The Reptile-Bird Theory. Real or Fake?

[eselam]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

So eselam, now that you have been shown several examples of transitional forms between birds and dinosaurs, do you agree that the two groups are closely related?

how can i answer you if i haven't srtudied that yet. thats why i'm asking for links, and if there is nothing wrong in the links then you will hear from me.

but if there is, then i will show you what it is. i'm not going to accept this blindly just because some scientists have found a bird like creature.

[eselam]

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

So after having been presented with data that he initially claimed doesn't exist, a guy responds with "i am trying to dissprove evolution" rather than any mention at all of the data people went through the effort of providing him, and to you that = "He'll discuss the subject honestly"?

And on another thread the same guy repeats fundamental errors that have been pointed out to him countless times over a period of months (Big Bang, abiogenesis), and to you that's an opportunity for him to learn?

Either you're ridiculously optimistic or very bored....or maybe some of both?

take it easy man, i am looking at the links, be patient. i will only go against it if there is something to go against.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by eselam

how can i answer you if i haven't srtudied that yet. thats why i'm asking for links, and if there is nothing wrong in the links then you will hear from me.

but if there is, then i will show you what it is. i'm not going to accept this blindly just because some scientists have found a bird like creature.

This is classic. What you're saying is that you don't know anything about it, and hope to get up to speed by spending a few minutes on the internet, but you're sure when you do you'll be able to show those dumb scientists, thousands of the world's best and brightest who have devoted their lives to studying this, just where they've gone wrong.

Please listen: Not some scientists, all the scientists who've looked. Not a bird-like creature, but several different instances of several bird-like creatures. But I'm sure that you, with no training or education in the matter, will be able to set them straight, as soon as you figure out what the heck they're talking about.

[painted wolf]

This is classic. What you're saying is that you don't know anything about it, and hope to get up to speed by spending a few minutes on the internet, but you're sure when you do you'll be able to show those dumb scientists, thousands of the world's best and brightest who have devoted their lives to studying this, just where they've gone wrong.

They asked for evidence... it was given.
If any more questions come up, I'm sure those of us who know about the research will be happy to deal with them.
It takes time to look over evidence and try to absorb it... It needs to be mulled over and given deep thought.
If eselam finds any fault with the evidence I've given so far, I will be happy to address that when the time comes. I'm not perfect and I'm sure that there are aspects of the research I may have missed... or that will need more explanation to clear up.

Please listen: Not some scientists, all the scientists who've looked. Not a bird-like creature, but several different instances of several bird-like creatures. But I'm sure that you, with no training or education in the matter, will be able to set them straight, as soon as you figure out what the heck they're talking about.

I'm sorry to have to point this out to you... but you are looking a little over vehement.

This is an area of active debate... the BAND (birds are not dinosaurs) crowd is still active and while they have yet to produce any good evidence to support their views, they are hardly non-scientists. (many of them are very highly qualified Ornithologists!)

So no... not "all the scientists who've looked" agree. And even among those who do support the dinosaur-bird link, there is healthy debate as to which of these critters are genuinely in the dinosaur-bird linage and which are offshoots, dead ends and which are the results of parallel or convergent evolution.

The ultimate point is... that this is healthy in science. Without debate there can be no growth and no further progress. There are a few instances where the BAND camp has made some valid arguments and these arguments have spurred much of the research into bird origins and that research backs up the dinosaur origin.

So you may want to take care in how you present your argument...

wa:do

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

They asked for evidence... it was given.
If any more questions come up, I'm sure those of us who know about the research will be happy to deal with them.
It takes time to look over evidence and try to absorb it... It needs to be mulled over and given deep thought.
If eselam finds any fault with the evidence I've given so far, I will be happy to address that when the time comes. I'm not perfect and I'm sure that there are aspects of the research I may have missed... or that will need more explanation to clear up.


I'm sorry to have to point this out to you... but you are looking a little over vehement.

This is an area of active debate... the BAND (birds are not dinosaurs) crowd is still active and while they have yet to produce any good evidence to support their views, they are hardly non-scientists. (many of them are very highly qualified Ornithologists!)

