June 13, 2009
-
Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx was a true bird!
Edit point I removed just and placed the word true next to bird (odd but true).
One of the funniest things I heard in the last few years was that birds came from the close kin of the Tyrannosaurus rex . Many things of Evolution are just plain funny or just so strange that one must have great faith or very simple to get hooked into that belief system . Back to the Tyrannosaur, all I could see was Big Bird with teeth and tiny forelimbs covered in feathers and a very large rump, huge tail, big hind legs with big feet running to an edge of a cleft and taking a leap into the wild blue flapping those tinny yellow arms with no success.
” Except for a few notable critics, such as University of North Carolina paleobiologist Alan Feduccia, evolutionists seem to have all but agreed on birds’ dinosaurian origins. “ Dinosaurs lack fixed femur bones and musculature that is crucial in preventing a bird’s air-sac lung from collapsing whenever the bird takes a breath. Doctoral student Devon Quick and Oregon State zoologist John Ruben coauthor a new paper in the Journal of Morphology that gives proof that breaks the link of the dinosaur-to-bird evolution . http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/12/birds-did-not-evolve
I am reading several books this summer and hope to go to a conference that will better my understanding of the growing scientific support of creation and the pending down fall of Macroevolution . I plan to buy “ Evolution: A Theory in Crisis ” a book by a non-creationist Dr. Michael Denton is reported to be a clear, balanced, responsible, and scientifically accurate account of the ever-growing crisis in evolutionary circles. This book was published back in 1996 but I just found out about it this week.
Barry
Note : Jerry Rankin did a great job with this book ( Spiritual Warfare: The Battle for God’s Glory )
Comments (27)
Ive heard of this before too. Something about the difference in the respiratory systems being extremely incompatible. There is an article on Dr.Dino’s site that I read after having my faith challenged in a dinosaur bone exhibit in a museum in Miami. I recommend it.
in Jesus,
Charles
The evolutionists claim a progressive evolution, an “evolving up”, so to speak, when science has actually seen that quality of life has been drastically reduced without our modern medicine, which is the only reason people are “living longer than ever.”
@iamtheclayman - You are right the mutations are mostly destructive and result in loss of information. As you said loss of quality of life is very strong as was a story I had told to me . This guy said just think that a order was given to round up all me 18 to 30 years of age in a town and handcuff them together then take them through the woods and just outside of the net town shoot them in a mass grave. now say if you had no arms due to a mutation in his genetic info and were not shot on the spot due to a witness and it was not allowed to do so in that town that genetic change saved that man but was it a true improvement in the genetic code ? Even with all the medical efforts starting in 2010 the life span is to start a down spiral and I’m sorry to say kids born now are not expected to out live their parents. This news was released last month in the medical world. God bless you on this Flag Day !
Barry
I just do not understand how one species can evolve into another species. Evolution just doesn’t make logical sense. And they call me goofy.
@iamtheclayman -
So you’re saying that humans haven’t evolved to become smarter to know how to keep themselves alive? And you’re saying our quality of living is completely determined by our “devolution” and not at all related to how society views health care and how the image it portrays makes us not put our health at the top of our priorities?
Yeah, you’re a bright one.
@LifeNeedsProtection -
Just because you yourself are incapable of understanding it, it doesn’t make it false. Isn’t that the argument most theists try to throw at atheists?
archaeopteryx
Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
You’re forgetting the fact that even if birds were not the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs, those theropod dinosaurs still lived 65 million years ago. Which kind of puts a hindrance on the whole creation theory, doesn’t it?
You also failed to mention the rest of the article that indicated birds evolved parallel to theropod dinosaurs and probably had a common ancestor.
@GodlessLiberal -
Tell me, is this whole fixed-femur business an irreducible complexity issue because nothing presents itself to be the case that there were bird-like creatures before birds that did not have fixed-femurs, which evolved into fixed-femurs for the survival advantage that has led birds to become what they are today. Everything I’ve seen on this subject makes a direct link of an IC kind of argument, i.e., “birds need a fixed-femur, and dinosaurs don’t have it; so dinosaurs cannot ever have become birds.”
@lovechartreuse - Tell you what, come on over here to Iraq and see what life without modern medicine is like.
“So you’re saying that humans haven’t evolved to become smarter to know how to keep themselves alive?”
Nope, I sure didn’t say that. I even double checked my previous comment!
