The Dirty Lowdown!

Allan: You get a 50-50 on this one. Birds are (descended from) dinosaurs - no question about it - but reptiles aren't. They and the dinosaurs had a common ancestor, but neither is descended from the other.

I stand corrected!

I also changed it!

Yet many dinosaurs are still considered reptiles. And birds too. As far as I can find at the moment.

Chuck, do you have a link or reference that gives the definitive answer to this? Also, to my understanding, crocodillians are surviving descendants of some dinosaurs.

Happy to help, Allan. Unfortunately, I got caught up in my own stuff and delayed coming back here. I have now, however belatedly, chipped in on a couple of arguments below.

Yeah... Nat Geo did a special on that about two years ago. They actually showed the old gene that changed things, and when added back in, brought forth the "reptilian" type skin to the chicken.
Ever since I saw Jurassic park when I was 16, I swore raptors were related to Crows.

The raptors in Jurassic park weren't really raptors. I forget what the actual creature's name is that is depicted in Jurassic Park, but raptors actually look a lot different. In any case, the movie took a great deal of artistic license with these things.

Yeah. Well, maybe. Still it's all theory and unproven theory that will always remain unproven theory.

Donald don't play stupid with me! You know damn well that when scientists say "theory" here they mean it as a formula to explain something...... the same as in "Theory of gravity!" (And if you want to test that theory. ... jump out of a window!)
You use the word "theory" as meaning a "guess" about something and that is not only wrong, but dishonest!

Sorry Allan, but I don't see it that way. Most people view science as a sort of magic wand. Among scientists there is disagreement as to what the dynasaurs really were. Darwinian evolution is supported by scraps of bones and a whole lot of theorizing. You are right about "as a formula to explain something." But people often assume that they really know what they are talking about. And while they do, relatively speaking, the actual true picture always -- and inevitiably always -- remains only a partial picture subject to change as we learn more.

Donald when it comes down to your opinions, or those of a scientist who has spent much of their life studying this....... I have to go with the scientist!
evolution is a fact as much as gravity is a fact. The only cloudy part is that some of the actual processes for individual species have a few empty spot where we have not found evidence yet. In spite of that, what they have found is 100% true, so don't claim from a postition of ignorance that a few as yet undiscovered facts bring the whole house of cards down. That is a common creationist argument and is totaly wrong and misleading!
If you want to argue this further and claim to know more than experts in this field, then we know your head is in the sand or up your ass!
Sorry, but you know I call 'em as I see 'em!!

Allan Janssen: I think you have misunderstood my comments. I am not the typical "creationist". What I am pointing to is that we have too much reliance on "scientific evidence." What science says today is not what they will say tomorrow. Knowledge of everything is always incomplete and thus any conclusions are only approximate to the degree of the knowledge at the moment. "Experts in the field" do not make unequivicable statements except to the "ignorant." They know what they don't know. And usually they admit it. You seem to some extent to be still trapped in the view of naive realism, now discounted by science as a whole. "What you sees is not necessarily what you gets" (naive realism of Newton). Quantum Physics is a good example of this. I firmly accept the general idea of evolution, even social evolution but I think it simplistic to look only at the obvious. In fact, the idea that man, for instance, came from a single evolutionary tree in Africa rather than simultaneous incidents widely separated, is also now in dispute. What we don't know very much effects the extent of what we do know or think and assume we know. When I was a boy, "matter can be neither created nor destroyed." Our view on this changed radically after that. So it is with many things. The idea that we (humans) can do (without effort or even knowing how) cause a photon to change from a wave to a particle billions of years retroactively is really inexplicable at present but a proven fact of Quantum Physics.

And by the way, while we may not see eye to eye on many things perhaps, I do not think that you have your "head in the sand or up your ass!" I like much of what you write and respect you even when I have other perspectives than you do at present.

Let's leave this conversation with a "thank you" for the kind comments!

Let's not.

"..it's all theory and unproven theory that will always remain unproven theory."

Only in the ignorance-locked brains of people who think that belief holds equal standing with data. A "theory" to a scientist is the equivalent of a "fact" in common parlance. The word is used as a convention to allow for nuances in explanation, not to insinuate that the "theory" under discussion is some sort of "guess" that will soon blow away with the wind.

