this is interesting and useful for this creationist.
First there were always only a dozem of examples which clouds investigation. SO they did a BETTER job of looking at one. sure enough its birdness becomes evident. its not a reptile/dino so much. i don’t agrre with reptile/dino group traits anyways but the point is still made.
It shows how classification led the investigation in the old days. not actual observation.
they too much expected reptile divisions, dinosaur divisions, bird divisions.
so they imagine missing links. yet actually these are just dumb birds in a spectrum of diversity. spectrums seen in biology all the time.
They should look closer at all of them with these x-rays. Got a hunch !
The older specimens are not reptile like but instead just have a few minlort traits, coincidentally, creatures called reptiles have. Yet they also only have these traits, within their kinds, because of a limited biology options.
These are just birds, flightless or flyers. They are not evidence of reptiles evolving into birds.
No reason to say that.
You seem to have missed the entire point of the article!
The specimen…which has been undeniably part of the Archaeopteryx spectrum is now revealed to be undeniably part of the bird spectrum.
It is the perfect “link” in a long line of links!
I understood this point. It probably was an important point to you.
I’m saying this END part of the spectrum is not showing it go into a bird spectrum but that the ARCH spectrum is just another bird spectrum. Even with details that some call reptile details. they are not. they are just useful traits.
like egg laying. Just a good idea.
It should be a YEC desire to see these Arch things be shown as birdlike as possible.
the purpose should be to reduce biology to kinds and destroy divisions.
however there doesseen to be a bird division.
You are dismissing the tight correlation of the convergence of these traits.
Is this unintentional ignorance? Or is it an intentional attempt to rxoloit the ignorance of your audience?
@Robert_Byers read the whole paper first before making your claims.
Yes I’m dismissing the tightness. its not tight! Its just a spectrum of traits. Then they group creatures based on the trivial traits that are alike.
WHEN they should group creatures based on the greater number of traites.
In this case, finally, better investigation showed more traits with birds for some theropds who before were not thought to be that way. Yet none of the theropods have reptile traits to deny them being just in a spectrum of the type of bird.
The Arch thing was never a reptile/dinosaur.
Only now do they get closer to realizing its just a flightless bird.
These realizations are just what YEC desires even if YEC is not really embracing that theropods never were anything but birds.
I just re listened to a great episode on a great British show called IN OUR TIME. It was on FEATHERED DINOSAURS and viewers here should listen. its three researchers, no creationists, talking about the recent discoveries on FEATHERED DINOSAURS.
they don’t conclude they were just birds but the new evidence, like on this post, adds great evidence to the conclusion they were just birds.
just look on youtube or on the show itself.
No, it adds great evidence to the conclusion that they’re relatives of birds. That’s not the same as what you said. We both agree that feathered theropods and modern birds are related, but you have taken the giant leap to suggest that that all these feathered dinosaurs are somehow not transitional between typical reptilian archosaurs and birds.
YES. I don’t think its a leap. Its a first conclusion that was rejected by a classification system.
If they had not this geology time issue, and this reptile/dinosaur claim on these creatures. UNFOUNDED> They would of just said these"theropod dinosaurs" were just flightless birds in a spectrum of diversity.
NOW they inch closer and closer. STILL saying the similarity shows birds come from dinos. Yet its really they are just dumb birds. There are no dinosaurs. Its a error of grouping.
If one had seen them one would see a big bird.
By the way there are post flood big birds, called TERROR BIRDS, that have as big heads as theropds and the bones fused together to use the head as a weapon. T-rex eh.
You are FAR gone on Creationism.
I look forward to speaking logically about science with your children and grandchildren.
They will be inclined, i think, to reject your rejection of science.
I know you’ll be shocked to imagine but this blog is not trying to convince Creationists they are wrong about science. The blog seeks to reassure Creationists who WANT science to be accepted… but arent sure how.
Lol Terror Birds are nothing like T-rex. Anyone with eyes could tell you that.
There is no rejection of science. Its doing science for the first time in these things as i see it.
Anyways I don’t accuse anyone of not doing/caring about science.
Its different conclusions.
The accusation that the creationist group is not doing science, or believes in science, is false.
yes you can accuse but we can defend against the accusation.
Surely the days of saying THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME are not doing science in origins matters has PASSED.
CREATIONISTS will never be convinced they are wrong by telling them they REJECT science.
if that was true the only objective of non creationists would be to get ACCEPATANCE for science from creationists.
yet in reality it comes down to struggling over ideas.
we all do science if we do the methodology alongside our hypothesis.
Neither has been seen in a while.
t-rex is only in a spectrum of that family by the way. just the biggest.
my point is that its a spectrum of diversity.
Terror birds were hugh, fused skulls, and used powerful feet for killing critters.
They were post flood and not so big due to timelines and environment.
These birds are called TERROR which i not far from Tranynus
T-res is famous for being the end of a spectrum. yet its just a theropod they say.
i also questuon artists giving t-rex such massive miscles in the legs. they don’t do it with Terror birds. Is this because of anatomical evidence of a still error of seeing t-rex as reptiles??
Anyone that believes God is intentionally making creation look like it was driven by evolutionary factors is dismissing science for the sake of dismissing science.
Im putting you on my “Do not Disturb” list. You dont have anything to offer other than denialism.
Well your just accusing AGAIN creationists of dismissing science.
We are dismissing conclusions within subjects dealing with origins.
God is not making creation look like its driven by evolution.
Its poor thinking that makes people present nature as driven by evolution.
nature makes a common design case better then common descent or the common people think so.
I dont want to disturb you. Please talk to someone else.
Your disturbing me and you are talking to me. i would be disturbed if you ignored me.
why? its about peaceful science or agreeingb to disagree while talking about the disagreement.
Everybody gets frustrated when the other guy doesn’t agree with them on important conclusions. I don’t but we are always easily a minority.
We can tolerate each others ideas in these matters. Its not important to have spirits of censorship.
If I met you here in Toronto I would gladly buy you a beer or two.
Why not you for me?
hopefully you will reconsider. i hope its not because I intimadate you intellectually? thats does happen i notice.