Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds!! Really??

[Habit7]

OK cool, believe whatever you want to believe. Stick your fingers into your ears and blank out all information opposite to your knowledge, sure.

I am tolerant of other religions.

[Slartibartfast]

It would be interesting to plot all the livivng creatures on a genetic map, and see who is who grandfather and who is who cousin and so on.

Might not be as detailed as you hope but it's interesting nonetheless. I don't remember where it came from so I can't comment on the accuracy of this diagram.

f

[landroverdefender]

i reading all of this an to be honest ..........i never saw a monkey with curly hair

[TRAE]

merge this ched gs

[Dizzy28]

So Dinosaurs weren't killed out by the Creators as per Transformers??

[Slartibartfast]

Bluefete, care to us educate us on what is really going on here? Something can't be shiite just for what it doesn't explain, otherwise all science would be crap. So I'm guessing that you have an alternative explanation. Care to share it with us?

[SMc]

^^you wont get one unless it was posted on the dailymail.co.uk website..

[bluefete]

Bluefete, care to us educate us on what is really going on here? Something can't be shiite just for what it doesn't explain, otherwise all science would be crap. So I'm guessing that you have an alternative explanation. Care to share it with us?

^^you wont get one unless it was posted on the dailymail.co.uk website..

Here is my basic problem. If dinosaurs evolved into birds, did birds and dinosaurs exist at the same time?

The scientists keep telling us that one species dies out as another evolves but is that really so?

How does one explain co-existence within the evolutionary realm?

[SMc]

You know its true..

Did you even look at the picture above to get an understanding of when things existed, and when they appeared in the timeframe of what has been life on earth so far? If you look at the 'branches' you will notice where the red branches (birds) split or carry on from the green branches (Godzilla et al). but there is a period of a good millions of year where they co-existed. Lower down on the chart where the...acyually I gonna stop I starting to feel like Natio.

[bluefete]

How come no aquatic dinosaurs remained alive ? If sharks could survive and they are highly specialized, then it should be that plesciosaurs should survive too.
Aligators and snakes I.e. Reptiles survived. Is that due to their really slow metabolism which can allow them to go weeks if not months wihout food.

We have several discovered alive in 1938 and since - The coelacanth. The dinosaur fish. This is a fish that was supposed to be extinct for millions of years.

http://www.dinofish.com/


Preserved specimen of a coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae, USNM 205871, from the Fish Division specimen collection.


Preserved adult coelacanth or Latimeria chalumnae, SAIAB 34464, currently on display at the NMNH Ocean Hall Exhibit. This specimen is on loan to the National Museum of Natural History, from the South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB). Photograph by Don Hurlburt.


The Coelacanth: More Living than Fossil


Second Indonesian coelacanth known to science, later to become holotype of new species, Latimeria menadoensis. Photograph by Mark V. Erdmann, July 1998.



Indonesian coelacanth and Arnaz Mehta Erdmann, at about 50 foot depth. Photograph by Mark V. Erdmann, July 1998.



Original National Museum of Natural History exhibit of a coelacanth, <em>Latimeria chalumnae</em>, that went on display on August 20, 1957. This was a model of a male fish caught off the Comoro Islands, near Madagascar. Photo courtesy of Smithsonian Institution Archives - Image SIA2009-2196.


Coelacanths (seel-a-canths) were once known only from fossils and were thought to have gone extinct approximately 65 million years ago (mya), during the great extinction in which the dinosaurs disappeared. The most recent fossil record dates from about 80 mya but the earliest records date back as far as approximately 360 mya. At one time coelacanths were a large group comprising about 90 valid species that were distributed worldwide in both marine and freshwaters. Today, there are two known living species.

