Evolution Question About Dinosaurs

[SavedOnebyGrace]

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?

[Guest]

 

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 December 27, 2018 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[Guest]

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?

[Wade8888]

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

[ksolomon]

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

 

[The Barbarian]

Dinosaurs were reptiles, but they were indeed warm-blooded.   That's not surprising.  There are, for example, warm-blooded fish.    Tuna are warm-blooded as is one species of shark, IIRC.

It turns out that scutes (scales found on birds, dinosaurs, and crocodiles can be transformed into feathers by blocking certain genes.  This could be why Kulindadromeus seems to have both, with intermediate "sceathers."

 

 

 

[Spock]

This may not be the place to ask this, but does science no longer hold to Dinos being on this earth around 100 MYA and went extinct around 65 MYA due to a meteor crashing on Earth?  That is the last I recall. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Spock

[The Barbarian]

The evidence shows no dinosaurs at all, above the worldwide layer of iridium, which came from a large object hitting the Earth.  However, dinosaurs were in a decline long before that event.  It seems that the object applied the final blow to dinosaurs.

Edited April 24, 2019 by The Barbarian

[Spock]

I’m perplexed, so I’d appreciate any word of knowledge here (scientific knowledge of course). 

If the dinosaurs lived on Earth between 200-65 million years ago, why are most of the alleged fossil bones found very near the surface of the earth? 

I mean, we usually have to dig pretty far down to get oil, right?  And oil comes from dead plants and animals, right?  So, if these dead plants and animals are very far down under the earth’s surface, why are all these alleged dinosaur bones from 200-65 million years ago so close to the surface and why aren’t they way down there as well? 

Thanks,

spock 

[Spock]

On 12/26/2018 at 8:23 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

 

• 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?

I don’t know if this is pertinent to what you asked Saved, but I did find this when researching about this bird fossil that was found....

The Archaeopteryx fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since. 

The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.

The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers. 

The Archaeopteryx (ar key op ter icks) fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown.

This example would not have proven evolution even if the feathers had not been forgeries. Finding a few species with characteristics similar to two other species does not prove a link. There should be millions or billions of transitional links if evolution were true, not simply a few.

Again, i apologize if this information is not relevant to the discussion or if it is not even accurate.  I don’t know if scientists actually do now consider this evidence to be a sham just because it is reported in this article.  I do know it has nothing to do with warm or cold blooded.......