Paleontology: the dinosaur-bird connection

[all souls loved]

This is one of the latest false alarms (of many) which initially claimed to be dinos with feathers but was not. Check out the last sentence below:

A new Chinese specimen indicates that ‘protofeathers’ in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are degraded collagen fibres.

Theagarten Lingham-Soliar,1* Alan Feduccia,2 and Xiaolin Wang3
1Biological and Conservation Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban 4000, Republic of South Africa

"We report on a new specimen of Sinosauropteryx which shows that the integumental structures proposed as protofeathers are the remains of structural fibres that provide toughness."

"The fibres show a striking similarity to the structure and levels of organization of dermal collagen. The proposal that these fibres are protofeathers is dismissed."

 

[exchemist]

There is no dino-bird connection. It is nothing but pseudoscience.

If birds did evolve from land-based dinos, we should, at minimum, ask for examples of land-based dinos with partially-developed wings protruding from their backs.

It is not enough for evolutionists to say we can't find such fossil samples because they are too rare...this is an excuse in the making. And a weak excuse at that.

We have had hundreds of years to find such fossils if they existed. We have hundreds of millions of fossils in our museums all over the world but no land-based dinos with small wings sprouting out of their backs? Where are they?

I am not comfortable with such excuses. Produce the transitional fossils or admit such transitional forms may not exist because they never did because the transition never occurred in the first place.

No, this is just silly. Why would they need to be "small wings sprouting from their backs", when it is their forelimbs that evolved into wings? Archaeopteryx is the most famous example of the transition from dinosaur to bird. Have you never heard of it?

Actually, all fossils are "transitional", in the sense that evolution is always going on, in some way or other. But I have a book listing about 140 fossils with characteristics of 2 or more groups of modern animals, if that is what you mean by "transitional", i.e. they represent common ancestors of several modern species. (Asher's "Evolution and Belief", Table 8.1, pp.144-149).

So there you are. I have produced them for you. Now what?

 

[exchemist]

Here is another article confirming Archaeopteryx is not a true transitional form because it has no land-based dino features. It's entire skeletal structure is air-based. This fact has been known for over 25 years now and has not changed since then.

"Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird."

Science 259:790-793. (1993)

Of course it does. It has teeth and a tail for a start, and also claws on its "wings".

 

[exchemist]

Here is an article proving the feathered dino theory is noting but an erroneous interpretation of fossils containing collagen striations which LOOKED like feathers to some people but were not feathers:

The dinosaurian origin of feathers: perspectives from dolphin (Cetacea) collagen fibers.
Lingham-Soliar T.
Zoology Department, University of Durban-Westville, Private Bag X54001, 4000 Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. [email protected]

The early origin of birds is a hotly disputed debate and may be broadly framed as a conflict between paleontologists and ornithologists. The paleontological emphasis has shifted from Archaeopteryx and its origins to recent finds of Cretaceous birds and "feathered" dinosaurs from China. The identification of alleged feathers has, however, relied principally on the visual image. Some workers have interpreted these integumentary structures as collagen fibers. To test the latter hypothesis, using light microscopy, collagen from the hypodermis (blubber) and subdermal connective tissue sheath was examined from a dolphin that had been buried for a year as part of an experiment. Within the blubber, toward the central thicker parts of the material, the collagen fibers had compacted and the three-dimensional latticework of normal blubber had more or less collapsed. Chromatographic analysis of the blubber revealed pronounced oxidation of the unsaturated lipids, probably accounting for the collapse of the latticework. Fibers normally bound together in bundles became separated into individual fibers or smaller bundles by degradation of the glue-like substance binding them together. These degraded collagen fibers show, in many instances, feather-like patterns, strikingly reminiscent of many of those identified as either "protofeathers" or "modern" feathers in dromaeosaurid dinosaurs. The findings throw serious doubt on the virtually complete reliance on visual image by supporters of the feathered dinosaur thesis and emphasize the need for more rigorous methods of identification using modern feathers as a frame of reference. Since collagen is the main fiber type found in most supporting tissues, the results have wide implications regarding the degradation and fossilization of vertebrate integument, such as that of the ichthyosaurs, dinosaurs and birds.

