What does the fossil record say?

[Amill]

So far you have a flying creature in the air fully formed and flying and sometimes very huge, 220mya. I do not need a huge leap of faith to see they were here before non aquatic tetrapods.

You'd need about a 180 million year leap actually. And that's if pterosaurs counted as birds, which doesn't make sense. Why not count flying insects as birds too?

 

[Autodidact]

Indeed I have shown that plesosaurs eg pterodactyls were around 220 million years, flying around fully formed. Your researchers do not know the ancestry. They had hollow bones and other features of birds. Archaeopteryx is 150myo. There is not reason to believe birds were not around and adapted and are still here today. Just like you, I am entitled to alledge the fossils have not yet been found.

The bible says 'let the waters teem with living creatures and let birds fly across the sky, that was the 6th period of time. So far you have a flying creature in the air fully formed and flying and sometimes very huge, 220mya. I do not need a huge leap of faith to see they were here before non aquatic tetrapods. However you still need to work out from the trees down or ground up or a mix. How can any evidence you provide be evidence when you are not sure of what ancestry anything is evidence of?

So why do you think we never find any bird fossils that old?

 

[outhouse]

The bible says

right there you loose all credibility

 

[painted wolf]

Indeed I have shown that plesosaurs eg pterodactyls were around 220 million years,

What the heck is a "Plesosaurs"?

Did you mean plesiosaurs? If so, what does a long necked marine reptile (who neither flies nor lived 220 mya) have to do with anything?

You keep trying to use words you don't understand and don't bother to try to.... why is that?

wa:do

ps... 220 mya is not the Cambrian or even the Permian... where are your Cambrian birds?

Also, you can't figure out how long a "day" is... what is the issue of "ground up" vs. "trees down" compared to something as basic as how long it takes for a day to go by?

 

[camanintx]

Indeed I have shown that plesosaurs eg pterodactyls were around 220 million years, flying around fully formed. Your researchers do not know the ancestry. They had hollow bones and other features of birds. Archaeopteryx is 150myo. There is not reason to believe birds were not around and adapted and are still here today. Just like you, I am entitled to alledge the fossils have not yet been found.

The bible says 'let the waters teem with living creatures and let birds fly across the sky, that was the 6th period of time. So far you have a flying creature in the air fully formed and flying and sometimes very huge, 220mya. I do not need a huge leap of faith to see they were here before non aquatic tetrapods. However you still need to work out from the trees down or ground up or a mix. How can any evidence you provide be evidence when you are not sure of what ancestry anything is evidence of?

They're called pterosaurs, not plesosaurs, and even if you lump them in the biblical kind called birds, you're still over 150 million years behind the first land animals.

Because Darwin and your researchers borrowed the biblical account which also suggests life was created in stages. I doubt the bible writers knew the linneus system so they could use the correct scientific words aves or primitive birds, they were ust things that flew that weren't like rats I guess. You say all your fossils have a nice flow from simple to more intricate but you actually do not. Multicellular life has been pushed back billions of years, and with each new fossil find, dates are pushed back further and further. Human/chimp divergence is a good example.

Meet something like your ancestor a mammaliaformes. It looks like a mammal to me and not doubt is the progeny of millions of generations of this kind right back to the creation of them in the 6th period of time. All your theories to the contrary are just theories to suit the presumption of ancestry.

Adelobasileus
Temporal range: Late Triassic
Adelobasileus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This guy looks nothing like a salamander or a fishy tetrapod. I think whales were here during the devonian also and your hippo/whale ancestor is a huge joke on you!

Did you happen to notice that this particular land animal preceeds your birds (pterosaurs) by five million years? Your biblical creation is not holding up too well, is it?

 

[newhope101]

So why do you think we never find any bird fossils that old?

Because your researchers do not know what a bird is. They think they know what a modern bird is. Secondly your dating of the strata often is reliant on the life within it and your presumed toe ancestry. Hence you use your own theoretical assumptions for the basis of much dating. For all we know you may have already found a precambrian mammal and bird, misdated by theoretical assumptions of evolutionary should be's.

