ICR article image
Posted on 02/16/2017 8:31:05 AM PST by fishtank
Dinosaur Eggs Not Bird-Like After All
by Tim Clarey, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Life Sciences › Life Was Created Fully Functional › Variation Is Limited within Kinds
Prevailing secular theory considers birds to be living dinosaurs, but new science is hatching to support the stark differences between these creatures. The data demonstrate dinosaurs were more likely cold-blooded like all modern reptiles.
Dr. Gregory Erickson of Florida State University and his colleagues from the University of Calgary and the American Museum of Natural History recently published their findings on dinosaur incubation periods in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.1 They found that dinosaur eggs took roughly twice as long to hatch as comparable bird eggs.
How did they determine the exact incubation times? The team discovered that embryonic dinosaurs had incremental layers of von Ebner gland protein in their developing teeth that formed growth lines, much like tree rings.1
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image
That’s big! They were really convinced that birds descended from dinosaurs, and now this! Proves to me that their theories are founded on uncertain suppositions.
Mammals are mammals.
Reptiles are reptiles.
Birds are birds...............
Well...if you’re going to fly, you should lay fewer eggs and get them out of you sooner. The dino-birds that did so, had the advantage.
“The unwritten side to this metabolism debate is what is truly fascinating. It is actually a war of worldviews. Mainstream, secular science is trying to make dinosaurs into warm-blooded animals because they are trying to make them the evolutionary ancestors of birds. They need dinosaurs to be warm-blooded if they are going to argue ancestry between the two animal groups. It is difficult to have a warm-blooded descendant from a cold-blooded ancestor.2”
That is a silly argument. After all “warm blooded” dinosaurs would have to come from “cold blooded” reptile at some point.
There are numerous arguments about the metabolism of dinosaurs. I find the tooth ring research fascinating indeed. But I see it as pretty much neutral in the evolution/intelligent design/creationist debate.
Comparing bird incubation periods of today, with dinosaur incubation periods of 80 million years ago seems a stretch. One of the main points of evolution is that changes occur over time.
What an image! I used to get a big kick out of finding sea shell fossils. Imagine finding that!
Good.
Now I won’t feel so weird about eating chicken.
God put those here just to mess with our heads.
There was an experiment some years ago where a chicken embryo was modified to develop teeth and a tail and they had a 'dinosaur'.
They never hatched it though.
Actually, in the field of paleontology, it was always thought that dinosaurs were reptiles, and thus cold-blooded. But that all changed in the 1970s.
If I recall correctly, the conclusion that dinosaurs were warm-blooded arose out of fossil studies measuring the predator/pray ratios in areas known as fruitful for finding dinosaur remains.
The idea was that cold-blooded animals, because they don't burn food calories to make body heat, tend to eat a lot less frequently than warm-blooded animals. So warm blooded animals need to live in areas where there are large numbers of prey animals.
The conclusion from those fossil studies based on the predator/prey ratios was that dinosaurs had to be warm-blooded, which was a revolutionary idea in the field of paleotology.
The whole idea was described in a 1976 book that got a lot of public attention that year, called Those Hot-Blooded Dinosaurs, by Adrian J Desmond.
The platypus is God’s way of showing us He has a great sense of humor.................
Not familiar with the Scientific Method?
That's exactly what Scientific Theories ARE... that's why they're not called Scientific Facts. Unless and until the Theory is proven wrong, it remains a Theory, unless it becomes accepted as fact if it fits too well with accepted Fact and may later be called a Fact. This new experiment, using the thickness of embryonic material, is not surefire proof that the prevailing Theory is wrong, but it gives a good possible contra-indication. It makes the debate more interesting. Nothing more.
Scientific Knowledge rarely moves quickly. This particular debate will continue for centuries. The supporting data and experiments and Theories that say that birds descended from dinosaurs is still extensive.
The two species being discussed existed during the Late Cretaceous Period. This was way after birds evolved from another group of dinosaurs called the Saurischians; defined based on the structure of the hip. The two species were from the other group of dinosaurs called the Ornithischia; ironically meaning bird hip.
Idiotic.
The scientific facts as presented are probably accurate. But Dinosaurs were not really birds, they were dinosaurs. But with their feathers, leg structure, air sacs in their bones, and warm blooded traits, they were clearly more like birds than reptiles.
The Institute for Creative Science is totally bogus and is a discredit to Christianity as people with intelligence read this stuff and think all Christians believe this garbage.
I am a Christian and I certainly don’t believe this tripe.
Agreed. This guy hasn’t thought his argument out very well, nor does he appear to have any background in ecology. Clutch size and gestation period are directly linked to survivability of offspring and the energy required to produce new them.
For the most part, birds are a type of dinosaur.
So, the Earth and all Living things were created.
We all were Created and we didn't just,.... Evolve.
OH YEAH, of course,... that will really PO the Atheists. LOL
Here’s a better article that hasn’t been filtered by the ICR:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.