Harkening back to a post during January 2015, in an article titled “Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy” on Slate, the assertion is made, “…The mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs, and that many ‘bird’…”
…”Most scientists…”
'zat so? “Most…Scientists…”
Today, whilst reading an article by a progressive Agnostic, I came across the following statement aimed at “religious-minded” folks. How poignantly stated too!
Comments such as “all” or even “‘most’ scientists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs.…” is an absurd assertion. How they conducted their poll and statistics on “most scientists” is a mystery in itself however,
Even if it were so, what does that prove?
Nothing. Let's take it straight from the mouth of the most vehement anti-religious among Darwinists:
“I noticed your reliance upon phrases such as, “modern scholarship is virtually unanimous,” “on this score scholarship is united,” “almost all scholars are agreed,“ and finally, “this seems to be the conclusion of most modern scholars, even critical ones.” I take exception to such a method of argument. A man's opinions are not logically strengthened by the number of men who agree with him (unless his logic functions like that of an evangelist).”
*Ouch.*
Personally, I could care no less about “opinions” so much as I care about fossils and actual geological dating methods.
The “empirical evidence” stands on the side of the minority of scientists who actually adhere to valid time-tested scientific principals and their counterparts who have enough knowledge to actually know to avoid “pop science” which is virtually the same as mainstream pseudo-scientific garbage. Were these elusive statistics culled from a peer reviewed journal, or perhaps like the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis, plucked from thin air? Legitimacy of theories comes solely by being based upon the “clear fossil evidence” that birds existed before cretaceous theropod dinosaurs, whether the conclusions are the ones desired or not. Whimsical myths and fantasies cooked up by some renegade scientist seeking to stir up controversy of “70 million year old cretaceous theropod dinosaurs evolving into 160 million year old birds that lived 25 million to 80 million years BEFORE said theropod dinosaurs…” get some controversies started … sell some books. Naturally, some scientists who are actual bird experts reject this silly hypothetical nonsense.
If your hypothesis contradicts the fossil record, above, your hypothesis is wrong and your hypothesis needs tweaking.
As one Google hit of Wikipedia so eloquently puts it: “Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Oh those darn evangelical dinosaur-to-bird hypothesizers! What shall modern science do with them?
Punchline
“…creationists deny the clear fossil record…”
and what do these fools do, every time they suggest that a 70 million year old velociraptor evolved into a 160 million year old Archaeopteryx?
A quick Google and Wikipedia definition: an·ces·tor:
“ancestor; plural noun: ancestors:
Google: a person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended. an early type of animal or plant from which others have evolved.
synonyms: forerunner, precursor, predecessor”.
Wikipedia: “An ancestor or forebear is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth)”.
It is very disheartening that people, who erroneously believe . . . erroneously claim to be self-declared, “Darwinist” fail to comprehend the fundamentals of what “Common Ancestry” entails.
“‘But the question itself reveals a couple of fundamental misunderstandings about evolution and how it operates’, he says. Firstly, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Instead, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor from which both evolved around 25 million years ago.”
Leave it to the pseudo-Scientific ‘Dinosaur-to-Bird Myth Crowd’:
“...monkeys and humans share a common ancestor from which both evolved around 25 million years ago.
This evolutionary relationship is supported both by the fossil record and DNA analysis. A 2007 study showed that humans and rhesus monkeys share about 93% of their DNA. Based on the similarities and differences between the two types of DNA, scientists have estimated that humans and rhesus monkeys diverged from their common ancestor 25 million years ago.
Similarly, the fossil record has identified ancestors common to both humans and monkeys, such as an as yet unnamed primate fossil from Myanmar found in 2009 and dated as living around 37 million years ago.”
From: “If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?”
. . . to deny the fossil record +PLUS+ make the outrageous claim that merely 57% DNA is “evidence” to establish a line of direct ancestry from theropod dinosaurs to chickens! We don't even do that with 98.8% DNA between Chimps and Human! Legitimate scientists know better.
As bad or worse than the fossil-denying and pseudo-science of creationists!
Common Ancestry = involving an ‘an Ancestor’ mutually shared by two or more species, uniting a group in a close or distant relationship. [Birds are only ‘distantly related’ to dinosaurs, through a common ancestor in the early past which emerged before the dinosaurs and birds. . . reaching back into time beyond 150 million years ago, most likely as far back as the Triassic.]
