Fossilized Bird Lung Inflates Confidence in Creation

I don’t agree there is a mammal group/division. Its wrong classification based on trivial traits shared.
As I said i am convinced theropod dinos are just birds and birds are not dinos/reptiles any more then grasshoppers are.

the error was they invented this dinosaur group. Based on a error of a reptile group and then saw like traits as evidence of like biological heritage.
there was no reason to not squeeze the new fossils into existing kinds or imagine kinds that went extinct. But not invent dinosaurs.

Why is it wrong? Linnaeus was a creationist and he had no problem grouping species by shared traits. We group elements by their shared traits as well. We group celestial bodies into groups such as stars, planets, dwarf planets, comets, and asteroids. Why do you think the practice of creating categories is a problem?

1 Like

Creationists are not right about everthing!! I don’t know if he was a YEC. he was from ancient days and they hardly ever got anything right. Only points for trying.
yes species can be grouped by traits but not bigger groups based on minor traits amongst everybody.
if so why not group everyone by eyeballs or sexy lips? why mammary glands or hairy??
Yes one can group as creationists group things into kinds.
its about accuracy in grouping.
lumping or splitting everyone.
I say reptiles, mammals, marsupials, dinosaurs, are inaccurate and unjustified groups.
Indeed these classifications interfere with accurate biological relationships.
Just like in the case here of the old school researchers imagining theropods(t-rex too) were great lizards. only now with better research is it realized they had feathers, wishbones, bird like bones, bird like everything, egglaying, etc etc.
Then they blow it again and say AHA birds were from dinosaurs. Feathers and all.
Think harder dudes.
These were just birds in a spectrum of diversity. Toothy or not.
They were represented on the ark by some hame held bird types.
Not yet but I think YEC will preach this one day.
T-rex probably didn’t roar but might of been able to talk like parrots. i think all birds can be made to talk. Ostriches and parrots. Not sure.

Pure comedy gold. And, bonus, it’s only one step to talking snakes.

3 Likes

Why not? Also, could you explain why vertebrae, spinal cords, or a central nervous system are just minor traits?

2 Likes

Wait a minute. Some birds can talk. Mimic us. I understand they do this by the use of memory of sounds. parrots just do more butb all birds, thus able to sing, can also do it.
I’m not sure if there is mechanical reasons a emu or ostrich or penguin can not talk like a parrot.
i will look into. I think its just sounds being memorized and jungle birds have more noises to overcome.
So by this reasoning a t-rex could also mimic a human.
Not sure. I don’t think they would roar as audio artists in movies present them.

These are minor traits because theyb are common ones. There is no reason to group creatures based on these unless a common descent presumption already exists.
Why not eye balls?
its about lumping/splitiing(these are terms they use).
the traits that matter should be those not common and so unique to creatures.
anyways mammary glands and hair are trivial and don’t sell themselves as traits to group things by.
its a historic error. It was a unproven hunch.

How does being common make them minor traits? That doesn’t follow.

Then why did Linnaues group species based on common features?

Why?

It is not an unproven hunch that there is more than one species with mammary glands. It is an observable fact.

Yes the old school started the clumbsy error of grouping biology on trivial details.
Why not immune system and hearts?
There was no justification to group things in big groups and none that the traits they picked were the right ones.
It was a dumb guess. It was silly.
people are not mammals because of having to shave in the morning. Hair is just a useful trait in a closed biological system.
The minor traits should segregate creature at a kind level. To justify being a different kind.
The acceptance of mammals, reptiles, dinos etc was so unreasonable that it could only of come from a tiny number of scholars back in the day. No democratic vote by the common sense of mankind.
It interfered with investigation into biological relationships and origins.
Its like why you see a perfect example of a wolf but because the female has a pouch they say its not a wold but a maladjusted marsupial kangaroo.
its dumb.

Appearances can be deceiving. I’ll bet you would agree that a dolphin looks a lot like a fish. But it has multiple important characteristics that make it a mammal. And here is the kicker, if you look at the genome level, it is perfectly obvious that the dolphin should be classified with the mammals, rather than the fish. The shared physical resemblance is due to convergent evolution. This is a perfect example of how key characteristics, like hair and milk production, while perhaps seeming insignificant to some, are extremely helpful for classification purposes. These things are very easy to assess by visual examination, but they tend to reflect genetic similarities.

Of course Linnaeus did not have the tools to figure out which visible characteristics would indicate genetic similarities, and sometimes the selected characteristics were not a good reflection of the underlying genetics. But in the case of mammals, hair and milk production turned out to be very good indicators of the underlying genetics. The same holds true for marsupials, the marsupium is a very good indicator of a group of mammals that share a great deal more genetic similarity within the group than to other mammals outside the group.

4 Likes

A wee bit off threab but.
I don’t agree genetics decides classification. Genes could only BE hand in glove with physical trsits.
there would be so many traits connecting dolphines with land creatures and not with sea creatures.
The shape of the body is a streamlined concept indeed.
Your genome level only indicates it was from creatures that once lived on land with certain traits. Yet its not the dna that tells the tail. Its its bodyplan in and out.
yes milk and hair is a common trait of non sea creatures. yet its only because its useful traits for land creatures. Its not accurate to inent a mammal group.
The likeness of traits only shows the areas they live in and not biological relationship.
Thats the historic error I accuse.
Marsupials are case in point.
Their dna likeness is only because of the switch to a marsupial reproductive mode and a few other details.
In fact they show , on a curve of probability, that likeness of traits should organize them into the kinds of creatures they look like elsewhere on the planet.
Its not convergent evolution. thats a desperate attempt to explain why marsupial mice, lions, wolves, moles have same bodyplans as thier namesakes elsewhere.
There is no marsupial group. The genes only show a later mutual adaption after migration.
Classification should be on the great number of traits of bodyplans and not the few.

i seeked and found. on wiki he does attack that birds are from theropods but instead says they are a line from a common descent that has another line leading to theropods.
Wow. its not mu idea however he attacks/is attacked.
They accuse him of doing pseudoscience. amazing. It shows when conclusions are rejected they attack the credibility of the investigator. Just as they do with creationists.

i youtubed him but instead found Dr Marc Surtees. he did a excellent talk on debunking details about the dino/bird connection adding details i didn’t know. i concluded differently from him as he hasn’t imagined theropods ARE birds. Then on that youtube it linked to a article by a muslim thing about the whole subject.
In it it mentioned many dino fossils now are contended to be just flightless birds by evolutionist biologists. they are not saying what i say but one can predict a probability curve that all theropod dinos one day will be seen as birds as they are.
So this was a good lead. Thanks.