• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists, please provide evidence

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
"This model was not consistent with successful flight from the ground up, and that makes it pretty difficult to make a case for a ground-dwelling theropod dinosaur to have developed wings and flown away," Ruben said. "On the other hand, it would have been quite possible for birds to have evolved and then, at some point, have various species lose their flight capabilities and become ground-dwelling, flightless animals -- the raptors. This may be hugely upsetting to a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense."
IOW, some experts in the field say that while evolution definitely happened, these particular species may have evolved in a slightly different way than was originally assumed.

How does this help your case that evolution did not happen?

And, more relevant to the thread, how do you make the leap from there to the case that Biblical creationism happened?
 

Noaidi

slow walker
The bizarre migratory adventures aren't an issue with "kinds"; they're an issue with the claim that all animals originated from a single point on Earth... twice (once from the Garden of Eden, and once from Noah's Ark).

I agree. I was just thinking how these fixed kinds apparently migrated across the globe leaving little evidence of themselves along the way, or the biological impossibility of certain animals spreading wide from a central point. The wombat mentioned by Auto earlier came to mind.


But that's the thing: the Bible does elaborate. It doesn't explicitly give a specific definition, but it does do a lot of spelling out of what animals are different "kinds".

Yes, it doesn't specify what it means by 'kinds' - it only gives examples ('birds' 'fish' and so on). That's what I meant by the bible not elaborating.
 

newhope101

Active Member
I think that the overwhelming consensus is dinosaurs came first and what is wrong with debate over small aspects of a theory? Please provide evidence that we lie (an ad hominem I might add). What does "I will call same huge liars also" mean? Our evidence is stable and most of it is easy to understand.

Pal it's not small at all. The reversal of the ine clearly indicates that researchers can make anything they want fit into any model. Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour and therefore I expect researchers have lied about much and will continue to do so. Genomic data often does not line up with the proposed fossil records which provides more suportive evidence that researchers are a bunch of liars.

This article below shows more evidence for the 'OLD' dino to bird theory. Here again evidence abounds for a recently refuted dino to bird theory. It's just woffling on.

"Further, the lack of expression of the HoxD-11 gene in the first finger of the wing makes it most similar to finger one (the "thumb") of the mouse, consistent with comparative morphology. However, the mouse is only distantly related to birds; crocodilians, in turn, are bird's closest living relatives."

Next they'll be telling us birds evolved from mice and no doubt you would believe it.

Really, similarities between species means nothing..all your evolutionary lines mean nothing. It's pointless debating with those that use outdated and refuted evidence. That's no more scientific that quoting bible verses. Once upon a time you appeared to have a plausable theory. Now, with recent genomic mapping, all you have is a mess.

For heaven's sake, Trichoplax shares 80% of its' genes with humans. What does it all mean...absolutely nothing at all in relation to ancestry, other than God, at least, knew what he was doing.

So for creationists to debate you successfully YOU actually have to come up with some evidence that is not refuted by other well credentialed research. You also need to finally define 'species' and change your happy tree into something that actually represents reality.
Gene Expression In Alligators Suggests Birds Have 'Thumbs'

ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 2008) — The latest breakthrough in a 120 year-old debate on the evolution of the bird wing was published in the open-access journal PLoS ONE, October 3, by Alexander Vargas and colleagues at Yale University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History.



Bird wings only have three fingers, having evolved from remote ancestors that, like humans and most reptiles, had five fingers. Biologists have typically used embryology to identify the evolutionary origin (homology) of structures; the three fingers of the bird wing develop from cartilage condensations that are found in the same positions in the embryo as fingers two, three and four of humans (the index, middle and ring fingers). However, the morphology of the fingers of early birds such as Archaeopteryx corresponds to that of fingers one, two and three in other reptiles (thumb, index and middle finger). The fossil record clearly shows that fingers four and five (ring and pinky finger) were lost and reduced in the dinosaur ancestors of birds.
Further, the lack of expression of the HoxD-11 gene in the first finger of the wing makes it most similar to finger one (the "thumb") of the mouse, consistent with comparative morphology. However, the mouse is only distantly related to birds; crocodilians, in turn, are bird's closest living relatives.
To see whether the evidence from mouse HoxD-11 expression held up, Vargas and colleagues, working at the lab of Gunter Wagner at Yale, have examined the expression of this gene in alligators; they found the expression to be, as in mice, absent only in finger one (the "thumb").
Developmental and evolutionary biologists are familiar with the phenomenon of homeotic transformations, in which one structure begins to develop at a different position within the body. A famous example is the case of the fruitfly mutant antennapaedia, which develops legs on its head instead of antennae. The new work by Vargas et al. rekindles the hypothesis that a "hometic frameshift" occurred in the evolution of the bird wing, such that fingers one, two and three began to develop from the embryological positions of fingers two, three and four.
 

McBell

Unbound
There is more than sufficient evidence that reserchers lie for the sake of self glory and have no idea what they are doing. The dino-bird dilemma is just one example. As far as I am concerned this debarkle has finallised my theory that researchers are prepared to fabricate all evidence in a vain attempt to glorify themsleves.
So you base your whole creation defense on the dishonesty of some INDIVIDUALS?
Are you serious?

Again, how many times have evolutionists shoved the dino to bird stages in creationist faces claiming it is irrefutable evidence of one kind morphing into another kind. Guess what ....they LIED. You LIED.
You cannot call liar based on this simply because you have not been able to give a definitive definition of the word 'kind'.

Now I understand that you are desperate, but do not let your desperation cause you even MORE fuzzy thinking.

Since some of you call creationists liars, I will call same huge liars also.
If you do not like being called a liar, stop lying.
It really is as simple as that.

You lied when you posted your dino to bird info. You lied when you said it was irrefutable evidence. You lied when you said you had fossils and could show how all the bones and fossils morphed. You lied when you said the dates and the geological evidence supported the claim and it was fact.
Now you are lying about what was stated.
You just cannot stop yourself from lying, can you?

The retraction of the dino to bird theory proves some evolutionists are prepared to lie and fabricate evidence.
Any retraction by the scientific community is based on being honest and admiting to a mistake.
Something you have shown to be completely incapable of doing.


These researchers were liars and they took you all for fools on the ride of a lifetime. You should all be embarassed at this fabrication of evidence.
Seems perhaps you should take your own advice....
I doubt you will, since so far all your evidence for creation has been nothing more that lies about evolution.

You have all lied to creationists. You pretended to understand the evidence. You pretended that the evidence was clear and solid. You lied and criticised creationists as being stupid and uneducated for not accepting clear and substantiated evidence.

You will never live it down nor recover from this lie and fabrication of the supportive evidence and dating that was required. You lied for the sake of your cause. You are big pretenders that pretend to understand this evidence, when clearly you do not.

Most of you evolutionists are LIARS. You have lied and lied and lied about this.

LIARS!
Nice little rant of transference.
Are you finished?
Have you gotten it out of your system yet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

McBell

Unbound
Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) — A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.

  • A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.
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're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.
"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
Another study last year from Florida State University raised similar doubts, Ruben said.
In the newest PNAS study, scientists examined a remarkable fossil specimen that had feathers on all four limbs, somewhat resembling a bi-plane. Glide tests based on its structure concluded it would not have been practical for it to have flown from the ground up, but it could have glided from the trees down, somewhat like a modern-day flying squirrel. Many researchers have long believed that gliders such as this were the ancestors of modern birds.
"This model was not consistent with successful flight from the ground up, and that makes it pretty difficult to make a case for a ground-dwelling theropod dinosaur to have developed wings and flown away," Ruben said. "On the other hand, it would have been quite possible for birds to have evolved and then, at some point, have various species lose their flight capabilities and become ground-dwelling, flightless animals -- the raptors. This may be hugely upsetting to a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense."
In their own research, including one study just last year in the Journal of Morphology, OSU scientists found that the position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their ability to have adequate lung capacity for sustained long-distance flight, a fundamental aspect of bird biology. Theropod dinosaurs did not share this feature. Other morphological features have also been identified that are inconsistent with a bird-from-dinosaur theory. And perhaps most significant, birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. That would be consistent with raptors descending from birds, Ruben said, but not the reverse.
OSU research on avian biology and physiology has been raising questions on this issue since the 1990s, often in isolation. More scientists and other studies are now challenging the same premise, Ruben said. The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.
"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with
This is not evidence for creation.
Care to try again?

Or perhaps you are saying that the only 'evidence' you have for creation is your wishful thinking that evolution is false?
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Mass Extinction: Why Did Half of N. America's Large Mammals Disappear 40,000 to 10,000 Years Ago?

