|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 10, 2009 14:23:48 GMT
Scientists now believe that birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs. Article is hereCan't say I'm that stunned, honestly. That one always seemed a bit far fetched. |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jun 10, 2009 20:22:07 GMT
As usual, I find this stuff amazing...they never quit....yet I am the ignorant one for not accepting their total lack of evidence..  ...and the illogic of their theories....  |
|
rhiian
Chaosite
One person making something up is a liar, but a bunch of people doing it is Government.
Posts: 661
|
Post by rhiian on Jun 11, 2009 12:06:04 GMT
i don't see how that discounts them being reletives completly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 11, 2009 12:36:41 GMT
It doesn't entirely, but they're now looking at the possibility of common ancestry rather than descended from, which is a whole other thing. It represents a sea change in emphasis, you might say  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 11, 2009 20:39:39 GMT
"This isn't exactly compelling evidence to conclusive 'prove' birds are not descended from any species of dinosaur. In fact, it's pretty poor given there's 65 million years where that fixed thigh bone could have evolved into a moving one. Besides, you know this guy hasn't done his homework when he says, "A velociraptor did not just spout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset". Though they could not fly, it was proven beyond doubt in late 2007 that Velociraptors (which weren't at all like those depicted in 'Jurassic Park') DID have feathers due to the presence of quill knobs on their forearms. Whilst it is very likely that the majority of dinosaurs went extinct through natural causes, it still remains virtually certain that certain species evolved into birds of a variety which may or may not exist to this day.
- Mark, Yorkshire, UK, 10/6/2009 23:04"
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jun 11, 2009 21:31:01 GMT
"This isn't exactly compelling evidence to conclusive 'prove' birds are not descended from any species of dinosaur. In fact, it's pretty poor given there's 65 million years where that fixed thigh bone could have evolved into a moving one. Besides, you know this guy hasn't done his homework when he says, "A velociraptor did not just spout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset". Though they could not fly, it was proven beyond doubt in late 2007 that Velociraptors (which weren't at all like those depicted in 'Jurassic Park') DID have feathers due to the presence of quill knobs on their forearms. Whilst it is very likely that the majority of dinosaurs went extinct through natural causes, it still remains virtually certain that certain species evolved into birds of a variety which may or may not exist to this day. - Mark, Yorkshire, UK, 10/6/2009 23:04" Well, there is no compelling evidence that they are.. ? Why don't birds continue to "evolve"...?? Why can't they "morph" back into dinosaurs..?? After all, the DNA should still be there...even one, little itsy bitsy, throwback, dinosaur..?? Why don't birds "evolve" into, lets say, Hawkman...?? why do they just want to stay silly birds...?? Why is there no compelling evidence that birds have EVER been anything but birds.?? Oh, thats right, the terms, "might have," "probably did," "could have," "should have," always counts for evidence....I keep forgetting that....  I just wish they could pinpoint the cut-off date for when it stopped....because it surely hasn't happened since we been recording records...and surely ISN'T happening now.. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 12, 2009 2:32:05 GMT
ss, we've genetically modified chicken eggs to develop dinosaur like traits -.-
and evolution is always happening. It takes a long time for major changes to become apparent, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 12, 2009 3:07:16 GMT
This one definitely comes under 'unproven' at best and 'wildly unlikely' at worst though, Terror, you must admit. I can't honestly see a T-Rex as the great-granddaddy of an ostrich, no matter how I try.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 12, 2009 4:39:02 GMT
Because its not, EK.
And guess what? We've found T-rex DNA. And it IS related to the chicken.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jun 12, 2009 18:53:46 GMT
ss, we've genetically modified chicken eggs to develop dinosaur like traits -.- and evolution is always happening. It takes a long time for major changes to become apparent, however. Doesn't "we've genetically modified" actually mean that it was "intelligent design".....by "us"... That proves design, not evolution... |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 12, 2009 19:01:35 GMT
The problem is that the science of DNA is still in its infancy. For all we know, WE are as 'related' to chickens as a T-Rex is. A few common genes between species may prove everything - or nothing. I doubt we'll really understand exactly what it is we know until we have had time to learn a lot more than we have now.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockergrl on Jun 12, 2009 19:40:22 GMT
This doesn't surprise me either, I always found that theory of birds being descended from dinosaurs quite odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by LaFille on Jun 13, 2009 4:12:28 GMT
DNA is a much more promising mean to reveal ancestry than morphologic/anatomical observations. Such aren't entirely reliable, only puzzle pieces, given the gaps in the fossil records and convergent evolution that gives far-related species common phenotypes. It's very difficult to get solid evidences in this field.
That said, it's some scientists that believe this... And it's not a new hypothesis, and it has yet to disprove the others and even more to make consensus (as much doesn't in this kind of theories). The inverse is the same as well.
Did anybody say somewhere that evolution stopped? Evolution on creatures that have long lifespans like birds, reptiles, mammals can take hundreds, thousands of years to see major changes. It can however be clearly seen and makes no doubt when you look at species of insects, protists, bacteria...
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jun 13, 2009 7:03:33 GMT
Did anybody say somewhere that evolution stopped? Evolution on creatures that have long lifespans like birds, reptiles, mammals can take hundreds, thousands of years to see major changes.
I agree, and go further - what would anyone compare it with? There are no fossils of (for example) sparrows dating back one or two millenia, there aren't even reliable pictures. And yet, if there were, we may well see a difference already...
What we do see however over generations are behavioural changes as a result of adaption to a changing environment - and that is evolution also....
|
|
rhiian
Chaosite
One person making something up is a liar, but a bunch of people doing it is Government.
Posts: 661
|
Post by rhiian on Jun 13, 2009 17:15:38 GMT
evolution is always on going. we have bacteria gaining resistance to anti-biotics, moths which are coloured to match tree bark but actually a different colour because of pollution, and sickle cell anemia providing resistance to malaria. although the first two are effected by human acitivity, all of them are examples of natural selection going on today. also, take a look at really REALLY old buildings. the doorways are TINY. on average humans have evolved to be taller. it takes hundreds of thousands of years, for there to be a clear difference. take the ammonoids.  the suture lines started out really simple, but as time goes on they became more complex. these things take time. personally i find it fascinating. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 13, 2009 17:22:40 GMT
Actually, the thing about humans getting taller is urban myth, Rhiian. The reason we had low doorways was because our architectural capabilities were a lot less and higher doorways would have created structurally unsound buildings. People ducked to get through them.
***
We do indeed have many examples that prove that creatures evolve and adapt over time. What we do not yet have is any example of a creature evolving into some other kind of creature entirely. That part of the theory is not yet scientifically proven despite a lot of fun with fruit flies (Chosen because they live & die fast so we get many generations fast).
|
|
rhiian
Chaosite
One person making something up is a liar, but a bunch of people doing it is Government.
Posts: 661
|
Post by rhiian on Jun 13, 2009 17:27:26 GMT
^ really? damn. I've been made a fool D:
---
time flies like an arrow. fruit flies like a banana. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by killerzzz on Jun 14, 2009 3:18:41 GMT
Visible adaptive evolution can also sometimes make sudden jumps. I seem to remember an example of a type of bird whose beak evolved in a matter of a year or two or something to become hooked at the end, all because of an intense drought in that region (so that they could get to bugs deeper in areas that kept moisture longer?). Something like that. And of course there are the long-term things. And examples of species evolving in similar ways, to overcome certain conditions, but who were not closely related. Birds, bats, and bees all have wings, for example. "That doesn't look to scary. Looks more like a seven foot turkey." Hehe, memorable scene from Jurassic park. ;D Anyhow, to finally get to any sort of point at all. So things can evolve similarly but not be related (support for birds ain't dinos), but just because one small thing may have a different use, doesn't mean they're not related (support for dino-birds). But you guys already said that. Killerzzz |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 14, 2009 3:37:07 GMT
A very nice summation anyway, Kaz |
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Jun 14, 2009 19:25:29 GMT
Actually, the thing about humans getting taller is urban myth, Rhiian. The reason we had low doorways was because our architectural capabilities were a lot less and higher doorways would have created structurally unsound buildings. People ducked to get through them. Humans actually are getting taller - in industrialized nations the average height has increased ten centimeters in the last 150 years. This isn't evolution at work, however. The leading theory is better childhood nutrition. There also appears to be an upper limit to human height. |
|
.com