“And you’re saying our quality of living is completely determined by our “devolution” and not at all related to how society views health care and how the image it portrays makes us not put our health at the top of our priorities?”
Didn’t say that. What I was saying is exactly what I said above. No trickery on my part. Take it at face value, please.
@iamtheclayman -
…You’re retarded.
@lovechartreuse - Wow. Name-calling. Evolution at it’s finest, I suppose?
@iamtheclayman -
Someone like you couldn’t even possibly insult me effectively, I question whether or not you’re capable of reading.
Here’s something you might be interested in Barry.
http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/TorahCreation/fossilrecord.htm
Having limited knowledge of current scientific advancement in these areas, I can see why you find it all so ridiculous. It just goes to show how important it is to upgrade the scientific education of children in evolutionary theories and the developments we have made. Pursuing ignorance is hardly admirable, I think you would agree, so perhaps you should read and study more on the theory as stated by those in support, you are so eager to disprove.
Maybe you do know a lot about current evolutionary theory, but from what you posted here, it seems woefully dated and inaccurate.
Since when has evolutionary biology said that a 150 million year old ancestor of any of today’s species must share all the features of today’s species? Nobody is arguing that because present whales don’t have legs, they did not evolve from land mammals (to the contrary).
they are not descendants of land mammals* scratch “they did not evolve from land mammals”
@LSP1 - Thanks Larry , I did a fast scan of this and will read more and the links within http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/TorahCreation/fossilrecord.htm
when I get back from work . For the most part of my scan I saw most of these points in my other readings but I do like the way this person published it with the other links and ways to read more about each part! Outside of restating their belief system over and over very little science is used by the Followers of Macroevolution and this brings us back to them telling us you just have to believe we know the truth that science may some day agree with.
Another thing I see verry often is if you are not sold that Macroevolution is true then you are open for personal attack as with my friend and brother @iamtheclayman - (God bless you and stay strong in Jesus!) .
I’ll try to respond to the others as time allows this week.
Barry
@Barrygw - ”You are right the mutations are mostly destructive and result in loss of information.”
That would be “You are right that phenotypically-expressed mutations in animal/plants are mostly destructive and result in loss of information.”
Many mutations which copy base pairs don’t do any harm. Bacteria often need to mutate in order to survive.
Which conference are you going to?
@lovechartreuse - Well, i’m pretty sure I’m reading your comments, so that “theory” is now out the window…
I am also positive I have not and will not insult you.
@Barrygw - Well, that happens sometimes, Barry! It’s no always smooth sailing, but after a tour or two in a combat zone wearing full kit (body armor,ammo, weapon, 3 liters of water) I can handle a little verbal attack. Just have to remeber to remain graceful when defending our viewpoint. Anyway, Grace and Peace to you, Brother! Have to go get the bad guys again!
BTW: Who would have thought this post would have engendered so many diverse responses?
@iamtheclayman - Evolution really isn’t described as “evolving up” at all. Species evolve to survive best at that time, but as we can see from the extinction of many species throughout existence, evolution doesn’t always produce the best adapted species, it’s a process of trial and error really.
@Barrygw - The fact that this generation won’t live as long as our parents generation is hardly an argument against evolution because you say that mutations are destructive. Evolution takes place over millions of years, not a single generation.
And I think you are thinking too simplistically about evolution. It doesn’t happen that one generation there is a big tyrannosaurus rex and the next generation there is a tiny feathered blue jay, so picturing a large feathered dinosaur isn’t the way to think about it. Once again, evolution covers millions of years. Of course, if you are a creationist, this won’t make sense because you don’t believe the Earth has had hundreds of millions of years for evolution to occur, sorry this is the first time I have read a post of yours so I have assumptions to go on, so I apologize if I made an incorrect one.
@soccerdadforlife - Does these destructive mutations in higher forms of life offer higher quality of life when it comes to natural selection?
http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml I will enjoy reading this book even better now that I have an antaonist review to challange it as I read.
As far as the link you gave on Archaeopteryx I already read it and found it weighted as the links I provide you may offer some balance . I’m sure you already know that extinct birds such as Icthyornis and Hesperornis, which were unquestionably 100% birds, also had teeth. Yes, it had claws at the ends of the three digits and there are three living birds today which have claws in either the adult or juvenile form. Archaeopteryx seems to have use them crawl through the trees maybe to better reach it’s food and from it’s form it may have made short flights. I read “That it was not a powerful flier” This was inferred from the “small area of origin which it had for flight muscles”. Other things that I found on http://trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp Like ” children cannot be older than their parents!” that refers to the time periods you rely on .
