Posted on 02/17/2010 8:12:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
An image drawn in 1915 by naturalist William Beebe suggests a hypothetical view of what early birds may have looked like, gliding down from trees - and it bears a striking similarity to a fossil discovered in 2003 that is raising new doubts about whether birds descended from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs. Photo courtesy of Oregon State University
(PhysOrg.com) -- A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.
The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise - that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.
"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
What if the answer is “neither,” since evolution is bunkum?
Birdosauruses.
Think of the works of an artist. It is common for works of the same artist to look alike.
It is not that dinos and birds have a common ancestor, but that they have a common designer. That is why they resemble each other.
For example: These pots and pans look alike not because they were produced in a chronological sequence, but because they have the same designer.
Maybe they just came from GOD
I believe that, since man is made in God's image, man's inventions evolve, too.
Did modern cars, cameras and appliances instantly appear in their modern form? Or, did they evolve from earlier, cruder forms?
Don't want to start a debate, just offering some food for thought.
Great ‘right on’ post! Nothing like ‘show and tell’ to get the Message across to those that struggle w/understanding.
BTW, I recognize those pots.
Did these pots and pans spring instantly from the ether? Or, were they put together using an ever-evolving manufacturing process?
I thought the Bible says that man was created in God's image. If this is so, then why do our products evolve from earlier cruder forms while His are made instantly in their modern forms?
Is man made in His image? If so, then why doesn't His products evolve like ours do?
Just my personal opinion.
“THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!”
.... wait ...
Oh I agree, actually. I am in something of an odd position, since I am a YEC who has no problem with the theory of natural selection, per se. I just do not believe in its power to transcend organism types above, say, the family level.
Your analogy wouldn't completely hold, however, since the reason our appliances, etc. have "evolved" is because we have designed them to. A Model T didn't become Dodge Charger via purely naturalistic processes!
My argument is that common features are more easily explained by common design rather than common ancestry.
Glad to see that we agree that it is more logical to believe that there is some kind of intelligence behind biological systems that resemble human technology — that newer versions progress over time guided by human engineers (micro evolution).
It may actually be true that some organisms seem to have arisen instantly in the fossil record without any evidence of long line of ancestors. (Cambrian explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion ).
It may be that the "springing from the ether" of life forms may be analogous to the big bang — when the primordial singularity popped into existence in a way that seems eerily like the act of some kind of a creator God or something.
Interesting how evolution is a predictive science.
One can look at the fossil record and say that a creature that looks like this has to exist and sooner or later the rocks will yield something very close to the predictions.
The Bible predicts what?
That you can change the coloring of kids by having the nanny goats look at partially pealed branches:
37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches.
38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink,
39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.
Anybody tried repeating this? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?
Sounds like sympathetic magic. Or is it that word that starts with a T—Thaumagenical or sommthing like that.
parsy
The problem is that they do not evolve in a pattern that even vaguely resembles biological organisms. Technology is contagious. Evolutionary innovation is not.
The products of the only Intelligent Designer we have direct experience with (human beings) look nothing like the natural world.
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.