Jump to content
Saved.One.by.Grace

Evolution Question About Dinosaurs

Recommended Posts

Scientists supporting evolution have been promoting the idea that dinosaurs became birds.  What cold-blooded animal has evolved (?) into a warm-blooded creature?  Where's the evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Quote

Prefrontalcortex

Since I´m not allowed to write in that part of the forum, I pm you instead. You can put my answer up there if you like, so that people can reply later.

So: The hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs began with the discovery of Archaeopteryx in the early 1860s. It had characteristics of a bird, like feathers along its arms and tails, but also of a reptile, like teeth and a long and bony tail. Based on these characteristics, Archaeopteryx was recognized as an intermediate between birds and reptiles. In the 1970s, paleontologists noticed that Archaeopteryx shared unique features with small carnivorous dinosaurs called theropods. As birds evolved from these theropod dinosaurs, many of their features were modified. However, it's important to remember that the animals were not "trying" to be birds in any sense. In fact, the more closely we look, the more obvious it is that the suite of features that characterize birds evolved through a complex series of steps and served different functions along the way.

The university of California, Berkeley has a quick-read on the matter, as part of their evolution explained website. with some beautiful evograms and fossil-pictures etc: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06

  • This is a PM from Prefrontalcorex with permission to post here.  The argument presented at Berkley and is one of similarity, feathers being the common denominator between dinosaurs and birds.  It seems to ignore the fact that reptiles are cold-blooded, and birds are warm-blooded.  We have cold-blooded creatures existing around the world, and warm-blooded animals around the world.  How did cold-blooded creatures "evolve" into warm-blooded creatures to begin with?  How does Darwinian Theory allow for that?  Since the Earth has both carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous, cold- and warm-blooded animals co-habiting; Darwinian Theory doesn't seem to explain the multi-paths evolution takes.  As for Theropods, are they cold-blooded, warm-blooded or just room temperature?
Edited by Saved.One.by.Grace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not seeing old wing as evidence of evolution.  between the time of the making of jurassic park 2 and 3 they found a raptor with feathers, or what could have very well been feathers.  no wings there at all.  if you look at the raptors of all three parts of this movie trilogy you will see on part three they had little spikes without the feather fluff part on the males.  if you watch the making of the movie extra they speak on this and you can find out about this there.  they did this because of the discovery.  how do we even know dinosaurs were all cold blooded?  where is the evidence that changes of evolution were made from a cold blooded creature to Archaeopteryx ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 9:33 PM, Cletus said:

I am not seeing old wing as evidence of evolution.  between the time of the making of jurassic park 2 and 3 they found a raptor with feathers, or what could have very well been feathers.  no wings there at all.  if you look at the raptors of all three parts of this movie trilogy you will see on part three they had little spikes without the feather fluff part on the males.  if you watch the making of the movie extra they speak on this and you can find out about this there.  they did this because of the discovery.  how do we even know dinosaurs were all cold blooded?  where is the evidence that changes of evolution were made from a cold blooded creature to Archaeopteryx ?

 

Dinosaurs are part of the reptile family and are cold-blooded.  Mammals are warm-blooded.  So why did evolution take two incompatible paths that still exist today?  Within the same climate we have both reptiles and mammals.  This seems like a failure of evolutionary theory as it now exists.  And what of the Archaeopteryx?  Did it have lukewarm or cool blood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Dinosaurs are part of the reptile family and are cold-blooded.  Mammals are warm-blooded.  So why did evolution take two incompatible paths that still exist today?  Within the same climate we have both reptiles and mammals.  This seems like a failure of evolutionary theory as it now exists.  And what of the Archaeopteryx?  Did it have lukewarm or cool blood?

is there evidence that dinosaurs were reptiles?  there is evidence that what was once thought to be reptiles may have been warm blooded... and have feathers.  call me a skeptic if you like, my feathers wont be ruffled. 

did you know that some breeds of turkeys have a quality about them that is commonly found  to be reptilian.  I forget the name for it progenthisis or something like that.  its a big word and I do have dyslexia.  but basically its where eggs can be laid and hatched without the male being present to fertilize the eggs.  some of these turkey breeds can be purchased from hatcheries and you can raise them in your backyard.  this is one of the things some evolutionists use to point to evolution.  But you see in the case of Archaeopteryx, which is theorized to be an intermediary species... why has there never been any fossils discovered to show the in between species and yet very few fossils found of this bird/reptile/thing/whatever it was?  if we found only a few of these fossils overall and yet evolution takes millions and millions of years then surely we could have found the intermediary between intermediary species... where is evidence of the change? (there is none) Just saying here is a fossil set we found and then a theory of what it is or could have been is not really evidence.  they have found raptors with feathers.  do reptiles have feathers?  and at what point would reptiles grow feathers to fly in evolution because raptors were a long way from having wings. 

the reason i asked how do we know all dinosaurs were cold blooded is because of this find.  raptors were thought to be reptiles.  some still do.  so how then do we know dinosaurs are actually reptiles?  did the reptiles we have today loose their feathers  and grow scales?  raptors never had wings or flew... did they?  how do you know dinosaurs are reptiles... because a scientist told you that these key features tell us its a reptile but when something new is found we change what we think happened?... because you read it in a book? 

there is no evidence of evolution, there is evidence of a creature, but nothing changing from something to something else.  even more, where is the evidence all dinosaurs were actually reptiles.  there is a very good reason i ask. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to say that therapod Dinosaurs were probably best classified with flightless birds. In recent years, paleontologists have even been portraying Tyrannosaurus Rex as being a Feathered Dinosaur, and it is one of the largest land predators in the fossil record.

