The Reptile-Bird Theory. Real or Fake?

[Autodidact]

Here's the best current understanding of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, from talkorigins:

• Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).
• Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).
• Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).
• Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.
• Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).
• Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.
• Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).
• Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.
• Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.
• Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.

Now, eselam, tell us what's wrong with it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Eselam,

Remember, you had agreed that if birds evolved from reptiles, then we should find fossil specimens that show a mixture of reptilian and avian features.

Take a look at some of the specimens Autodidact has provided above. Do you agree that most of these meet that criterion?

 

[Autodidact]

One of the nice things about talkorigins is that they always include lots of citations to the original scientific research papers, so if you want to question the statements, you can verify them for yourself. Kind of like science in general.

 

[painted wolf]

Sinosauropteryx prima

Caudipteryx

Microraptor

Protarchaeopteryx

Shenzhouraptor

Confuciusornis

Protopteryx

Just so you can get an idea of what some of these guys look like.

wa:do

 

[Gharib]

Well, people have pointed out to you that that guy is basically a joke. And you want to continue using a source no one takes seriously? That won't help your case. Honestly, eselam, it seems as if you intentionally misunderstand what people tell you. You twist it into something else. You seem reasonably intelligent, and then spew nonsense. Let's just say this, i have spent most of my time smacking my head after reading your posts. It's just hard to see someone who is obviously at least a little bit intelligent warp what people tell you so much.

You are seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the rest. That is why you still seem to think no one has proven any kind of point to you. About this, or the evolution thread. Even though several have. I know, you are probably gonna make some kind of smarmy Dr. Phil joke, but this actually needs adressing. You want to talk facts, and then ignore them when they say something you don't want to hear. That is a problem to have when trying to have a scientific debate. You are bringing your opinion to the fore, and giving it dominion over your posts. It doesn't work that way in a scientific debate where you say you want proof and facts. Opinions go out the back door for a quick smoke break when you do this kind of thing.

oh come on Dr Phil give me a break for a minute.

honest question are you some kind of psychologist or something, whats with all the analasys and all that kind of stuff.

i am gona have to ask you to post something proper, i seriously can't respond to your posts due to not knowing what they are about, you always seem to be some kind of mind explorer see how everyones minds work, i personally am not into that kind of stuff.

i appologise for it, but i'm just being honest with you. i really don't like it when i have people telling me what my problem is, even though they now nothing about me. please remember that.

 

[Gharib]

question,

do any of the so believed, 'transitional fossils' have a mixed up lung?

do they support a lung that is not exactly like that of a bird and not exactly like that of a dinosaur.

if they don't have that, then tell me what king of lung they had and we will go from there. but i do not nee explanations, just say this creature had a bird lung, this creature had a dino lung ans so on. OK much appreciated.

 

[Autodidact]

Well of course we don't have their lungs, only bones, so we don't know for sure. We have to work with what we have. However, they did have fossil features of their pulmonary system with emerging similarity to modern birds. Here is a good article. It concludes: basal neotheropods possessed the anatomical potential for flow-through ventilation of the pulmonary system, emphasizing the early evolution of respiratory adaptations that are consistent with elevated metabolic rates in predatory dinosaurs.

In brief, birds have tubes that carry air all over their bodies, that go through their skeletons, and so did dinosaurs.

btw, it is not 100% settled that birds descended from therapods, although this is the predominant view. Some scientists believe that both descended from a still earlier ancestor.

 

[Gharib]

to autodidact.

where can i get more infomation about those transitional creatures that you have posted, wiki doesn't seem to have much.

i looked at your link but there was not much either.

 

[Gharib]

Well of course we don't have their lungs, only bones, so we don't know for sure.

well i believe that their bones tell quite alot. just as the example kai brought forward at the start of the thread, so what kind of bones did they have (once that is known then that tells you about their lungs). do they have lungs of dinosaurs or birds?

We have to work with what we have.

and if you do not have that wich is required, then evolution is not real for the time being, untill new evidence is discovered. am i right?

However, they did have fossil features of their pulmonary system with emerging similarity to modern birds.

yeah just like the archaeopteryx does, but i'm interested in the lung. a chiken has all the features of birds but yet it can't fly. i'm not interested in that, it doesn't prove anything.

Here is a good article. It concludes: basal neotheropods possessed the anatomical potential for flow-through ventilation of the pulmonary system, emphasizing the early evolution of respiratory adaptations that are consistent with elevated metabolic rates in predatory dinosaurs.

In brief, birds have tubes that carry air all over their bodies, that go through their skeletons, and so did dinosaurs.

which dinosaurs?

btw, it is not 100% settled that birds descended from therapods, although this is the predominant view. Some scientists believe that both descended from a still earlier ancestor.

let me guess, this common ancestor is ussualy not known for most of the theories put forward.

what is the ancestor of the archaeopteryx? i believe that this is the earliest and oldest transitional creature that supports the theory of dinosaurs evolving into birds. the rest of them come after this.

 

[Gharib]

. Here is a good article. It concludes: basal neotheropods possessed the anatomical potential for flow-through ventilation of the pulmonary system, emphasizing the early evolution of respiratory adaptations that are consistent with elevated metabolic rates in predatory dinosaurs.

i saw that example again about that theropod, that i was talking to kai earlier in the thread. if that is your example of dinosaurs having lungs similar to birds, then you have to do better than that. that specific theropod has lived about 35 million years after the archaeopteryx, so if that is really the only thing that supports your claims of the ird lung existing in dinosaurs then, that just proves the theory wrong i guess.

if you recon it doesn't (which i now you think it doesn't) then please show me a dinosaur that has lived relatively close to the archaeopteryx, if you want me to believe that theory that dinosaurs had bird like lungs.

 

[kai]

esalam this quote is from one of your first posts.

"The unique structure of the avian lung demonstrates the presence of a perfect design that supplies the high levels of oxygen required for flight. It only takes a little bit of a common sense to see that the unparalleled anatomy of birds is not an arbitrary result of unconscious mutations. It is clear that the lungs of a bird are another of the countless evidences that all creatures have been created by Allah."

now we have provided evidence that the lungs of a bird are not unique. and not unparalled are you ready to accept that and move on to your next point?

 

[Gharib]

esalam this quote is from one of your first posts.

"The unique structure of the avian lung demonstrates the presence of a perfect design that supplies the high levels of oxygen required for flight. It only takes a little bit of a common sense to see that the unparalleled anatomy of birds is not an arbitrary result of unconscious mutations. It is clear that the lungs of a bird are another of the countless evidences that all creatures have been created by Allah."

now we have provided evidence that the lungs of a bird are not unique.

the problem is you haven't. see if the archaeopteryx, has the lungs of a bird, then that dinosaur that you put forward, had come to exist at a much latter time, 35 million years in not a very short time Kai.

i am not talking about modern birds, i am talking about the transitional creatures put forward be scientists that support this type of change (dino-bird). and as far as i understand the archaeopteryx is a unique creature with a uneque lung of it's time, so is there any evidence that has been uncovered that has lived relatively close to the archaeopteryx and has lungs similar to that of a bird?

if not then you guys have not put an example forward yet, to dissprove that quote of mine that you just posted.

and not unparalled are you ready to accept that and move on to your next point?

but we haven't finished yet. this just shows the lack of evidnce there is in support for this theory, there is not enough evidence and yet you are suggesting to move to something else, when we have not even covered a fraction of the lung differences. i have merely seen any proper evidence, i know that some dinosaur has had lungs similar to birds, thats fine, but the focus is on the transitional fossils, not on a chiken.

 

[kai]

the problem is you haven't. see if the archaeopteryx, has the lungs of a bird, then that dinosaur that you put forward, had come to exist at a much latter time, 35 million years in not a very short time Kai.

i dont get your point you said bird lungs were unique we have proved they are not

i am not talking about modern birds, i am talking about the transitional creatures put forward be scientists that support this type of change (dino-bird). and as far as i understand the archaeopteryx is a unique creature with a uneque lung of it's time, so is there any evidence that has been uncovered that has lived relatively close to the archaeopteryx and has lungs similar to that of a bird?
there are multiple posts on this thread from multiple posters doing just that!

if not then you guys have not put an example forward yet, to dissprove that quote of mine that you just posted.


What? are you serious or just mucking around you havnt read any of the posts or sources or your ignoring them for some reason.

but we haven't finished yet. this just shows the lack of evidnce there is in support for this theory, there is not enough evidence and yet you are suggesting to move to something else, when we have not even covered a fraction of the lung differences. i have merely seen any proper evidence, i know that some dinosaur has had lungs similar to birds, thats fine, but the focus is on the transitional fossils, not on a chiken.

esalam you seem to be just ignoring all the information that everyone has posted. I honestly do not get your point. i dont think its worth posting information if your going to ignore it and just keep repeating yourself, or move the goal posts. now the fact is we have proved to you with various sources that your posted sources was wrong.

 

[Gharib]

esalam you seem to be just ignoring all the information that everyone has posted.

are you serious? i can't believe it that i am being called ignorant at this early stage in the thread, nice work kai. one would think this was even going to be a somewhat serious debate. guess i was wrong.

I honestly do not get your point.

actually i do not get yours. what are you trying to say?

are you saying that other creatures did have a lung similar to birds?

i can accept that i'm not denying it, but using that to explain the trasitional fossils brought forward by evolutionists is like you saying that "the dinosaurs were the only creatures on earth at their time" and me saying "but humans also exist on earth, so it dissproves your statement." is that the level of understanding that we are going to have on this thread? i might aswell kick myself. tell me if i should, it deppends on you.

i dont think its worth posting information if your going to ignore it and just keep repeating yourself, or move the goal posts

.

ok you know what, other creatures too have had breathing mechanisms like birds. whats your point?

now the fact is we have proved to you with various sources that your posted sources was wrong.

ok fine, then prove my statements wrong, which have nothing to do with any other sources.

show me that the transitional fossils put forward by evolutionists support a lung that is not like that of a bird, and not like that of a dinosaur. but kind of similar to both?

do not go using the theropod again WHO HAPPENS TO BE 35 MILLION YEARS YOUNGER THAN THE ARCHAEOPTERYX.

and what creature is the ancestor of the archaeopteryx?

 

[kai]

are you serious? i can't believe it that i am being called ignorant at this early stage in the thread, nice work kai. one would think this was even going to be a somewhat serious debate. guess i was wrong.



actually i do not get yours. what are you trying to say?

are you saying that other creatures did have a lung similar to birds?

i can accept that i'm not denying it, but using that to explain the trasitional fossils brought forward by evolutionists is like you saying that "the dinosaurs were the only creatures on earth at their time" and me saying "but humans also exist on earth, so it dissproves your statement." is that the level of understanding that we are going to have on this thread? i might aswell kick myself. tell me if i should, it deppends on you.

.No idea what this means

ok you know what, other creatures too have had breathing mechanisms like birds. whats your point?
My point is you posted that they didnt


ok fine, then prove my statements wrong, which have nothing to do with any other sources.

show me that the transitional fossils put forward by evolutionists support a lung that is not like that of a bird, and not like that of a dinosaur. but kind of similar to both?

do not go using the theropod again WHO HAPPENS TO BE 35 MILLION YEARS YOUNGER THAN THE ARCHAEOPTERYX.
Why have you latched on to archaeopterix now that we have solved your lung query?
and what creature is the ancestor of the archaeopteryx?

is that you knew topic ? we have moved on from the lungs that could not be ,to Whats the ancestor of the archaeopteryx?

 

[rageoftyrael]

What's your obsession with half and half things? Why does a lung have to be half dino and half bird to satisfy you? You may well have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. See, why can't certain features change all at once? Now, if a creature has only three types of eye coloring(to keep this simple) it is by no means an incredible feat if at some point a new eye color just pops up. This is a small, basically insignificant change. It is changes like this, that add up, that can lead to new creatures. Now, i'm not saying that there aren't parts that slowly mutated. I'm just saying that you are expecting only one type of thing. There is more to it, or less than you are saying. I still don't see why you refuse dog breeding as an example of evolution. Is it natural? No. Doesn't mean it isn't a classic example. Though, of course, one would have to define natural, but that is a topic for another thread.

You should have at least said something other than Dr. Phil though, cause i said you were gonna say it, than you did. You think my comment has nothing to do with this thread, and while it was only partially about the thread, the comment is significant. If you can't take evidence, and accept it, all you are doing is trying to prove us wrong. I mean really, do you really think all of us atheists are gonna think you are wrong, if you aren't, at least to some extent? At this point, the only people you will get to agree with you are dogmatic people who have a stake in proving evolution wrong, or so they think. We atheists have no stake in this. You might say we do, but we really dont. We don't need evolution to not believe in your gods.

Let me explain something. Hypothesis=reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. Theory=an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. The difference? One is making a guess about what will happen. The other is explaining how something DID happen. So the theory of evolution IS true, we just are trying to explain it as well as possible. So, basically what you should be arguing is not is evolution real? What you should be arguing is how it works. We will continue to give you proof, as you ask, because it's all there.

 

[Gharib]

What's your obsession with half and half things? Why does a lung have to be half dino and half bird to satisfy you?

well you see it does have to be half and half, because no creature supports anything of the kind, which totally dissproves evolution and which basically means evolution is false, unless anyone has anything against my claims and can provide a fossil that supports a half and half lung, but there is none, so, ta da.

evolution speaks of GRADUAL changes, so one would expect to see a half and half lung, just as one would expect to see a creature that is half dino, half bird which evolutionists are so eager to put the archaeopteryx forward to suppor their childish ideas.

and if what i am asking for cannot be put forward in this thread then i guess, evolution is fake. if you or anyone else dissargrees then please show me proof of such a lung to have existed in one of the many 'transitional fossils' used by scientists to support this theory.

You may well have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is.

always the same catch phrases. don't you guys have something else?

See, why can't certain features change all at once?

see it's you thats missunderstanding things, i'm not saying that multiple things can't change at once. i'm saying that if evolution is true, then we should see particular features that are half of a dinosaur and half of a bird, just as what the archaeopteryx looks like. it's got teeth and it's got feathers and also a bony tail + some more extra things that link it between the 2 and since you guys think that supports evolution then i'm ok with that, i am not dissagreeing i am asking for further evidence from your part.

Now, if a creature has only three types of eye coloring(to keep this simple) it is by no means an incredible feat if at some point a new eye color just pops up. This is a small, basically insignificant change.

it's very nice that you compared it to an eye colour, just shows how desperate you guys are.

why not compare it to hair suddenly becoming feathers. how would you not see a change there unless you were blind.

It is changes like this, that add up, that can lead to new creatures.

i didn't know that if i get an extra tooth all of a sudden i wil become a bear thanks for that.

Now, i'm not saying that there aren't parts that slowly mutated. I'm just saying that you are expecting only one type of thing. There is more to it, or less than you are saying.

no what i'm expecting is the right thing, what you guys are suggesting is the things that only support this theory.

I still don't see why you refuse dog breeding as an example of evolution. Is it natural? No. Doesn't mean it isn't a classic example. Though, of course, one would have to define natural, but that is a topic for another thread.

this is the first time you are mentioning this, why make it sound as though it has been mentioned and i'm denying it?

You should have at least said something other than Dr. Phil though, cause i said you were gonna say it, than you did.

wow, nice. i'm impressed.

You think my comment has nothing to do with this thread, and while it was only partially about the thread, the comment is significant. If you can't take evidence, and accept it, all you are doing is trying to prove us wrong.

and you are not trying to prove me wrong right?

I mean really, do you really think all of us atheists are gonna think you are wrong, if you aren't, at least to some extent? At this point, the only people you will get to agree with you are dogmatic people who have a stake in proving evolution wrong, or so they think.

right back at you, if there was any actuall 'evidence' in support of evolution then i don't see why any of you atheists should be worried about anything, after all how can something that is real be classied as fake, especially when there is a mountain of evidence to support that, well you think there is.

We atheists have no stake in this. You might say we do, but we really dont. We don't need evolution to not believe in your gods.

it's not about that. and Allah (swt) is one god. there is nothing else equal to him.

Let me explain something. Hypothesis=reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. Theory=an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. The difference? One is making a guess about what will happen. The other is explaining how something DID happen. So the theory of evolution IS true, we just are trying to explain it as well as possible.

and let me tell you , it's taken 150 years for you to do that, and you still can't explain it, how much longer will it take? wait untill our generation of humans evolves?

So, basically what you should be arguing is not is evolution real? What you should be arguing is how it works. We will continue to give you proof, as you ask, because it's all there.

well thank you i appreciate that, but if it was there, why haven't you provided any?

 

[kai]

yes i am officially in the vortex.





esalams vortex its spins us round and round and round and round

 

[rageoftyrael]

I'm done dealing with your stupidity. I'm not gonna post anymore, you can't be reasoned with. Oh, and feel free to make whatever snide comment you want, it will be for the benefit of everyone else, cause i don't care.

I'm out of this pathetic excuse of a thread. Bye everyone else!

 

[Gharib]

yes i am officially in the vortex.





esalams vortex its spins us round and round and round and round

what?