I liked this “Too late. Accepting Archaeopteryx as the earliest known bird by no means solves the timing problem posed by the theropod theory of origins. Since Archaeopteryx dates to the Late Jurassic, some 150 million years ago, birds presumably originated quite a bit earlier. Even advocates of theropod ancestry place the rise of birds in the Middle to early Late Jurassic. This means that the alleged dinosaur ancestor must have existed by at least the Middle Jurassic. The problem is that no dinosaur with particularly avian affinities is known before the Late Jurassic, and those with the most birdlike characteristics do not appear until much later. This pattern has led some experts to suggest the possibility that coelurosaurs were derived from primitive birds (archaeopterygids)!”
“Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds.”http://creation.com/scientific-american-admits-creationists-hit-a-sore-spot There are no fossil links between it and either reptiles or birds—it stands alone.
http://creation.com/archaeopteryx
Other thoughts that I found … ” Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight. Pterosaurs likewise had similar brain structures for flight—the large optic lobes, semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes, probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing gaze-stabilization while flying.
The skeletons of Archaeopteryx had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. “
http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window
http://creation.com/bird-breathing-anatomy-breaks-dino-to-bird-dogma
And I love this tree with out liks http://creation.com/dinosaurs-phylogenetic-chart
These are all short and most are easy to follow . Have fun !
Barry
@Lisa_x09 - I”m glad you read it . You have good points from your world view !
@GodlessLiberal - Sorry most of what was stated above was for you including the links.
Thanks for the link http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml I will enjoy reading this book even better now that I have an antaonist review to challange it as I read.
As far as the link you gave on Archaeopteryx I already read it and found it weighted as the links I provide you may offer some balance . I’m sure you already know that extinct birds such as Icthyornis and Hesperornis, which were unquestionably 100% birds, also had teeth. Yes, it had claws at the ends of the three digits and there are three living birds today which have claws in either the adult or juvenile form. Archaeopteryx seems to have use them crawl through the trees maybe to better reach it’s food and from it’s form it may have made short flights. I read “That it was not a powerful flier” This was inferred from the “small area of origin which it had for flight muscles”. Other things that I found on http://trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp Like ” children cannot be older than their parents!” that refers to the time periods you rely on .
I liked this “Too late. Accepting Archaeopteryx as the earliest known bird by no means solves the timing problem posed by the theropod theory of origins. Since Archaeopteryx dates to the Late Jurassic, some 150 million years ago, birds presumably originated quite a bit earlier. Even advocates of theropod ancestry place the rise of birds in the Middle to early Late Jurassic. This means that the alleged dinosaur ancestor must have existed by at least the Middle Jurassic. The problem is that no dinosaur with particularly avian affinities is known before the Late Jurassic, and those with the most birdlike characteristics do not appear until much later. This pattern has led some experts to suggest the possibility that coelurosaurs were derived from primitive birds (archaeopterygids)!”
“Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds.”http://creation.com/scientific-american-admits-creationists-hit-a-sore-spot There are no fossil links between it and either reptiles or birds—it stands alone.
http://creation.com/archaeopteryx
Other thoughts that I found … ” Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size (although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance required for coordinating flight. Pterosaurs likewise had similar brain structures for flight—the large optic lobes, semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes, probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing gaze-stabilization while flying.
the skeletons of Archaeopteryx had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. “
http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window
http://creation.com/bird-breathing-anatomy-breaks-dino-to-bird-dogma
And I love this tree with out liks http://creation.com/dinosaurs-phylogenetic-chart
These are all short and most are easy to follow . Have fun !
Barry
( I’m having a lot of trouble with xanga tonight it does not want to do as I direct)
@Rain_of_Mystic_Sorrow -
I do not understand what you are saying ” it seems woefully dated and inaccurate ” .
The link I gave was posted June 12, 2009 and my post was June 13, 2009 and was about a “new paper in the Journal of Morphology that gives proof that breaks the link of the dinosaur-to-bird evolution . “If you want to know the facts of my post you should check out the link I gave .
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/12/birds-did-not-evolve
Barry