It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: np6888


Never mind how the dinosaurs understood the dynamics of flying, or even knew that two wings were the best, and not 1, 3 or 4, but shouldn't there be at least one fossil that shows the transition, like a Tyrannosaurus Rex with baby wings?

I am not going to answer the 'transitional fossil' question, because it's Creationist nonsense, but I will remind you that quadrupeds have only a limited number of limbs available for metamorphosis into wings. And bilateral symmetry takes care of the even numbers.




posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I know the argument was made in one of my threads when I
referred to the serpent being cursed by God. To go about
on his belly and eat the dust of the earth all the days of
it's life.


Pretty sure reptiles dont exist on dust alone. And if you mean the reason they eat dust is due to the proximity to the ground then by your logic everything that has a head height clearance of 25cm to 30cm off the ground and crawls is cursed by god with no explanation as to why. Also what did serpents look like before they were crawling on the ground since this ground crawling according to you is now a result of a god curse? Were they swinging through the trees on tails? did they have arms and legs?? why is none of that mentioned. Also you are aware that some snakes live in trees and dont eat dust how were they spared? And whats so bad about a little dust? I like the smell of rain on a dusty road.

Using religion to argue logic is like wiping your arse with an angry catfish..Sure it sounds like a solid idea at first but when it comes down to the application it just gets too messy to be of any use.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TiM3LoRd




Pretty sure reptiles dont exist on dust alone.

Me too. Point moot.


then by your logic

Wrong!


cursed by god with no explanation as to why.

If you went from walking upright to squirmming in the dirt like
a worm? Knowing the difference might be seen as a curse. Even if
you chose to remain obtuse and ask silly questions about the fact?
Others would certainly consider the permanence of your less
conventional situation. I doubt the worms who were made to do
so have any complaints. See, the text doesn't supply any irrelevant
information in anticipation of the all knowing super intelligent human
being. Whom I might add, has managed to exist a whopping forty to eighty
years on planet earth. And in that vast amount of time was able to convince
his weak little mind, that thru an education( that is really just some other
dumb asses ideas ) has come to think their logic is applicable and their
intelligence unmatched in the universe. Which by the way serves no
purpose and renders all you think you know, to obstinance negating
your education because you were actually smarter when you first started
your quest to EXPAND.


Using religion to argue logic


Is something I have never done. Not in this thread or any where
else. You figure it out, smart guy.

edit on Rpm92814v222014u21 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TiM3LoRd


What did serpents look like before they were crawling on the ground?



So spake the enemy of mankind, enclosed
In serpent, inmate bad! and toward Eve
Addressed his way: not with indented wave,
Prone on the ground, as since; but on his rear,
Circular base of rising folds, that towered
Fold above fold, a surging maze! his head
Crested aloft, and carbuncle his eyes;
With burnished neck of verdant gold, erect
Amidst his circling spires, that on the grass
Floated redundant: pleasing was his shape
And lovely...

— John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book IX



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: np6888



No, it does not explain the how. It just says that everything or traits came from random chance,


No it doesn't. It says that random mutations provide new possibilities for natural selection to test.



without any evidence to back that up,


There is a tremendous amount of evidence to support random mutation and natural selection acting to produce new organisms. The fact that you refuse to recognize it does not mean that it does not exist.



not to mention it's very contradictory.


What exactly do you think is contradictory? If two hypotheses are actually contradictory, you can bet that scientists are working overtime to figure out which, if either, is a better model of reality.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: np6888




DNA evidence cannot rule out that we are the product of genetic engineering.


That is probably correct. It can however, rule out the 'necessity' of genetic engineering. That is, while supernatural GE cannot be ruled out, it is not needed in any way to produce 'us'.



In fact, at this point, that seems to be the most reasonable explanation,


Nope.



as opposed to just all these species "suddenly" evolved(which again is another contradiction that evolution is supposed to be gradual),


"suddenly" means hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of GENERATIONS (not years). Evolutionary time is not measured in orbits of the sun, its measured in generations, unless the discussion is being 'dumbed down' for non-professionals.



whenever an extinction event hits.


An extinction event means that lots of environmental niche's are abandoned. Life abhors a vacuum. Those environmental niches will be recolonized EVENTUALLY. Not in a week, nor a month, nor a year. It will take many many generations of many different species to fill the empty niches.

"Suddenly" in this context means suddenly on an evolutionary time scale, not on a human time scale.
edit on 29/9/2014 by rnaa because: fix markup



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped



Simpler? Yes.


I disagree completely.

Simpleminded perhaps; but not simple by any means.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: np6888


DNA evidence cannot rule out that we are the product of genetic engineering.