The following diagram, actually appears to be closer to an accurate representation of the fossil record. How very refreshing!
A ‘common ancestor’ is not a ‘distant relative,’ that is, the dinosaurs are indeed ‘evolutionary cousins’ to birds and share a so-said ‘relationship’ but cretaceous dinosaurs are by no means, “the ancestor” of extinct and extant modern birds!
To say otherwise, and to make such an absurd claim is to deny the fossil record just like Creationists have done to bolster support for mythological pseudo-science.
“The Origin and Evolution of Birds,” by Alan Feduccia
This is fundamental, elementary Darwinism 101!
Common Descent Requires a Common Ancestor
“Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.”
Wikipedia
To a true “Darwinist” there should be no “amazement” that superficial similarities exist between a bone here or a muscle there, similarities between dinosaurs and birds is no great ‘scientific phenomena’, --birds and dinosaurs share a “common ancestor” so naturally there are characteristic features in their anatomy which are shared in common... the same goes for birds and mammals, the same is true for birds and crocodiles. An understanding of Darwinism demands it! However, the question of “Direct Ancestry” from dinosaurs directly to birds, is an entirely different ball of wax.
Dinosaurs and Birds share a ‘Common Ancestor’.
Dinosaurs are NOT the ‘Common Ancestor’ of modern birds!
Human and Chimp share 98.8% DNA. So similar--and yet so different
And yet, who is going to trumpet their ignorance to claim, “Humans evolved from Chimps.”?
“The chimpanzee and another ape, the bonobo, are humans' closest living relatives. These three species look alike in many ways, both in body and behavior. But for a clear understanding of how closely they are related, scientists compare their DNA, an essential molecule that's the instruction manual for building each species. Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different?”
And yet... who, but Creationists would make the absurd claim, “Charles Darwin taught, humans evolved from Chimpanzees”?
Human and Chimps share 98.8% DNA and yet, no person with the least fundamental knowledge and understanding of evolutionary biology would be so careless as to use 98.8% shared genetic identity to extrapolate, “Humans evolved from Chimps”.
Hold that thought: Leave the Creationist-Logic to work overtime for the Dinosaur-Bird Mythology crowd. If 98.8% DNA isn't reasonable enough for the legitimate mainstream scientific community to conclude, “Humans evolved from Chimps” then how can it be the Dinosaur-Bird Mythology crowd base their conclusions “Birds evolved from Dinosaurs” on a mere speculative ‘57% shared genetic identity’ between T. Rex and a Chicken? (and as Dr. Feduccia pointed out, it's merely a snip of collagen and not reliable evidence for anything so profound as drawing direct lines between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds.)
Dr. Alan Feduccia:
“Yes, but our ‘T. rex skeptics group’ has seriously questioned that study by Schweitzer; see chapter one in my book Riddle. And even if true (which I seriously doubt) it is just a small snippet of collagen. . . .”
From: Genetic Similarity Between Birds and Crocodiles
Birds are “Non-Avian”? They are ‘dinosaurs’ now?!
The “overzealous eagerness” to put a direct line of descent between theropod dinosaurs and chickens, is self-evident, to the point that it cripples the reasoning facilities.
Aves, Taxonomic Serial No.: 174371
Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Kingdom: Animalia
Taxonomic Rank: Class
Synonym(s):
Common Name(s): Birds [English]
oiseaux [French]
Taxonomic Status:
Current Standing: valid
Data Quality Indicators:
Record Credibility Rating: verified - standards met
Global Species Completeness: complete
Latest Record Review: 2013
Source: “Integrated Taxonomic Information System” ITIS.gov, the home of authoritative taxonomic information on plants, animals, fungi, and microbes of North America and the world.
“In a comparison with 400 species of modern birds, Dr. Feduccia found that the pronounced arc of curvature of the claws of Archeopteryx was similar to that of known perching birds. Terrestrial birds have very flat claws. The curved claw on the reversed first toe of the fossil, Dr. Feduccia said, ‘is strictly a perching adaptation; it would be a tremendous obstacle to running on the ground.’
Writing in Science, he concluded, ‘Archeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird.’