ScienceDaily (Nov. 27, 2009) — Years of scientific debate over the extinction of ancient species in North America have yielded many theories. However, new findings from J. Tyler Faith, GW Ph.D. candidate in the hominid paleobiology doctoral program, and Todd Surovell, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming, reveal that a mass extinction occurred in a geological instant.
  • During the late Pleistocene, 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, North America lost over 50 percent of its large mammal species. These species include mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, among many others. In total, 35 different genera (groups of species) disappeared, all of different habitat preferences and feeding habits.
However, new findings from Faith indicate that the extinction is best characterized as a sudden event that took place between 13.8 and 11.4 thousand years ago. Faith's findings support the idea that this mass extinction was due to human overkill, comet impact or other rapid events rather than a slow attrition


Lets first begin by inserting the parts you left out...

What event or factor could cause such a mass extinction? The many hypotheses that have been developed over the years include: abrupt change in climate, the result of comet impact, human overkill and disease. Some researchers believe that it may be a combination of these factors, one of them, or none.
A particular issue that has also contributed to this debate focuses on the chronology of extinctions. The existing fossil record is incomplete, making it more difficult to tell whether or not the extinctions occurred in a gradual process, or took place as a synchronous event. In addition, it was previously unclear whether species are missing from the terminal Pleistocene because they had already gone extinct or because they simply have not been found yet.

.......

"The massive extinction coincides precisely with human arrival on the continent, abrupt climate change, and a possible extraterrestrial impact event" said Faith. "It remains possible that any one of these or all, contributed to the sudden extinctions. We now have a better understanding of when the extinctions took place and the next step is to figure out why."

Mass extinction: Why did half of N. America's large mammals disappear 40,000 to 10,000 years ago?

None of this supports any Creationist model I have ever heard of.:facepalm:


Maybe the extinctions were caused by Supervolcanoes...

Scientists explore origins of 'supervolcanoes' on the sea floor: Ancient goliaths blamed for multiple mass extinctions
:eek:
 

tomato1236

Ninja Master
You like to attack evolution but I have never heard positive evidence for your beliefs please provide some.

Maybe not in the traditional sense, but I do believe that God created the world. I have no proof. Asking religious people to prove they're right is stupid. There is no proof. If there was proof, they wouldn't call it "Faith". And if there was proof, I'm sure you'd hear about it somewhere other than from a lone creationist in a religion forum. So take your smirky athiesm and put it inside of your butt.
 

McBell

Unbound
Maybe not in the traditional sense, but I do believe that God created the world. I have no proof. Asking religious people to prove they're right is stupid. There is no proof. If there was proof, they wouldn't call it "Faith". And if there was proof, I'm sure you'd hear about it somewhere other than from a lone creationist in a religion forum. So take your smirky athiesm and put it inside of your butt.
Normally I would tend to agree with you.

However, when creationists try to force their faith into science classrooms then they need to show that it is science.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Maybe not in the traditional sense, but I do believe that God created the world. I have no proof. Asking religious people to prove they're right is stupid. There is no proof. If there was proof, they wouldn't call it "Faith". And if there was proof, I'm sure you'd hear about it somewhere other than from a lone creationist in a religion forum. So take your smirky athiesm and put it inside of your butt.

Trifle hostile?

This thread has nothing to do with atheism, it's supposed to be about science. And remember, science is not about who, it's about how. (If you review the thread, you may find me saying this a few times.) It does not ask theists to prove their God, it asks Young Earth Creationists to provide evidence for their purportedly scientific explanations for the diversity of species on earth.

What we have learned is that they don't even have a hypothesis, let alone evidence to support it.
 

tomato1236

Ninja Master
Trifle hostile?

This thread has nothing to do with atheism, it's supposed to be about science. And remember, science is not about who, it's about how. (If you review the thread, you may find me saying this a few times.) It does not ask theists to prove their God, it asks Young Earth Creationists to provide evidence for their purportedly scientific explanations for the diversity of species on earth.

What we have learned is that they don't even have a hypothesis, let alone evidence to support it.

Haha I'm not going to read 60 pages of posts! Fogettaboutit! I see what you mean about schools. I don't remember learning much about creationism, if at all, in school. I learned about it plenty at church, and I wasn't offended to learn about evolution in school. I expect to learn what science has to offer the world in school and then it's up to me to smoosh that together with my religion after the bell rings. NBD.