DNA evidence cannot rule out that we were sharted into existence by a giant purple unicorn named Frank. "You can't prove it didn't happen," is one of the least scientific statements. You have to provide evidence that we were genetically engineered, not simply request evidence that it didn't happen.


In fact, at this point, that seems to be the most reasonable explanation, as opposed to just all these species "suddenly" evolved(which again is another contradiction that evolution is supposed to be gradual), whenever an extinction event hits.

Reasonable to who, exactly? And there's already a model for how these sudden -- and let's please remember that we're talking about sudden on a geological timescale e.g. the Cambrian "explosion" lasted 10-20My -- changes occur called punctuated equilibrium.


Isn't it simpler to say that these "gods in the sky" tried to create species, didn't like them, and then start over again?

Only if you can provide evidence for it.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kromlech
The dinosaurs went extinct; how did ANYTHING evolve from them? Wouldn't the evolution process be halted the moment they went extinct? Dinosaurs stopped turning into birds that moment...


Extinction is part of evolution. The 10-20% species that were able to survive the extinction level event at the end of the Triassic are the ones that evolved into modern day species, not just dinosaurs. Evolution doesn't just stop. When creatures go extinct, a new species takes their place to fill the void created by their extinction. This is what lead to the rise of mammals after the huge dinosaur extinction. Mammals were already here before it happened along with small birds, the fossil record has shown it, they were just rare, and smaller creatures became favored for survival at that point, probably because it is easier for them to hide from the elements or burrow under ground while a large part of the earth was scorched and then likely went through a nuclear winter type scenario . Once all the competition cleared out, mammals and small "dinosaurs" (aka birds) slowly began taking over. There's a big misconception out there that all dinosaurs were huge. That isn't the case. Many were actually quite small, but the bigger ones are big monsters so that idea sells well.


In all those hundreds of millions of years just slightly, which is just really strange. Myself don't belief it's hundreds of millions of years.. just think about that time length and how little changes, just something doesn't add up.

Evolution doesn't follow a time line. Big changes are dictated by big changes to the environment. White sharks have not changed much (aside from their size) and they predate the dinosaurs. If the environment remains conducive to a certain species it will not change significantly, because that branch won't die off. People seem to have this idea that evolution always goes from simple to complex and that big change has to happen to all organisms. This isn't true. It's up to the environment, and yes, the early dinosaurs were different than the later ones. If not you have to explain the emergence of mammals BEFORE the Triassic extinction, because that is indeed quite different from the early creatures and is considered big change.

Also, "dinosaur" is a very broad term. You can't say "all dinosaurs went extinct" because obviously they all did not. A large portion did, however.


originally posted by: np6888
At this point, the fossil record is simply insufficient to prove the transition of species, aka Darwin's self-admission has not been refuted. Even if you can find one or two transitional fossils, you could just simply say God made them that way. After all, lions or T-Rex with wings are not exactly an impossible animal. Unless you can explain HOW those creatures obtained those wings, you can never rule out Design.


These guys will stop at nothing to pollute a good thread with nonsense. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Wings have been explained numerous times but methinks you didn't even attempt to google "evolution of wings". They didn't just sprout up over night.
edit on 29-9-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TiM3LoRd




Pretty sure reptiles dont exist on dust alone.

Me too. Point moot.


then by your logic

Wrong!


cursed by god with no explanation as to why.

If you went from walking upright to squirmming in the dirt like
a worm? Knowing the difference might be seen as a curse. Even if
you chose to remain obtuse and ask silly questions about the fact?
Others would certainly consider the permanence of your less
conventional situation. I doubt the worms who were made to do
so have any complaints. See, the text doesn't supply any irrelevant
information in anticipation of the all knowing super intelligent human
being. Whom I might add, has managed to exist a whopping forty to eighty
years on planet earth. And in that vast amount of time was able to convince
his weak little mind, that thru an education( that is really just some other
dumb asses ideas ) has come to think their logic is applicable and their
intelligence unmatched in the universe. Which by the way serves no
purpose and renders all you think you know, to obstinance negating
your education because you were actually smarter when you first started
your quest to EXPAND.


Using religion to argue logic


Is something I have never done. Not in this thread or any where
else. You figure it out, smart guy.


I recognize the letters and words as English but the context and substance of this post seems to be from a point of view not based in reality. Im sorry I dont understand you and I suspect that is a scenario you have faced before.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TiM3LoRd




I recognize the letters and words as English but the context and substance of this post seems to be from a point of view not based in reality. Im sorry I dont understand you and I suspect that is a scenario you have faced before.


Yeah, it happens.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join