Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: schaef21
Even more ridiculous......dinosaurs to birds.

Dinosaurs were cold-blooded, dense-boned and had no sound producing organ.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. (Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by "sound producing organ". Birds don't have any special "sound producing organ" apart from what any other terrestrial vertebrate has.)

To just focus on your error about dense bones. Not only did many dinosaurs have hollow bones, for a genus described last year, there is specific evidence that these bones possessed the same special respiratory function they (otherwise uniquely) do in birds! Full article is online at the link:

Sereno PC, Martinez RN, Wilson JA, Varricchio DJ, Alcober OA, et al. (2008) Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina. PLoS ONE 3(9): e3303.

In this YouTube video you can see one of the authors holding one of the hollow bones.

The following figure from the article shows some of the pneumatopores (where the air sacs entered the bones) in the fossils from this dinosaur, which btw is named Aerosteon, Greek for "air bone":

So, we find a very specialized adaptation, otherwise utterly unique to birds, in a group of dinosaurs which were previously identified (about 150 years ago, btw) as closest to modern birds. Coincidence? For creationists, I suppose it has to be.

33 posted on 12/17/2009 6:52:36 PM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: Stultis

So Stultis, educate me some more.

Which came first the dense-boned or hollow-boned dinosaurs? How exactly did that evolutionary process occur? Since some reptiles/dinosaurs are warm-blooded and some are cold-blooded (as you seem to indicate) what might have been the sequence of events?

Archaeopteryx supposedly proved that birds came from dinosaurs....except that was refuted by many bird experts (See Alan Feduccia)who have concluded that Archaeopteryx was 100% bird. The fact that birds were found later in lower strata than Archaeopteryx put to rest the conjecture that it was a transitional fossil.

Then came Archaeorapter, a hoax from China.... the big deal about this is not that it was a hoax. Fossil hunters know the big dollars that are out there if they can convince someone that they found a “transitional fossil”.

The big deal is that the major media wanted so much for it to be true that they threw “due diligence” out the window and just blindly accepted it.... kind of like the mainstream media does whenever some new “statistic” is put forth by NOW, GREENPEACE or any other left wing group with a cause they agree with.

National Geographic still has egg on their face over the huge spread they did on Archaeoraptor.

Having said all that....I’ll go to your links and read the information there. I’ll also do some due diligence and find out what others have concluded.

39 posted on 12/17/2009 8:27:49 PM PST by schaef21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson