Cambridge University: Fossil overturns knowledge about origin of birds

[carlos]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-63809867

 

This article is fascinating, not only by the discovery itself, but because it shows the warped reasoning used sometimes to sustain evolution.

 

Paleontologists affirm that birds evolved from certain species of dinosaurs. While the palate bones of most existing birds are shaped in what is known as the "modern jaw" which allows more flexible movements with their beaks, a few species such as ostriches and emus have the more rigid "ancient jaw", the same which dinosaurs had. They explain that at some point some specimens developed the "modern jaw", so that bird evolution split off in two branches.

 

Yet recently they found a fossil of one of those dinosaurs considered ancestors of birds. And guess what? It has the modern jaw. So that "better" arrangement of the palate bones didn't appear at some point during the evolution of birds, but rather it was there from the beginning. The "ancient jaw" is actually much more recent than the "modern jaw". But wait a moment, then how is it possible that some birds such as ostriches and emus have the so called "ancient jaw"? It doesn't make sense. Obviously this is the big question they have to answer, but instead they briefly explain it away saying that "For an unknown reason, the fused palates [=ancient jaw] must have evolved at some point after modern birds were already established, the researchers said."

 

Think of what they are saying in that sentence. For some unknown reason, at some point some birds "devolved". Evolution went backwards and some individuals "went back" to the less practical palate shape. Natural selection worked backwards, selecting the "least fit" to survive instead of the "fittest". Either this, or it all is a fairy tale.

 

 

 

[Tortuga]

I just hope that chickens evolve into emus. Pass the drumsticks please...

[Percy]

31 minutes ago, carlos said:

This article is fascinating, not only by the discovery itself, but because it shows the warped reasoning used sometimes to sustain evolution.

Herein lies the method of evolutionists. Choice of words. They will continue to describe ancient fossils as 'primitive' and 'early', and modern animals as advanced. Yet all the 'early' creatures were complete in themselves. How else could they have existed without a complex biological system similar to our own.

Possibly Darwin started in off in his description of the how he felt the 'eye' developed. “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

and yet he was bold enough to make those assumptions with what he called 'reason' but really was his 'imagination'.

“Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.” - Charles Darwin - On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859 (Bantam Classic edition, 1999), pp. 155-56.

It seems that 'imagination' has no bounds, not even science can hold it back. Their use of 'if' is important to them, as it leads to all kinds of speculation.

Percy

[cme]

50 minutes ago, carlos said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-63809867

 

This article is fascinating, not only by the discovery itself, but because it shows the warped reasoning used sometimes to sustain evolution.

 

Paleontologists affirm that birds evolved from certain species of dinosaurs. While the palate bones of most existing birds are shaped in what is known as the "modern jaw" which allows more flexible movements with their beaks, a few species such as ostriches and emus have the more rigid "ancient jaw", the same which dinosaurs had. They explain that at some point some specimens developed the "modern jaw", so that bird evolution split off in two branches.

 

Yet recently they found a fossil of one of those dinosaurs considered ancestors of birds. And guess what? It has the modern jaw. So that "better" arrangement of the palate bones didn't appear at some point during the evolution of birds, but rather it was there from the beginning. The "ancient jaw" is actually much more recent than the "modern jaw". But wait a moment, then how is it possible that some birds such as ostriches and emus have the so called "ancient jaw"? It doesn't make sense. Obviously this is the big question they have to answer, but instead they briefly explain it away saying that "For an unknown reason, the fused palates [=ancient jaw] must have evolved at some point after modern birds were already established, the researchers said."

 

Think of what they are saying in that sentence. For some unknown reason, at some point some birds "devolved". Evolution went backwards and some individuals "went back" to the less practical palate shape. Natural selection worked backwards, selecting the "least fit" to survive instead of the "fittest". Either this, or it all is a fairy tale.

 

 

 

Eccl. 1:9,10.  Look at the study note.

[Ludwika]

2 hours ago, carlos said:

Think of what they are saying in that sentence. For some unknown reason, at some point some birds "devolved". Evolution went backwards and some individuals "went back" to the less practical palate shape. Natural selection worked backwards, selecting the "least fit" to survive instead of the "fittest". Either this, or it all is a fairy tale

It's one of those myths they accuse the Bible of! 😅

[Jimi-L]

I've heard it said that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but that birds are dinosaurs. Does this also apply the other way around?

 

My humble opinion is that it is not worth arguing about evolution anymore. We don't have time for that. In the new world, we'll see quite concretely what evolution can and cannot do.

[Percy]

5 minutes ago, Jimi-L said:

but that birds are dinosaurs

Could be true if you believe birds are cold-blooded reptiles. https://www.wordnik.com/words/dinosaur

The problem should be self-evident when comparing the physiology of birds to reptiles. Completely different creatures. Evolutionists are desperate to find connections to the past in order to buoy up an impossible theory. Did you ever see the 'Tree of Life' diagram which tries to illustrate all creatures going back to a single source? And I mean plants, fungi and animals. If you were to strip away the theoretical speculation, what are you left with?

[Dustparticle]

36 minutes ago, Jimi-L said:

I've heard it said that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but that birds are dinosaurs. Does this also apply the other way around?

 

My humble opinion is that it is not worth arguing about evolution anymore. We don't have time for that. In the new world, we'll see quite concretely what evolution can and cannot do.

It all comes down to this, apes carry around manure in their hands. If evolutionists believe that we come from apes then I would them your ancestors might came from apes a carry manure in their hands but my ancestors were humans and did not carry manure in their hands.

[Tortuga]

20 minutes ago, Dustparticle said:

my ancestors were humans and did not carry manure in their hands.

Yes they did, but they called it fertilizer....

[Percy]

36 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

Yes they did, but they called it fertilizer....

We put it into bags for resale. haha.

[carlos]

1 hour ago, Percy said:

Could be true if you believe birds are cold-blooded reptiles. https://www.wordnik.com/words/dinosaur

The problem should be self-evident when comparing the physiology of birds to reptiles. Completely different creatures. Evolutionists are desperate to find connections to the past in order to buoy up an impossible theory.

 

Recent research seems to indicate that dinosaurs had a lot in common with birds. In fact, there is some evidence that at least some, and maybe most, dinosaurs had feathers. The green reptilian skin dinosaurs have always been pictured with seems to be a false assumption.

 

Of course I am not saying that anyone evolved from anyone else. Just saying that dinosaurs didn't look like they have been always pictured.

[Dustparticle]

1 hour ago, Tortuga said:

Yes they did, but they called it fertilizer....

Some did and many didn’t and at least they know what they were carrying.

[Percy]

1 hour ago, carlos said:

Recent research seems to indicate that dinosaurs had a lot in common with birds.

Depends how you read the research. Are they looking for a connection because it is not all that obvious? Hollow bones and Gizzard stones are just 2. The bones it has been postulated that legs were needed to be pretty solid but some of the upper spine had air pockets to adjust the center of gravity downward. Dinosaurs don't like flipping over like a Jeep. haha. (Yes that is my vehicle)

It seems we do as well. It is a balance between lightness and strength and thus well designed.

Gizzard stones were also looked at but some scientists say yes and some say no. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061220095421.htm

Weight also seems to be a design solution with why birds have beaks and not teeth.

 

Percy

[Pabo]

On 12/7/2022 at 4:21 AM, Tortuga said:

I just hope that chickens evolve into emus. Pass the drumsticks please...

 

You better put on your running shoes first so that you can catch them.

 

Emu has more of a gamer taste than turkey, but not as much as duck, it is somewhere in between and left of centre. I don't mind it, but it is not found at the supermarkets or most butchers, but some butchers can source it of you ask them. You may find it on the menus of some indigenous or other top notch restaurants.

[Percy]

21 minutes ago, Pabo said:

Emu has more of a gamer taste than turkey, but not as much as duck, it is somewhere in between and left of centre. I don't mind it, but it is not found at the supermarkets or most butchers, but some butchers can source it of you ask them. You may find it on the menus of some indigenous or other top notch restaurants.

We have an ostrich farm up the road from one of our Kingdom Halls, so we bought some to try. It has so little fat on it that cooking requires a good amount of oil or some left over chicken fat.

[Tortuga]

1 hour ago, Pabo said:

 

You better put on your running shoes first so that you can catch them.

 

Emu has more of a gamer taste than turkey, but not as much as duck, it is somewhere in between and left of centre. I don't mind it, but it is not found at the supermarkets or most butchers, but some butchers can source it of you ask them. You may find it on the menus of some indigenous or other top notch restaurants.

 

28 minutes ago, Percy said:

We have an ostrich farm up the road from one of our Kingdom Halls, so we bought some to try. It has so little fat on it that cooking requires a good amount of oil or some left over chicken fat.

 

That's why I want chickens to evolve to the size of an emu. Hopefully it will still taste like chicken 🤣👍

[Pabo]

2 hours ago, Tortuga said:

 

 

That's why I want chickens to evolve to the size of an emu. Hopefully it will still taste like chicken 🤣👍

 

We do breed them big here in Australia.

 

 

It is not far away from the Australasian Branch either, about 18km by road, or 12km NNW in the way the crow flies.

 

Not sure if the fence will keep him in though.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Pabo

[Jimi-L]

But this is the real thing:

 

Is this a bird or a dinosaur?

 

 

 

Skeleton here

 

 

Or this:

 

 

And i heard there are still many “turned off” dinosaur genes in birds.

 

Im afraid a headache is guaranteed here for me. 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Jimi-L

[Percy]

15 hours ago, Jimi-L said:

But this is the real thing:

 

Is this a bird or a dinosaur?

Looks a little like this guy, don't you think?

I am always impressed that the ancient skeletons shows an animal that is quite complete though they try to tag it as 'primitive'. Notice different artists have different interpretations.

Percy

[Shawnster]

Reminds me of this 

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7754553/Nightmarish-sketches-reveal-modern-animals-look-like-drew-based-skeletons.html

 

 

 

What dinosaurs actually looked like 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Shawnster

[Percy]

7 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Reminds me of this 

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7754553/Nightmarish-sketches-reveal-modern-animals-look-like-drew-based-skeletons.html

You mean Jurassic Park is wrong?? I want my money back!! haha.

You raise a good point as Evolution is not based on what they find in the fossil record, but how they are interpreted and drawn. https://www.livescience.com/64614-ancient-briton-faces-photos.html (I think I'm in there too) They find a skull and then draw a likeness to what they saw in the pub the other night.

[Percy]

On 12/6/2022 at 11:57 AM, Jimi-L said:

I've heard it said that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, but that birds are dinosaurs. Does this also apply the other way around?

 

My humble opinion is that it is not worth arguing about evolution anymore. We don't have time for that. In the new world, we'll see quite concretely what evolution can and cannot do.

Evolutionists can make many claims as they tear apart DNA to uncover its secrets. They have discovered many interesting things that all life shares DNA to a certain degree. It is a little like reusing computer code for different programs. They all share the HD so code is reused to write to it. Dinosaurs had a genetic makeup not different than ours but why they were so huge, only God knows. Here an interesting bit about sharing 50% DNA with a banana. https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/people-bananas-share-dna.htm

It has been determined that chimps and humans share 98% DNA so an assumption is made that chimps are our closest relatives. It only shows that Jehovah knew the makeup of man with similar bone structure, blood and circulatory system, skin, hair, eyes, ears, mouth, nose, ... , that all animals share, but not bananas. But there is a problem they wrestle with and that is the 48 chromosomes in chimps but only 46 in humans. Oops! There is now another dilemma they can't solve. Why are we so different? It should be obvious, but pride gets in the way. https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46

Peace

Percy