PMID: 14676953 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This article, from almost 20 years ago (Nov 2003), "proves" nothing of the kind. It merely shows one way in which fossil feathers might be confused with other structures.

In fact, since then, feathers have been found preserved in amber, removing all doubt:

In 2011, samples of amber were discovered to contain preserved feathers from 75 to 80 million years ago during the Cretaceous era, with evidence that they were from both dinosaurs and birds. Initial analysis suggests that some of the feathers were used for insulation, and not flight.[19][20] More complex feathers were revealed to have variations in coloration similar to modern birds, while simpler protofeathers were predominantly dark. Only 11 specimens are currently known. The specimens are too rare to be broken open to study their melanosomes(pigment-bearing organelles), but there are plans for using non-destructive high-resolution X-ray imaging.[21] Melanosomes produce colouration in feathers; as differently-shaped melanosomes produce different colours, subsequent research on melanosomes preserved in feathered dinosaur specimens has led to reconstructions of the life appearance of several dinosaur species. These include Anchiornis,[22]Sinosauropteryx,[23] Microraptor,[24] and Archaeopteryx.[11]

In 2016, the discovery was announced of a feathered dinosaur tail preserved in amber that is estimated to be 99 million years old. Lida Xing, a researcher from the China University of Geosciences in Beijing, found the specimen at an amber market in Myanmar. It is the first definitive discovery of dinosaur material in amber.[25][26][27][28]

From: Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia

 

[Clara Tea]

First, I'll give a little historical background on the paleontology - the study of fossils , and the classification of those fossils. Then I'll focus on the fossils of dinosaurs and their connections with reptiles and with birds.

While some fossils were uncovered and known since ancient times, these people didn't really know what they were seeing, especially when there are many animals that have been extinct long before their times. Of course, some fossils were recognizable, because of comparison of fossil samples with living samples.

Apart from recognizing that life were some how petrified, they don't know when these animals became fossils, nor when they have died. So I don't know of any historical records where people actually "study" these fossils.

Actual scientific studies of fossils didn't start until the 19th century, especially when it first identified dinosaur fossils. The term dinosaur was coined by English biologist Richard Owen, which meant “terrible lizard” in the mid-19th century.

Today, while we understand that dinosaurs evolved from earlier primitive reptiles - especially from the sa, dinosaurs are not “lizards”, because when we view the modern lizards they have sprawling limbs, legs that protrude outward from the sides of their bodies, hence lizards have sprawling gaits when they moved about.

The study of dinosaurs’ shoulders, hips and limbs actually have more erect limbs mostly directly below their bodies. Some of these dinosaurs have bird-like hip, which also differed from lizards.

And though dinosaurs have evolved from earlier reptiles, they aren’t cold-blooded reptiles, like lizards, crocodiles and snakes.

The first person to proposed that birds evolved from dinosaurs, was another English biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley. Of course, for decades after Huxley most disagree with this concept (eg Richard Owen), because some still held on to beliefs that dinosaurs were ancestors of the modern cold-blooded reptiles, like the lizards and crocodiles, but all the evidence have shown this concept to be false, that Huxley was correct about the dinosaur-bird connection.

Dinosaurs have more in common with birds than they do with crocodiles.

The points being that before there were dinosaurs (hence pre-Mesozoic era, primitive reptiles were more varied than previously thought, so some were cold-blooded reptiles, while other reptiles were warm-blooded. Some have sprawling limbs (like lizards and crocodiles), while other reptiles didn’t have such limb structure.

Do you agree or disagree?

Many fought and killed dragons. Yet, dragons didn't exist. However, dinosaur bones did exist, and it would have been easy to fake it.