Allan: Man is NOT descended from apes or any other creature. Man was always man, however millions of years ago he did not look like he looks now. He has evolved, but not from a different species.

I guess you were home sick the day they taught this eh?

I guess not.

Allan Janssen: As to your "I guess you were home sick the day they taught this eh?" I am surprised that you seem to think that insight and knowledge come to one only in the class room setting. Academics would like us to think so. Most advances, however, come from those who think "out of the box" of academia. This "in the box" thinking is what is rapidly causing our civilization to break down. For the most part we are still living in a primitive, chest beating, banana grabbing mind set. In fact, the situation is so dangerously grave in the world today that the bulk of mankind has their heads in the sand. It is not linear, left brain thinking that will get us out of this mess but a more daring and imaginative probe of reality.

Thomas, The evidence is simply overwhelming that man did indeed evolve from species that are now extinct and could not be called human by any stretch of the imagination. I heartily recommend that you read up on paleontology and evolution to understand these things. The greatest minds and researchers on the planet disagree with you.

Yeah, Donald... but facts, DATA if you will, are important. If you get those wrong (and you have... to an astonishing degree), all that follows is wrong; no matter how internally consistent it may be.

Alan One way you can tell is to look at how their legs are articulated. Reptiles have a sprawling gait with their limbs splayed out. Imagine is your femurs pointed out to your sides rather than down to the ground. You would be less able to carry weight and your gait would be much less efficient. Out of the improvements like these the inexorable calculus of evolution is manifest, if you have eyes trained to see.

By the way I think that Donald (comment #3 or 4 above) might represent the "Joe the plumbers" coalition in this conversation. They "know" what they are talking about and we might as well try to teach pigs to sing. (wastes our time and annoys the pigs)

Or perhaps not. I do not know Donald and that might be unfair.

Donald seems like a nice enough person from what I have seen on this blog and I have to apologize for being sharp with him, but I have a very low tolerance for people making un-educated statements about a subject as if they were authorities on that topic!

One does not have to be an 'authority' to have profound knowledge on a subject. Donald knows more about science, life and reality than most of us will ever know.

Thomas have you ever heard the quote; A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?

Thomas, Donald is far more ignorant on the subject than you can imagine. Find someone with knowledge to explain evolution... NOT Donald.

Roy Shastid Sep 5, 2009, 7:39pm EDT
Thomas You are worshiping at the wrong altar... Experience in life doe's not translate well into actual knowledge if it simply substitutes into increased rigidity in thought. Opinion is a poor substitute for peer reviewed research. The persons who speak authoritatively on this subject have interlocking evidence in all disciplines of science. Donald has an opinion. If evolutionary theory is wrong than nothing in medicine makes any sense. Want to throw that baby out with the bathwater? Then perhaps you should have someone pray over you when you have your next medical need and disdain any Md's' intervention. After all his practice is under laid by this obviously false belief (irony intended here)

By the way Donald you misquoted the the statment that you held up as the an arguement for your view. IT is properly:The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy. And it has not changed in your lifetime nor mine.

Roy, so far you're the one person in this thread that I would have a discussion with!

Thank you Allen. Same same.

Roy: I don't think I misquoted. That is what we were taught. It was widely expressed just that way without any other additives. Later, they made excuses for their ignorance by modifying it as you say. But they did not think that way at the time (1942). I was there.

Donald... That's just ignorance on steroids. Roy's is a direct quote from Newton's published work. Nobody "...made excuses for their ignorance by modifying it..." If your science teacher taught it to you as you say, your science teacher was too ignorant in science to be teaching it.

Allan, would you not diiscuss with me? Tch, tch, tch...

Wellll........ OK

heh-heh

Although it is hard to debate with someone who agrees with you! Rather than a debate, I believe that's called an affirmation!
Or an excuse for another round!

Donald By the way I have a great deal of respect for your belief in the Baha'i Faith . I am sure that if I knew you I would find you a very good person to spend time listening to. Please do not interpret my remarks as an attack on you or your very accomplished life.

"Having a true bird appear before alleged feathered dinosaurs, no mechanism to change scales into feathers, no mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung, and no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn’t turn into birds." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds

Lee you really have not kept up with the literature. Every one of your posits have been answered well by the scientists involved. Do a literature search before you link yourself to the wrong answer an easily answered question. Not only have they found feathered dinosaurs but all of the other objections are easily refuted. Try reading Scientific American or New Scientist if you need the answers in easily understandable form. But do not display your ignorance for all time by having it appear in a public forum.

Thanks Roy, but can you be more specific?

So there is a mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung?

Or scales into feathers?

Scientific America or New Scietnest can prove that dinosaurs turned into birds by using scientific methods of testing?

I consider it a hypothesis. A poor one at best. I like to think outside the elite scientific community box where freedom of inquiry is encouraged.

Lee you and I have talked before and you know how I feel about you. You, a layman,. consider yourself smarter than the people at Scientific American who can only come up with a "poor hypothesis," while you like to think "outside the box," and know so much more than them?
I will tell you my position on this my friend..... I am surprised that you spelled "hypotheses" properly!

Spell check is a wonderful thing.

Lee, all you have to do is dig back through about three years worth of National Geographic monthlies, and you'll find your feathered dinos in China (mostly Mongolia).

As to mechanisms... it's a question of DNA markers, and DNA in dino skeletons is hard to find. So we need to understand what makes feathers in birds and hair on mammals. And, SUNUVAGUN... we have featherless chickens and hairless cats! So, we'll go from there.

The mechanism is a fascinating field of study, but studying form changes gets you to relationships about as quickly as it's possible to get there.

"With the publication of "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature. "

"The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions. "

"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion."

Who wrote the above statements?

Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis?

Institute of Creation Research?

National Organization of Scientists Against Evolution?

Ignorant Morans and Liars Against Educated Elite Evolutionists?

Nope.

Try:

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution

http://home.comcast.net/~mkent595/openletterOlsen.html

The National Geographic is not a trusted source of information in my book.

It always amazes me how people can run around half-cocked with a minimal amount of information and think they are so much smarter than everyone else. This is what religion does to you and why I campaign against it! It's time we started using our God given brains for what they were meant for......... to think, not to blindly follow!

Allan: I agree with you on that.

Allah Janssen: I also agree with that but would like to modiify it slightly. I don't think that "religion does" this "to you" but people using their own ideas about religion to prostitute it into their own narrow mind sets that does the job. When you follow a religious paradigm (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) meant by God for our species at a specific point in our evolutionary development (social evolution) and then twist it to mean that this one "take" on it meant for a less sophisticated and complicated society thousands of years ago under entirely different social conditions is not a progressive "directive from God" but one set in stone (i.e. such as the Ten Commandments) for all time, you are not only being stupid but disingenuous and destructive of that "religion" and mankind in general. The "half-cocked" misanthropes who champion "religion" of their own imagination to prostitute the name of "religion" in general (i.e. those calling themselves "Christians", "Jew" or "Muslim" for example) to impose their own agendas on others are what is holding social advancements behind. We are wallowing in the ecrement of their own imaginations and will soon drown in it if we don't wake up. N'est pa?

Right, Donald. It seems strange that people have been able to grasp the concept of progressive education, but not, it seems, the reality of progressive divine revelation. So simple, so logical, so natural. If mankind could embrace this truth all of the world's problems would be solved in short order. Meanwhile we suffer the consequences of our ignorance.

Thomas: Yes. They can also grasp the idea of physiological evolution from a one celled animal to a modern human being (and other creatures) but they cannot grasp the idea of social evolution except in the simplistic way of clan to tribe, to city state, to etc., etc. They tend to think of such an evolving state as one only of size and complexity and not of mind-set and psychological evolution due to something they cannot put under a microscope or in a test tube, RELIGION. People who cannot imagine beyond the reach of their nose are a sorry lot.