AN UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY

The first living coelacanth was discovered in 1938 and bears the scientific name Latimeria chalumnae. The species was described by Professor J.L.B. Smith in 1939 and was named after its discoverer, Miss Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer. Although Latimeria is a genus distinct from the fossil forms, all coelacanths share numerous features and are easily recognized by their distinctive shape and lobed fins. For many years, living coelacanths were known only from the western Indian Ocean, primarily from the Comoros Islands, but in September 1997 and again in July 1998, coelacanths were captured in northern Sulawesi, Indonesia, nearly 6,000 miles to the east of the Comoros. The Indonesian discovery was made by Mark V. Erdmann, then a doctoral student from UC Berkeley studying coral reef ecology in Indonesia. Although the Indonesian specimens superficially resemble those in the western Indian Ocean, analyses of DNA from tissue samples from one of the Indonesian specimens revealed significant genetic differentiation from the Indian Ocean population. The authors of two studies have suggested that the two populations have been separated for at least several millions of years. The Indonesian form was described as a new species, Latimeria menadoensis, in April 1999, by L. Pouyard and several Indonesian colleagues.

http://vertebrates.si.edu/fishes/coelac ... wider.html

[bluefete]

You know its true..

Did you even look at the picture above to get an understanding of when things existed, and when they appeared in the timeframe of what has been life on earth so far? If you look at the 'branches' you will notice where the red branches (birds) split or carry on from the green branches (Godzilla et al). but there is a period of a good millions of year where they co-existed. Lower down on the chart where the...acyually I gonna stop I starting to feel like Natio.

It is the same excuse given to account for the human evolution from apes, monkeys, whatever. Except that the branch is missing a link that up to now cannot be explained. That is where the entire thing breaks down.

Duane has consistently pointed out how much we have in common with fouls, chickens, flowers, birds etc.

But science CANNOT explain how humans arrived here. All they can do is guess via theories that are taught as fact.

I do not dispute the existence of dinosaurs, dinobirds and so on.

But tell me what the cow, cat and dog evolved from.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

bluefete did you watch the Richard Dawkins video I posted?

The video alone allows you to understand everything you need to know in order to accept Evolution. But here is an even better one after you watch this you will understand everything you need to know about science. We can expect your next topic to be on Quantum Physics as its currently more important than Biology.

This video will give you the run down you need to understand everything regarding scientific articles for the general public. Trust in Dr Dawkins and he will set you free.

I don't understand why we are still doubting Evolution, this is an intermediate topic in Biology and hardly warrants such debate on if its real or not. Whats more important right now is Physics, we already know evolution is a pretty much solid case there is too much evidence to deny it. We need to focus on how the universe came about and why?? and the mystery of Black holes and other dimensions, dark matter etc

[stev]

Bluefete, care to us educate us on what is really going on here? Something can't be shiite just for what it doesn't explain, otherwise all science would be crap. So I'm guessing that you have an alternative explanation. Care to share it with us?

^^you wont get one unless it was posted on the dailymail.co.uk website..

Here is my basic problem. If dinosaurs evolved into birds, did birds and dinosaurs exist at the same time?

The scientists keep telling us that one species dies out as another evolves but is that really so?

How does one explain co-existence within the evolutionary realm?

'dies out' does not mean that the species is literally...dead.

a species 'dies out' when it has undergone enough DNA mutations to physically alter its form from the original (original becomes extinct). this analysis is done between a specific time frame.

i hope i explained that good...lol

[16 cycles]

i googled answers to those questions but posting them here would be senseless...

[Slartibartfast]

Coexistence has been explained. A quick google search will show that. Basically, with man at least, we evolved with apes. So we have a common ancestor but one didn't evolve from the other.

Also, what missing link are you talking about. There are several fossils that show the evolution between ape and man. So if you just need one link, science provides several, at varying degrees of evolution.

Also remember the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence (I.e. Just because there is something that has not yet been found or explained does not mean it can't be found or explained)

Now how about that alternative explanation.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Bluefete, care to us educate us on what is really going on here? Something can't be shiite just for what it doesn't explain, otherwise all science would be crap. So I'm guessing that you have an alternative explanation. Care to share it with us?

^^you wont get one unless it was posted on the dailymail.co.uk website..

Here is my basic problem. If dinosaurs evolved into birds, did birds and dinosaurs exist at the same time?

