The Reptile-Bird Theory. Real or Fake?

[Gharib]

I'm saying that it appears you asked, "Show me the transitional fossils between reptiles and birds", not because you are truly interested and will objectively and honestly consider what is provided, but only asked the question because you've already made up your mind that they can't exist and are just looking to "stump the evolutionist".

When someone asks, "Show me X", there's no point in answering if they've already made up their mind that X doesn't exist. All they'll do is just wave away anything you show them and deny it exists.

Are you going to read the material I provided you? If not, just say so now and we can stop wasting everyone's time.

you still have not been able to understand me.

i am willing to read the information, but if i do find an error then i will point that out, and then it is up to you to deffend it. but if i do not find an error then we shall move on. do i need to expalin this furthure?

one such example would be at the very 2 first ages of the thread or maybe 3. where kai suggested a theropod.

 

[Jose Fly]

i am willing to read the information

The I suggest you start reading the information I provided you. There's a lot there and it should take you at least a couple of days to get through.

But as I said, if you're truly interested in the subject, you're going to have to do some work.

 

[Gharib]

The I suggest you start reading the information I provided you. There's a lot there and it should take you at least a couple of days to get through.

But as I said, if you're truly interested in the subject, you're going to have to do some work.

no worries man

 

[painted wolf]

were dinosaurs warm blodded creatures by any chance, this should be a question for the other thread but i hope you don't mind me asking.

I don't mind at all.
All the evidence indicates that Dinosaurs were warm blooded.
If you like I can go over that evidence?

and what kind of features are we talking about. is this about the lung thing, how the theropod had some kind of bird like chest bone?

It goes way beyond just the lungs and wishbone in the chest. As you look at the theropod dinosaurs you can see certain groups becoming more and more like birds in every feature of their anatomy.
Shoulders, wrists, necks, skulls, legs, feet, ribs, brains, tails and feathers.

what are proto-feathers?

Feathers come in many sizes and shapes... the most primitive are called filoplumes and are hair like in shape... "proto-feathers" are a simpler version of a filoplume without the tuft at the end. These simple early feathers are found in both major groups of dinosaurs. (though they are very rare in the Ornithisichians)

this is what i've been trying to explain, those specific dinosaurs have come to have that feature some many million years after the archaeopteryx, and since this is the first creature suggested by evolutionists as being a 'transitional fossil' then we have to take in consideration the age difference in the dinosaurs of that particular group and the archaeopteryx. do we not?

Absolutely... and unfortunately animals that would be living in trees in dryer upland enviornments (where you would expect to find the earliest earliest birds) are the least likely to fossilize. However, most of the advancing to birds was done in fossils much older than Archy... the hollow bones, air sacs and lungs bit goes back to the earliest dinosaurs.

Maniraptors (one of the dinosaur groups closest to the birds) have been found in the Jurassic a bit younger than Archy...
Epidexipteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are other maniraptors from the time too... including one like Velociraptor... unfortunately there isn't enough of it to really tell us a lot about what it looked like... excpet that it was related to Velociraptor.

thats ok, i know about that, but they come into the picture some 35 million years after the archaeopteryx, and i can't really take that as anything to support your statements.

Not all of them. I'll admit the best examples often do... but the groups themselves are either younger or about the same age.
Many bird features are found even in the oldest dinosaurs known.

i'll take a look at it and let you know how i go.

Like I said... if you need any help with some of the terms they use just let me know and I'll try to explain in 'real world' words... science words can be a bit of a headache.

this is all on the transitional fossils that have been found or the dinosaurs themself?

some features are found in all the dinosaurs.. some become more bird like as you get closer in relation to the birds. The bendy wrist and flapping shoulder is found in Maniraptors and onward to birds for example.

damn, i though they were, so then they weren't warm blooded creatures like reptiles were they?

Reptile generally is used on cold-blooded, sprawling, scally critters. It doesn't really cover the upright, fast, warm-blooded and feathered critters like dinosaurs.
It's not a very useful term when talking about some of the strange critters of the past.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

go read the following and then come tell me about it.

Originally Posted by Autodidact
here's an article with an exciting new discovery that tends to indicate that birds and dinosaurs diverged in their evolution earlier than previously believed. Pretty interesting.

From the article linked:

There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian "thecodonts," which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs. The lung structure and physiology of crocodiles, in fact, is much more similar to dinosaurs than it is to birds.

So instead of birds evolving from dinosaurs, the article suggests that they may have evolved from an earlier ancestor. And exactly how does this disprove evolution?

 

[Gharib]

From the article linked:
So instead of birds evolving from dinosaurs, the article suggests that they may have evolved from an earlier ancestor. And exactly how does this disprove evolution?

it does, it shows that evolutionists just make things as they go without even having solid proof to support their assertions. by which i mean they have got this thing so mixed up that they do not know what is related to whom. but they all end up linked by some magical maggot at the end of the line.

this realy shows ignorance and lack of proof and just what lenghts scientists go to to protect these claims, i bet that article is just a cover up to the theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds, the probably could not answer this part properly so they thought they would change it and to have some time to think about thier nex moves. i bet you that they will also change this new claim latter on.

