1. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    30 Mar '05 22:12
    I'm confused. Can anyone help me and tell me what birds evolved from?
  2. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    30 Mar '05 22:22
    Originally posted by Darfius
    I'm confused. Can anyone help me and tell me what birds evolved from?
    Birds are, in some ways, rather like reptiles. The skeleton of birds is similar to that of dinosaurs in the order Saurischia ( diapsid* reptiles that flourished in the Triassic).

    The heart and blood system closely resembles that of crocodiles, also diapsid reptiles.

    It therefore seems likely that birds evolved from this reptile group, although the saurischians are, perhaps, too specialised to be direct ancestors.

    For instance, they do not have a clavicle as do birds, and it is probable that birds separated from this, or a similar dinosaur stock, in the Jurassic.

    Since their separation, the birds have become adapted to live in almost all parts of the globe.

    Birds have been recorded closer to the north, and south, poles than any other large animals.

    They can exist at higher altitudes than any other vertebrates, apart from man, and Emperor penguins can apparently dive to 300m below the sea surface without suffering " the bends ".

    The ancestry of this most succesful group of vertebrates is uncertain, because so few fossil birds have been preserved.

    http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biomedia/units/bird3.htm
  3. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    30 Mar '05 23:032 edits
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    Birds are, in some ways, rather like reptiles. The skeleton of birds is similar to that of dinosaurs in the order Saurischia ( diapsid* reptiles that flourished in the Triassic).

    The heart and blood system closely resembles that of croc ...[text shortened]... p://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biomedia/units/bird3.htm
    In the February 1998 issue of Scientific American, Kevin Padian and Luis Chiappe, while fully backing the dinosaurian origin of birds, added a sidebar explaining the major points of contention:


    1. The hands of theropod dinosaurs and birds differ in important ways.
    2. Theropod wishbones differ significantly from those of birds.

    3. Avian lungs are very complex and could not have evolved from theropod dinosaur lungs.

    4. Theropod dinosaurs appear to have been exclusively ground dwellers; thus, flight would have had to originate from the cursorial or “ground-up” theory, which many scientists do not accept (Padian and Chiappe, 1998).

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=471

    Also, Archaeopteryx was around fully formed before most of the theropods existed.
  4. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    55264
    30 Mar '05 23:13
    Originally posted by Darfius
    I'm confused. Can anyone help me and tell me what birds evolved from?
    Birds originated from Dinosaurs.

    Just look at their feet. The way their heads move.
    Does that remind you of something lizardy?

    Look at their bodies in proportion to their heads.
    Is that mammal or something else?

    Look at their wings. Leonardo studied their wings and nearly came up with a helicopter. I've studied their wings and come up with a cocktail!
    The wings must be very special!

    Listen to their yapping. Isn't that just like something out of Jurassic park?
  5. Graceland.
    Joined
    02 Dec '02
    Moves
    18130
    30 Mar '05 23:19
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Birds originated from Dinosaurs.

    Just look at their feet. The way their heads move.
    Does that remind you of something lizardy?

    Look at their bodies in proportion to their heads.
    Is that mammal or something else?

    Listen to their yapping. Isn't that just like something out of Jurassic park?


    Sack. Can't argue with that logic. Should give that one a rec.

    Happy now Darf ?

    PS: The biggest bone of contention re: avain evolution is the evolution of the brain. To take into accounts so many variables and control flight requires indeed a significantly evolved brain.

    pc

  6. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    55264
    30 Mar '05 23:26
    Originally posted by pcaspian
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    [b]Birds originated from Dinosaurs.

    Just look at their feet. The way their heads move.
    Does that remind you of something lizardy?

    Look at their bodies in proportion to their heads.
    Is that mammal or something else?

    Listen to their yapping. Isn't that just like something out of Jurassic park?


    Sack. ...[text shortened]... s so many variables and control flight requires indeed a significantly evolved brain.

    pc

    [/b]
    No it doesn't.
    That's rubbish.
    Look at the brain size of a bird or a bat and compare that to a human, a fish, a walrus or a giraffe.

    See.
  7. Graceland.
    Joined
    02 Dec '02
    Moves
    18130
    30 Mar '05 23:28
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    No it doesn't.
    That's rubbish.
    Look at the brain size of a bird or a bat and compare that to a human, a fish, a walrus or a giraffe.

    See.
    On fire tonight shav.

    Keeping shooting my theories down... I've no chance !
  8. Subscriberinvigorate
    Only 1 F in Uckfield
    Buxted UK
    Joined
    27 Feb '02
    Moves
    211378
    30 Mar '05 23:42
    Birds are derived from the female human being. The word bird is slightly derogatory. They are sometimes refered to as ladettes. A true bird will drink like a fish and often sleep with you - if she doesn't vomit first. A bird has lots of male friends but is as bad as holding down a long term relationship as they are at keeping down their Smirnoff Ice.

  9. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    30 Mar '05 23:53
    Originally posted by invigorate
    Birds are derived from the female human being. The word bird is slightly derogatory. They are sometimes refered to as ladettes. A true bird will drink like a fish and often sleep with you - if she doesn't vomit first. A bird has lots of male friends but is as bad as holding down a long term relationship as they are at keeping down their Smirnoff Ice.

    Better yet:

    1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
  10. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    31 Mar '05 00:13
    Originally posted by Darfius
    In the February 1998 issue of Scientific American [snip]

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=471
    A model of scholarship:

    refer to a respected popular scientific journal, but cite a disreputable website.

    It appears logical to conclude that you have not read the Scientific American article to which you refer.
  11. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    31 Mar '05 00:22
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    A model of scholarship:

    refer to a respected popular scientific journal, but cite a disreputable website.

    It appears logical to conclude that you have not read the Scientific American article to which you refer.
    Are you claiming that those facts aren't true because they come from a Christian source?

  12. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    31 Mar '05 00:40
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Are you claiming that those facts aren't true because they come from a Christian source?
    I'm claiming that they are unworthy of investigation because there is no evidence of scholarship. It's a nice strategy to keep your opponents chasing smoke and mirrors (I use it it lightning chess), but I don't need to fall for it.

    The disreputable scholarly methods of Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson are well documented. Hence, I call your source "disreputable," and I allege that you have not read the Scientific American article to which you referred.

    That the source is "Christian" is irrelevant; that the site is devoted to the movement against science by Fundamentalists does reveal an important aspect of its scientific principles.
  13. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    31 Mar '05 00:59
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    I'm claiming that they are unworthy of investigation because there is no evidence of scholarship. It's a nice strategy to keep your opponents chasing smoke and mirrors (I use it it lightning chess), but I don't need to fall for it.

    The disreputable scholarly methods of Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson are well documented. Hence, I call your source "disre ...[text shortened]... against science by Fundamentalists does reveal an important aspect of its scientific principles.
    Are you claiming that the hands of theropod dinosaurs and birds do NOT differ in important ways?

    Or that theropod wishbones do NOT differ significantly from those of birds?

    Or that avian lungs aren't very complex and could have evolved from theropod dinosaur lungs?

    Or that this is wrong?

    Theropod dinosaurs appear to have been exclusively ground dwellers; thus, flight would have had to originate from the cursorial or “ground-up” theory, which many scientists do not accept (Padian and Chiappe, 1998).

    Attack the facts (with proof), not the source.
  14. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    31 Mar '05 01:30
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Are you claiming that the hands of theropod dinosaurs and birds do NOT differ in important ways?

    Attack the facts (with proof), not the source.
    I'm claiming, that for people who want to spend their time debating such matters, they should read good science. I'm also asserting that your non-scholarly method illuminates your tactics: you found an interesting quote at an anti-scientific website, threw out a question designed to hook responders, then hit the first response with your chosen quote.

    Here's a scientific article that addresses one of your objections:

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/5111

    Read it.
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Mar '05 04:081 edit
    Originally posted by Darfius
    In the February 1998 issue of Scientific American, Kevin Padian and Luis Chiappe, while fully backing the dinosaurian origin of birds, added a sidebar explaining the major points of contention:


    1. The hands of theropod dinosaurs and b ...[text shortened]... [/i] was around fully formed before most of the theropods existed.
    I don't know what species birds evolved from. You have good points here. They aren't in any way conclusive, but they are interesting.

    I'd like to clarify something:

    1. The hands of theropod dinosaurs and birds differ in important ways.
    2. Theropod wishbones differ significantly from those of birds.

    3. Avian lungs are very complex and could not have evolved from theropod dinosaur lungs.

    4. Theropod dinosaurs appear to have been exclusively ground dwellers; thus, flight would have had to originate from the cursorial or “ground-up” theory, which many scientists do not accept (Padian and Chiappe, 1998).


    Are you claming that these were the exact words written by Padian and Chiappe and published in a Scientific American article? I have my doubts that anyone could on the one hand claim avian lungs could not possibly evolve from therapod dinosaur lungs and still back up "the dinosaurian origin of birds" unless they felt some other variety of dinosaur was the ancestor.

    I've found some online papers that discuss this issue for anyone who's interested:

    http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/lung_structure_and_ventilation_i.htm
    http://www.devbio.com/article.php?ch=16&id=161

Back to Top