So no... not "all the scientists who've looked" agree. And even among those who do support the dinosaur-bird link, there is healthy debate as to which of these critters are genuinely in the dinosaur-bird linage and which are offshoots, dead ends and which are the results of parallel or convergent evolution.

The ultimate point is... that this is healthy in science. Without debate there can be no growth and no further progress. There are a few instances where the BAND camp has made some valid arguments and these arguments have spurred much of the research into bird origins and that research backs up the dinosaur origin.

So you may want to take care in how you present your argument...

wa:do

I think the precise relationship between birds and therapods is not well-established. I don't think there is any controversy among Biologists about whether they are closely related by evolutionary relationships, which is what eselam is trying to show, as soon as he learns thing one about the issue.

All biologists on both or all sides of the debate agree that ToE is correct and is the tool to use to figure out the precise relationship between birds and therapods. eselam is attempting to launch "ToE is false" from the platform of "birds are not direct descendants of dinosaurs," which is not a valid conclusion. That is, as often happens with creationists, any evidence of healthy scientific debate is treated as an admission that ToE is not a valid theory.

[painted wolf]

I think the precise relationship between birds and therapods is not well-established. I don't think there is any controversy among Biologists about whether they are closely related by evolutionary relationships, which is what eselam is trying to show, as soon as he learns thing one about the issue.

And I'm telling you that the BAND camp is genuine, they are scientists and they disagree with the bird-theropod relationship. They promote that birds are descended from an as yet unidentified archosaur group. (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs)
The vast majority of scientists are unconvinced by their arguments... but it does not mean that they don't exist.

All biologists on both or all sides of the debate agree that ToE is correct and is the tool to use to figure out the precise relationship between birds and therapods.

On this you are correct.

eselam is attempting to launch "ToE is false" from the platform of "birds are not direct descendants of dinosaurs," which is not a valid conclusion. That is, as often happens with creationists, any evidence of healthy scientific debate is treated as an admission that ToE is not a valid theory.

Regardless of what eselam's position is... your misrepresentation of the false monolith of thought on dinosaur-bird relations is damaging to the argument for evolution.
When you claim that ALL scientists say _____ you take a great risk.
I realize you likely don't know much about the BAND group and their role in the dinosaur-bird debate... but that is why you need to be extra careful, however well intentioned you are.

wa:do

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

And I'm telling you that the BAND camp is genuine, they are scientists and they disagree with the bird-theropod relationship. They promote that birds are descended from an as yet unidentified archosaur group. (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs)
The vast majority of scientists are unconvinced by their arguments... but it does not mean that they don't exist.

Oh yes, I know that, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that there is disagreement about whether birds are descended from dinosaurs or whether the divergence happened earlier, but no controversy about whether the two groups are related--right?

On this you are correct.

Regardless of what eselam's position is... your misrepresentation of the false monolith of thought on dinosaur-bird relations is damaging to the argument for evolution.[/quote] Oh no, I don't deny there's controversy. Go back. I have said several times that the exact relationship is not clear, and so forth.
When you claim that ALL scientists say _____ you take a great risk.

I realize you likely don't know much about the BAND group and their role in the dinosaur-bird debate... but that is why you need to be extra careful, however well intentioned you are.

What virtually all biologists agree on is ToE, that's my point. I think it's something like 99+%. Disagreement about details does not change this. Creationists have trouble grasping this. That's the point of this thread for eselam. (stay tuned and watch.)

[painted wolf]

Oh yes, I know that, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that there is disagreement about whether birds are descended from dinosaurs or whether the divergence happened earlier, but no controversy about whether the two groups are related--right?

You are right... but that isn't what you said.

You said that all scientists agreed on the dinosaur-bird link.

wa:do

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

You are right... but that isn't what you said.

You said that all scientists agreed on the dinosaur-bird link.

wa:do

O.K. I'll change it. The overwhelming consensus of biologists agree that there is such a link.

[painted wolf]

Much better...
It's important to be precise in such debates....

wa:do