You don't get many theories because the theory is "God made it." No matter how much peeps try to throw that in with evolution and stir it around, it still sounds like hoo-haw without some amount of faith. Or in other words, making up sciencey theories that include "God did it", are a waste of time. God did it. Nuff said. Now let the scientists figure out how.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Or in other words, making up sciencey theories that include "God did it", are a waste of time. God did it. Nuff said. Now let the scientists figure out how.
Finally! You are the first Creationist I have seen who has been able to grasp what I think is a very obvious point.
:clap :clap :clap
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Oh, it certainly is very complicated. The reason is because of evolution. Organisms change. That’s why it’s so difficult to define “species”. That alone should be a red flag waving in front of the word “kind”. We can’t even get one all-encompassing definition of the word “species”. Biologists know why it’s so difficult to define a species. You, creationists, on the other hand, insist that “kinds” are unchangeable. You should therefore easily produce a definition of the word “kind”. Remember that, according to you, “kinds” can’t change into another “kind”.

thats right, but thanks to genetics, a 'kind' can produce a great variety among its members. Dogs have come from the wolf 'kind' and have produced an amazing variety of differences....but they are all still of the wolf 'kind'....they havent become anything other then a different looking wolf.


So, still more than one “kind” of elephant? There’s two living genera.

Just because two elephants live in different parts of the world does not mean they are a different genus. If thats the case, then why dont biologists say that all the different tribes are a different genus? Why is there no white genus homo, black genus homo, red genus homo, asian genus homo???? It doesnt make sense to do that because we know that all humans are of the same group, so why do it with animals???. The asian elephant and the african elephant are both elephants...they are slightly different just as the various breeds of dog are different but they are still the same 'kind' ....elephants.

 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Yes, you have made it as clear as glass that you are contradicting yourself. A "kind" is a genus. Except that genus homo contains several kinds, and species sapiens is its own kind. Homo sapiens is a species, not a genus. So a kind is a genus, except when it's a species? Is that what you're saying? Because if so, you haven't defined it at all. In fact, you're demonstrating exactly what I said, an obstinate refusal or inability to be pinned down to any one definition, and a tendency to define the term differently in different contexts. Which is intellectually dishonest, and makes it impossible to even begin to look for evidence--the point of this thread--because you still don't have a hypothesis.

btw, if you solve this problem, you'll be the first creationist in history to do so. Have you seen what the Baraminology Working Group at AIG came up with? Let me know if you want a good laugh and I'll dig it up for you.

im sorry that its confusing, but I think you can thank modern biologists for the confusion. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a 'kind'

apart from the fact that the standards for 'genus' classification are not uniform among biologists, here is the real reason why its difficult to define a 'kind'

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche....Each species is placed within a single genus."

And this is the problem. A genesis 'kind' is a single genus, however modern biologists choose to place each 'species' (which is simply the variety within a genus) into its own 'genus'

So the complication is because of these factors...not because we can't define a 'kind'

A kind is any group of animals who can interbreed and produce viable offspring &/or hyrbrids. What separates the 'kinds' is the inability to be crossbred, ie dogs and cats cannot be crossbred, human and ape cannot be crossbred, horses and cows cannot be crossbred, girraffs and elephants cannot be crossbred.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
im sorry that its confusing, but I think you can thank modern biologists for the confusion. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a 'kind'

apart from the fact that the standards for 'genus' classification are not uniform among biologists, here is the real reason why its difficult to define a 'kind'

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche....Each species is placed within a single genus."

And this is the problem. A genesis 'kind' is a single genus, however modern biologists choose to place each 'species' (which is simply the variety within a genus) into its own 'genus'

So the complication is because of these factors...not because we can't define a 'kind'

A kind is any group of animals who can interbreed and produce viable offspring &/or hyrbrids. What separates the 'kinds' is the inability to be crossbred, ie dogs and cats cannot be crossbred, human and ape cannot be crossbred, horses and cows cannot be crossbred, girraffs and elephants cannot be crossbred.

What about ring species? I.E observed instances of a population of a species evolving into separate populations that cannot interbreed?

