RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: New research: Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, Anti Evolution< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,13:37   

New research or YEC spin ? Noticed this on the AiG website today:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....-evolve

Quote
Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs: what creationists have been pointing out for years is now buttressed by new research.





Quote
The notion that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds has almost certainly become one of the most widely accepted “facts” of evolution. The question for many evolutionary researchers had transitioned from “if” to “how.”1 Even artists’ depictions of some dinosaurs (such as velociraptors) began to include feathers.2 Except for a few notable critics, such as University of North Carolina paleobiologist Alan Feduccia, evolutionists seem to have all but agreed on birds’ dinosaurian origins.

Now, a new paper in the Journal of Morphology presents the research of two Oregon State University scientists who don’t agree with the evolutionary dogma on bird origins.3 Doctoral student Devon Quick conducted the investigation into bird breathing and its connection with dinosaur-to-bird evolution as part her dissertation.


Not sure what to make of this but it's bound to be regurgitated as a YEC claim. Anyone got a link to the original article ?

  
olegt



Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,13:45   

Post at Scientific Blogging: Theropod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds? Not Likely, Says Study.  

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,13:50   

It's a recent paper, out of Oregon State University.

Here is the link. I don't know if it is requires a subscription to view.

Here is the title and abstract:

Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs
Devon E. Quick, John A. Ruben
Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331

Keywords
theropod heart • theropod lung • bird lung

Abstract
Although crocodilian lung and cardiovascular organs are markedly less specialized than the avian heart and lung air-sac system, all living archosaurs possess four-chambered hearts and heterogeneously vascularized, faveolar lungs. In birds, normal lung function requires extensive, dorsally situated nonvascularized abdominal air-sacs ventilated by an expansive sternum and specially hinged costal ribs. The thin walled and voluminous abdominal air-sacs are supported laterally and caudally to prevent inward (paradoxical) collapse during generation of negative (inhalatory) pressure: the synsacrum, posteriorly directed, laterally open pubes and specialized femoral-thigh complex provide requisite support and largely prevent inhalatory collapse. In comparison, theropod dinosaurs probably lacked similarly enlarged abdominal air-sacs, and skeleto-muscular modifications consistent with their ventilation. In the absence of enlarged, functional abdominal air-sacs, theropods were unlikely to have possessed a specialized bird-like, air-sac lung. The likely absence of bird-like pulmonary function in theropods is inconsistent with suggestions of cardiovascular anatomy more sophisticated than that of modern crocodilians. J. Morphol. 2009. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Received: 8 September 2008; Revised: 16 February 2009; Accepted: 21 February 2009

And here is a Science Daily report about it.

I am not a paleontologist or bird expert, so I won't comment on the paper.

  
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,14:01   

just from reading the abstract, the paper sounds like garbage. they imply that dinosaurs are thought to have used their bird-like air sacs for breathing in the same way as modern birds. however, the research just shows that theropods had air sacs, and probably used them for other functions. the air sacs were then exapted for use in ventilation during the dino-bird transition.  thus it sounds like the authors are just building up and tearing down a strawman. i'll read it more closely now.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10324
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,14:10   

What consilient support is there for Bird / Dinos?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,14:15   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 12 2009,15:10)
What consilient support is there for Bird / Dinos?

Well, feathered dinos for one.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,14:16   

Richard,
tons. the wikipedia article is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4369
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,15:04   

Darren Nash at SciBlogs Tetrapod Zoology has an excelent detailed article - with Pics - followed by some very intersting comments.  

TetraPod Zoology - Birds Come First

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,17:54   

Ruben's group at OSU has been a hold out against birds being dinos for a long time. So now their position is "theropods that developed in parallel with dinos." Meh.

YECs will happily latch on to any controversy, ignoring the time scale and other areas of agreement among the scientists to only highlight the lack of consensus.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1969
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2009,09:29   

There are a number of very well informed critics found on the Dinosaur Message List. The comments start on June 9th.

hat tip to "ergaster" at CARM.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2009,01:57   

Interesting link, J-Dog.

