Replies

And most have not. Furthermore, recent discoveries have filled in even more of the "missing links" in the dinosaur-to-bird transition. More information. Another excellent site.

First, your assumption that "Most have not" is an assertion. It is not proven. It is your assertion. Only 55% of Scientists reportedly believe in Darwinian evolution. But even if all of the scientists believed that dinosaurs became birds, what would that prove? A couple of hundred years, most scientists "Believed" in bloodletting. Many many years ago most scientists believed the earth was flat (incidentally, the Bible has always claimed the earth was round). A hundred years ago, the universe was only 2 Billion years old and now it is 4.6 billion (better act quick, this place is gettin' old QUICK!). What Scientists take on faith is not proof of anything. There are some MAJOR problems with the dino-to-bird theory, but rather than admit them, dogmatists insist that dinosaurs "obviously" became birds, we just have to prove how. They start with an assumption that they are taking on faith, but have observed squat. Repeatable observation is usually what defines true science. Your scientists have a theory and nothing more.

Here's an amusing excerpt from that last link:

And really, the Birds-Are-Not-Dinosaurs (BAND) group seriously are a constant source of amusement to me.

Glad he finds us so amusing. Of course, the notion that a complex human being that came from a non-personal rock is pretty rip roaring hilarious too, don'tcha admit???

As soon as one theory on why birds cannot be dinosaurs is demolished by a new discovery, the BAND crowd come up with a new theory that is even less plausible than their previous one. Over the past few years, these folks have adopted more positions than the Kama Sutra.

And Darwinists haven't???? Give me a break here!!!! This dog isn't going to hunt. Anyone who has studied any of evolution at all know that the vast majority of Darwinian scientists don't even agree amongst themselves and are CONSTANTLY coming out with new theories of how the earth evolved. These theories range anywhere from the traditional big-bang primordial soup gig to panspermia (which is a position held by DNA co-founder Francis Crick stating that the world shows intelligent design, but OBVIOUSLY we can't admit God could have done all this, so the aliens came here millions and millions of years ago and planted seeds- boy that's science!).

Archaeopteryx [...] was not a dinosaur. It was a bird.
It's always funny listening to creationists try to explain Archaeopteryx. The reason it's so funny is that half of them declare it to be "obviously" just a bird -- and the other half declare it to be "obviously" just a reptile.
Smoke-screen, and a blatantly arrogant one at that. I have stated that it is a bird. Some of your other "dino-birds" that have been postulated to be transitional species ARE, in fact, just reptiles. (see Sinosauropteryx) Appealing to what other people have or have not said (most creationists I have heard of say it is a bird) does not address the issue at point. One thing is for sure, it is not a bird-a-tile.

So it's a bird, eh? Well that explains the wings and feathers and so on.
And so on... Why not spell out the "and so on" Things like lung design that is that of a bird and not of a reptile. Jaw design (bird). It's wishbone (bird). Foot design (bird). Etc.,

But how then do you explain these clearly reptilian features?
Mammals and reptiles share many common features. Does not prove we came from one another, just that we had the same designer. How do you explain the fish on Free Republic (rat-faced something or 'nother) that had a horn growing out of its head? Most fish don't have these, but it doesn't mean that it is a reptile.

Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered. This is posh talk for "does not have a bill."
And a dinosaur's maxilla does not move. Birds do.

Trunk region vertebra are free. In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.
Paleontologists classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. It may be different from most birds
Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section. A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds.
Which proves nothing, other than this bird is different from most other birds as dromaeosaurs are different from other dinosaurs.

Many of the features you named within this section are comparing this saur from that saur and saying well, Archaeopteryx really looks more like the saurs than like birds. But examine that. The fact that this saur has this feature and that saur has that feature shows that there are frequently things within each classification that may be unique to a particular species. For example, plesiosaurs don't have wings like pterodactyls. Some dinosaurs don't have long necks, some eat vegetables and some eat meat. Doesn't prove anything other than God's creation is diverse. Just because something LOOKs like something else, does not mean it evolved from something else.

Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle). Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.
"In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archaeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans is very similar to those of Archaeopteryx. One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile." "

Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth. No modern bird possess teeth.
Several early birds did have teeth. So is Archy a modern or an early bird???

The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra. This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae!

See above.

Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible. This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused.
Yes, and most mammals have free moving joints in their wrists. Moles don't. Does that mean a mole is not a mammal? Most birds may have fused carpo-metacarpus. This one doesn't. So???

Claws on 3 unfused digits. No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits.
This is incorrect. There are at least 3 modern birds with claws on their wings.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Are you?

I have to warn you, if you've gotten your "information" from creationist sources, you've likely been woefully misinformed and underinformed.

Herein lies your problem. You are throwing out evidence simply because you know that the source does not agree with your theory. You make an unsubstatiated assertion, appealing to only the authority of your own opinion on such sources, but I would hasten to say that I doubt you've really studied these creationist sources in much detail at all. Your pro-evolution bias is merely religion in another form. If you choose to believe these things, fine. But you show your hand when you refuse to consider what any source has to say because "it's creationist."

Evolution is a failed theory. It has contributed SQUAT to the scientific effort. When it doesn't work and is proven not to work, rather than consider other options, the evolutionist stubbornly clings to the theory and postulates things such as punctuated equilibrium to explain what he can't explain. The bias is so strong that it is simply UNTHINKABLE to admit everything shows design, and if there is design there is a designer, and that designer just might be a God to whom we are ALL accountable. We can NEVER admit that. I don't find evolutionists "amusing". I find them pathetically sad. I also find them angering because they willfully distort the record in text books to get kids to believe the lie of evolution while suppressing anything that even sounds like creation. This is not science. It is indoctrination of a religious dogma.

(unlike Archaeoraptor which was a known hoax)
That's overstating the case. It's more accurate to say it was a fraud. And not by those evil(tm) evolutionists, either, as creationists like to imply. More than anything else, it was a comedy of errors.

You just can't admit a wrong can you? Archaeoraptor WAS a known hoax. It wasn't perpetrated by a creationist, or believed by creationists either. Rather, it was believed by evolutionists and tauted as a possible "missing link". It became known to be a hoax and was a real embarassment to the evolution community. No "comedy of errors" It was a deliberate hoax and the evolutionist religionists were willing to bite.

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

Only 55% of Scientists reportedly believe in Darwinian evolution.

Cite, please.

Many many years ago most scientists believed the earth was flat

Which scientists, when?

(incidentally, the Bible has always claimed the earth was round).

Round, as in a flat disk.

These theories range anywhere from the traditional big-bang primordial soup gig to panspermia (which is a position held by DNA co-founder Francis Crick stating that the world shows intelligent design, but OBVIOUSLY we can't admit God could have done all this, so the aliens came here millions and millions of years ago and planted seeds- boy that's science!

Crick wrote one paper discussing the possibility of panspermia. He has not to my knowledge ever stated the world shows intelligent design.

Be nice. DittoJed2 is on his own here.

It has contributed SQUAT to the scientific effort.

didn't it suggest that Piltdown man was a hoax? As was later proven by microscopic examination?

Did any anti-evo contribute anything to unmasking this hoax?