Doesn't that mean that "kind" by your definition is not a barrier to evolution?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
fantôme profane;2162227 said:
Finally! You are the first Creationist I have seen who has been able to grasp what I think is a very obvious point.
:clap :clap :clap

I'm guessing he's not a creationist, in that sense, fantome.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
thats right, but thanks to genetics, a 'kind' can produce a great variety among its members. Dogs have come from the wolf 'kind' and have produced an amazing variety of differences....but they are all still of the wolf 'kind'....they havent become anything other then a different looking wolf.

[/font][/color]
Just because two elephants live in different parts of the world does not mean they are a different genus. If thats the case, then why dont biologists say that all the different tribes are a different genus? Why is there no white genus homo, black genus homo, red genus homo, asian genus homo???? It doesnt make sense to do that because we know that all humans are of the same group, so why do it with animals???. The asian elephant and the african elephant are both elephants...they are slightly different just as the various breeds of dog are different but they are still the same 'kind' ....elephants.

[/font][/color]

So now you're trying to argue that Biologists don't know what a genus is, or what's in a genus? Isn't it kind of up to them? To put it differently, now you're moving your goalposts, which is also a form of dishonestly. Kind means genus, even if you have to change the definition of genus to make it work. Now I guess we need to ask you what you mean by "genus," because apparently it's not the same definition that Biologists use.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
im sorry that its confusing, but I think you can thank modern biologists for the confusion. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a 'kind'
No, the Biologists are clear. The reason it's "confusing," Pegg, is that you're confused. You're so confused you can't even tell us what your position is. Until you get straightened out, you're going to keep the conversation confusing.
apart from the fact that the standards for 'genus' classification are not uniform among biologists, here is the real reason why its difficult to define a 'kind'

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche....Each species is placed within a single genus."

And this is the problem. A genesis 'kind' is a single genus, however modern biologists choose to place each 'species' (which is simply the variety within a genus) into its own 'genus'
I don't know what you're quoting, but you're misunderstanding. No, each species isn't a single genus, what they're saying is that each species is under one genus. Each genus can have many species.

Listen, you're the one who wanted to define kind as genus. If you don't like the term, don't use it. Which bring us back to the question:

What is a kind?

So the complication is because of these factors...not because we can't define a 'kind'

A kind is any group of animals who can interbreed and produce viable offspring &/or hyrbrids.
O.K. now you've changed your definition. Because that has absolutely nothing to do with genus. As I said a whole bunch of times, this is the definition of species. So now you have an ark with millions of organisms on it, many of them the size of elephants and hippos. How would that work?

What separates the 'kinds' is the inability to be crossbred, ie dogs and cats cannot be crossbred, human and ape cannot be crossbred, horses and cows cannot be crossbred, girraffs and elephants cannot be crossbred.

You do know that humans are apes, right?

Do you know for sure whether humans and chimps can cross-breed? Has anyone tried it? What if it turned out they could, then what would you say?
 

Wotan

Active Member
Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) — A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.

  • A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.
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're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.
"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
Another study last year from Florida State University raised similar doubts, Ruben said.
In the newest PNAS study, scientists examined a remarkable fossil specimen that had feathers on all four limbs, somewhat resembling a bi-plane. Glide tests based on its structure concluded it would not have been practical for it to have flown from the ground up, but it could have glided from the trees down, somewhat like a modern-day flying squirrel. Many researchers have long believed that gliders such as this were the ancestors of modern birds.
"This model was not consistent with successful flight from the ground up, and that makes it pretty difficult to make a case for a ground-dwelling theropod dinosaur to have developed wings and flown away," Ruben said. "On the other hand, it would have been quite possible for birds to have evolved and then, at some point, have various species lose their flight capabilities and become ground-dwelling, flightless animals -- the raptors. This may be hugely upsetting to a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense."
In their own research, including one study just last year in the Journal of Morphology, OSU scientists found that the position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their ability to have adequate lung capacity for sustained long-distance flight, a fundamental aspect of bird biology. Theropod dinosaurs did not share this feature. Other morphological features have also been identified that are inconsistent with a bird-from-dinosaur theory. And perhaps most significant, birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. That would be consistent with raptors descending from birds, Ruben said, but not the reverse.
OSU research on avian biology and physiology has been raising questions on this issue since the 1990s, often in isolation. More scientists and other studies are now challenging the same premise, Ruben said. The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.
"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with

Is this more evidence from a lying evilutionist?:confused:
 
Top