The earth has undergone so much in the way of catastrophy by meteor impact, super volcanic erruptions etc etc that I believe it impossible for any of your dating methods to be accurate and are guesses based on what 'should be' most of the time.

 

[newhope101]

They're called pterosaurs, not plesosaurs, and even if you lump them in the biblical kind called birds, you're still over 150 million years behind the first land animals.

Missing fossils..same excuse as you lot. How many times do I have to repeat. Did you notice that in 5 million years some creature evolved from a land animal to a sea animal..that is what is awkwardly incredible for you. While humans and chimps much more similar took heaps longer, required accelerated evolution to explain some genomic regions. These whales were also lucky to not have legs hanging off their heads or having drowned.
Did you happen to notice that this particular land animal preceeds your birds (pterosaurs) by five million years? Your biblical creation is not holding up too well, is it?

Sorry it is your researchers that purport evidence of birds prior to the dinos they presumeably decended from. Do I need to repost? That's your problem.


　
The whale is more closely related to a deer than a seal.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_mammal
There are some 120 extant species of marine mammals, generally sub-divided into the five groups bold-faced below.[1] Each group descended from a different land-based ancestor. The morphological similarities between these diverse groups are a result of convergent and parallel evolution. For example, although whales and seals have some similarities in shape, whales are more closely related to deer than they are to seals.
　
　
　
Of course your researchers have to make up stories to explain this type of thing now that we have genomic testing and these taxonomists have to stand up to some scrutiny.

They are not related at all. Quite clearly whatever it is your researchers see that suggests there is a common ancestor is obviously biased toward illustrating decent.
Rather these species are so different your theory is quite incredible. I think you’ll find an even older whale someday and revert back to some aquatic mammal first style theory…it is just a matter of time and missing fossils.. Remember!

 

[Autodidact]

Because your researchers do not know what a bird is. They think they know what a modern bird is.

My researchers? You mean scientists? So scientists are on my side, and not on yours? What do you mean they don't know what a bird is? Are you trying to say that a pterodactyl is a bird?

Secondly your dating of the strata often is reliant on the life within it and your presumed toe ancestry

You're not familiar with the way paleontologists actually data fossil strata?

. Hence you use your own theoretical assumptions for the basis of much dating. For all we know you may have already found a precambrian mammal and bird, misdated by theoretical assumptions of evolutionary should be's.

Why do you hate science?

The earth has undergone so much in the way of catastrophy by meteor impact, super volcanic erruptions etc etc that I believe it impossible for any of your dating methods to be accurate and are guesses based on what 'should be' most of the time.

I see. The old, "Science doesn't work" argument. Tell me, do you find it hard to live your life without science?

So basically your answer is...they do, but they're too stupid to realize it? Is that really your position? Tell me then, have any creationists found birds in the same rock layers as pterodactyls?

 

[newhope101]

What the heck is a "Plesosaurs"?

Did you mean plesiosaurs? If so, what does a long necked marine reptile (who neither flies nor lived 220 mya) have to do with anything?

You keep trying to use words you don't understand and don't bother to try to.... why is that?
You keep trying to fool these less educated mob into thinking you know what you are on about but you do not fool me! Indeed any black and white response you give is likely erronous or only half the story.
wa:do

ps... 220 mya is not the Cambrian or even the Permian... where are your Cambrian birds?

Also, you can't figure out how long a "day" is... what is the issue of "ground up" vs. "trees down" compared to something as basic as how long it takes for a day to go by? great answer that demonstates you do not have a clue or are not game to throw your panties behind any case

Pterosaur

I should know you are too uneducated to pick it up what is meant so I need to be perfectly clear with you. :sorry1:

 

[outhouse]

Pterosaur

I should know you are too uneducated to pick it up what is meant so I need to be perfectly clear with you. :sorry1:

you others have fought me on this but the best medicine for this bird is to do what she does to evolution.

she picks a part evolution and in a bad way that makes no real sense at all.

