What does the fossil record say?

[newhope101]

Dirty Penguin quote:Again, questioning whether birds are from some lineages of dinosaurs or vice versa is not a new debate. It's been going on for years. If they didn't investigate or question their findings then no progress to understand the natural world even history would ever be made. You know....
Then perhaps you should question the validity of using arch as evidence that only the stupid would reject! It appear some very clever evolutionists also reject it as convincing, let alone irrefuteable.
This site presents both sides in a more fair manner Developmental Biology 9e Online: Did Birds Evolve from the Dinosaurs?. One thing these scientist have in common is while they disagree with the current understanding that birds came from dinosaurs they hold that they (share a common ancestor) and that it is unanimously agreed that they share reptilian traits. But arguing over morphology will get us nowhere.
I'm beginning to think your genes tell you nothing really, with all the deletions, HGT in procaryotes, genetic drift etc. There are no new genes really, and there is chaos, and your clock is out of whack, and your models presume ancestry..
Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes | Learn Science at Scitable
The idea that some dinosaurs and modern day birds share a common ancestor seems exactly like what we know about humans. In this case I see nothing wrong by saying birds didn't evolve from dinos rather they share a common ancestor. The difference between you and me is you want it one way or the other and scientist just don't work this way.
Evolutionionists believe everything has a common ancestor. Too bad about the death of LUCA.
Have you figured out yet why birds have the genes for making teeth considering your bible says they were created fully formed? Yes, RNA regulation. There are no new genes and many organisms have genes they do not require. It does not denote ancestry. You should know that!



Thanks for a response.

I guess the first point I'll make is this. It is often put forward that your evidence for this or that is so clear that only the retarded would refute it. Yet your own researchers appear so NOT convinced that they are proposing another ancestry for birds. What they do agree on is birds 'evolved'. Do you understand the simplicity of my point?

Now there are what appear to be modern bird footprints 55 million years before the first record of aves.

"This finding poses many questions regarding the origin of birds and the relationships of this unknown group of theropod dinosaurs with other groups of dinosaurs," says Ricardo Melchor from the Universidad Nacional de La Pampa in Argentina, and lead author of the group that published its findings in this week's Nature. "It's significant because we find footprints with morphology identical to modern birds in rocks that predate, by 55 million years, the first record of true Aves."

These footprints are older than the oldest bird body fossils, those of the Archaeopteryx, a feathered cross between dinosaur and bird, that existed in the late Jurassic (150 million years ago).
Geotimes - June 2002 - Bird Fossil Feet

So back to the point that the evidence thus far does not contradict creation, but rather supports it. As you are aware small fossils are rarely preserved, and less likely to be found in or soon after the age of fishes. However, to find such modern bird footprints that predate their supposed dino ancestor was expected as per biblical creation.

You do not know who came from what which means you know squat really, to put it politely.

You have very old bird prints that look just like bird prints that predate arch and your earliest aves, just as it should be. All is OK in the creationist camp.

So the fossil evidence so far supports creation. and Evolutionists are left with a headache!

 

[Amill]

So back to the point that the evidence thus far does not contradict creation, but rather supports it. As you are aware small fossils are rarely preserved, and less likely to be found in or soon after the age of fishes. However, to find such modern bird footprints that predate their supposed dino ancestor was expected as per biblical creation.

So those footprints were found in rock that is older than any rock land animal fossils are found in?



Sorry bud but they're never going to find a fossil of a bird dating to before the existence of land animals.

 

[newhope101]

Amill Quote:
So those footprints were found in rock that is older than any rock land animal fossils are found in?
These footprints are older than the oldest bird body fossils, those of the Archaeopteryx, a feathered cross between dinosaur and bird, that existed in the late Jurassic (150 million years ago).
Geotimes - June 2002 - Bird Fossil Feet

Which part of this did you not understand of forget to refute. I'm afraid the shame is on you for not acknowledging your own evolutionary research. This is not creationist material, lovey!!!!!!!! If you do not accept the research of your own evolutionary scientists research and are unable to refute what you disagree with, you are in the same league as many others here. Shame on you.


