Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off

Well, I think it was in the 1980s that the "Dinosaurs are not Reptiles" theory really got a good start.
It was fairly well established, back then, that because of their bone structure, they were warm blooded.
As far as the "Popular" portrayal of dinos, is that they are grey and smooth skinned.
I would think they were nothing of the like......I would think they had camouflage with their surroundings, probably males were bright colours, females less so, probably had a downy fur or rough hair, certainly some had early feathers.
We know some were duck billed, and probably gathered food same as modern ducks, and that other dino/mammal hybrid (monotreme platypussy).

As far as "Stasis" goes, anyone who watches David Attenborough shows, would know there is a creature that lives in Queensland Australia, that is still basically the same as it was 300, yes 300 million years ago!! The Australian Lungfish was Already 100 million years old, before the dinosaurs even appeared. Now thats a weird creature....can hibernate in dried water ponds for years, and when it becomes wet again, it lives....and we think Aliens are strange.

We all..Reptiles, Dinosaurs, Birds, Marsupials then mammals and us....all evolved from the Same creature/s that left the ocean and crawled onto land.

Ever had a close look at your human skin on your hands and arms, see how it looks like tiny scales....well.

We really are no different from all the creatures that came before us.......except those alien insects and spiders things etc...but then they probably came from the sea too, as crustaceans.

Of course, where the first cells of life came to Earth from??...thats anyone's guess.

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? After all, the fossils for dinosaurs are abundant, aren't they? Or did the wings just appear overnight?

Regardless, after searching for Archaeopteryx, the so-called transitional dinosaurs, this is what I could find:
www.livescience.com...

Ignoring the artwork and looking at the picture at the end(which I assume was constructed from the fossils), it seems like just a very strange species of bird to me.

a reply to: Kromlech

The asteroid that "killed off the dinosaurs" would have ended the life of creatures over several years, as the "nuclear winter" took hold and blotted out the light - it is incorrect for people to say the extinction would have taken millions of years, as it didn't - the larger animals wouldn't have been able to live without any plant life, causing a collapse in the food chain and all plant life would have been severely stunted for only a few years after the impact, with the skies returning to normal within a decade or so, by which point the vast majority of the larger dinosaurs and other animals would have perished.

It has been shown that any land animal over 25Kg's died out, be it bird, dinosaur, mammal or reptile - this is largely down to the amount of energy required to keep going compared to the availability of food sources. Smaller animals can get by on a limited amount of food and even the bodies of the larger ones.

Within a few million years of the asteroid, the Birds have filled most of the niches left by the dinosaurs, especially the carnivorous ones - you can see an explosion of giant, land dwelling birds which behaved in a very similar fashion to the Therapod dinosaurs which came before them. These lasted until very recent times, with the last being hunted to extinction in places like New Zealand by Humans.

a reply to: gort51

In the small amount of skin samples and the like they have recovered, most show signs of pigmentation and/or feathering. In some cases, they are able to have a good guess as to the exact colour, by comparing the pigmentation cells to those of living organisms. Turns out, T-Rex may have been a big, pink fluffy monster!

It has been shown as well that it wasn't just Therapods that had feathers, but Saurapods as well, meaning feathering is a common trait for the ancestor of all dinosaurs. So the image some have of an Brontosaurus being a big scaly brute, or the T-Rex as a monstrous great lizardy thing is totally wrong - they were all feathery.

This lends credence to the OP, because if all dinosaurs had a feathery ancestor and birds had feathers (plus other dino related bits) then it stands to reason that birds are the third tranche of the dinosaur family tree, probably stemming from the therapods quite early on.

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.

a reply to: np6888

Considering that the theory of evolution DOES explain the HOW, your argument is moot. And to then say that "You could just simply say God made them that way" is nothing more than the weakest of cop outs when faced with evidence. "The evidence looks that way because my god made it look that way". Riiight.

Go find us a fossil of a lion with wings and that would actually be evidence against evolution. Good luck finding it, though.

a reply to: 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.

And if science had come to a screeching halt in the mid 1800's, that would be a problem. But we have another century and a half of research that modern evolutionary synthesis has built upon, most of which has absolutely nothing to do with fossils. The vast majority of the evidence for evolution is genetic. So much so that, even if we had no fossils, evolution would still be the dominant theory to explain biodiversity.

a reply to: GetHyped

No, it does not explain the how. It just says that everything or traits came from random chance, without any evidence to back that up, not to mention it's very contradictory.

a reply to: iterationzero

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

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?

a reply to: np6888

You would be wise to read up on topics before misrepresenting them and dismissing them. Here is a starting point:

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: iterationzero

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

You cannot rule out the fact that there's an invisible unicorn hiding in my garden. it doesn't mean we should lend any weight to such baseless and untestable claims.

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.

There is nothing in evolution to suggest anything you have mentioned here. You seem to be baselessly speculating from a position of ignorance.

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?

Simpler? Yes. Accurate? Not by a long shot.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: GetHyped

No, it does not explain the how. It just says that everything or traits came from random chance, without any evidence to back that up, not to mention it's very contradictory.

Its not random chance.

Are you familiar with the term "epigenetics"? If not, it would be an enlightening read. If you are familiar, then certainly you see the folly in ascribing "random chance" to genetic drift?

Another term that may shine light on the principles at play in evolution is "animal husbandry". Humans have had a significant (and purposeful) impact on the genetic development of plants and animals on this planet for at least 7k years. Afterall, corn didn't just sprout up naturally.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: iterationzero

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

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?

Okay, let me address a couple of points you made which show a lack of understanding...

Firstly, DNA can be used to check whether something is genetically engineered now. We can compare the DNA of a naturally occurring organism to one which has been modified, and we can see the changes. Whether we can do that with organisms that went extinct millions of years ago, I don't know.
However, the belief engineering of a planet's worth of species is "the most reasonable explanation" is totally unscientific. And, what's more, shortsighted. We do not understand, at this point in time, a plethora of things about the way our world and the others drifting about in the inky infinite. However, to claim engineering (or, indeed, any intervention from a high power) is just going to lead to a "God of the gaps" situation. Just because we currently don't understand something, that doesn't mean it has to have a supernatural or extranormal explanation. Hundreds of years ago, no one understood why tides rose and fell, or how mountains formed over millenia, or even as something as simple as why the Sun doesn't go around the Earth. Time led to understanding, and understanding led to enlightenment. So, saying that because we don't know something now, doesn't mean it has to be special. We're just working our way towards it.

Secondly, nowhere and no one, in this thread or out of it, is claiming that one day dinosaurs woke up and were birds. That's ignorant and stupid. When talking in terms of evolution, and one organism becoming another organism, all terms become relative. If I were to say "I woke up and went to the toilet," I'm talking minutes. When I say "It's likely some families of dinosaurs, predominantly theropods, became birds," I'm not talking in minutes. That's insane. I'm talking spans of time which make humanity's brief tryst on this globe look like seconds. And before you jump at it, the families I refer to don't mean specific familial groups, but entire species.

Thirdly, yes. It is simpler to say "gods in the sky made them." Simpler isn't always right. If all of humanity went along with that thinking we'd still be living in caves. It'd be simpler to spend a day a week risking your life hunting for food instead of spending months and years domesticating and breeding animals which will provide an endless source of food. It'd be simpler to just let the sick die, instead of putting them through treatment after treatment in the hopes it might cure them.

Why is it so untestable? In fact, we've been testing it by trying to find E.T life. The argument is pretty simple, because we can do certain genetic manipulations ourselves, including reviving certain species, therefore, there could also be another species that created us, via genetic engineering.

You're just lucky that the U.S government is sneaky and is trying to hide evidence and conveniently "losing UFO documents"(which I'm pretty sure was not part of the deal), and then everything that NASA has done to try to cover them up, otherwise, this issue would have been settled a long time ago.

a reply to: JackofBlades

Just because we found out that the Earth goes around the Sun doesn't mean that God didn't make it that way. In fact, it is very likely that God made it that way. That's the problem with science, they think that just because they can explain how certain phenomena work, they think they can rule out God altogether. How do you know God didn't create gravity?, Why does gravity even exist? Why is the universe not random?

Well if people cannot comprehend dinos evolving into birds maybe seeing birds devolve into dinos will spur their imagination a little more. Anyone remember "dionchicken"?
Basically researchers are working on turning on and off genes that are currently present in the dna of chickens. So far they have been able to allow chickens to grow teeth, have scaly skin over the entire body (like they have on their feet), and elongate their tails giving them a different gate, so they move more like a raptor or trex.

Was going to add article link but my phone is not letting me... will have to edit later

a reply to: np6888

If you read my post, I never once made any claims as to whether or not God exists. That's an entirely different (and, in this thread, irrelevant) debate. What I did say is that throwing our hands up and saying "GOD!" every time we don't understand something is completely the wrong thing to do.

To reiterate my points, we don't currently know isn't the same as we will never know. To cease investigation of a subject that mystifies us and put "God" in the cause box limits us, limits our understanding, and limits our growth as an intellectual, fully aware species.

a reply to: np6888

Ok, specify how exactly you would test that claim. "It looks that way because God/aliens made it look that way" is not an answer.

a reply to: np6888

i would also point out that it doesn't preclude that Abe Vigoda placed the Earth in orbit around the Sun.

Or Pol Pot, for that matter.

oO Maybe it was a giant panda that did it?

Now don't get me wrong....I have some vague notions of a grand architect/creator. But I also have a deep respect for relevance and logic in a discussion. Because it wasn't a giant panda that turned dinosaurs into chickens. There is a relatively easy to understand process that occurs (sometimes slowly, sometimes not, depending on epigenetics and environmental stress points).

Just think about that for a minute. The code that creates all beings on Earth has methods built in to allow feedback from the environment to create changes in the being itself. All species are designed to self correct rather rapidly in response to rapid environmental changes. Similarly, we evolve slowly (if at all) during periods where our environment stays relatively stable. I suspect the environment that gave rise to several homo species was quite a rocky time environmentally.

If there is an architect behind this code....how brilliant and wonderful such a being must be. So, if you are religiously inclined, you should see science as a glorification of your creator. A creator that didn't use a cop out like magic to do miracles. But instead created a system that gives rise to the miracles on its own.

If you ever eat a bird and eat a reptile then eat a fish. It's pretty clear that they're all related ! Reptiles taste like chicken but fishy. And fish taste fishy! My tongue says fish >> reptiles >> birds. They're all obviously related. At least my tongue says so.