In an interview, Dr. Feduccia was even more emphatic, noting that the claw measurements reinforced other evidence of wing structure, feature configuration, broad tail for lift and hollow bones for lightness that suggested a flight-worthy bird. Still other signs were that Archeopteryx had a wishbone where powerful pectoral muscles needed for flapping wings could be attached.
‘I can't see there's any question that this is a tree-dwelling bird, farremovedfromdinosaurs, and that paleontologists have simply misinterpreted it,’ said Dr. Feduccia, author of the ‘The Age of Birds’ (Harvard University Press, 1980). ‘This Is Definitive’
“Feathered Dinosaur or a Real Bird?” by John Noble Wilford, February 5, 1993, New York Times.
There are actually people who make the argument, "birds arose on land," with images of "dry, arid, terrestrial, conditions -- "coming out of nowhere," replete with tumbleweeds and blistering sun beating down on the dry desert sand" dancing through their heads and *beep beep* Roadrunner, chased by Wile E. Coyote... and then, they envision these tetrapods, returned to the water... as if water were an unfamiliar, strange, new habitat.
These are those persons who can not accept, water, powerfully shaped the bird's anatomy and from its aquatic origins, derives the innate, instinctive ability to fly (a question of the principals of Hydrodynamics vs. Aerodynamics).
After all, didn't some scientist say "Tetrapods left the water," so an amateur with book sense but lacks vision of the planet's earlier history, has images of dry, arid desert...
Correct? What is now, always was, and always will be.
Dino bones are dug up in dry deserts and rocks, so therefore, that "dry, arid, desert" was the habitat the creature must have lived in, millions of years ago. Correct? Wrong. Somebody failed to realize the terrain was once like a plush tropical jungle, filled with sources of water, vegetation and diversity of predators and prey, and sometimes even, cannibalistic.
Visceral arches:
"...Columns of mesenchyme found in the neck of the developing vertebrate embryo derived from cranial neural crest. In lower vertebrates, blood vessels formed here become part of the gills; in higher vertebrates derivatives include portions of the jaw and middle ear. Also known as branchial arches, gill arches, or visceral arches."
(Source)
"Mesenchymal structures in the region of the embryonic pharynx and visible on the ventrolateral aspect of the head; give rise to skeletal elements, larynx and other structures of the head."
(Source)
“Gill slits” by any other name…
"...the “pharyngeal apparatus” consists of a series of paired pharyngeal arches and fissures which develop on the exterior with a corresponding set of pharyngeal pouches on the inside of the throat, separated from the external fissures by a thin membrane (more on the details in a moment). And in fact the possession of these structures at some point in development, along with a hollow dorsal nerve cord, a notochord and a post anal tail, are the defining characteristics of the phylum chordata to which we and all other vertebrates belong."
Origins of Birds "...He examines in detail the expression of evolutionary stages in the development of embryos, tracing from the process of cell division to the development of specific anatomical features. He finds a striking resemblance between the embryonic development of reptiles and birds, including details of the skeletal anatomy (with special attention to the hands and feet) and various organs. He notes that bird and reptile embryos develop visceral arches, hinting at their aquatic ancestry. Of more interest to his goal, Heilmann writes in a similar vein that the embryos of certain birds clearly show a three-clawed finger structure, at least one of which (the hoatzin) retains actual claws after hatching. He mentions other anatomical features of bird embryos that hint at their reptilian ancestry as well, such as the embryonic splitting of the pygostyle into distinct separate vertebrae."
Yes, bbbbut.... according to "Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds By Gregory S. Paul"... this is problematic because there may have been no trees at that time in earth's history.
---> adjective: arboreal
(chiefly of animals) living in trees.
"arboreal rodents"
of or relating to trees. <---
---> "...It was observed that a number of animals with moderate flying or gliding ability, such as bats, flying lizards and flying squirrels have arboreal lifestyles. This led to the idea that the ancestors of birds must have gradually acquired the ability to fly from leaping among branches in the tops of trees. <---
Yes, bbbbut Mr. Huxley... "...Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old".... hadn't Mr. Huxley ever heard of a thing called, "Convergent Evolution" or "Shared Ancestry" which neatly explains the problematic issue with the fossil timeline. Birds came BEFORE Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaurs, and all the obfuscating, lies, denials of the fossil record won't help their case. Repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it a fact.
--> "...with Thomas Huxley championing the idea that Archaeopteryx as well as modern birds had more in common with theropod dinosaurs than any other group of animals." <--
--> Franz Nopcsa proposed an alternate hypothesis in 1907, arguing that the ancestors of birds were fast-running, bipedal animals related to theropod dinosaurs. <--
bbbbut... "related to" through a common archosaur ancestor is not the same thing as "descended from" the late Cretaceous T.Rex... and if running and gaining lift were the underlying "original cause" of flight, there would be a lot more animals taking flight, and besides, the genetic evidence weighs in on the side that Birds have a closer genetic relationship to mammals & crocodiles, than T. Rex and ilk.
Genetic similarity between human and chicken: 60-75%
Genetic similarity between chicken and crocodilians 61.7%
Genetic similarity between chicken and t. rex: 58%
The underlying flaw requires one logical question (which requires the ability to "think"):
"Which came first, the feather or flight?"
There are also "flying snakes" which have neither feather, nor wings... flying squirrels (don't they also have "visceral arches"? and in their distant past, traces of their aquatic origins lay dormant.)
From conception to birth... they all come from an egg, enveloped in water... just like the puddle, from where their primitive aquatic ancestor arose in the primordial puddle. (Primordial puddle does denote "water" lest they deny all living creatures and life, began in the water.)
The earliest fliers, were insects, and science concludes, they inherited this ability from swimming..
Fruit flies 'swim' through air, using the same physics as fish, study shows Fruit flies and other flyers also use drag to "swim" through the air, the scientists say. Their discovery lends support to the evolutionary theory that flight in insects emerged from swimming.
Even humans, seeming so far removed from their mammalian ancestry... are born with a rudimentary reflex to swim... inherited from a distant ancestor somewhere in the murky past . . .
Why would a human need "Visceral Arches" --GILLS?? for God's sake! And if humans can retain their swimming reflex, -- then why wouldn't birds?
The physics, Hydrodynamics and Aerodynamics are practically the same.
"...When Heilmann began his research in the early 1900s, the early bird Archaeopteryx was only known from three fossils found in the limestone quarries of Solnhofen near Eichstätt, Germany. The three fossils consisted of two nearly complete skeletons found in 1861 and 1877 and a single feather from 1860. They had been discovered just a few decades after the discovery of the dinosaurs, and as some dinosaurs appeared somewhat birdlike, Archaeopteryx was regarded as a possible "missing link" between reptiles and birds by many paleontologists at the time.[5]
The similarities between Archaeopteryx, known dinosaurs and extant birds were examined and emphasized, with Thomas Huxley championing the idea that Archaeopteryx as well as modern birds had more in common with theropod dinosaurs than any other group of animals. This was at the time in opposition to the view of anatomist Sir Richard Owen of the British Museum, who viewed Archaeopteryx as no different taxonomically from modern birds. Huxley's work was controversial, and this climate of uncertainty and contention about bird origins persisted well into the beginning of the 20th century.[7]
While the dinosaur-bird connection (or lack thereof) was being pursued in paleontology, the problem of the evolution of flight was under scrutiny as well. It was observed that a number of animals with moderate flying or gliding ability, such as bats, flying lizards and flying squirrels have arboreal lifestyles. This led to the idea that the ancestors of birds must have gradually acquired the ability to fly from leaping among branches in the tops of trees. The Hungarian paleontologist Franz Nopcsa proposed an alternate hypothesis in 1907, arguing that the ancestors of birds were fast-running, bipedal animals related to theropod dinosaurs. When Heilmann came onto the paleontology scene, these two sets of conflicting theories provided the framework for his research and eventual conclusions.[5]" (Source)
The $100 Question
"...Even humans, seeming so far removed from their ancient mammalian ancestry... are born with a rudimentary reflex to swim... inherited from a distant water-borne ancestor somewhere in the murky evolutionary past...
Why would a human need "Visceral Arches" --GILLS?? for God's sake!
And if humans can retain their swimming reflex, -- then why wouldn't birds?"
HYDRODYNAMICS VS. AERODYNAMICS... written into the anatomy of mammals, reptiles, birds ... all creatures... with all sorts of creatures flying... but only one group possessing feathers...