Currently you have a bird ancestry dispute being had, and you have modern bird foot prints dated to before arch.
Sorry bud but they're never going to find a fossil of a bird dating to before the existence of land animals. So only evolutionists are allowed the luxury of missing hypothesized fossils and the accompanying excuses?. Is that what you are saying? BTW, Your opinion really isn't worth much either bud!



Are you another one that is full of parroted words that you are unable to defend? At the moment you have modern birds predating arch. I love the cartoon. It ads a certain humour to the TOE myth that I am sure you will not appreciate.!


So you tell us all about whom modern birds decended from. While you are at it you had better go tell your leading researchers looking into this stuff because despite all their brains they do not agree. Perhaps little old you can provide some much needed clarity for them!


At the moment the EVIDENCE appears to say that birds did not decend from dinos and they were already there. So now you have to make up another hypothesis. Perhaps this new theory will say what you want it to say, at least untill you find more evidence to refute it AGAIN......then another hypothesis will ensue in the mythical stageplay.


If birds were created with fish, one may hope to find such a fossil as evidence. However finding one that predates arch is still good and what a creationist would expect to find, eventually..and you have. Well done!!!! Too bad for the dino to bird thing though. Never mind, your reserchers will think of something I am sure..and they have.....


The theory of evolution is surely a theory in evolution and is unable to predict anything, but can evolve to suit what ever........

The TOE is unlike other scientific theories in that it presumes a priori of ancestry, does not hold up to scientific refuteability and is true sciences little sister, at best.



Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

 

[outhouse]

from your link above, can you read? or just copy and paste without any understanding at all????

Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs,

You dont have a clue do you?


from your first link

Because of these morphological inconsistencies, Melchor and his team are cautious in claiming that they have found evidence of birds or ancestors to birds.

The evidence is interesting and these do look like bird tracks, but at the moment we can't know if they are true birds.

your lack of education is embarrassing, you keep twisting what you dont know or understand.

you posted nothing that changes one aspect of ToE

 

[David M]

You have very old bird prints that look just like bird prints that predate arch and your earliest aves, just as it should be. All is OK in the creationist camp.!

No, eveything is ok in the evolution camp, its just your massive ignorance of science that makes you think otherwise.

The ancestors of Aves would have been similar to Aves and would have left footprints similar to those of Aves, that we find birdlike footprints predating the oldest aves fossil is to be expected. If we never found such footprints that would be a bit of a problem for evolution.

And as the scientist you quote says, these are not quite bird footprints.

Melchor and team indicate that there are some features that do not correspond to bird morphology, but these are few. One example is the presence of pad impressions in some of the footprints. Other features that might be bird-like, but could be common to other theropods include the wide angles between the second and fourth digits. a) Footprints are numerous in this slab of the Santa Domingo Formation.
b) The arrows point to a track of footprints. Visible in each print of the track is the hallux, the digit that points backwards in birds. Photo supplied courtesy of Ricardo Melchor.
Because of these morphological inconsistencies, Melchor and his team are cautious in claiming that they have found evidence of birds or ancestors to birds. "We have a spot in the late Triassic that uncovers the unexpected existence of these animals. There are some debatable findings of footprints in the early Jurassic and late Triassic, true birds and bird-like dinosaurs occur in the late Jurassic, but there is an immense time lapse in between where nothing is known," Melchor says.

So footprints that show a transition between theropod and aves morphologies are a problem for the history of evolution in what way?

The theory of evolution is surely a theory in evolution and is unable to predict anything, but can evolve to suit what ever........

The history of the evolution of the Aves is not the theory of evolution. To overturn ToE you would have to provide evidence that Aves could not have evolved from earlier tetrapods at all. Otherwise you are just parading your ignorance.

 

[painted wolf]

So what part of the "this study is full of gaping flaws" discussion did you miss?