The scientists keep telling us that one species dies out as another evolves but is that really so?

How does one explain co-existence within the evolutionary realm?

what???

Do you understand how evolution works?

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

In my humble opinion if we stopped wasting time trying to prove evolution wrong and used the time in discussing as to how we should go about curing Cancer, HIV, Psoriasis, Aging etc we would put Biology to so much better use.
Maybe anti evolution spokes person could perhaps suggest on how to go about curing paralyzed patients etc more discussion in neurology etc?

Discussing advanced Biology is more important I don't know why we insist on discussing and trying to prove Evolution as wrong when there are so much evidence in support of it than anyother theory you can possibly come up with.
Bluefete how come you only post Evolution topics of Biology but you don't post articles on progress in its other branches like Neurology etc?

I respect your view on the matter but what other theory you could possibly come up with as to how we came here? what theory you could possibly have thats better than the theory of Evolution?

Why are you Anti Biology? do you instead prefer Physics and Chemistry? is there any form of science you Enjoy?

[Habit7]

Bluefete might not know how evolution works but some of you who defending it don't seem to doing much better either.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Bluefete might not know how evolution works but some of you who defending it don't seem to doing much better either.

The eminent scientist Dr Richard Dawkins said to deny Evolution which is supported by mountains of evidence is a betrayal of Science and everything it stands for.

Do we not feel guilty doing this amount of harm to science while going to the doctor and drugstore when we are sick? do we not feel guilty attacking science while using very said computer and internet to do so on this website?

Without the applied physics foundation there would be no technology. Without Biology no medicine, Engineering does not exist without Science no matter how much people think it does. So no matter what way you look at it we would have nothing without science so why betray it?

With all due respect while I understand everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it, most of us if any of us for that matter are hardly in a position to question this individual when he holds the title of Doctor of Science from University of Oxford possibly the most prestigious university in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins

Notable awards ZSL Silver Medal (1989)
Faraday Award (1990)
International Cosmos Prize (1997)
Michael Faraday Prize (2001)
Nierenberg Prize (2009)

Professor Clinton Richard Dawkins /ˈdɔːkɨnz/, DSc, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is an English[2] ethologist, evolutionary biologist,[3] and writer. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford,[4] and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.[5]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Bluefete might not know how evolution works but some of you who defending it don't seem to doing much better either.

scientific fact does not depend on how much people understand it, defend it or believe it. Religious faith on the other hand...

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

I Would like to know from people who deny Evolution, what other theory they propose that makes more sense and that they have evidence to back it up. I don't mean hearsay but real Evidence where I don't have to take your word for it.

Since science is about the truth I have no doubt that science will gladly embrace any other theory for our existence if there lies more evidence for it.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

But tell me what the cow, cat and dog evolved from.

The answer to all of that is very simple they all came from one single cell Organism. This is where life on the whole came from and it supported by mountains of evidence.

It all originated from what is known as Abiogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

Precambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. In 2002, a paper in the scientific journal Nature suggested that these 3.5 Ga (billion years old) geological formations contain fossilized cyanobacteria microbes. This suggests they are evidence of one of the earliest known life forms on Earth.

If you require a deeper and further explanation you will need to acquire at-least a Bsc degree in Biology or its related field from a reputable University in order to understand what they are talking about. Do you have this?

Anything beyond Abiogenesis going back further falls in the realms of the big bang and then onto Quantum Physics and how the big bang happened. This is the job of Physicists from here on. To understand from here on Mr Bluefete I would recommend to you get atleast a Phd in theoretical physics from a world class University.

Are willing to undertake those tasks?

[Habit7]

Empirical science which is measurable, repeatable and observable is what we observe in medical science.

The theory of evolution is not measurable, repeatable or observable but is what we infer occurred in historical science. Dawkins could continue to preach his gospel of secular humanism but there is nothing in science whether empirical or historical that is above scrutiny.