I say pick a part the bible, its a house a cards that crumbles if you look at it.

she doesnt dislike ToE, she flat hates it, she would have us all follow a myth due to her blind hatred

science or myth HHHmmm


there two people in this thread and I wonder about there sanity as they keep doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different result

 

[Autodidact]

Pterosaur

I should know you are too uneducated to pick it up what is meant so I need to be perfectly clear with you. :sorry1:

Let me review this. You typed "plesosaur." You meant, "pterosaur". And you think the problem is that we're too uneducated to decipher what you might have meant?

 

[newhope101]

Because your researchers do not know what a bird is. They think they know what a modern bird is.

My researchers? You mean scientists? So scientists are on my side, and not on yours? What do you mean they don't know what a bird is? Are you trying to say that a pterodactyl is a bird?

Secondly your dating of the strata often is reliant on the life within it and your presumed toe ancestry

You're not familiar with the way paleontologists actually data fossil strata? Why do you hate science?
Paleontological Evidence to Date the Tree of Life. I do not hate science just evo interpretations of evidence. Hey surprise.. little old me is not the only one. Your own researchers are having huge problems believing in some research, especially dating techniques for ancestry.
I see. The old, "Science doesn't work" argument. Tell me, do you find it hard to live your life without science?
Science is great. That is not what you use to demonstrate TOE. You use preconcieved ideology to support your ideology.
So basically your answer is...they do, but they're too stupid to realize it? Is that really your position? Tell me then, have any creationists found birds in the same rock layers as pterodactyls? Why ask a question if you are going to answer it for me. You have been looking into evolution for too long where answers are predetermined to show an cooberate ancestry. I can invent a name for the first bird and say it originates in the cambrian and your bird fossils are decendants. Anyone can play that game and call it science.

Because pterosaur anatomy has been so heavily modified for flight, and immediate "missing link" predecessors have not so far been described, the ancestry of pterosaurs is not well understood. Several hypotheses have been advanced, including links to ornithodirans like Scleromochlus, an ancestry among the basal archosauriforms like Euparkeria, or among the prolacertiformes (which include gliding forms like Sharovipteryx).[18].

Wiki:Confuciusornis is a genus of primitive crow-sized birds from the Early CretaceousYixian and Jiufotang Formations of China, dating from 125 to 120 million years ago. Like modern birds, Confuciusornis had a toothless beak, but close relatives of modern birds such as Hesperornis and Ichthyornis were toothed, indicating that the loss of teeth occurred convergently in Confuciusornis and living birds. It is the oldest known bird to have a beak.[1] It was named after the Chinese moral philosopher Confucius (551–479 BCE). Confuciusornis is one of the most abundant vertebrates found in the Yixian Formation, and several hundred complete, articulated specimens have been found.[2]






Just a bird 125myo now extinct, untoothed and living along side our modern birds supposed ancestors still with teeth. Oh yeah,convergent evolution explains it. I cannot provide a devonian bird but I can illustrate that your researchers have no idea about any birds. What on earth has mezmerized you to the point that you think some little dino is reponsible for all the bird life here today. It is easier to believe you just haven't found a devonian speciment than to believe a warm blooded, hollow boned bird evolved from any cold blooded, solid boned dino. Oh yeah..I think I remember your researchers trying to make dinos warm blooded but that stuffs up the reptile thinggy..Oh what a mess. I am glad it is yours!

You haven't taken birdy sides yet either. Are you not game? Dino or glider? Guess, everyone else does. Maybe birds evolved from flying fish and both guesses will be wrong.

Do you think humans will sprout wings one day and help the environment? Now there is a genetic engineering goal if ever I heard of one.

 

[outhouse]

science is best left to those that are professionally trained.

you are not!!!!!!

you fail miserably in your untrained attempt of simple understanding

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well Penguin, if the best you can do is choose some not so well chosen words to harp about for pages and pages then you are still in a sorry state. Wilsoncole appears to be referring to the sort of 'germ line mutations' that lead to speciation as the kind of beneficial mutations

I'm not suggesting that this leads to speciation. You keep harping on this as this was my position from the start. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. My position, as well as the position that wilson's source states, is that Sickle Cell fits perfectly with Natural Selection and we know Natural Selection is a process of Evolution.

You have tried to pin Wilson with a somatic change as some evidence of a dinosaur morphing into a modern bird.