 

It doesn't matter, as Dinosaurs have evidence of greater than 5 sigma design.  For example, Allosaurus lived at the same time as a giant crocodilian species. The allosaurus needed to be able to look three directions quickly before taking a drink of water, else its head would be bitten off by an crocodile. If you look at the structure of the neck bones of the Allosaurus, it is designed with "space frame" construction, like an actual engineer would do it if he were trying to make a mechanical dinosaur.

 

This is evidence of forward-thinking Creation, not random evolution. I know where you can go look at a replica of an Allosaurus skeleton, and there is no way to look at that and claim that it happened by accident. It would be a ridiculous claim as claiming grass wasn't green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 10:23 AM, Wade8888 said:

This is evidence of forward-thinking Creation, not random evolution. I know where you can go look at a replica of an Allosaurus skeleton, and there is no way to look at that and claim that it happened by accident. It would be a ridiculous claim as claiming grass wasn't green

Let me just say upfront I am a biblical creationist.  But evolution does explain this in a reasonable way.  What are your evidences that it is designed?  One problem with intelligent design is why some animals were designed deficient and not perfect.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 10:23 AM, Wade8888 said:

If you look at the structure of the neck bones of the Allosaurus, it is designed with "space frame" construction, like an actual engineer would do it if he were trying to make a mechanical dinosaur.

The problem with this is that other parts of the Allosaurus are not designed optimally:  

The head is unusually large which requires more energy than needed to move.  

The teeth are not secured very well in the skull. It is thought that these would be easy to lose when eating.  

The way the skull is designed it would have a bite strength of less than that of today's crocodile or leopard.

As an engineer I would have designed these differently so they would be more reliable and use less energy.  The human knee is also something that engineers would have designed differently for increased reliability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! A science discussion!  ...and about evolution!  Wow!  

Well, I don't believe the Bible has anything to say about this subject.  On the contrary, in Genesis 1:21, God tells us: "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."  There is no mention of mutations through chance that took millions of years.  

Not me; I "ain't" buying any kind of evolution theories.

 

Selah <><

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a great Creation site:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/

“Feathered Dinosaur”

“The fossil find of the century—the first dinosaur with feathers, a possible fore-runner to flying birds—has reportedly been discovered in China.” We need to wait and see the scientific paper.

The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), October 17, 1996, p. 3 reported:

“The fossil find of the century—the first dinosaur with feathers, a possible fore-runner to flying birds—has reportedly been discovered in China.”

“This fossil, found in Liaoning province, has been radiometrically dated to the early Cretaceous, allegedly 135 million years ago.”

We need to wait and see the scientific paper, if and when it is published. In particular, let's wait until the “feathers” are confirmed. Keep in mind the following points:

  • How many other fossils have been sensationally called “fossils of the century”? Remember Piltdown Man (a hoax), Nebraska Man (a pig's tooth).
  • The atheist Dr Alex Ritchie, a paleontologist at the Australian Museum and a fanatical anti-creationist, claims that “dinosaurs developed feathers for insulation and later evolved and refined them for flight purposes”. This is a vacuous statement; the “facts” that feathers are good for insulation and flight are asserted to “confirm” the “hypothesis” that they evolved to get that way.
  • Dr Ritchie fails to explain “how” they could have evolved — scales are folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with a barb, barbules, and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way from follicles inside the skin. Their embryonic development is different, as well. There has been no report yet of a fossil showing scales turning into feathers or a leg turning into a wing.
  • He also fails to realize that selection for heat insulation is quite different from selection for flight. The best insulators are downy feathers, which lack the special hooks which make flight feathers rigid. Also, flightless birds have very hair-like feathers. Thus, selection would work against the acquisition of hooks since imperfectly hooked feathers would be less efficient insulators without the compensation of being good for flying.
  • This fossil cannot be an ancestor of birds, since Archaeopteryx, a true bird with fully formed flight feathers and a wishbone, is dated by evolutionists at 15 million years before this fossil.
  • There are many dating methods which give an age for the whole earth far too young for evolutionary scenarios. (See John Morris, The Young Earth, and Young World Evidence).

In summary

  • Consider the lack of transitional forms between feathers and scales
  • Consider how much more complicated feathers are than scales
  • Consider how the best heat-insulating feathers are downy ones which lack the hooks needed to make flight feathers
  • Consider how Archeopteryx had fully developed flight feathers, yet is 15 million years older according to evolutionists
  • And that feathers develop from follicles; scales develop from folds in the skin

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×