[meccalli]

Trying to keep anything religious out for the sake of the thread, but why does science and evolution need to synonymous? Tesla, Newton, Pasteur, all of em were creationists, didn't they make great leaps and bounds to set a basis for our bricks to be laid for medicine and technology? There are many leading scientists(non theists) today who refuse to subscribe to a shaky theory. Likewise, there's a bunch of theistic scientists who embrace Darwin. Its not a prerequisite as many college professors would have young minds under their awe embrace.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Trying to keep anything religious out for the sake of the thread, but why does science and evolution need to synonymous? Tesla, Newton, Pasteur, all of em were creationists, didn't they make great leaps and bounds to set a basis for our bricks to be laid for medicine and technology? There are many leading scientists(non theists) today who refuse to subscribe to a shaky theory. Likewise, there's a bunch of theistic scientists who embrace Darwin. Its not a prerequisite as many college professors would have young minds under their awe embrace.

Would be no different than if back then Greek Mythology was still practiced. They would have all believed in Zeus and norse god Thor etc. Before science, Zeus created lightning. The absolute only reason Zeus is no longer relevant is because of Physics and our understanding on how Lightning occurs.

Giant leaps in Biology happened with Charles Darwin who came years later.

Also back then nobody was so stupid to claim there was no god they would end up like Galileo thanks to the brutality of the Catholic Church. Tesla and Newton was most likely Athiest but had to hide it like a US presidential candidate hiding their atheistic views to become president.

[Slartibartfast]

All I'm saying is that evolution is the best theory for our existence that we have today. It is the theory that fits the world as it is most closely.

Bluefete and Habit7 are yet to point me in he direction of an alternative theory with comparable evidence to back it up.

I'm not even arguing how good Dawkins is because he is fallible, just like every scientist before him including Tesla, Newton and Pasteur. Just because they believed in a God does not mean they were right. Name dropping doesn't change and facts.

Now Bluefete and Habit7...again... how about that alternative theory.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Empirical science which is measurable, repeatable and observable is what we observe in medical science.

The theory of evolution is not measurable, repeatable or observable but is what we infer occurred in historical science. Dawkins could continue to preach his gospel of secular humanism but there is nothing in science whether empirical or historical that is above scrutiny.

The Observable universe is 5000 years old according to some moron name Ken Ham.

This does not mean the earth is 5000 years old though as we know better now.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Slartibartfast you are right Dawkins like anyone else is capable of making a mistake.

One interesting thing Dawkins said is that when he was studying for undergraduate degree in Oxford a young American researcher came into his class utterly disproved his professor's theory on a number of things. The professor walked up the young man and shook his hand and said my good man I want to thank you I have been wrong these 15 years and they all clapped their hands loud and they were all rejoicing that scientific truth had been advanced. Even though that old man had years invested into that theory he was happy it was disproved and scientific truth had succeeded.

Thats the difference with Dawkins. Unlike some bias American scientists like who Ken Ham used as reference, Dawkins do not take the word of humans he only goes based on Evidence and scientific truth.

This is what separates Dawkins from the nut jobs. He does not care what you "believe" like the scientist who invented the MRI scanner a great invention but went onto say the world is 5000 years old because he "BELIEVES" it based on "FAITH" and a book.

What one believes is irrelevant from what is the truth. I am pretty sure the people of North Korea thinks their great leader King Jong II is the reincarnation of Christ. This does not make it true...

But yes back on topic I would love if bluefete would give me his theory on how we all came about and so I can compare it to what we currently know.

[Habit7]

Habit7 are yet to point me in he direction of an alternative theory with comparable evidence to back it up.

If you presuppose that on a Tuesday at 4pm, 14 billion years ago, nothing exploded into and organised everything, then 4 billion years ago on a stormy day on planet Earth, some inanimate objects became animate, then you would need a theory of evolution or better.

But if you have an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause, an eternal being creating an organised universe...theories seem to be an attempt to clap with one hand tied behind your back.

[meccalli]

Just because they believed in a God does not mean they were right. Name dropping doesn't change and facts.

:/, english hard, I'm saying you don't have to believe in evolution to be a scientist as evident in those individuals.