1) Their estimates are based on out of date cherry picked data from the beginning of the last century. Data not even based on complete fossils.
2) Their estimates ignore the most avian dinosaurs, skewing their data.
3) Their estimates ignore even the obvious early birds like Archy... totally ruining any objectivity in the data.
4) this study ignores the evidence that Alligators and other Crocodilians have bird like breathing not lizard like breathing. That is they have uni-directional airflow not tidal airflow.
5) This study ignores the evidence that even non-avian dinosaurs have air sacs like birds.... a feature not found in any other animal group.

I could go on but these five issues make this study extremely flawed and not really worthwhile to support your point.

By the way... I've actually read this paper, not just a news article on it.

Also, your footprints are interesting, but ultimately useless. There were lots of critters running around, how do you know they aren't from a dinosaur? Dinosaurs leave bird like prints after all.

Without offering a viable non-dinosaur alternative to origin of birds, your points are essentially useless.

Where are your Triassic/Permian/Silurian/Carboniferous/Cambrian fossil birds?

wa:do

 

[Amill]

Amill Quote:
So those footprints were found in rock that is older than any rock land animal fossils are found in?
These footprints are older than the oldest bird body fossils, those of the Archaeopteryx, a feathered cross between dinosaur and bird, that existed in the late Jurassic (150 million years ago).
Geotimes - June 2002 - Bird Fossil Feet

Which part of this did you not understand of forget to refute. I'm afraid the shame is on you for not acknowledging your own evolutionary research. This is not creationist material, lovey!!!!!!!! If you do not accept the research of your own evolutionary scientists research and are unable to refute what you disagree with, you are in the same league as many others here. Shame on you.

I was mostly pointing at the quote where you said that it points towards what one would find in biblical creation. Sorry but if we look at ALL the current evidence I don't see any similarities with Genesis. First, it doesn't appear that the emergence of all the Universe and life took place over a period of 7 days. And secondly, even if we grant that the week of creation was a "metaphor" the evidence found in nature showing the emergence of different species doesn't follow the order that is listed in genesis... We don't find fossilized birds in rock that dates to older than the first land animals....anywhere.... Surely if there were plenty of birds around we would have found something. Hell, if Genesis is metaphorical the birds should have had a hell of a long time to populate without having to worry about Cats catching them or running into windows. Surely there would have been some fossils? Don't you think?

Are you another one that is full of parroted words that you are unable to defend? At the moment you have modern birds predating arch. I love the cartoon. It ads a certain humour to the TOE myth that I am sure you will not appreciate.!

I'm not really sure what that cartoon was supposed to mean? Does this have to do with the fact that you think pterosaurs are birds? If a pterosaur is a bird.....then by what characteristics do you classify birds?

At the moment the EVIDENCE appears to say that birds did not decend from dinos and they were already there. So now you have to make up another hypothesis. Perhaps this new theory will say what you want it to say, at least untill you find more evidence to refute it AGAIN......then another hypothesis will ensue in the mythical stageplay.

What evidence? The one or two articles you posted? Maybe some evidence does indicate that our current understand on bird ancestry could become challenged, but that hardly means that all the evidence now points toward something different. Evidence still exists that supports that birds are descended from dinosaurs. It's not like that particular evidence vanished.

If birds were created with fish, one may hope to find such a fossil as evidence.

You'll be hoping for a long time I'm sure. But have faith.

The theory of evolution is surely a theory in evolution and is unable to predict anything, but can evolve to suit what ever........

You haven't put much effort into researching the theory of evolution if you actually feel this claim is true. Quite a lot of predictions can be and have been made. Should watch this Ken Miller video, he even mentions several predictions that were made and confirmed

[youtube]JVRsWAjvQSg[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I guess the first point I'll make is this. It is often put forward that your evidence for this or that is so clear that only the retarded would refute it.