 

[painted wolf]

Ugh... that article is so full of mistakes and bad ideas that it's almost painful...

wa:do

 

[Gharib]

Ugh... that article is so full of mistakes and bad ideas that it's almost painful...

wa:do

are you saying that it is wrong and is not accepted by evolutionists?

please be yes.

 

[painted wolf]

I certainly think it's wrong for several very good reasons... if you are interested in them.

I will say that there are a small group of scientists out there, who are not evolutionary biologists... that are trying to find any evidence they can to knock the dinosaur/bird link... They occasionally publish stuff like this to keep their ideas in the news.

wa:do

 

[Gharib]

I certainly think it's wrong for several very good reasons... if you are interested in them.

I will say that there are a small group of scientists out there, who are not evolutionary biologists... that are trying to find any evidence they can to knock the dinosaur/bird link... They occasionally publish stuff like this to keep their ideas in the news.

wa:do

so then the dinosaur-bird thing still stands right?

 

[painted wolf]

I think so... their whole argument against dinosaurs being the last common ancestor of birds would work against anything else they chose to replace it with... and it can't simply dismiss all the other evidence of the dinosaur/bird link.

wa:do

ps.... I'm also just going by the article... I have yet to read the actual paper, I have to wait to be able to order through my university. Who knows, they may have some evidence? Otherwise it sounds like they did an interesting and important experiment and then sort of "jumped the shark" with the conclusion.

 

[Gharib]

I think so... their whole argument against dinosaurs being the last common ancestor of birds would work against anything else they chose to replace it with... and it can't simply dismiss all the other evidence of the dinosaur/bird link.

wa:do

so it seems we are back in bussines then.

ok. let me see what this theory suggests.

we have dinosaurs, we have the archaeopteryx ad we have modern birds.

so where are the creatures in between these 3?

i mean you would expect to see a dinosaur with feathers, then a dinosaur with more bird like features then you would expect to see the archyx who should indeed have a mixed up lung (which by now we all know what i mean by that unless someone hasn't been listening) then a creature that does not have the bony tale nor the teeth and finally a bird. but instead we have a dinosaur magically poofing into a seriously sick looking bird who then becomes an atractive bird by another magical poof.

if anyone thinks this is wrong please axplain with support from evidence that what i have said is wrong.

 

[painted wolf]

so where are the creatures in between these 3?

It's more of how the three blend in together... "dinosaur" and "bird" are pretty broad categories... especially "dinosaur".

i mean you would expect to see a dinosaur with feathers

Yup.. like Epidexipteryx (who is older than Archy)

then a dinosaur with more bird like features

Like Scansoriopteryx also a bit older than Archy...
(sorry, I can't find a good pic of the actual fossils.. but this gives you an idea of what it looks like... it had traces of true feathers on the tail and hands that are left off the drawing.)

then you would expect to see the archyx who should indeed have a mixed up lung (which by now we all know what i mean by that unless someone hasn't been listening)

right...

then a creature that does not have the bony tale nor the teeth

We have a pretty good variety of these kinds of birds...
Like Confuciusornis

and finally a bird.

True 'birds' ... that is what you think of when you hear the word bird arrive in the late Cretaceous. Even these true birds are still a little different from what we have today, but then that makes sense.

but instead we have a dinosaur magically poofing into a seriously sick looking bird who then becomes an atractive bird by another magical poof.

Actually what we see is a wide variety of birds showing up after Archy... trying a wide variety of things and filling all kinds of niches... from large predatory birds to seed eaters to swimming fish eaters and flying fish eaters... lots of birds that are almost like modern birds but not quite.. (one group is known as the "opposite birds" because they did something different from modern birds with their shoulders.)

wa:do

 

[Gharib]

thank you for that painted wolf, i appreciate your response.

but where can i find out a bit more about these creatures?

 

[camanintx]

so it seems we are back in bussines then.

ok. let me see what this theory suggests.

we have dinosaurs, we have the archaeopteryx ad we have modern birds.

so where are the creatures in between these 3?

i mean you would expect to see a dinosaur with feathers, then a dinosaur with more bird like features then you would expect to see the archyx who should indeed have a mixed up lung (which by now we all know what i mean by that unless someone hasn't been listening) then a creature that does not have the bony tale nor the teeth and finally a bird. but instead we have a dinosaur magically poofing into a seriously sick looking bird who then becomes an atractive bird by another magical poof.

if anyone thinks this is wrong please axplain with support from evidence that what i have said is wrong.

Keep in mind that small genetic changes can result in large morphological differences. When looking a fossils of a Chihuahua and a Great Dane, one might be tempted to say they are different species but they would be wrong. Just because archyx looks different from modern birds doesn't prove that they are not related.

 

[painted wolf]

I'll see about getting a list of websites and books for you to look at.
(I'm a bit fussy so it may take me a little while to get a good list put together. )

And you are more than welcome... Like I said I love to try to help when I can.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

Eselam,

I gave you a link to a number of scienceblog articles specifically about reptile-bird fossils, written for laypeople. And now you're asking Painted Wolf, "where can i find out a bit more about these creatures?"

 

[Autodidact]

So eselam, to summarize, you have no special expertise in the subject. You asked for a list of transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, and were given one as well as pictures of the fossils, clearly showing these transitional features. You asked where you could learn more about this, and don't have enough information to show why this is not so, therefore you think you've disproved this connection. Is that about right?

 

[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

 

[Magic Man]

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

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.