English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

11 answers

If you look at the popular evolutionists’ “dinosaur family tree” you will see that they say birds evolved from an ancestor of the theropod dinosaurs. But this dinosaur family tree does not present observed scientific fact. Rather, it presents assumptions, hypotheses and beliefs as if they are observed fact.

Now, one thing you have to realize is that bird evolution is one of the most controversial areas in evolutionary paleontology and evolutionists often disagree and criticize each other.

And we hear a lot of reports of feathered dinosaurs being found, but what you rarely hear, is that the main candidates are believed by many experts to simply be frayed collagen fibers, or hair like structures that could have supported a frill or crest like those on iguanas, or are on animals that are not dinosaurs, but flightless birds. The drawings are certainly not what we find; they are just the artists’ imagination.

Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds and an evolutionist, along with his coworkers have presented a substantial body of evidence to support their view that there are, in fact, no known dinosaurs with feathers (they believe birds evolved from different reptiles called crocodilomorphs, but not dinosaurs).

And then you have ones like Archaeoraptor that was proven to be a hoax. Who knows how many times that will happen.

All these announcements of feathered dinosaurs cause a lot of media fanfare, but when they are refuted, there is scarcely a whimper in the media. There is usually a deafening silence when the latest “evidence” for evolution joins the long list of items which are no longer believed by evolutionists themselves.

You may be thinking, “But what about Archaeopteryx? That has been used for years and years.” Archaeopteryx was a true perching bird with fully formed wings and flight feathers, as well as a large wishbone for the attachment of muscles used for the downstroke of the wings.

So what is all the fuss about; why is Archaeopteryx such an icon of dino-to-bird evolution? Well, it had teeth in the bill, claws on the wings, no keel on the breast bone, an unfused backbone, and a long bony tail, which are all characteristics most people associate with reptiles.

But as Dr. Gary Parker said, “...the reptile-like features are not really as reptile-like as you might suppose. The familiar ostrich, for example, has claws on its wings that are even more ‘reptile-like’ than those of Archaeopteryx. Several birds, such as the hoatzin, don’t have much of a keel. The penguin has unfused backbones and a bony tail. No living birds have socketed teeth, but some fossil birds do. Besides, some reptiles have teeth and some don’t, so the presence or absence of teeth is not particularly important in distinguishing the two groups.”

Dr. Alan Feduccia (like I said, an evolutionist, and by the way, one who doesn’t like creationists quoting him) said, “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

On top of that, scientists have found fossils of what they would call “true birds” in layers of rock that they date as being older than Archaeopteryx. That presents a problem for them.

I believe Archaeopteryx was simply something of a mosaic like a bat or platypus. Similar structures can just as easily point to a common designer. God knew what designs would work well in multiple animals.

What they need to find, is a fossil showing scales turning into feathers, or a leg turning into a wing, or (I know we don't normally find soft parts preserved) the reptile lung turning into the avian lung. How you can take a “two-way” reptile lung and evolve it into a fully functional “one-way” bird lung without causing extinction of the species is quite a conundrum.

And there are other problems. Feduccia and his team studied bird embryos under a microscope and published their study in the journal Science. They reported, “New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is ‘almost impossible’ for the species to be closely related.”

And then there is the new T-rex and chicken link based on that T-rex soft tissue they found. But as usual, we don’t ever get to hear the whole story. Dr. David DeWitt commented on this and said, “Of all the organisms in the sequence database, the one that matched T. rex the closest was the chicken. Now, before assuming that this would be strong evidence that birds are related to dinosaurs, it must be put into perspective. The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58%, while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows. Moreover, while some of the peptide fragments showed sequence matches to chickens, others matched frog, or newt, or even fish and mice. The authors did point out that not all organisms are in the database. Although the chicken was the closest match from the database, it is possible that animals not included could be a closer match. Regardless, such similarity does not prove that the organisms shared an evolutionary ancestor.”

There is no credible evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds. As the Lingham-Soliar team said, “What is missing are the links between Archaeopteryx and other species that would show how it evolved. But [the] fossil record is frustratingly small and incomplete and this is why debate has been so fierce.” I think the fossil record is just fine; it teaches us that dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds.

I like what Dr. Jonathan Sarfati said, “It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!”

2007-10-26 08:37:42 · answer #1 · answered by Questioner 7 · 0 0

Biblical chronology says the birds came first. It is supported by the fossil of Archaeopteryx discovered in Germany. It was a fully developed bird believed to have evolved directly from a marine ancestor. Dinosaurs with feathers came fromn an independent line. By the way, the chicken came before the egg because God did not create an egg but a chicken.

2007-10-21 16:36:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes, I do. As for feathered dinosaurs, this is where that idea has come from.

2007-10-21 16:17:53 · answer #3 · answered by punch 7 · 0 0

Yes I do.
I used to have chickens as pets and the way they move their eyes is exactly how dinosaurs supposed to have done.

2007-10-21 16:12:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

This is not a matter of belief.

Birds or 'Aves' is a paraphyletic clade and therefore not submissible in pure phylogenetic cladistics.

They do form a group within the Archosauria.

*I wonder what I got a thumbs down for? I'm not making this stuff up.*

2007-10-21 16:12:26 · answer #5 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 2 1

of course I believe in everything which is part of my dinosaur-religion

2007-10-21 16:19:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The devil put those bones there to hide the truth about the Genesis account of creation from smart people.

2007-10-21 16:21:28 · answer #7 · answered by AL 3 · 1 1

Wrong section. I am an Atheist not a paleontologist or archaeologist.

2007-10-21 16:50:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes an Alligators and sharks.

2007-10-21 16:12:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Ask this on the biology board.
.

2007-10-21 16:12:49 · answer #10 · answered by Weird Darryl 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers