New just in: Birds not evolved from dinosaurs:

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…sorry i thought that the original post, had clearly established that birds did not come from reptiles?
… (spelling corrected)

Err… nope:

Reminder of the original link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

“…the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known THEROPOD DINOSAURS….” (my emph l reptiles are dinosaurs? 😛
What about the modern reptiles? Are they also all dinosaurs?[/b]

are/were THEROPOD DINOSAURS reptilian? did i state that they encompassed all reptiles, no, well then lets not be silly! it is generally accepted that Birds "evolved", from reptiles, GENERALLY is it not? although it is, at this stage, conjecture, as is evident from your use of such concrete terms as, "suggest", "may have", "it is possible", etc etc and while there are similarities, there are also some quite distinct differences, infact, i would say there seem more distinct differences than actual similarities, and while we are on the subject are we to seriously assume that the feather, which is unique to birds, with its unparalleled qualities of insulation and function as an airfoil, with its several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets began life as a longish scale loosely attached, the outer edges of which frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today? well are we?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are/were THEROPOD DINOSAURS reptilian? did i state that they encompassed all reptiles, no, well then lets not be silly! it is generally accepted that Birds "evolved", from reptiles, GENERALLY is it not? although it is, at this stage, conjecture, as is evident from your use of such concrete terms as, "suggest", "may have", "it is possible", etc etc ...[text shortened]... ad out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today? well are we?

…are/were THEROPOD DINOSAURS reptilian?
…

Yes.

…did i state that they encompassed all reptiles
..…

You clearly implied it. Reminder:

…. not come from REPTILES? i.e. DINOSAURS,
… (my emphasis)

I assume that the “i.e.” above means “in other words”?

You had also suggested that the original post had “clearly established that birds did not come from reptiles” which is simply not true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the entire episode is truly reflective of what is fundamentally wrong the evolutionary hypothesis! speculative in its conception, basic differences have largely been ignored, and this is a case in point, for it contains a plethora of assumptions and postulation presented as fact. it is so refreshing to see the scientific community openly embracing a ...[text shortened]... iced it before, were you too busy telling everyone else how stupid they were, who can tell? 😉

That evolution happens is not in question for we have observed it. If you pay attention to the theories, they deal with how and why it happens. is it so hard to accept the fact that when we don't know exactly how and why something happens that we cannot be entirely accurate in our hypotheses of the path it took and will take?

Originally posted by tomtom232
That evolution happens is not in question for we have observed it. If you pay attention to the theories, they deal with [b]how and why it happens. is it so hard to accept the fact that when we don't know exactly how and why something happens that we cannot be entirely accurate in our hypotheses of the path it took and will take?[/b]

ok them ol friend, I will ask you the same question which Andrew noticeably evaded, are we to seriously assume that the feather, which is unique to birds, with its unparalleled qualities of insulation and function as an airfoil, with its several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets began life as a longish scale loosely attached, the outer edges of which frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok them ol friend, I will ask you the same question which Andrew noticeably evaded, are we to seriously assume that the feather, which is unique to birds, with its unparalleled qualities of insulation and function as an airfoil, with its several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets began life as a longish scale loosely at ...[text shortened]... which frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today?

Yes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok them ol friend, I will ask you the same question which Andrew noticeably evaded, are we to seriously assume that the feather, which is unique to birds, with its unparalleled qualities of insulation and function as an airfoil, with its several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets began life as a longish scale loosely at ...[text shortened]... which frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today?

…ok them ol friend, I will ask you the same question which Andrew noticeably EVADED, are we to seriously assume that the feather,….
… (my emphasis)

I didn’t respond to that question because it is irrelevant to what I was saying.
Oh, and as Proper Knob said, the answer is “yes” -so I have now just answered it -so no “EVADING” 😛
You must have already known the answer would be “yes” -how could it be "no"? so why bother asking?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok them ol friend, I will ask you the same question which Andrew noticeably evaded, are we to seriously assume that the feather, which is unique to birds, with its unparalleled qualities of insulation and function as an airfoil, with its several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets began life as a longish scale loosely at ...[text shortened]... which frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today?

Are we to assume that because scientists aren't able yet to fully produce a complete fossil record, and i doubt they will be able to produce a full record due to the millions of years that have passed and millions of species to find buried in the ground, we should dismiss it?

Yes it's not complete, yes there are still questions to be answered but lets look at the alternative.

A creator, God.

Of which there is no physical evidence. Zero, zilch, nothing, except..........a book of stories.

You wish to dismiss evolution beacuse there isn't ENOUGH evidence, yet your hypothesis doesn't ANY evidence. Where's the logic in that??

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are we to assume that because scientists aren't able yet to fully produce a complete fossil record, and i doubt they will be able to produce a full record due to the millions of years that have passed and millions of species to find buried in the ground, we should dismiss it?

Yes it's not complete, yes there are still questions to be answered but lets ...[text shortened]... sn't ENOUGH evidence, yet your hypothesis doesn't ANY evidence. Where's the logic in that??

my dear noobster and Mr.Hamilton, please not so fast, this is not a personal attack on your 'belief system', i was just curious, you know, just probing away, you know how it is, so relax my friends, i did not come here to have an argument about evolution verses science, oh, did i say evolution verse science, Freudian slip there my fellows, sorry, ahem...., yes where was I, i just wanted to know the extent to which you are prepared to accept, (which appear to me to be quite incredulous claims), to substantiate this hypothesis, thats all 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my dear noobster and Mr.Hamilton, please not so fast, this is not a personal attack on your 'belief system', i was just curious, you know, just probing away, you know how it is, so relax my friends, i did not come here to have an argument about evolution verses science, oh, did i say evolution verse science, Freudian slip there my fellows, sorry, ahe ...[text shortened]... ch appear to me to be quite incredulous claims), to substantiate this hypothesis, thats all 😛

…an argument about evolution verses science
…

What are you talking about?
Evolution theory IS a SCIENTIFIC theory for it is derived from evidence and reason (i.e. scientific method).
If evolution theory is not part of science then NO SCIENTIFIC theory is!!! 😛

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…an argument about evolution verses science
…

What are you talking about?
Evolution theory IS a SCIENTIFIC theory for it is derived from evidence and reason (i.e. scientific method).
If evolution theory is not part of science then NO SCIENTIFIC theory is!!! 😛[/b]

Lol, science based on a lack of evidence is not to be termed science, its something else masquerading as science and i truly look forward to the day when science shall expose this charade! 🙂

actually what i want to know is how you equate the differences between warm bloodied birds and cold bloodied reptiles, what is the official party line, or must we enter the realms of fantasy here also? 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, science based on a lack of evidence is not to be termed science, its something else masquerading as science and i truly look forward to the day when science shall expose this charade! 🙂

actually what i want to know is how you equate the differences between warm bloodied birds and cold bloodied reptiles, what is the official party line, or must we enter the realms of fantasy here also? 😛

All the smilies you are using, is that a sign that you are not serious about what you write? That you just like to tease?

Would you like to answer Proper Knob's posting, just to show that you want to discuss it seriously, and not a childs way?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, science based on a lack of evidence is not to be termed science, its something else masquerading as science and i truly look forward to the day when science shall expose this charade! 🙂

actually what i want to know is how you equate the differences between warm bloodied birds and cold bloodied reptiles, what is the official party line, or must we enter the realms of fantasy here also? 😛

…science BASED on a LACK of evidence is not to be termed science
… (my emphasis)

Evolution theory is based on evidence -not “LACK” of evidence 😛

http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

…actually what i want to know is how you EQUATE the differences between warm bloodied birds and cold bloodied reptiles..…

“EQUATE the differences”? what do you mean? exactly how am I “equating“ the ‘difference’ between warm bloodied birds and cold bloodied reptiles?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…science BASED on a LACK of evidence is not to be termed science
…[/b] (my emphasis)

Evolution theory is based on evidence -not “LACK” of evidence 😛

http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

…actually what i want to know is how you EQUATE the differences between warm bloodied birds and cold bloodied reptiles..…[/b tly how am I “equating“ the ‘difference’ between warm bloodied birds and cold bloodied reptiles?

yes yes, whatever, now please will you eggheads in the science forum, please tell this pathetic theologian how you are able to account for or explain (equate??? i dunno what i was thinking of at the time, away with the fairies as we say in scotland), the 'fact', i use the term lightly here in the science forum, that birds are warm bloodied and reptiles are cold bloodied. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes yes, whatever, now please will you eggheads in the science forum, please tell this pathetic theologian how you are able to account for or explain (equate??? i dunno what i was thinking of at the time, away with the fairies as we say in scotland), the 'fact', i use the term lightly here in the science forum, that birds are warm bloodied and reptiles are cold bloodied. 🙂

…how you are able to account for or explain …. the 'fact', i use the term lightly here in the science forum, that birds are warm bloodied and reptiles are cold bloodied.
..…

I don’t understand what you are getting at; what is there to “explain” or “account for” about the fact that “birds are warm bloodied and reptiles are cold bloodied”?

Is there a blatantly obvious mystery here with “birds are warm bloodied and reptiles are cold bloodied” that I am unaware of?

And are you implying it isn’t a “fact” that birds are warm bloodied and reptiles are cold bloodied?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…how you are able to account for or explain …. the 'fact', i use the term lightly here in the science forum, that birds are warm bloodied and reptiles are cold bloodied.
..…

I don’t understand what you are getting at; what is there to “explain” or “account for” about the fact that “birds are warm bloodied and reptiles are cold bloodied”? ...[text shortened]... re you implying it isn’t a “fact” that birds are warm bloodied and reptiles are cold bloodied?[/b]

I believe he's asking how it's possible that both warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals evolved from the same ancestor. I believe the answer is that the terms "warm-blooded" and "cold-blooded" used as absolutes are outdated, and in fact there is an observed continuum between these two extremes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_blooded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterothermy

Some mechanisms of heat maintenance are quite extraordinary adaptations of pre-existing tissues for multiple purposes, such as the counter-current heat exchanger properties of the rete mirabile:

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