Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Dinosaur to Bird evolution takes a big hit

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.


Not mentioned is the fact there was never any genetic data which would demonstrate the changes required are even possible via genetic changes.

25 Comments:

  • At 11:02 PM, Blogger tft said…

    From the article you mention....

    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."


    Seems evolution is alive and well even in the article you present as debunking evolution. When will you give up?

     
  • At 7:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The article wasn't suppoosed to debunk evolution.

    Evolution is merely the change in allele frquency over time.

    Not even YECs doubt that.

    What thie article demonstrates is that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.

    That was the standard evolutionary scenario.

    And as far as those scientists know, birds were always birds.

    IOW TFT was again you have proven that you cannot follow along.

     
  • At 9:00 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um, Joe. Birds were not always birds. Evolution and all? They were something else before; that's what the article says.

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't any evidence that would demonstrate that birds could evolve from non-birds.

    The scientists in the article have no idea.

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And the fact that you don't understand the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree pretty much proves that science is well beyond your reach.

     
  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Again, read the article, Joe. It says, "We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past..."

    That would mean that birds weren't always birds. To claim otherwise is dumb, especially coupled with your claim that this wasn't posted to debunk evolution.

    I suppose you take issue with the authors' claim of the evolutionary path of birds?

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, you are so stupid that I really cannot comprehend just how stupid you really are.


    The scientists don't know blipey.

    THAT is what the article says.

    However you are a known quote-miner who couldn't understand the context never mind the content.

     
  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    with your claim that this wasn't posted to debunk evolution.-

    So you are stupid.

    This was meant to debunk dinosaur to bird evolution ONLY.

    The title says it all:

    Dinosaur to Bird evolution takes a big hit-

    To suggest otherwise is just plain ole dishonest.

    Can the mentally handicapped, such as Erik Pratt (blipey), be held responsible for their continuing dishonesty?

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Are you claiming that the authors don't state that dinosaurs and birds could have a common ancestor?

    Clearly, they state exactly that.

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Could" means they don't know, dumbass.

    Ya see moron no one knows if non-birds could evolve into birds.

     
  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, but is that really a reason to claim that evolution is being overturned, as is clearly your intent?

    Clearly, the authors believe that birds and dinosaurs could plausibly have a common ancestor. Do you claim that this is implausible?

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Ah, but is that really a reason to claim that evolution is being overturned, as is clearly your intent?-

    So I take it that being an asshole is the best you have.

    Not only are you ignorant, stupid and dishonest, now you want to prove that you are an asshole.

    As if I needed more evidence.

    Clearly, the authors believe that birds and dinosaurs could plausibly have a common ancestor.-

    Clearly you are an ignorant, stupid, dishonest asshole.

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    It is then your belief that the authors in no way believe that dinosaurs and birds could have a common ancestor?

    Why avoid the question, Joe?

     
  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't know, nor do I care what the authors believe.

    The question is irrelevant to the OP.

    And the question appears to be beyond the realm of science-

    That is did birds evolve from non-birds?

    The only way to answer that question is "we don't know".

    Anything else is a bullshit lie.

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    No clue at all? Why avoid this question, Joe? All answering woud do is give us your opinion. Are you afraid to share opinions as well as answers now?

    Just chalk this one up as anther question you will not answer.

    And I was so nice and clearly and straight-forwardly answered a question of yours (again).

    Why is that you can't do the same thing?

     
  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Only a complete fucking asshole would ask me what someone else thinks.

    Only a complete fucking imbecile would think that such a question is relevant.

    And I was so nice and clearly and straight-forwardly answered a question of yours (again).-

    Not quite.

    You have failed to provide examples of both- a patrilineage and a paternal family tree.

    Until that is done you have failed to answer anything.

     
  • At 6:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That's right! I completely forgot that the words "So, what do you think?" have never been strung together by anyone, evah!

    Thanks.

     
  • At 6:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Do you think I can copyright that phrase--since I'm the inventor?

     
  • At 7:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do I think it is implausible that birds evolved from non-birds?

    It is very plausible if that was designed to happen.

    And given the outcome of two specified mutations arising by an accumulation of genetic accidents, there's just not enough time for that mechanism to work its magic.

    All that said no one on this planet even knows if such a transformation is possible.

    There isn't any genetic or evo-devo data to support it.

    The only "evidence" for such a premise is a refusal to accept that birds have always been birds.

     
  • At 8:25 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That wasn't so hard, was it Joe? Just answering a question that's asked.

    Nicely done.

     
  • At 8:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The hard part is trying to figure out what the fuck you were asking.

    You are about as clear as mud...

     
  • At 10:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Yeah, I must have asked if you thought it was plausible for birds to have a common ancestor with dinosaurs at least 3 times, with varying shades of that question a few other times.

    Real hard to see that. Maybe New Hampshire should rethink its reading program?

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey you are full of shit.

    You said:
    Clearly, the authors believe that birds and dinosaurs could plausibly have a common ancestor. Do you claim that this is implausible?-

    The way that is written is as if you are asking me if I think it is implausible that the authors believe that birds and dinos could plausibly have a common ancestor.

    A normal-thinking person would have phrased the question much better:

    Joe, do you think it is plausible that birds and dinos shared a common ancestor?-

    That is a clear question.

    However you rely on deception so until you clearly state what you want I am very hesitant to provide anything

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Look at that, Joe! It seems you brilliantly deciphered the question both times. So easily that it seems there might be some other reason you don't answer questions....

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Look at that, Joe!-

    Look at what Erik?

    Look at the evidence that proves you are an asshole?


    Been there, done that...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home