LOCKED- Why? Because you morons (kidding, I love [most of] you) are starting exactly what I asked you not to. At least, it's heading in that direction.
Oh. Oh. Another evolution topic.
Stepping past the "zomg evolushuns versus creeshuns" argument, though, let's get to specifics- did dinosaurs evolve into birds rather than lizards, or did they evolve at all before becoming extinct?
Obviously, the first and most important thing that could be brought to attention is the bone structure.
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv498%2FThestralJaw%2F_____birdskeleton.jpg&hash=e5cdf149ce5b5ed25d0b819fe2acdff7da684ebd)(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv498%2FThestralJaw%2Ftroodontiddidididid.jpg&hash=08ccd9c1bf9e7d7ebe9650166099d4fceaae2ddf)
(some kind of dove and some kind of troodontid)
1- The neck and shoulder bones. Both birds' and dinosaurs' (assume I'm talking about theropods when I say dinosaur) cervical vertebrae are arranged in a nice, curvy S-shape. The shoulder bones are long and thin on both.
2- The chest. Both birds and dinosaurs possess a furcula (wishbone)underneath the clavicles.
3- The hips. In both dinosaurs and birds, vertebral bones and the sacrum are fused together.
4- The feet. Both the bird and dinosaur have three toes in the front, each with a claw, and a small toe in back. Also, in both, most of the weight is supported on the toes.
Along with genetic evidence from new research (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/ap/tech/main2677380.shtml), cladistic evidence seems to support the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
In before the Bible, Jesus, God, macro-evolution, atheists, Jews, the apocalypse, cavemen, angels, and giraffes.
The idea of dinosaurs evolving into birds never really seemed the far-fetched to me, even when I first saw Jurassic Park.
To be honest, I am not 100% certain of my facts, and I am not going to research them... But his my opinion.
My Argueement against
Birds exsisted along side dinosaurs... Why do I think this:-
Reptile / Dinosaurs are cold blooded... they need warmth to live and so fourth...
Birds on the other hand are warm blooded, and have feathers...
(It makes more sense for an animal that's Cold blooded to have featers...)
Reptiles skin does not stretch they shed... Birds don't...
Crocodiles are dinosaurs, they have not changed, they are just more hardy than the ones that didn't survive...
Being that they are both from the same sort of era, could mean they have very simular skeltons and make up, does not mean a trex can turn into a sparrow...LOL
My Argueement for
Some Birds still have scaled area's...
The images you have shown, show some very interesting points and they can be pushed aside without making some links or refference to they could have evolved.
End note
As you can see my way of thinking is fairly one sided... so I would have to say I don't think there is enough evidence that they are related directly.
Birds existing alongside dinosaurs is not evidence of them being unrelated. Birds evolved from a single dinosaur species or group of species. Nobody is saying that all dinosaurs evolved into birds. Furthermore, the warm- or cold-bloodedness of dinosaurs hasn't been decided yet, but it's almost sure that some were one way and others were the other.
Why do you think it makes more sense for cold-blooded animals to have feathers? If that was true, don't you think that there would be feathered reptiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzacoatl) of some sort somewhere in the world? Warm-blooded animals need insulation, too.
While the skins of modern reptiles does shed, we know almost nothing about that of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs probably didn't shed their skin all at once like snakes do. Lizards shed their skin in patches, and birds shed their feathers (which is a part of their skin) in a process called "molting".
Being from the same era would not make animals similar unless they shared a common ancestor (or through convergent evolution, but birds and similarly shaped dinosaurs did not fill the same niche).
Finally, crocodiles are not dinosaurs.
Well, I do think dinosaurs evolved to birds AND to reptiles.
I actually love the documentaries and happen to have seen one where they made the connection.
To make the connection, I think scientist would have to discover a bird-like dinosaur and a dinosaur-like bird.
Bird-like dinosaur:
The first fossil found with feathers was one called Archaeopteryx, which means "Ancient Wing" from latin.
Dinosaur-like bird:
Rahonavis (which means "menace from the clouds") is a primitive bird from Madagascar with dino features, for example, typical Velociraptor-like raised sickle claw on the second toe.
For the blood-warmth discussion, some scientists say that the feathers evolved for warmth, thus suggesting that some dinossaurs were already warm-blooded.
All this issue is complicated, because it is going agains the whole "dinosaurs were extinguished cuz of a meteor, or some virus, or whatever" to replace it with "dinosaurs simply evolved".
The thing is, if birds DID evolved from Dinosaurs, dinosaurs are part of your regular diet, unless you're a vegetarian! ;D
Archeopteryx is part of the class aves. So like, more a bird than anything else.
You right. But then again, Protoarchaeopteryx or Caudipteryx were discovered too. These fossils are from fast-runner dinosaurs. Although their body was covered with feathers, but there's no actual evidence of wing feathers. This suggests both of them could not fly.
Bringing another theory up: that the flying skill was not acquired with feathers as everyone should think, but through the evolution of gliding (meaning the dinosaurs first learned to glide and then to fly).
Not all birds can fly either, so that is a moot point.
check out these topics
http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/index.html (http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/index.html)
http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/BirdS/morphevol/main.htm (http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/BirdS/morphevol/main.htm)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp)
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/communication/boulton/birds.html (http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/communication/boulton/birds.html)
I think it's entirely possible, and just a little FYI on the micro/macro evolution ideals: Using Natural Selection as the means of evolution, the terms micro and macro (referring to small changes within a species, and larger ones such as animal 'A' turning into animal 'B') are something that should not be used, because they are something indifferent.
Saying you accept 'micro' evolution yet not macro is one of the stupidest things comprehensible, it's like saying "I can take a step forward, yet cannot cross the street". Micro and Macro are referring to nothing but length and time going by our current grasp of evolution.
There is no "micro & macro" any more, just different lengths of time in which the method of evolution, Natural Selection, has taken effect...
I feel it is plausible for (as JH said) a group of dinosaurs to have evolved into the birds of today.
Saucy, if you and Holkeye and Ruhani and the rest of the gang keep bringing evolution into every single discussion as a reference point for whatever you want acknowledged, why can't I do the complete opposite?
Thats very hypocritical.
in what way is that hypocrytical, we cant help it, if we need to prove idiotic people wrong with evolution. its just one of several ways we keep idiots like biohazard down on their knees, making them recite "MY EVIDENCE IS AS FACTUAL AS MY VERY EXISTANCE ON EARTH' in a army drill kind of way.
Quote from: Elegy on April 22, 2007, 11:28:58 PM
Saucy, if you and Holkeye and Ruhani and the rest of the gang keep bringing evolution into every single discussion as a reference point for whatever you want acknowledged, why can't I do the complete opposite?
Thats very hypocritical.
Don't bring me into your emo-pussy mind games. I want no part of you.
@Ele-
Oh my, how did you know it was me who deleted your post?
Keep in mind of the first word in this sections name; it's "intelligent" debate.
Post something not pointlessly stupid and it won't get deleted, i.e; post reasons for your side, not just a short poorly put together sentence.
Intelligence is so very relative.
To some people, believing in something so ridiculous as evolution, (which holds as much factual basis as scientology)
Is not considerably intelligent.
And to some people, little green men with probes and ghosts who have nothing better to do than to walk around annoying people at night is considered intelligent.
So by which standard do I measure intelligence, yours, mine, or the guy with the tinfoil hat's?
I would say cut your losses now and start learning how to drive a backhoe.
I don't recall asking your opinion.
Quote from: Elegy on April 23, 2007, 06:16:20 AM
Intelligence is so very relative.
To some people, believing in something so ridiculous as evolution, (which holds as much factual basis as scientology)
Is not considerably intelligent.
And to some people, little green men with probes and ghosts who have nothing better to do than to walk around annoying people at night is considered intelligent.
So by which standard do I measure intelligence, yours, mine, or the guy with the tinfoil hat's?
Holk is right. Evolution holds a lot more evidence than scientology or creationism, but enough with that. The are not that little, and they are grey, not green. They rarely have a probe.
Quote from: Elegy on April 23, 2007, 08:17:36 PM
I don't recall asking your opinion.
But that's just it, he doesn't have to get your say-so.
hi djang nice topic you got here :P