No I haven't. You should be ashamed of yourself for lying. I, at no point, suggested such a thing. This is why I charged you with "budding in on the conversation". Wilson's position, as displayed a few pages a go and throughout this thread, is that (There is no such thing as Natural Selection). He pretty much said this verbatim. I'm sorry but this is a lie. Not because I or my "researchers" says so...but his very own "creation scientist" says (It's a fact).




Originally Posted by wilsoncole
There is no such thing as "natural selection;" your "beneficial mutations" are not really beneficialecause they do not improve any organism; there is no "evolutionary process;" even reputable scientists confirmed this. (see above)




But his source disagrees by stating......


http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html (Your Source You Cited)
DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."

Either wilson is lying or the your/his researchers is lying. Which one is it?

 

[newhope101]

You'd need about a 180 million year leap actually. And that's if pterosaurs counted as birds, which doesn't make sense. Why not count flying insects as birds too?

Why not count feathered dinos as birds? Why not count whales as tetrapods and ungulates? Arch was a bird not a half bird. It had feathers, hollow bones and flew. It was a kind of bird. Just because some species share morphology there is no need to imply ancestry. You have much research to back this up and yet it is the basic of most of your so called imtermediates. The fact that you need arch or a sister species to be an intermediate is because you need midspecies, not because they are midspecies.

You really are in a mess with your multitude of species definitions and your cladistics.

You should take a tip from creationists. Created kind - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jonathan Sarfati - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jonathan Sarfati is not convinced by your 'irrefutebale evidence that changes" either.

 

[Autodidact]

Because your researchers do not know what a bird is. They think they know what a modern bird is.

My researchers? You mean scientists? So scientists are on my side, and not on yours? What do you mean they don't know what a bird is? Are you trying to say that a pterodactyl is a bird?

Secondly your dating of the strata often is reliant on the life within it and your presumed toe ancestry

Wiki:Confuciusornis is a genus of primitive crow-sized birds from the Early CretaceousYixian and Jiufotang Formations of China, dating from 125 to 120 million years ago. Like modern birds, Confuciusornis had a toothless beak, but close relatives of modern birds such as Hesperornis and Ichthyornis were toothed, indicating that the loss of teeth occurred convergently in Confuciusornis and living birds. It is the oldest known bird to have a beak.[1] It was named after the Chinese moral philosopher Confucius (551–479 BCE). Confuciusornis is one of the most abundant vertebrates found in the Yixian Formation, and several hundred complete, articulated specimens have been found.[2]






Just a bird 125myo now extinct, untoothed and living along side our modern birds supposed ancestors still with teeth. Oh yeah,convergent evolution explains it. I cannot provide a devonian bird but I can illustrate that your researchers have no idea about any birds. What on earth has mezmerized you to the point that you think some little dino is reponsible for all the bird life here today. It is easier to believe you just haven't found a devonian speciment than to believe a warm blooded, hollow boned bird evolved from any cold blooded, solid boned dino. Oh yeah..I think I remember your researchers trying to make dinos warm blooded but that stuffs up the reptile thinggy..Oh what a mess. I am glad it is yours!

You haven't taken birdy sides yet either. Are you not game? Dino or glider? Guess, everyone else does. Maybe birds evolved from flying fish and both guesses will be wrong.

Do you think humans will sprout wings one day and help the environment? Now there is a genetic engineering goal if ever I heard of one.

Are you saying that the fossil record contains birds in every strata, including the oldest? If not, what on earth is your point?

Older layers contain no birds or bird-like creatures.

Then we get winged, toothed, intermediate creatures.

And finally, modern birds.

Kind of like every other sort of organism.

If every "kind" has been on earth from the beginning, why don't we find every "kind" in the lower rock strata?

 

[outhouse]

why does the strata show fossils perfectly in line all the way back to single cell organism's that match evolution perfectly ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I know why

science is best left to those that are professionally trained.

you are not!!!!!!

you fail miserably in your untrained attempt of simple understanding

 

[jarofthoughts]

Because your researchers do not know what a bird is. They think they know what a modern bird is.

My researchers? You mean scientists? So scientists are on my side, and not on yours? What do you mean they don't know what a bird is? Are you trying to say that a pterodactyl is a bird?

Secondly your dating of the strata often is reliant on the life within it and your presumed toe ancestry

Wiki:Confuciusornis is a genus of primitive crow-sized birds from the Early CretaceousYixian and Jiufotang Formations of China, dating from 125 to 120 million years ago. Like modern birds, Confuciusornis had a toothless beak, but close relatives of modern birds such as Hesperornis and Ichthyornis were toothed, indicating that the loss of teeth occurred convergently in Confuciusornis and living birds. It is the oldest known bird to have a beak.[1] It was named after the Chinese moral philosopher Confucius (551–479 BCE). Confuciusornis is one of the most abundant vertebrates found in the Yixian Formation, and several hundred complete, articulated specimens have been found.[2]






Just a bird 125myo now extinct, untoothed and living along side our modern birds supposed ancestors still with teeth. Oh yeah,convergent evolution explains it. I cannot provide a devonian bird but I can illustrate that your researchers have no idea about any birds. What on earth has mezmerized you to the point that you think some little dino is reponsible for all the bird life here today. It is easier to believe you just haven't found a devonian speciment than to believe a warm blooded, hollow boned bird evolved from any cold blooded, solid boned dino. Oh yeah..I think I remember your researchers trying to make dinos warm blooded but that stuffs up the reptile thinggy..Oh what a mess. I am glad it is yours!

You haven't taken birdy sides yet either. Are you not game? Dino or glider? Guess, everyone else does. Maybe birds evolved from flying fish and both guesses will be wrong.

Do you think humans will sprout wings one day and help the environment? Now there is a genetic engineering goal if ever I heard of one.

From the same Wikipedia article: (I'll provide the link since Newhope seems incapable of doing so: Confuciusornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

"The orientation of the shoulder joint was sideways, instead of angled upward as in modern birds; this means that Confuciusornis was unable to lift its wings above its back. Like Archaeopteryx, it was thus incapable of the upstroke required for flapping flight.
Confuciusornis was more advanced than Archaeopteryx in possessing a short tail with a pygostyle (a bone formed from a series of short, fused tail vertebrae), but more primitive than modern birds in retaining large claws on the forelimbs, a primitive skull, and relatively small breastbone. The proportions of the toes suggest that they were used for both walking and perching, while the large claws of the thumb and third finger were probably used for climbing."

Sounds like a nice example of a transitional fossil to me... :sarcastic

 

[wilsoncole]

Reproduction.
(A totipotent cell divides repeatedly, cells begin to specialize, etc, etc,....)

Mr. Weed,
I think you know that you have presented a very silly response.
Do you want me to show you how silly it is?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

I'm not suggesting that this leads to speciation. You keep harping on this as this was my position from the start. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. My position, as well as the position that wilson's source states, is that Sickle Cell fits perfectly with Natural Selection and we know Natural Selection is a process of Evolution.



No I haven't. You should be ashamed of yourself for lying. I, at no point, suggested such a thing. This is why I charged you with "budding in on the conversation". Wilson's position, as displayed a few pages a go and throughout this thread, is that (There is no such thing as Natural Selection). He pretty much said this verbatim. I'm sorry but this is a lie. Not because I or my "researchers" says so...but his very own "creation scientist" says (It's a fact).




Originally Posted by wilsoncole
There is no such thing as "natural selection;" your "beneficial mutations" are not really beneficialecause they do not improve any organism; there is no "evolutionary process;" even reputable scientists confirmed this. (see above)

But his source disagrees by stating......
Either wilson is lying or the your/his researchers is lying. Which one is it?

My source quoted Ernst Mayr, an well-known evolutionist.
It was HE who said:
" Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."

This passage, above, is just an assertion by Ernst Mayr.
I wonder how come you never noticed that?
Your all-too-frequent usage of that quote informs me of the desperation for even a single confirmation or contradiction, with which you are consumed.

Now you can drop that portion of the passage then next time you choose to use that quote - OK?
I am working on the rest of it.



(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

&#12288;
Wilson