So did the flying snake lose its feathers, or what about those "High Flying Reptiles who independently via convergent evolution, evolved the ability to fly?
Since its imperative to distinguish birds evolved those features *independently* from reptiles, then let's be careful to give equally imperative emphasis on how the bird was
1) a fully developed bird with feathers and all, way back to 150 million years ago.... which is long, long before
2) the BLATANT LIES about cretaceous dinosaurs evolving what do they call it, "protofuzz" pawned off as "feathers"???
supposedly "birthed"
3) creatures which lived 70 million years apart and before them in the fossil record!!!!!
If we are going to utilize reason, the scientific method, and Darwin's theory of Evolution, that would uh, like ha, make Archaeopteryx the grandfather of T. Rex, wouldn't it?
Ohhhh... wait!! I get it... Archie didn't birth T. Rex instead... it's called CONVERGENT EVOLUTION. When similar features arise naturally, due to environmental influences on their anatomy... yeah, that's how real science works, not all that pseudo-babble mythology about "T. rex (80 million years ago) crawling in a time machine, going back 70 million years in the past, to give birth to Archaeopteryx" nonsense.
150 million years ago, Birds already had feathers, and then, much, much later some dinosaurs arose with similar characteristics who started evolving "proto" integumentary-fuzz which is mistaken for feathers due to its similarities, and obviously scientists aren't quite sure what it was, but if it was similar to birds' feathers, it was a result of
1) convergent evolution, and nothing more...
2) The only other alternative is that these creatures inherited a gene from a common Archosaur ancestor, and caused "feather" and "protofuzzies" to evolve independently at later, but separate stages in the fossil record.
Birds (150 million years ago) did not "evolve from" cretaceous dinosaurs who lived nearly 100 million years, later.
--> "Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.” <--
To claim otherwise, is a blatant Un-Darwinian denial of the fossil record! Only Creationists and pseudo-scientific Science-Deniers deny the fossil record and want to overturn standard scientific methodology, replacing facts with mythology.
Science has devolved into a source for whimsical fantasy "entertainment".
"...The mammalian diving reflex is a reflex in mammals which optimizes respiration to allow staying underwater for extended periods of time. It is exhibited strongly in aquatic mammals (seals,[1] otters, dolphins, etc.), but exists in weaker versions in other mammals, including humans, in particular babies up to 6 months old (see Infant swimming). Diving birds, such as penguins, have a similar diving reflex. Every animal's diving reflex is triggered specifically by cold water contacting the face."
(Source, Mammalian diving reflex, Wikipedia)
Take a look at that salamander!
Born To Swim?
"...Try this to trigger one of the cutest reflexes around. Just blow into a baby’s face and watch him or her gulp air, close eyes, and stop whatever they’re doing. Parents have used this as a way to get their little ones to stop crying – but it’s also the path to swimming.
The response is what’s known as the bradycardic reflex, which is part of the mammalian diving reflex. When the face of an infant is exposed to cold water, the heart slows down and blood is shifted away from the peripheral muscles to conserve oxygen for the brain and heart, and they typically hold their breath. The reflex is the same one that protects babies from getting milk in their lungs, says Goren Wennergren, a pediatrician and professor at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
“It’s interesting that the reflex kind of reroutes the entire circulatory system to save blood for the heart and brain, and not pump it through the rest of the body,” says Wennergren.
Wennergren had heard that after 6 months of age, this reflex fades away – so he decided to look into the function of the diving response in babies of different ages. Along with a graduate student, he studied 36 infants in swimming classes at warm pool – one of the few actual studies into diving babies. They monitored the babies’ heart rates, breathing and watched their behavior during their underwater dives, which lasted a few seconds.
Not only did the babies hold their breath, but they seemed to enjoy the experiment. The researchers found that the diving reflex still exists in older babies (they tested babies up to 1 year old) but that it decreased in older infants. The babies all held their breath, and it took about 10 seconds after the dive was over for their breathing to return to normal. Wennergren noted that the babies seemed eager to dive, and the ones with diving experience prepped by closing their eyes before being submerged. His study was published in 2002 in the journal Acta Paediatrica. “In diving animals, the reflex persists for their whole life,” Wennergren told KinderLab, noting that adult humans also have the same reflex – if you dunk your face in cold water, you’ll gasp and hold your breath."
/EXCERPT
