The Reptile-Bird Theory. Real or Fake?

[Jose Fly]

Eselam,

Regarding your notion that we should find a fossil specimen that is "half bird, half reptile" in every way, it reminded me of a blog entry by science writer Carl Zimmer (emphasis mine).....

"The recent splash about a certain fossil primate has revealed yet again just how much a lot of people (sadly, including a lot of journalists) want to cling to the notion that paleontologists are only interested in missing links–which, I guess, are supposed to be the direct ancestors of some living group of organisms that are precisely halfway between primitive forerunners and the advanced living creatures.

This notion is wrong in many ways. First of all, the entire body plan shared by, say, living birds did not leap into existence in a single ancestor. In fact, what we today consider the bird body plan actually evolved through a long series of steps. Different parts of bird anatomy evolved at different times. It’s now generally agreed that birds descend from a group of dinosaurs called theropods that includes lots of famous two-legged species like T. rex and Velociraptor. Many studies show that feathers had already evolved in forms seen on birds today on dinosaurs long before they had wings, beaks, or lots of other adaptations that all birds today have. So looking for “the” missing link for birds is ridiculous from the get-go."

LINK

[painted wolf]

Perhaps it's in the way it's presented ....

wa:do

[eselam]

Originally Posted by mball1297

The problem is that he's been given all kinds of information over and over and over again on these very questions, and he has shown that he has no real interest in trying to learn new information.

oh so me asking for more information on the cratures that i said should exists which now do, is somehow meaning that i am not wanting to learn, is that right?

[eselam]

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

Eselam,

Regarding your notion that we should find a fossil specimen that is "half bird, half reptile" in every way, it reminded me of a blog entry by science writer Carl Zimmer (emphasis mine).....

"The recent splash about a certain fossil primate has revealed yet again just how much a lot of people (sadly, including a lot of journalists) want to cling to the notion that paleontologists are only interested in missing links–which, I guess, are supposed to be the direct ancestors of some living group of organisms that are precisely halfway between primitive forerunners and the advanced living creatures.

This notion is wrong in many ways. First of all, the entire body plan shared by, say, living birds did not leap into existence in a single ancestor. In fact, what we today consider the bird body plan actually evolved through a long series of steps. Different parts of bird anatomy evolved at different times. It’s now generally agreed that birds descend from a group of dinosaurs called theropods that includes lots of famous two-legged species like T. rex and Velociraptor. Many studies show that feathers had already evolved in forms seen on birds today on dinosaurs long before they had wings, beaks, or lots of other adaptations that all birds today have. So looking for “the” missing link for birds is ridiculous from the get-go."

LINK

ok man i'll take a look. i didn't know it is about the same creatures as the ones painted wolf just spoke about.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by eselam

oh so me asking for more information on the cratures that i said should exists which now do, is somehow meaning that i am not wanting to learn, is that right?

Yes, considering you've done so many times before, and yet you still ignore all of the evidence in favor of the first thing that pops up that might possibly prove evolution wrong. The first time I debated this topic with you, you seemed very polite and willing to learn, and so I treated you accordingly. However, then you showed that that was all a lie, and you really have no interest in learning anything that might possibly contradict your fundamentalist beliefs.

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Perhaps it's in the way it's presented ....

Believe me, I understand what you're saying, but as I said above, I gave eselam a chance months ago, when I first discussed this topic with him. I was patient and gave him evidence, and the best explanations I could. I presented it as calmly and politely as possible. He even seemed willing to listen. Then, it turned out he never intended to take it seriously, and instead went back to the attitude he's displayed eer since.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Is there anything wrong with wanting to find out more information away from the forum?

Rather than attack the guy... can't you give him a chance?

wa:do

I don't have a problem with that. I get the impression though that he's arguing something like, "I can't find the information to disprove these examples, therefore they're disproven." Which would be weird.

[painted wolf]

You know... it's really hard to find a good, comprehensive web page on bird evolution... I have to say I'm a bit disappointed. There used to be a few out there, but it looks like they aren't functional anymore.

Anyway, the wiki on bird evolution isn't too bad... nor is their page on feathered dinosaurs.
Bird evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feathered dinosaurs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can get it from a library exchange or something, I highly suggest this book:
Amazon.com: Glorified Dinosaurs: The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Luis M. Chiappe: Books
It goes through the best as well as some of the obscure fossil birds as well as their evolutionary history. It also talks about some of the current areas of debate between scientists and how we figure out what we know and what we can't be sure of yet.
It also has a lot of lovely photos of the actual fossils and lets you know just how many examples of some of these species we have.

wa:do

[eselam]

ok guys i will be honest, i am trying to dissprove evolution, this theory anyway. i'm not an evolutionist and as long as there are evidences against it, i'm not going to become an evolutionist.

so is anyone of you now willing to effend evolution or not? let me know. ok.

[painted wolf]

As long as you are honest about learning the evidence of both sides I don't mind.

That is what I did and now I'm a biologist (with faith intact).

wa:do

[eselam]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

As long as you are honest about learning the evidence of both sides I don't mind.

That is what I did and now I'm a biologist (with faith intact).

wa:do

well a big part of that honesty is me asking you guys to post links and sources rather than me go to some fanatical creationist website and just post things here.

i will not lie about anything, i'm not a liar, i will only speak of that which is there, and will not make things up.

thanks wolf

can i say

wa:do, to you?