Quotations from websites appear below the websites:

What did dinosaurs evolve from?

"Dinosaurs evolved from reptiles called dinosauromorphs" which were the size of house cats and fast.

In order to survive in icy environments, it is likely that dinosaurs were warm blooded. Also, mammals evolved from dinosaurs, and mammals are known to be warm blooded. However, some dinosaurs could have been homeotherms (intermediate metabolic rates--slightly warm blooded).

Physiology of dinosaurs - Wikipedia

"early years of dinosaur paleontology, it was widely considered that they were sluggish, cumbersome, and sprawling cold-blooded lizards."

"Today, it is generally thought that many or perhaps all dinosaurs had higher metabolic rates than living reptiles, but also that the situation is more complex and varied than Bakker originally proposed. For example, while smaller dinosaurs may have been true endotherms, the larger forms could have been inertial homeotherms,[11][12] or that many dinosaurs could have had intermediate metabolic rates.[13]"

 

[Audie]

There is no dino-bird connection. It is nothing but pseudoscience.

If birds did evolve from land-based dinos, we should, at minimum, ask for examples of land-based dinos with partially-developed wings protruding from their backs.

It is not enough for evolutionists to say we can't find such fossil samples because they are too rare...this is an excuse in the making. And a weak excuse at that.

We have had hundreds of years to find such fossils if they existed. We have hundreds of millions of fossils in our museums all over the world but no land-based dinos with small wings sprouting out of their backs? Where are they?

I am not comfortable with such excuses. Produce the transitional fossils or admit such transitional forms may not exist because they never did because the transition never occurred in the first place.

" sprouting from their backs " : D

Is that really- really whst you thimk?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no dino-bird connection. It is nothing but pseudoscience.

No, it isn't.

If birds did evolve from land-based dinos, we should, at minimum, ask for examples of land-based dinos with partially-developed wings protruding from their backs.

It is not enough for evolutionists to say we can't find such fossil samples because they are too rare...this is an excuse in the making. And a weak excuse at that.

There's plenty of actual transitional fossils, but you'll just reject them out-of-hand. Likely also because what you described is NOT a proper description of what it would look like. There's enough fossils showing feathered dino's with front limbs showing transition to modern wing anatomy etc.

The fact is that it is impossible to come up with a definition for "dinosaur" which includes ALL dino's, yet excludes birds without arbitrarily adding to the definition "...but not birds".

Just like it's impossible to come up with a definition for "mammal" that includes all mammals yet excludes humans.

Birds ARE dino's.
Just like humans ARE mammals.

We have had hundreds of years to find such fossils if they existed. We have hundreds of millions of fossils in our museums all over the world but no land-based dinos with small wings sprouting out of their backs? Where are they?

First, we don't have "hundreds of millions" of fossils.
Secondly: archaeropterix, micro-raptor, sinosauropteryx, etc

There's plenty of them that have clear anatomical features that we see in birds today.
Even species like T-rex has anatomical features we find in turkey's etc and don't find in other non-dino species.

I am not comfortable with such excuses.

Please, you aren't comfortable with any evidence that contradicts your religious narrative.

Produce the transitional fossils or admit such transitional forms may not exist because they never did because the transition never occurred in the first place.

Denying the evidence won't make it go away.

But let's humor you. How have you determined that the transition "never" occurred?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So there you are. I have produced them for you. Now what?

Now, handwaving denial, obviously............

 

[gnostic]

Archaeopteryx has no land-based dino features so does not qualify as a transitional form. A true transitional form is a land-based dino with partially formed wings sprouting from its back - something which has never been found, anywhere.

“...wings sprouting from its back...”? ​

Good grief.

Where in the nine hells did you get that from?



Did you ever bother to learn basic biology?

Even if you bother to observe the bird’s anatomy, you would see that no birds have wings don’t sprout from their out of their bloody backs!

Wings from birds, and even wings from bats, are actually their fore-limbs that are connected to their shoulders.

Wings only appeared to be sprouting from their backs, only among gods or angels or demons in religious texts, or imageries from religious artworks...OR in today’s comics, or in fantasy or sci-fi movies or tv series.

These modern fictions and in religions, including the Bible’s angels or demons, are not real! Wings don’t sprout from backs!

In Ezekiel 1, you have 4 angels or the “four living creatures”, each angel, not only have four faces (on one head) but also four wings, and under each wings are hands:

5 In the middle of it was something like four living creatures. This was their appearance: they were of human form. 6 Each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7 Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot; and they sparkled like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9 their wings touched one another; each of them moved straight ahead, without turning as they moved.

Only in religions, you can have more than two wings, and it get even more ridiculous when you read Revelation where the number of heads and wings are even more embellished and exaggerated!

In real biology, animals (birds and bats and in some insects) instead of their limbs being legs or arms, their limbs are wings.

This statement of yours, is not only false, you really don’t have the understanding of the anatomy of wings of some animals.

 

[Audie]

“...wings sprouting from its back...”? ​

Good grief.

Where in the nine hells did you get that from?



Did you ever bother to learn basic biology?

Even if you bother to observe the bird’s anatomy, you would see that no birds have wings don’t sprout from their out of their bloody backs!

Wings from birds, and even wings from bats, are actually their fore-limbs that are connected to their shoulders.

Wings only appeared to be sprouting from their backs, only among gods or angels or demons in religious texts, or imageries from religious artworks...OR in today’s comics, or in fantasy or sci-fi movies or tv series.

These modern fictions and in religions, including the Bible’s angels or demons, are not real! Wings don’t sprout from backs!

In Ezekiel 1, you have 4 angels or the “four living creatures”, each angel, not only have four faces (on one head) but also four wings, and under each wings are hands:



Only in religions, you can have more than two wings, and it get even more ridiculous when you read Revelation where the number of heads and wings are even more embellished and exaggerated!

In real biology, animals (birds and bats and in some insects) instead of their limbs being legs or arms, their limbs are wings.

This statement of yours, is not only false, you really don’t have the understanding of the anatomy of wings of some animals.

Our hero should come forth and reveal his
source. (Which creationist site)

 

[exchemist]

Our hero should come forth and reveal his
source. (Which creationist site)

Or else go forth....and multiply.......

 

[Audie]

Or else go forth....and multiply.......

Just leave off anything after the ...

 

[gnostic]

@all souls loved

I don’t know much about insects, but some of them may have 4 wings.

I don’t know if all insects have 4 wings, but as I said, I don’t know much about insects, so someone may tell you more.

But 4 wings don’t exist among the vertebrates, such as birds and bats...birds and bats are not insects. I know of no vertebrates having more than two wings.

And not all winged birds are capable of flight. Examples, ostriches and emus have weak wings, but have powerful legs, so they can quite fast. And penguins are excellent swimmers, using their wings and legs to propel them in water.

So unless you think angels and demons are insects, they wouldn’t have more than 2 wings.

 

[Audie]

@all souls loved

I don’t know much about insects, but some of them may have 4 wings.

I don’t know if all insects have 4 wings, but as I said, I don’t know much about insects, so someone may tell you more.

But 4 wings don’t exist among the vertebrates, such as birds and bats...birds and bats are not insects. I know of no vertebrates having more than two wings.

And not all winged birds are capable of flight. Examples, ostriches and emus have weak wings, but have powerful legs, so they can quite fast. And penguins are excellent swimmers, using their wings and legs to propel them in water.

So unless you think angels and demons are insects, they wouldn’t have more than 2 wings.

Most have four wings.
The Diptera have two.

At least one reptilian flying creature had four wings.

 

[night912]

There is no dino-bird connection. It is nothing but pseudoscience.

Archaeopteryx has no land-based dino features so does not qualify as a transitional form. A true transitional form is a land-based dino with partially formed wings sprouting from its back - something which has never been found, anywhere. This fact has been known for over 25 years now and has not changed one iota since then.

"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."

Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms by V. Morell, Science 259(5096):764–65.(1993).

Sorry, but being dishonest won't support your argument. Showing your ignorance in evolution with your comment above followed by the usage of deception an attempt to make it appear as if it's scientific, only demonstrates how desperate you really are. Although Alan Feduccia, the person who you quoted, disagrees with the scientific consensus regarding modern birds evolving from theropod dinosaurs, no where in any of his works does it agree with your argument.

A true transitional form is a land-based dino with partially formed wings sprouting from its back - something which has never been found anywhere in Alan Feduccia's works, to which he agrees to it. So try again.

 

[gnostic]

In order to survive in icy environments, it is likely that dinosaurs were warm blooded. Also, mammals evolved from dinosaurs, and mammals are known to be warm blooded. However, some dinosaurs could have been homeotherms (intermediate metabolic rates--slightly warm blooded)

No, mammals didn’t evolve from dinosaurs.

All the terrestrial animals that are vertebrates and tetrapods, are amniotes, which all modern extant animals that include mammals, reptiles and birds, and all the extinct relatives (eg dinosaurs ).

The amniotes differed from animals belonging to anamniotes, which comprised of lower vertebrates, such as fishes and amphibians, which lay their eggs in water.

Amniotes on the other hand, either carried their eggs/fetus in the mothers’ wombs or lay their eggs on land.

Amniotes are than broadly divided into two groups: the Synapsida and the Sauropsida.

How the synapsids and sauropsids differed are their skulls, all synapsids having opening in the skull roof behind each eyes, called the temporal fenestra, which existed in all mammals and the extinct mammal-amniotes.

The sauropsids, on the other hand have pair (two) temporal fenestrae. The sauropsids include all extant reptiles and birds, and their extinct ancestors.

There were split between the synapsids and sauropsids among the amniotes, around 312 million years ago, in the late Carboniferous period. Long before the synapsid-sauropsid split, amniotes didn’t have any temporal fenestrae. The synapsids and sauropsids evolved to have respective numbers of temporal fenestrae.

The sauropsids would include archosaurs and all dinosaurs.

Based on the above information of the synapsids and sauropsids, the mammals belonging to the Synapsida group, would indicate that the mammals didn’t evolve from dinosaurs.

 

[gnostic]

Most have four wings.
The Diptera have two.

At least one reptilian flying creature had four wings.

Thank you, Audie.

As I said, I don't know much about insects...I never took the time to study or read up on insects...not did I ever take the time, to pull wings from their bodies to count them.

Anyway, as I understand, insects are not vertebrates, and I know of no vertebrae having four wings.

So the common imagery of angels, looking like a man with a human body (hence a a vertebrate) and have more than 2 wings, like in Ezekiel, is just ludicrous.

Also ludicrous is the idea that any vertebrates sprouting wings behind their backs. Simply just absurdly silly, creationists have been watching too many cartoons or sci-fi tv or movies.

 

[Audie]

Thank you, Audie.

As I said, I don't know much about insects...I never took the time to study or read up on insects...not did I ever take the time, to pull wings from their bodies to count them.

Anyway, as I understand, insects are not vertebrates, and I know of no vertebrae having four wings.

So the common imagery of angels, looking like a man with a human body (hence a a vertebrate) and have more than 2 wings, like in Ezekiel, is just ludicrous.

Also ludicrous is the idea that any vertebrates sprouting wings behind their backs. Simply just absurdly silly, creationists have been watching too many cartoons or sci-fi tv or movies.

Those of us who have studied vertebrate anatomy find the wing - sprout particularly
cringe worthy.

Note tho there flying creatures with flight feathers on wings and hind legs.
Early experiments, so to speak.
Google Image Result for https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2003/01/dn3298-2_185.jpg?width=1200&enable=upscale