dinosaur to bird evolution evidence

[HMS_Beagle]

Recently one of less intelligent YECs has been clucking the usual YECkery about how birds didn't evolve but were always birds, etc. This thread is to present some of the large amount of evidence for the evolution of birds from the theropod dinosaur subgroup Coelurosauria.

Gradual Assembly of Avian Body Plan Culminated in Rapid Rates of Evolution across the Dinosaur-Bird Transition

1-s2.0-S0960982214010471-gr1.jpg

The first of many papers.

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/science/scales-feathers-hair-common-ancestor.html?_r=0

Reptiles have scales. Birds have feathers. Mammals have hair. How did we get them?

© Copyright Original Source

[Bill the Cat]

Rogue is proof there are still dinosaurs around.

[rogue06]

Rogue has proof there are still dinosaurs around.

FIFY

t-rex-animal-cruelty.jpg
Just taking Rex to the park to play
He's become too big for the teleporter portal

XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX

smiley T rex1.gif

[Jorge]

Recently one of less intelligent YECs has been clucking the usual YECkery about how birds didn't evolve but were always birds, etc. This thread is to present some of the large amount of evidence for the evolution of birds from the theropod dinosaur subgroup Coelurosauria.



[ATTACH=CONFIG]17628[/ATTACH]



The first of many papers.

Two can play the "Post-It" game.

Here's one:

http://creation.com/dinosaur-bird-evolution

Here's another:
A team led by bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science


And still a few others, this time from a secular source: Science journal:

(1) Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science Science"birds evolved from dinosaurs" -- which is precisely what I said. That you and the other Evo-Faithful have swallowed the Evo-Bird myth beak, wings and feathers is merely a testament to your fanatical, blind Faith - nothing more.

You are going to have to try much, MUCH harder, Beagle Boy.
On one of my worst days, tied to a wheelchair, I can still run circles around you.

Jorge

[shunyadragon]

Two can play the "Post-It" game.

Here's one:

http://creation.com/dinosaur-bird-evolution

Here's another:
A team led by bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science


And still a few others, this time from a secular source: Science journal:

(1) Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science Science"birds evolved from dinosaurs" -- which is precisely what I said. That you and the other Evo-Faithful have swallowed the Evo-Bird myth beak, wings and feathers is merely a testament to your fanatical, blind Faith - nothing more.

You are going to have to try much, MUCH harder, Beagle Boy.
On one of my worst days, tied to a wheelchair, I can still run circles around you.

Jorge

One problem with your selective citation. Yes, Alan Feduccia disagree with the Therapod evolution as ancestors of birds, but he supported the independent evolution of birds.

Disagreements among scientists concerning the relationship of species is not remotely a viable objection to evolution over billions of years. Most of the scientists, including Alan Feduccia, Ann C. Burke and Ann Gibbons, you cite support evolution, but disagree on aspects of evolution. ALL support common ancestry, but some propose an earlier common ancestry of both Therapods and birds.

[Jorge]

One problem with your selective citation. Yes, Alan Feduccia disagree with the Therapod evolution as ancestors of birds, but he supported the independent evolution of birds.

Disagreements among scientists concerning the relationship of species is not remotely a viable objection to evolution over billions of years. Most of the scientists, including Alan Feduccia, Ann C. Burke and Ann Gibbons, you cite support evolution, but disagree on aspects of evolution.

Fine. But you are switching the subject.

The point had to do with DINO-TO-BIRD EVOLUTION. Go back, look at how this whole thing emerged, and convince yourself that I blew a gasket when O-Mudd did what TEs/OECs/Materialists/Atheists routinely do: state as "fact" what not only ISN'T a fact, but is actually a hotly-disputed, controversial claim with a huge amount of counter-evidence.

TEs/OECs, in particular, are so blinded by their Evo-Faith that they often lose sight of the fact that most of what they say is, at best, hypothetical. But boy-oh-boy they sure do state it with the authority of God Himself! And why shouldn't they? Hey, if Evolution is right then God's account (the Bible) is wrong which makes THEM the "Authority", right?

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Two can play the "Post-It" game.

Here's one:

http://creation.com/dinosaur-bird-evolution

I see Clucky McPoopy has waddled by leave his usual droppings. Of course all we get is the usual YEC C&Ped lies and the 20 year old claims of Alan Feduccia that virtually no one in the paleontology community agrees with.

Clucky as always has nothing to say about the OP paper. He's too busy being a coward.

[rogue06]

Feduccia and Ruben are increasingly becoming outliers as the objections that they have raised decades ago have been refuted by new research.

Btw, they still don't provide support for the YEC model as can be seen from what Feduccia has said:

Source:

Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that's not evolution in action, I do not know what is.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Fine. But you are switching the subject.

The point had to do with DINO-TO-BIRD EVOLUTION. Go back, look at how this whole thing emerged, and convince yourself that I blew a gasket when O-Mudd did what TEs/OECs/Materialists/Atheists routinely do: state as "fact" what not only ISN'T a fact, but is actually a hotly-disputed, controversial claim with a huge amount of counter-evidence.

TEs/OECs, in particular, are so blinded by their Evo-Faith that they often lose sight of the fact that most of what they say is, at best, hypothetical. But boy-oh-boy they sure do state it with the authority of God Himself! And why shouldn't they? Hey, if Evolution is right then God's account (the Bible) is wrong which makes THEM the "Authority", right?

Jorge

No, not switching the subject, just calling down on your intentional ignorance, selective use of sources, and arrogance to justify your agenda. Disagreements between scientists concerning the order and lineage of evolution does not translate into a rejection of evolution science they all agree on evolution.

[Roy]

Two can play the "Post-It" game.

Here's one:

http://creation.com/dinosaur-bird-evolution

Who ever said Sinosauropteryx was an ancestor of Archeopteryx? No-one that I can find. In any case by using Sinosauropteryx to claim that feathered dinosaurs existed after birds, Sarfati is ignoring the older fossils of Juravenator and Compsognathus, which are in the same clade as Sinosauropteryx, as well as other feathered non-avian dinosaurs such as Yi and Tianyulong which are even older. Tianyulong being dated to 158 Mya completely destroys Sarfati's argument - which may be why he didn't mention it.

[TheLurch]

This is badly out of date. It turns out that alligators have a bird-like lung with one-way airflow. Given the relationship between alligators and birds, this implies that all dinosaurs had bird-like lungs.

[Jorge]

This is badly out of date. It turns out that alligators have a bird-like lung with one-way airflow. Given the relationship between alligators and birds, this implies that all dinosaurs had bird-like lungs.

To both you and Roy, how is it that you people strain on gnats yet somehow
manage to swallow the entire herd of camels? I mean, that is one helluva feat!

GET THE POINT: DINO-TO-BIRD Evolution is chock full of holes - period!

ONLY the Evo-Faithful deny that fact.

Oops, my very bad - you guys DO belong to the Evo-Faithful flock. Sorry ... carry on.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

GET THE POINT: DINO-TO-BIRD Evolution is chock full of holes - period!

Not that you can demonstrate with your YEC lies and 20 year old outdated C&Ped poo.

Well Clucky, does your big flapping mouth have anything to say on the OP paper? No? Then carry on making yourself look like an ignorant ass.

[TheLurch]

GET THE POINT: DINO-TO-BIRD Evolution is chock full of holes - period!

Based on what? The one thing that's clearly full of holes is the link you've provided in the attempt to complain about bird-to-dinosaur evolution. Which is the point.