Thomas Think of this as the first step in answering your interesting objection to the theory of evolution. Now you will have to do your own research to answer your questions and I am not invested in any single answer. That is not how science works. We never have all of the pieces and can only guess using the best available data. That said, try this link with esp attention on pages 149 to 165 on the way that the reptilian lung may have passed from its tidal flow to the unidirectional flow on aves. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-MCP3vAx1zkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA149&dq=%22Perry%22+%22Gas+exchange+strategies+in+reptiles+and+the+origin+of+...%22+&ots=ao8PSp9EzX&sig=8j8omgPEDqI6SdCvnIIgd_M_0nc#v=onepage&q=%22Perry%22%20%22Gas%20exchange%20strategies%20in%20reptiles%20and%20the%20origin%20of%20...%22&f=false. If you care to actually find out the answers to your question don't trust me but perhaps you can use this link as a springboard.

Lee For your first question Try the link quoted above. Scales into feathers and scales into teeth are both also covered very well in the literature. Don't trust me on that,just use your brain and look up the papers. Those are far too well established for you to need my feeble voice to find. Do the work for a more satisfying result. Also try to understand the very human emotions and drives of those who are invested in the bible driven views. They feel threatened by the knowlege that can so easily be confirmed. Cognitive dissonance has to be suppressed and they have to convince others of the delusions that rule their lives. For a model see the discussions of the "birthers", those who believe that the moon landings are a hoax, the church when confronted by the heliocentric nature of the solar system etc. I have seen these views defended with red faced rage in my rotations in mental health treatment facilities. The drives to defend a cherished worldview are all too human, but not helpful in the move to understand our world.

The link talks about lungs not scales and feathers. And does not convince me that there is some sort of "evolutionary" conection between dinosaurs and birds.

"We will never know the true origin of the avian respiratory system, and the euparkerian and coelurosaurian-grade lungs remain hypothetical."
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-MCP3vAx1zkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA149&dq=%22Perry%22+%22Gas+exchange+strategies+in+reptiles+and+the+origin+of+...%22+&ots=ao8PSp9EzX&sig=8j8omgPEDqI6SdCvnIIgd_M_0nc#v=onepage&q=%22Perry%22%20%22Gas%20exchange%20strategies%20in%20reptiles%20and%20the%20origin%20of%20...%22&f=false

The belief that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is a poor hypothesis. There is no known process that an organism can gain genetic information. Information can only come from existing genetic information. And this is exactly what is needed if the respiratory system of dinosaurs are to change into an avian respiratory system.

"For the present purpose, strategy defined as a set of connected processes seen in relationship to a specific goal."

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-MCP3vAx1zkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA149&dq=%22Perry%22+%22Gas+exchange+strategies+in+reptiles+and+the+origin+of+...%22+&ots=ao8PSp9EzX&sig=8j8omgPEDqI6SdCvnIIgd_M_0nc#v=onepage&q=%22Perry%22%20%22Gas%20exchange%20strategies%20in%20reptiles%20and%20the%20origin%20of%20...%22&f=false

Isn't evolution suppose to be change over time by random chances? If so how can there be a "strategy?"

What connected processes are "seen" in relationship to the evolutionary specific "goal" of turning a dinosaur lung into an avian lung?

I'll try reposting my comment without the link so you can read all of it.

The link talks about lungs not scales and feathers. And does not convince me that there is some sort of "evolutionary" conection between dinosaurs and birds.

"We will never know the true origin of the avian respiratory system, and the euparkerian and coelurosaurian-grade lungs remain hypothetical."

The belief that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is a poor hypothesis. There is no known process that an organism can gain genetic information. Information can only come from existing genetic information. And this is exactly what is needed if the respiratory system of dinosaurs are to change into an avian respiratory system.

"For the present purpose, strategy defined as a set of connected processes seen in relationship to a specific goal."


Isn't evolution suppose to be change over time by random chances? If so how can there be a "strategy?"

What connected processes are "seen" in relationship to the evolutionary specific "goal" of turning a dinosaur lung into an avian lung?

Donald. Was "Allah Jansen" a freudian slip or a sly jest?

I wondered that myself. However, since the h and the n are adjacent to each other I take it as a finger slip rather than a Freudian slip.

Roy and Thomas: OOOps. It was a finger slip, no criticism of Allan intended, thought about or considered. Allan is OK. Actually, so is Allah.

