the slow demise of the "birds are dinosaurs" theory

BookofJob
Theist
Posts: 20
Joined: 2010-04-29
User is offlineOffline
the slow demise of the "birds are dinosaurs" theory

 

"Science must not impose any philosophy,
any more than the telephone must tell
us what to say."
—  Gilbert Keith Chesterton

"Does it never strike you that doubt can be a madness, as well as faith? That asking questions may be a disease, as well as proclaiming doctrines? You talk of religious mania! Is there no such thing as irreligious mania?"
—  G.K. Chesterton (Magic: A Fantastic Comedy in a Prelude and Three Acts)

 

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good"

1 Thessalonians 5:21 New American Standard

 

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html

 

"What does it matter if birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs? If birds are not descended from theropods, they are not descended from any other known species. Here is a quote from the University of California, Berkeley website:

"The opponents of the theropod hypothesis refuse to propose an alternative hypothesis that is falsifiable. This is probably because there are no other suitable candidates for avian ancestors".2

This is quite an admission, and demonstrates the dogmatism of Darwinism. The paradigm takes precedence over the data, since falsification of descent of birds from theropods would falsify all of evolutionary theory."

The big problem for evolution

It is virtually impossible for an animal that breathes by means of a diaphragm to evolve into an animal which breathes the way modern birds do, because the hypothetical intermediate creature would be severely hampered in its ability to breathe. Here is what Dr. Ruben says about the problem:

"Recently, conventional wisdom has held that birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs. However, the apparently steadfast maintenance of hepatic-piston diaphragmatic lung ventilation in theropod throughout the Mesozoic poses a fundamental problem for such a relationship. The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragmatic-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia [or hole] in taxa transitional between theropod and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage"5

 


BookofJob
Theist
Posts: 20
Joined: 2010-04-29
User is offlineOffline
I appoligize for the double

I appoligize for the double post....was an accident!

 

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
The sources for that website

The sources for that website are prehistoric for the most part, got anything more recent?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Let me add, evolution is

This comment has been moved here.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no problem for

This comment has been moved here.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Why is it

This comment has been moved here.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It never ceases to amaze me

It never ceases to amaze me how theists are incapable of keeping up with science. You'd think a group with an agenda against learning would at least try making shit up on recent science, instead of making fools of themselves by arguing against multiple times over proven fact.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It never ceases

Vastet wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how theists are incapable of keeping up with science. You'd think a group with an agenda against learning would at least try making shit up on recent science, instead of making fools of themselves by arguing against multiple times over proven fact.

That implies that it is common for RRS to receive the most science-friendly theists currently available on the planet...

Yeah, this thread's premise pretty much sucks.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well, there is an alternative to the theropod idea out there. Alan Fedducia has been saying for years that he thinks birds could have developed from the same line that produced modern crocodiles. And crocs have the same sort of lung system as birds.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That wasn't really my point

That wasn't really my point though. The evolutionary trails on Earth will never be fully understood and documented simply because fossils rarely form, and time travel is impossible. It's just so backwards to assume that successfully breaking a presumed evolutionary link can have any impact on the overall theory. So what if bird and dinosaur diversion was sooner or later than previously assumed?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The current questions over

 

 

the ancestry of modern birds far from undermining the scientific method, prove its integrity. And no, BoJ, doubt is not a sort of madness.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That wasn't

Vastet wrote:
That wasn't really my point though. The evolutionary trails on Earth will never be fully understood and documented simply because fossils rarely form, and time travel is impossible. It's just so backwards to assume that successfully breaking a presumed evolutionary link can have any impact on the overall theory. So what if bird and dinosaur diversion was sooner or later than previously assumed?

 

Completely valid.  However, I was responding to the OP who seemed to be making the claim that it the theropod idea has problems, then that is proof of theistic claims.  Rather, I am pointing out that the matter really is not settled science and there are other ideas that have merit which overcome his concept.  Although I really think that he is copy/pasting from somewhere.  It seems too grammatically accurate to match some of the stuff that he has posted in the past.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is another fallacy

There is another fallacy here - going from a possible inability to identify which of all the known lineages a given species descended from, due probably to the many gaps in the fossil record, to a claim that that species has no ancestor, implying it must have been 'created'...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:BookofJob

This comment has been moved here.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:BookofJob

butterbattle wrote:

BookofJob wrote:

It is virtually impossible for an animal that breathes by means of a diaphragm to evolve into an animal which breathes the way modern birds do, because the hypothetical intermediate creature would be severely hampered in its ability to breathe.

Lol, were the many non-hypothetical feathered theropods that we found hampered in their ability to breathe?

It's good that Jurassic park is an older film. Due to new scientific discoveries, velociraptors there wouldn't be the smooth, fast and deadly hunting lizards we know. They would be fluffy with feathers and also due to BookofJob's presented facts, extremely shortwinded. There would be no scenes with running in tall grass and jumping through windows, humans would outrun them easily. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BookofJob wrote:It is

BookofJob wrote:

It is virtually impossible for an animal that breathes by means of a diaphragm to evolve into an animal which breathes the way modern birds do, because the hypothetical intermediate creature would be severely hampered in its ability to breathe.

Lol, were the many non-hypothetical feathered theropods that we found hampered in their ability to breathe?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
BookofJob wrote:"But examine

BookofJob wrote:

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good"

1 Thessalonians 5:21 New American Standard

 

This quote is a perfect example of why the bible shouldn't be used as a source of 'facts'. How does one define what is 'good'? Who decides on 'goodness'? Strange that being 'correct' isn't important, only that something is subjectively 'good'. Theists and scientists would likely have a lot more in common if the verse was rewritten:

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is testable and independently verifiable."

 

 

I think that many theists interpret this verse as follows:

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good, unless it discredits any element of the bible, in which case blindly oppose it without any evidence."

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Why is it

jcgadfly wrote:

Why is it when God and science contend God is the one "re-interpreted"?

Because claims of deities do not have the same high standard of testing and falsification. In deity belief you are not required to hand your claim over to others with no horse in the race. It is all about patting each other on the back. Deity belief is a popularity contest, and will never be be a substitute for scientific method.

Ethical scientists want to be proven wrong, When you get proven wrong, you end up with the right answer, independent of what one may be fond of.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Why is it when God and

Why is it when God and science contend God is the one "re-interpreted"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no problem for

There is no problem for evolution.

What has happened is that it is becoming more evident that birds and dinosaurs shared a common ancestor, and that some dinosaur-like creatures, ie the 'raptors', descended from birds. The close evolutionary connection which was found originally is still true, but further research has clarified the details of the how the various lineages evolved/

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

Quote:

Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.

"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."

This sort of correction is part of science, and can only be provided by continuing scientific research.

Nothing about the Theory of Evolution itself is being challenged here, just an initial, premature conclusion about the relationship between two lineages, when the close relationship was originally indicated.

This is trivial, alongside the enormous collection of gratuitous errors that is the Bible, and the long-discredited God hypothesis.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Let me add, evolution is

Let me add, evolution is fact, it is undisputed by credible scientists.

Attacking evolution does not default to the Christian god existing over Allah or Thor or Vishnu, even if I bought into this claptrap you posted, which I don't.

"Science is wrong so my god exists" No, that is not the way it works.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"Science is wrong so Allah is the one true god"

"Science is wrong so Yahweh is the one true god"

"Science is wrong so Vishnu is the one true god"

"Science is wrong so Thor does make ligtening"

If science is wrong other scientists point it out and everyone learns from it. What ethical scientists DONT DO is use it to prop up their own pet whims. You are buying the word of an apologist, not a scientist, or at least not a scientist I would call ethical.

Scientists go where the evidence leads, they do not try to retrofit it to what they want to be true.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Really? You take the word of

Really? You take the word of a website out to prove the existence of the Christian god. I wish I were shocked by this, but it is far too mundane.

Now that you've falsely tried to use science fiction to prop up your myth, why don't we skip the damned book all together and cut to the chase.

You, "I believe that God exists"

Me, "Fine, without proxy of naked assertion, SHOW me empirically HOW, through testing and falsification and independent peer review, HOW a thought can arise without a material process. "God did it" is a claim, not evidence.

Work on that, and get back to me. I'll be waiting. I will hand you the Nobel Prize myself if you can do that.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37