Just weeks after reporting the "missing link"

[DogtorEvil]

now this

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609092055.htm

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.

The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.

"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed."

[dawg80]

No, it means that birds were created at the same time as dinosaurs. It's amazing how SLOWLY science is catching up to the truth. The truth found in Genesis.

[Guisslapp]

No, it means that birds were created at the same time as dinosaurs. It's amazing how SLOWLY science is catching up to the truth. The truth found in Genesis.

Not at all.

The newest findings, the researchers said, are more consistent with birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system.
There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian "thecodonts," which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs. The lung structure and physiology of crocodiles, in fact, is much more similar to dinosaurs than it is to birds.
"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later."

The fact that evolution happened is not really debatable. The precise relationship between all species that have ever existed is still being sorted out. Missing links between all species may never be found since not everything is preserved; however, if you honestly study the evidence there is only one possible conclusion.

[FishingBack]

If they come to a consensus that birds are not evolved from dinosaurs...that would be pretty big.

[Guisslapp]

If they come to a consensus that birds are not evolved from dinosaurs...that would be pretty big.

Yes and no. This one study suggests that they are not parent-child, but siblings. Kind of like us and modern apes.

[DogtorEvil]

Yes and no. This one study suggests that they are not parent-child, but siblings. Kind of like us and modern apes.

That's how I interpreted it also.

[FishingBack]

Yes but it would be a pretty big change to the current concepts.

[LookingForResults]

Not at all.



The fact that evolution happened is not really debatable. The precise relationship between all species that have ever existed is still being sorted out. Missing links between all species may never be found since not everything is preserved; however, if you honestly study the evidence there is only one possible conclusion.

I won't jump deep into this topic (it takes too much time), but I couldn't let your last statement stand unchallenged. I recognize some evolution, certainly at the species level, and the preserved fossil record proceeds from the less complicated to the more complex, but the huge gaps that exist between phylums, and to a large degree within them, is still bridged by the faith of the adherents, nothing more.

What is quite interesting to me is the insistence by strict evolutionists that their conclusions are based on the observed record. And yet, the one observation that is without exception is that life proceeds from life. Evolution, at its root beginning, requires that life proceeded from non-life.

[Guisslapp]

What is quite interesting to me is the insistence by strict evolutionists that their conclusions are based on the observed record. And yet, the one observation that is without exception is that life proceeds from life. Evolution, at its root beginning, requires that life proceeded from non-life.

"Evolution" and "origin of life" are related but are not the same. Origin of life is a very specific step in evolution (perhaps the first). There is no reason that life could not be created from non-living matter, we are still exploring the physical and chemical mechanisms that could have allowed life to begin. There are some promising origin of life theories out there, but there is no consensus on the issue. The idea that modern species derived from other species is well-settled.

[dawg80]

I won't jump deep into this topic (it takes too much time), but I couldn't let your last statement stand unchallenged. I recognize some evolution, certainly at the species level, and the preserved fossil record proceeds from the less complicated to the more complex, but the huge gaps that exist between phylums, and to a large degree within them, is still bridged by the faith of the adherents, nothing more.

What is quite interesting to me is the insistence by strict evolutionists that their conclusions are based on the observed record. And yet, the one observation that is without exception is that life proceeds from life. Evolution, at its root beginning, requires that life proceeded from non-life.

Please don't confuse evolutionists with facts. Their heads explode.

[FishingBack]

I find macro evolution an interesting theory. It would be interesting to have been running tests since Darwin brought it up to try to create new species through evolution.

We have successfully altered species using controlled micro-evolution but I would be interested in a multi-century attempt to macro-evolve something.

For instance, I would like to have optional gills to breathe underwater like in Waterworld.

[Guisslapp]

I won't jump deep into this topic (it takes too much time), but I couldn't let your last statement stand unchallenged. I recognize some evolution, certainly at the species level, and the preserved fossil record proceeds from the less complicated to the more complex, but the huge gaps that exist between phylums, and to a large degree within them, is still bridged by the faith of the adherents, nothing more.

Not really. It is not essential to be able to bridge all of the gaps to know for a fact that evolution happened. Further, I think it is a mistake to assume that every living thing has ONE common ancestor. There could have been several starting points along the way. It is much more reasonable to recognize that there WILL BE GAPS in the record simply because not every species that existed yielded a descendent and there will be many species which will have no record because no representative of the species was ever preserved. The DNA evidence, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and direct observation of evolution proves it had to have happened.

[Guisslapp]

Please don't confuse evolutionists with facts. Their heads explode.

You are the one who refuses to look at the facts because it might undermine your worldview. I would be happy to accept that evolution is not true if that is what the evidence showed. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.

[Guisslapp]

I find macro evolution an interesting theory. It would be interesting to have been running tests since Darwin brought it up to try to create new species through evolution.

We have successfully altered species using controlled micro-evolution but I would be interested in a multi-century attempt to macro-evolve something.

For instance, I would like to have optional gills to breathe underwater like in Waterworld.

How many micros makes a macro?

[FishingBack]

How many micros makes a macro?

Look at all the micros we have acheived with dogs. Size/shape, color, hair length, eye color, muscle mass, endurance, speed.

But we never selectively bred a new species out of a dog.