And you would be absolutely, positively WRONG. The evidence is always presented but never cited as final. It's always falsifiable. You have science mixed up with the claims of religion. It's not that some are "restarted" to try and refute the evidence, it's most are too uneducated to understand the evidence.

Yet your own researchers appear so NOT convinced that they are proposing another ancestry for birds. What they do agree on is birds 'evolved'. Do you understand the simplicity of my point?

So what...? I got your point the first time you stated it. You seem to believe that this is some grand problem for scientist. It isn't. Scientist actually welcome new information even if it falsifies previous findings. That's how science is done. No area of science is immune to this. Do you get that point?

Now there are what appear to be modern bird footprints 55 million years before the first record of aves.

"This finding poses many questions regarding the origin of birds and the relationships of this unknown group of theropod dinosaurs with other groups of dinosaurs," says Ricardo Melchor from the Universidad Nacional de La Pampa in Argentina, and lead author of the group that published its findings in this week's Nature. "It's significant because we find footprints with morphology identical to modern birds in rocks that predate, by 55 million years, the first record of true Aves."

These footprints are older than the oldest bird body fossils, those of the Archaeopteryx, a feathered cross between dinosaur and bird, that existed in the late Jurassic (150 million years ago).
Geotimes - June 2002 - Bird Fossil Feet

(Your Source)
"Other paleontologists, such as Lockley agree, "The evidence is interesting and these do look like bird tracks, but at the moment we can't know if they are true birds. It's important, however, not to dismiss the track evidence as invalid until the skeletons are found."

So why don't you get back to us when they find some fossils. Until then all we have are tracks in stone that appear to be bird like but it is inconclusive and other than the tracks themselves there's not a lot of data to go on.

So back to the point that the evidence thus far does not contradict creation, but rather supports it............. to find such modern bird footprints that predate their supposed dino ancestor was expected as per biblical creation.

Wrong. Your bible is a multitude of personal and organizational interpretations. The creation narrative was meant to be taken literally. From the beginning, to the creation of Adam and through his genealogy are all broken down by days, evenings, nights, and years, not billions of years. Furthermore you scriptures says (flying) birds were created. So what bird like animal do you suppose the article is talking about? It doesn't appear it is describing a flying or perching bird at all.


Ricardo N. Melchor, Silvina de Valais & Jorge F. Genise, Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic, Nature 2002

"The shallow hallucal impression, commonly disconnected with the rest of the foot, suggests that the hallux contacted the ground, but that it was slightly raised and probably not adapted for perching as in some birds."

You say birds having teeth is due to genetics but why? If the bird, as your bible insinuates, was created fully formed then why do they have genes for making teeth if teeth were never needed for birds?

:sleep:

 

[newhope101]

​

Evolution Debunked​

You know there is lots of evidence to refute TOE. No matter what you say there are science heads that are skeptical of TOE, and I do not care what you think of me personally. Some of you really need to go tell someone that cares. (must be you lot care about me, to bother)​

Just because your researchers have a melt down and put theoretical research up as their refutes, really does not mean alot. They fight and argue with each other about plenty, contest and refute each other, and for many reasons.​

What your scientists are best at doing is not accepting the evidence that sinks their boat. It does not matter that your researchers have concerns or refute this evidence, because in the end they will only accept what they want to accept anyway, and so will I and so will you.​

This cat track (9 inches across) was found in the same layer with the Burdick track, Middle Cretaceous, supposedly 110 million years old.

The refutes from your researchers are rubbish, flimsy and misguided. Of course there will be robust refute of this evidence...and only one bit needs to be correct to blow TOE out of the window with your birds.

However, I have looked at it and find it more convincing than your eternally refuted and debated theories. So go debate amongst yourselves, you and your researchers are good at it. Shame that's all they do, without much resolution.

Many of you that pretend to be educated are much less educated that I, it appears. Remember, even PW cannot defend her stance on bird ancestry, and likely doesn't take one, minimises the human/chimp Y chromo difference...and Autodidact thought we had knuckle walking ancestors not that long ago and loves to use Tiktaalik without the knowledge of tetrapod footprints being around at the time. Ha Ha!...shame..but you still adore them!

