Login

Join for Free!
118883 members


Bird-Dinosaur News

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:42 pm

ScienceDaily: “Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links”

[Birds' unique leg physiology necessary for lung function]

"In the study, Oregon State University scientists Devon Quick and John Ruben identified a connection between the way birds breathe and the relative lack of movement in birds’ upper leg bones. While most walking animals (including humans) move the upper leg bone as they walk or run, birds essentially keep it still, using their lower legs only.

Quick and Ruben’s breakthrough was in recognizing that this “knee running” anatomy, where the upper leg bones are fixed, is crucial in keeping birds’ lungs from collapsing. Thus, if birds walked like us, they would not be able to support the sophisticated pulmonary system that helps enable flight.

“This is fundamental to bird physiology,” Quick explained. “It’s really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight.”

In the next phase of research, the scientists examined whether theropod dinosaurs’ skeletons would have allowed a similar pulmonary system. But the evidence shows that skeletal differences—including a mobile femur—meant dinosaurs couldn’t have given rise to birds. “Theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link,” Ruben said.

Intriguingly, Ruben commented on the widely held dinosaur-to-bird-evolution model: “Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions.”

“Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions.”

antecedent-"Logic. the conditional element in a proposition...."

presuppose-: to require as an antecedent in logic or fact.

presupposition--2. That which is presupposed; a previous supposition or surmise.

This is a good lesson, showing the mechanics of presupposition in science, and the reason for it.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby gamila » Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:14 pm

but that just comes under colin leslie deans paradox

what did the first bird mate with
The first humans Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able
so who did Cain mate with

similarly
who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate with

an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species


either

1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:21 pm

You are deviating from the subject matter, which is why you are viewed as a troll. Please respond with appropriate research and content for this subject.

Let me preface before I respond.

1)There is an abundance of evidence of variation within groups of related organisms.
[concerning weevils]
There are over 60,000 species in several families, mostly in the family Curculionidae (the true weevils) Wikipedia

Two variations (species, kinds, types whatever you won't get hung up on)) of weevils can mate and have offspring.

2)Variation in phenotype and genotype of closely related organisms is just a fact.

3)Having said that, two birds of different variations can mate, which has been brought up. They must be closely related in phenotype or they will not mate as a rule (and of course there are always rare exceptions).

So in the evolution model because there is constant slow genetic drift--it's just a case of defining when they became birds. In light of the news though, they need to find a new common ancestor. And it is nice to know that I no longer have "dinosaurs" chirping in my trees (lol).
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm


Postby gamila » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:42 am

Having said that, two birds of different variations can mate,


Two variations (species, kinds, types whatever you won't get hung up on)) of weevils can mate and have offspring.


that is not answering my question
what did the first ever bird mate with
what did the first ever weevil mate with
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby futurezoologist » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:03 am

Hmm, interesting. But as you suggest with your comments about dinosaurs in your trees, birds(if they did come from dinosaurs) have come a long way in evolution to go from big scaly toothed creatures(yes, I'm being stereotypical) to what they are today, so what makes these scientists not even suggest that the femur muscle structure has evolved aswell?


But the evidence shows that skeletal differences—including a mobile femur—meant dinosaurs couldn’t have given rise to birds.


Bit of a strong comment eh? Is this not presupposition?


I do see your point though, but all we can do is teach the future generations what is most likely base on evidence, most of science is theories, so if we were to not teach the future these things because they are only supposed then we wouldn't get very far.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby gamila » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:08 am

meant dinosaurs couldn’t have given rise to birds.


so colin leslie deans paradox

so what did the first ever bird mate with
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:18 am

I'm running gamila, but you are asking a question I have no problem with, as I believe in a creation model where all things were created fully formed.

Sexual reproduction just puts more weight on the evolutionary mule. I would like them to explain how this irreducible complexity happened.

"an irreducibly complex system [is] one 'composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning'. " Wikipedia


This usually is applied to systems within an organism, but it sounds like sex could apply here. How did sexual organisms evolve interlocking parts as part of their anatomies and at the same time those parts just happen to be able to propagate the species?

Looks like a designed feature to me.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby gamila » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:28 am

I'm running gamila, but you are asking a question I have no problem with, as I believe in a creation model where all things were created fully formed.

i see
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby futurezoologist » Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:40 am

This usually is applied to systems within an organism, but it sounds like sex could apply here. How did sexual organisms evolve interlocking parts as part of their anatomies and at the same time those parts just happen to be able to propagate the species?


Does the male need a protrusion? No, but it certainly helps. Some species of insects can be used as an example, the male lays down a sac of sperm and the female later comes and sucks(for lack of a better word) it into her body for later use. This breeding relationship can evolve over time as it has done with many insects into a much more efficient system of the 'direct deposition' of the sperm.

Again this is a question that has several logical answers in terms of evolution, just requires a bit of in-depth thinking.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby alextemplet » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:25 pm

AFJ wrote:I would like them to explain how this irreducible complexity happened.


Simple. Irreducible complexity doesn't exist. Read Only a Theory by Dr. Kenneth Miller if you don't believe me.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby AstusAleator » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:05 pm

here's a link to the original article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092055.htm

"dinosaurs couldn’t have given rise to birds" was never actually said in the article, though the tone of the article pretty much says it.

Interesting. So feathers on dinosaurs may have just been convergence or relics of a common ancestor.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby alextemplet » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:32 pm

It depends on which dinosaurs you're talking about. Consider this quote from the article:

The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus.


As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that Tyrannosaurus or Allosaurus were the ancestors of birds. The ancestors of birds were probably much smaller therapods similar to Velociraptor. Also, consider that that the earliest birds probably had a lot more in common with dinosaurs than with modern birds. For example, no modern bird has teeth, but Archaeopteryx did. I see no reason why this thigh and hip anatomy would not have evolved later, after birds had diverged from dinosaurs.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests