increase the rate of mutation slightly. In a lab, scientists only irradiate a few flies, in a controlled lab. In the wild, there's too many factors to account for that could result in mutations that work and stay. Anyways, it's just a theory. Just like everything else regarding why evolution makes such big jumps.
spiderweb20 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 Go and be a Scientist !
gregrutz 9 months ago
Creationists or what ever - stop posting your retarded arguments here - there is nothing new you could throw at me. I've done this for 5 frigging years.
Go see AronRa - he's better qualified than me. I'm just a humble scholar who doesn't give a fuck. I'd just rather educate others and myself than explain things that have been explained trououghly multiple times before.
My site is not for or about creationists - it's pure science - documentaries old and new! End of line.
pienipaha 2 years ago
Also, can you please explain why all of the animal phyla in the Cambrian era suddenly appear with no evolutionary ancestors in the preCambrian?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
And I do understand the theories that preCambrian fossils must not have formed because they were soft bodied with no bones or shells (although many have now been found in China and Greenland).
So how do you explain the sudden explosion in the Cambrian fossil record? Am I oversimplifying things again?
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
"Am I oversimplifying things again? "
Yes.
This "sudden appearance" happened in a time frame of more than 50 million years. During it, the rate of evolution accelerated.
And yes, there are ancestors for the cambrian critters.
Also look up Ediacaran period.
pienipaha 2 years ago
Is that why Stephen Gould wrote:
"The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years [not 50], nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash." Stephen Jay Gould, "An Asteroid to Die For," Discover, October 1989
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Check out the year, a bit outdated don't you think?
And "every major kind of animal anatomy" - really? Are you sure?
pienipaha 2 years ago
And what do you think about the new theory: Partial penetrance?
"How Evolution Can Allow For Large Developmental Leaps" (ScienceDaily, July 21, 2009)
That just sounds like another fancy scientific term to explain away the gaps. While the study is interesting, it does not seem to account for how new genetic information is created.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Not this again.
And there are known cases of "new information" in the genome.
See nylon eating bacteria, for example.
Some forms of mutation also add genes.
You are just full of cliches, aren't you ;)
pienipaha 2 years ago
And speaking of the Ediacaran period, I found this fun quote:
"The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity [280 lenses] or acuity by later arthropods... I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record."
Stephen Jay Gould, "The Ediacaran Experiment," Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 2223
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Your point?
Trilobite eyes are not found in the natural world today because their lineage went extinct.
Once again : use only new sources - not 20 year old ones. Secondly, don't quote mine.
Third: view videos from AronRa and Thunderfoot. Especially the first mentioned has a series explaining these things in much better detail than what I can stuff into 500 characters.
You're probably just going to brag to your pals how I gave up -but hey, that it's like to play chess with a pidgeon.
pienipaha 2 years ago
"You're probably just going to brag to your pals how I gave up"
Not at all. I appreciate the the conversation. As for cliches, just remember that Nebraska Man was the only pig that made a monkey out of man. (ha - I love that one!)
See ya - AA32
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Umm, no. Read the original article about the discovery - and not the misinterpretations. (Or in some cases out right lies.)
The version I heard was that they found blood cells, which isn't quite right either.
pienipaha 2 years ago
That green jumping bird was hilarious at 5:00 xD
Looks like a poorly done smiley face :B
HomoCyborgZombie 2 years ago
They should just clone a REAL Dinosaur, like in Jurassic Park, then they'll know if Dinosaurs really did have feathers or not!
ofelixdacat 2 years ago
Not possible, as DNA isn't preserved that long.
We do have dinosaurs though, as birds are classified as such.
pienipaha 2 years ago
Not Possible....YET! We'll see in about 50 years....
ofelixdacat 2 years ago
Well, with genetic sciences evolving at an alarming rate, it's still VERY imporabable that we could extract enough DNA from fossils and clone them to make dinosaurs. The problem is, we can't create a whole line of DNA without knowing all of the sequence, and you can't get that in fossils over 100,000 years old. However, scientists have discovered that birds have the old genes of dinosaurs still in them, it's just a matter of learning how to reactivate them!
S0XF0X 2 years ago
Right not it is Improvable, but Cloning a sheep was once Improvable. Never Say Never. Where there's a will, there's a way.
ofelixdacat 2 years ago
I'm not saying we couldn't recreate dinosaurs, but I am saying we most likely can't do so by collecting genes from fossils. Cloning a sheep is easy because we have all of their DNA, but we can't get that from dinosaurs. I think, if we do recreat dinosaurs, it'll be by activating old bird genes.
S0XF0X 2 years ago
Well, I never said we could clone dinosaurs using fossils, but Bird DNA sounds more of a likely choice, although there are still a bunch of Problems with that, problems that hopefully may eventually be solved with the progression of Mankind and Science. I know scientist have considered cloning the Woolly Mammoth, but that has proven to be very complicated as well.
ofelixdacat 2 years ago
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
(ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009)
Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight - and the finding means it's UNLIKELY that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
The conclusions... may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs.
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
Not new to me.
That birds are not descended directly from theropod dinosaurs doesn't mean they couldn't be descended from dinosaurs or a branch that diversed into theropods and birds. There is no known theropod in the fossil record that we could surely say is the ancestor of birds. It is still likely that birds are reptile descendants, even dinosaurs even if not actual theropods.
pienipaha 2 years ago
The article mentioned birds possibly started as aparaller path alongside dinosaurs - possibly from a common ancestor they share with dinosaurs. Reptilian ancestry has little doubt, after all, birds have the genes to make teeth and tail which are quite un-acian features.
pienipaha 2 years ago
You say "There is no known theropod in the fossil record that we could surely say is the ancestor of birds." So then how can you be certain that birds evolved from reptile descendants?
John Ruben said in his report, "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from. That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories."
AA32m7io1 2 years ago
No one has been certain birds evolved from theropods but from a common ancestor they share. Reptilian origin is not questioned.
pienipaha 2 years ago