If any of you see creationists with hatred and a closed mind then you are no better than the terrorists you condemn.

You've got modern birds placed with dinos, and you've got yourselves a mess. Thanks, but no thanks.




Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links


I'm not so uneducated as to not understand your birds are in a mess, your reseachers don't agree, you all have no clue, and it is all as clear as mud!!!!!!

 

[outhouse]

could you post something relevant????

imagination and misguided science due to closed minded christian tactics do not work againt reality and reason

 

[Autodidact]

You are another one that has not got a clue about bird ancestry and can make no credible comment either, other than asides and degradation.

No Paintedwolf, you most certainly have not replied with a response, illustrating what bird ancestry you favour and why. You cannot, as you have no clue. The best you can do is pretend you did to save yourself embarrassment

In fact none of you have, nor are any prepared to have a shot. So you are all able to shove your crap down creationists throats as evidence. However you are unable to defend your own position, when it comes down to it. :slap:

Such are the defenders of the TOE faith. :areyoucra

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

Two words. Paluxy. Footprints.

 

[Autodidact]

​

Evolution Debunked​

You know there is lots of evidence to refute TOE. No matter what you say there are science heads that are skeptical of TOE, and I do not care what you think of me personally. Some of you really need to go tell someone that cares. (must be you lot care about me, to bother)​

Just because your researchers have a melt down and put theoretical research up as their refutes, really does not mean alot. They fight and argue with each other about plenty, contest and refute each other, and for many reasons.​

What your scientists are best at doing is not accepting the evidence that sinks their boat. It does not matter that your researchers have concerns or refute this evidence, because in the end they will only accept what they want to accept anyway, and so will I and so will you.​

This cat track (9 inches across) was found in the same layer with the Burdick track, Middle Cretaceous, supposedly 110 million years old.

The refutes from your researchers are rubbish, flimsy and misguided. Of course there will be robust refute of this evidence...and only one bit needs to be correct to blow TOE out of the window with your birds.

However, I have looked at it and find it more convincing than your eternally refuted and debated theories. So go debate amongst yourselves, you and your researchers are good at it. Shame that's all they do, without much resolution.

Many of you that pretend to be educated are much less educated that I, it appears. Remember, even PW cannot defend her stance on bird ancestry, and likely doesn't take one, minimises the human/chimp Y chromo difference...and Autodidact thought we had knuckle walking ancestors not that long ago and loves to use Tiktaalik without the knowledge of tetrapod footprints being around at the time. Ha Ha!...shame..but you still adore them!

If any of you see creationists with hatred and a closed mind then you are no better than the terrorists you condemn.

You've got modern birds placed with dinos, and you've got yourselves a mess. Thanks, but no thanks.




Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links


I'm not so uneducated as to not understand your birds are in a mess, your reseachers don't agree, you all have no clue, and it is all as clear as mud!!!!!!

HA HA HA! This is getting better by the minute! newhope has stumbled onto one of the internet's richest troves of fraud and bunk. Click the link and laugh your heart out! Thank you, newhope. You brought humor to my day. I didn't think you could drag in anything more obviously fake than the Paluxy Footprints. Now we've got rapid oil and new coal. Oh this is fun. So apparently not only are all Biologists retarded, so are all Geologists. How much more science would you like to throw out, newhope, all of it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You know there is lots of evidence to refute TOE. No matter what you say there are science heads that are skeptical of TOE, and I do not care what you think of me personally. Some of you really need to go tell someone that cares. (must be you lot care about me, to bother)​

Your problem is you get way too emotional. As stated before there is no problem in the scientific community when new evidence is brought to light or the understanding of current "scientific" theories are readjusted to conform to new data. Unfortunately the same can not be said for religious text but only those who strive at moving the goal post in an attempt to make their text fit with current knowledge of the natural world. It's not that we don't care about you even though we really don't. I'm just being honest. We don't even know you. We just can't stand the obvious quote mining and misinformation is all.
​

Just because your researchers have a melt down and put theoretical research up as their refutes, really does not mean alot.​

See what I mean about too emotional and misinformation? No one is having a melt down and I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding this but it's been said plenty of times here to you that the everyday understanding and use of the word "Theory" is completely different than the understanding of a "Scientific Theory". You probably wouldn't experience as much resistance as you do if you knew and understood the difference.

They fight and argue with each other about plenty, contest and refute each other, and for many reasons.

WRONG. There's no fighting or arguing. Yes there's plenty of contesting of current findings. None of which changes the ToE.
​

What your scientists are best at doing is not accepting the evidence that sinks their boat. It does not matter that your researchers have concerns or refute this evidence, because in the end they will only accept what they want to accept anyway, and so will I and so will you.​

That means the Scientific Method is working perfectly tis all. Quack or weak hypotheses get tossed aside until said scientist can show why it should be taken serious by his or he peers. You have presented nothing that challenges the fossil record in light of your holy scriptures and you and wilson have presented absolutely nothing that challenges the ToE. The bible has never been a good starting point when trying to understand the natural word. The creation narrative is incorrect when it stated man was created and woman created from his genetic material. Honestly, if it gets that wrong why should one bother with the rest?
​

This cat track (9 inches across) was found in the same layer with the Burdick track, Middle Cretaceous, supposedly 110 million years old.

You will continue to lose any shred of credibility you have, assuming you have any left, if you continue to post debunked findings such as this as well as supposed human footprints alongside dinosaurs. It smells of desperation on your part. The creationist site you're copying and pasting from is ill-informed.

Of course there will be robust refute of this evidence...and only one bit needs to be correct to blow TOE out of the window with your birds.

Well we're still waiting for you to accomplish this personal task you keep presenting to us. You have displayed nothing that blows the ToE out of the window..... :sarcastic

However, I have looked at it and find it more convincing than your eternally refuted and debated theories. So go debate amongst yourselves, you and your researchers are good at it. Shame that's all they do, without much resolution.

Being salty doesn't help you one bit...

Many of you that pretend to be educated are much less educated that I, it appears. Remember, even PW cannot defend her stance on bird ancestry, and likely doesn't take one, minimises the human/chimp Y chromo difference...and Autodidact thought we had knuckle walking ancestors not that long ago and loves to use Tiktaalik without the knowledge of tetrapod footprints being around at the time. Ha Ha!...shame..but you still adore them!

PW answered you a few times here in this thread. You keep touting Y-Cromosome and you've been shown to be incorrect in your ranting. The footprints you're harping on the very scientist involved pretty much says the findings are inconclusive and stated the bird like prints shows the bird was most likely not the type of animal that could fly and perch yet your bible states flying birds in one chapter, Adam and Eve shorty thereafter and then Noah sending out doves and ravens. Yet you take issue with prints in a rock. How about getting your time line straight when it comes to "creation"....

If any of you see creationists with hatred and a closed mind then you are no better than the terrorists you condemn.

Really?....."Terrorist"....Really?............

You've got modern birds placed with dinos, and you've got yourselves a mess. Thanks, but no thanks.

No one has "modern" day birds placed with dinosaurs.......How does "bird like" translate to "modern" day birds. NO......It's you that has modern day birds placed with dinosaurs and humans existing at the time of dinosaurs. No one but you has suggested such a thing.

 

[outhouse]

are you trying to tell us the bible is not a accurate history or science book???

heaven forbid

 

[newhope101]

And you would be absolutely, positively WRONG. The evidence is always presented but never cited as final. It's always falsifiable. You have science mixed up with the claims of religion. It's not that some are "restarted" to try and refute the evidence, it's most are too uneducated to understand the evidence.
Oh yeah your bird evidence proves that...NOT

So what...? I got your point the first time you stated it. You seem to believe that this is some grand problem for scientist. It isn't. Scientist actually welcome new information even if it falsifies previous findings. That's how science is done. No area of science is immune to this. Do you get that point? Yeah..and they do it on a regular basis. Real science tweaks. Pop science overhauls eg birds.


(Your Source)
"Other paleontologists, such as Lockley agree, "The evidence is interesting and these do look like bird tracks, but at the moment we can't know if they are true birds. It's important, however, not to dismiss the track evidence as invalid until the skeletons are found."

So why don't you get back to us when they find some fossils. Until then all we have are tracks in stone that appear to be bird like but it is inconclusive and other than the tracks themselves there's not a lot of data to go on.
Where are your common ancestors? They look like bird prints, they aint dino prints, they have been described as modern bird foot prints. So you may debate and aside and still I will have this evidence.


Wrong. Your bible is a multitude of personal and organizational interpretations. The creation narrative was meant to be taken literally. From the beginning, to the creation of Adam and through his genealogy are all broken down by days, evenings, nights, and years, not billions of years. Furthermore you scriptures says (flying) birds were created. I suppose God told you this himself! So what bird like animal do you suppose the article is talking about? It doesn't appear it is describing a flying or perching bird at all. So long as it makes your dino to bird theory look as ridiculous as it should be I am satisfied.:sad:

Ricardo N. Melchor, Silvina de Valais & Jorge F. Genise, Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic, Nature 2002

"The shallow hallucal impression, commonly disconnected with the rest of the foot, suggests that the hallux contacted the ground, but that it was slightly raised and probably not adapted for perching as in some birds."

You say birds having teeth is due to genetics but why? If the bird, as your bible insinuates, was created fully formed then why do they have genes for making teeth if teeth were never needed for birds ? More precisely I say your researchers do not know what they are looking at. Even FOXP2 in the chimp is used for a different function. Birds have FOXP2 and humans did not evolve from them, although we are both warm blooded. You are so uneducated to have posed such a question.
FoxP2 in Song-Learning Birds and Vocal-Learning Mammals
:sleep:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_11-12.pdf

And still none of you know the ancestry of birds. Now..it is not me that looks the fool! YOU ALL DO!!! HA HA HA HA :clap

 

[outhouse]

are you trying to tell us the bible is a accurate history and science book???

 

[tumbleweed41]

And still none of you know the ancestry of birds. Now..it is not me that looks the fool! YOU ALL DO!!! HA HA HA HA :clap

Nope, seems you still look like the fool.

So what part of the "this study is full of gaping flaws" discussion did you miss?

1) Their estimates are based on out of date cherry picked data from the beginning of the last century. Data not even based on complete fossils.
2) Their estimates ignore the most avian dinosaurs, skewing their data.
3) Their estimates ignore even the obvious early birds like Archy... totally ruining any objectivity in the data.
4) this study ignores the evidence that Alligators and other Crocodilians have bird like breathing not lizard like breathing. That is they have uni-directional airflow not tidal airflow.
5) This study ignores the evidence that even non-avian dinosaurs have air sacs like birds.... a feature not found in any other animal group.

I could go on but these five issues make this study extremely flawed and not really worthwhile to support your point.

By the way... I've actually read this paper, not just a news article on it.

Also, your footprints are interesting, but ultimately useless. There were lots of critters running around, how do you know they aren't from a dinosaur? Dinosaurs leave bird like prints after all.

Without offering a viable non-dinosaur alternative to origin of birds, your points are essentially useless.

Where are your Triassic/Permian/Silurian/Carboniferous/Cambrian fossil birds?

wa:do

Not to mention that Paluxy Footprint folly.

 

[tumbleweed41]

​

From the same site...

 

[camanintx]

I can't wait for newhope to tell us how the banana is evidence of creation.
:danana:

 

[outhouse]

I can't wait for newhope to tell us how the banana is evidence of creation.
:danana:

or peanut butter