OK To understand the link and mechanism between birds and dinosaurs (at least on type of dinosaur) you will have to do some research into the mechanisms of gene expression and silencing of the same. You will have to look up and understand "HOX genes" "Junk genes" methylation of genes, translocation and even the roles played by viruses. Gotta have an appreciation of math as related to population dynamics and more. I cannot make it easy or educate you in this space and I don't have the editorial skills to write textbooks or condense them to this forum. Not a very satisfactory answer but the best I can do here. I have gathered that you don't like elites (something I cannot claim to be) but they have their uses. Or do you want to keep looking to sites like Answers in genesis. Gotta tell you that that is one of those sites that is invested in only one answer to the really liberating and fascinating questions we have glimpsed. Try a book like Neil Shubans Your Inner Fish to get an idea as to what the real work is like and how the theory is constantly refined. Not static and frozen in the rage of a fundamentalists fear of a changing world.

"I cannot make it easy or educate you in this space and I don't have the editorial skills to write textbooks or condense them to this forum. Not a very satisfactory answer but the best I can do here."

But didn't you suggest: "Do a literature search before you link yourself to the wrong answer an easily answered question."

And also say, "They feel threatened by the knowlege that can so easily be confirmed."

I'm not the greatest at giving satisfactory answers to others when they question my faith either. But I am willing to try. I enjoy freedom of inquiry and reading and listening to those who don't discredit scientific theories just because they can't be explained by naturalism.

"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this." - Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology

Without new genetic information how can a dinosaur "evolve" into a bird?

Evolution is a religion of faith in naturalism.

OK people, this will end this conversation once and for all.
For anyone stil stuck on creationism go to ' http://talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html' and if that doesn't convince you of the validity of evolution then you're either a moron or a liar!

Don't you think it is just possible that both original creation AND evolution are valid? They are. All species did evolve, however man is not just another animal. Man, too, evolved, but not from another species. He was always man regardless of what he looked like. Do you know what it means to be human? There is more to the human than just the animal characteristics.

Thomas: I fully agree with you. Creationism, as envisioned by most "church goers" is a very simplistic version of reality. But the essence of creationism is the concept that nothing comes about by accident but by design, man included. We are part of a gigantic "mix" that includes stars, supernovas, planets, gasses, etc. We -- and everything else, from stars to microbes -- are evolving constantly, changing to suit conditions that also change. Evolution is merely a way of understanding the "design process." Nothing is today the same as it was yesterday. That is also part of the "design process." God is not a "man in a white robe and with a white beard sitting at a drafting board with a computer by His side." God is some unknowable "something" that is "nothing" at the same time and is the "organizing, designing impetous" behind everything, PERIOD. But then, just to accept this view requires going beyond the field of vision limited to what is immediately in front of one's nose.

"Don't you think it is just possible that both original creation AND evolution are valid?"

Of course not. Why would anyone with the ability to read think that?

What man doesn't know he imagines.

You really don't understand what you just said, do you Thomas?

Chuck L.: Thomas understands much more than you think. And if you believe all that you read, then you are naive as h-----. Books are full of statements that later proved to be not only wrong but absurd... and by people of supposedly academic qualifications. The future makes a liar of the past almost every time. Sorry, Chuck, but you are the naive one.

There was a time, way back when, when the greatest scientists taught that the world was flat and if you sailed too close to the edge you would fall over. They were wrong. Later there were scientists who believed that if 2 objects of differing weights were dropped from a great height the heavier object would land first. They were wrong. Then came the belief that it was impossible for man to fly to the moon because of the lack of air between the earth and the moon. They, too, were wrong. Now we have great scientists telling us that man wasn't always man; he evolved from some kind of primate. They are wrong. He evolved, yes, and he may have looked like an ape, BUT HE WAS ALWAYS A MAN. Man contains an element of the divine which the animal does not possess. The two do not fall into the same category.

Thomas: Great response. It was once thought that man could not go faster than a horse running and that a bumble bee could not fly. And by the way, I've crossed the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by ship and didn't fall over any edge. And there are people who still insist that we never landed on the moon, that 9-11 was caused by our own government and that the holocaust didn't happen.

Boy oh boy, am I ever glad I excused myself from this conversation!!!!!!