More interesting is the first sentence of comment 33 by George Olshevsky (main advocate of BCF cited in the article):

Quote
What falsifies the BADD theory, whose major scenario is the assembly of a flying bird from components that evolved entirely in a terrestrial, nonvolant context, is the sheer unlikelihood of this sequence of events. It is like shaking the box and having all the pieces fall randomly into a perfectly completed jigsaw puzzle.


Does that ring a bell to anyone? 747 and tornado?

So after reading a few things, I'm really starting to assume that BCF is a creationist theory undercover.

Again...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2009,05:48   

Quote
So after reading a few things, I'm really starting to assume that BCF is a creationist theory undercover.


Are the "reseachers" YECs or is this another Mary Schweitzer scenario ? Or is it a case of real scientists being silly and handing the YECs a gift ? I did notice on one of the comments that Gary had linked to, that the paper appears not to have been peer reviewed.

In light of AiG's comments I think it's time for science to go into damage limitation mode, since the YECs will milk this for all it's worth.

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1016
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2009,08:01   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ June 14 2009,05:48)
Quote
So after reading a few things, I'm really starting to assume that BCF is a creationist theory undercover.


Are the "reseachers" YECs or is this another Mary Schweitzer scenario ? Or is it a case of real scientists being silly and handing the YECs a gift ? I did notice on one of the comments that Gary had linked to, that the paper appears not to have been peer reviewed.

In light of AiG's comments I think it's time for science to go into damage limitation mode, since the YECs will milk this for all it's worth.

I think the commenter misspoke on that, the research appeared in the Journal of Morphology which AFAIK is peer reviewed. As for the rest, I do not think BCF is an undercover creationist theory. I think some people just can't let a unsupported hypothesis die.

Edited to fix typos.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2009,08:40   

Well, if it's not creationism, it's at least teleology, which isn't very far.

The main arguments George Olshevsky puts up front for his theory are that a ground-based evolution is "unlikely" and that he "doesn't believe" it's possible on any time scale (I am grossly paraphrasing and simplifying).

There is no real positive, evidence-supported claims for his reasoning. At best he is trying to open the way to a new classification system, based on nothing solid whatsoever. At worst, he's a closet creationist.

One way or the other, the only thing he's achieving right now is feeding the AIG nonsense.

I don't call that science...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1016
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2009,12:29   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 14 2009,08:40)
Well, if it's not creationism, it's at least teleology, which isn't very far.

The main arguments George Olshevsky puts up front for his theory are that a ground-based evolution is "unlikely" and that he "doesn't believe" it's possible on any time scale (I am grossly paraphrasing and simplifying).

There is no real positive, evidence-supported claims for his reasoning. At best he is trying to open the way to a new classification system, based on nothing solid whatsoever. At worst, he's a closet creationist.

One way or the other, the only thing he's achieving right now is feeding the AIG nonsense.

I don't call that science...

It smacks of orthogenesis, as espoused by Osborn, for example, sure, but I don't see Feduccia or Ruben, or some of the other BCF'ers as being creationists. Rather, they are the paleontological equivalents of the aquatic ape folks in paleoanthropology.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2009,15:48   

Quote
Rather, they are the paleontological equivalents of the aquatic ape folks in paleoanthropology.


Or Halton Arp in cosmology I suppose.

I'm sure though, I've seen a documentary on the aquatic ape hypothesis narrated by David Attenborough.

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1016
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2009,16:54   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ June 14 2009,15:48)
Quote
Rather, they are the paleontological equivalents of the aquatic ape folks in paleoanthropology.


Or Halton Arp in cosmology I suppose.

I'm sure though, I've seen a documentary on the aquatic ape hypothesis narrated by David Attenborough.

I would be very disappointed if Attenborough took the aquatic ape idea seriously. Halton Arp would also be a good analogy.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
  16 replies since June 12 2009,13:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]