[_ Old Earth _] Why Did The Dinosaurs Go ?

[Poke]

Platypus and echidnas... egg laying mamals, then marsupials, then placental mamals,

theres your chain from egg layers to normal mamaals right there. Geez!

Not even Evolutionists consider marsupials to be a transitional state between egg layers and live birth (placental mammals).

 

[jwu]

The middle-ear of mammel like reptiles is the exception that proves the rule. Even this example is far from ideal. But, even if it seemed ideal, why are not such examples clearly found through the fossil record? There's no reason, in Evolution, that transitional states should be any less common in the fossil record than anything else. In fact, "transitional states" should be all we find in the fossil record.

There are other transitional series too, such as the one that resulted in whales from land dwelling animals.
"Exceptio probat regulam" is a misquote by the way, it's missing "de rebus non exceptis"

Scales and feathers aren't so soft, so where are the animals with things that are between scales and feathers?

They still fossilize very rarely compared to bones.

However, there is quite some stuff about this:

Chen, P.-J., Dong, Z. M., and Zheng, S.-N. 1998. An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 391:147-152.

Currie, P. J., & Chen, P.-J. 2001. Anatomy of Sinosauropteryx prima from Liaoning, northeastern China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 38(12):1705-1727.

Gibbons, A. 1996. New Feathered Fossil Brings Dinosaurs and Birds Closer. Science 274:720-721.

Ji Q., Currie, P. J., Norell, M. A., & Ji S.-A. 1998. Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China. Nature 393:753-761.

Ji Q. & Ji S.-A. 1996. On discovery of the earliest bird fossil in China and the origin of birds. Chinese Geology 233:30­33. In Chinese. [English translation by Will Downs and obtained courtesy of the Polyglot Paleontologist website

Ji Q., Norell, M. A., Gao, K.-Q., Ji S.-A., & Ren, D., 2001. The distribution of integumentary structures in a feathered dinosaur. Nature 410:1084-1088.

Padian, K., Ji Q., & Ji S. 2001. "Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight" in Mesozoic Vertebrate Life: New Research Inspired by the Paleontology of Philip J. Currie, edited by Darren H. Tanke & Kenneth Carpenter, pp. 117-135, color plates 1-3. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Prum, R. O. 1999. Development and Evolutionary Origin of Feathers. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and developmental evolution) 285:291-306.

Prum, R. O., & Brush, A. H. 2002. The evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. The Quarterly Review of Biology 77:261-295. [PubMed]

Schweitzer, M. H. 2001. "Evolutionary implications of possible protofeather structures associated with a specimen of Shuvuuia deserti" in New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom February 13-14, 1999 New Haven, Connecticut, edited by J. Gauthier & L. F. Gall, pp. 181-192. New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University.

Schweitzer, M. H., Watt, J. A., Avci, R., Knapp, L., Chiappe, L., Norell, M., & Marshall, M. 1999. Beta-Keratin Specific Immunological Reactivity in Feather-Like Structures of the Cretaceous Alvarezsaurid, Shuvuuia deserti. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 285:146-157.

Sues, H.-D. 2001. Ruffling feathers. Nature 410:1036-1037.

Xing X., Tang, Z., & Wang, X.-L. 1999. A therizinosauroid dinosaur with integumentary structures from China. Nature 399:350-354. ]

Xu, X., Zhou, Z., & Prum, R. O. 2001. Branched integumental structures in Sinornithosaurus and the origin of feathers. Nature 410:200-204.

This one is pretty good and available in full on the net:
http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2000Cu ... andDev.pdf

This isn't a question of the fitness of eggs. vs. live birth, it's a question of the fitness of the transitional state. And, apparently, they are all extinct, if they ever existed.

Actually that's not true, sharks and rays have eggs which develop internally, hatching relatively developed young but these do not get any nourishment from the mother while they are inside the womb.

These of course are not descendants of the reptile to mammal transition, but the concept evidently works.

Yes, platypus have mammary glands. They lay eggs. They are a composite, not a transitional form. There's no transitional state of the development of mammery glands or of eggs giving way to live birth.

A transitional by definition is a lifeform which shares characteristics of two other distinct forms. While "intermediate" is more fitting for the platypus as it also has own distinct features in addition to the shared traits, it does meet the definition.

The challenge of live birth almost requires mammary glands (as explained earlier in this thread).

I must have missed that explaination (other than a mere assertion), could you quote it again?

 

[rkc]

Do you have a reference for that?`

A reference? For a conversation I had with God?

a conversation you had with God?...are you for real??, come on this is ridiculas!, Dose God reference these creatures as "bird thingys"?? and he told you people that spend their whole life studying skeletons can make such a obvious mistake?, come on thats got to be the lamest story I've ever heard, what a worthless tale for God to fill your head with lol!
...now I've heard it all, the men in white coats need to tighten those straps on your jacket lady!

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Do you have a reference for that?`

A reference? For a conversation I had with God?

a conversation you had with God?...are you for real??, come on this is ridiculas!, Dose God reference these creatures as "bird thingys"?? and he told you people that spend their whole life studying skeletons can make such a obvious mistake?, come on thats got to be the lamest story I've ever heard, what a worthless tale for God to fill your head with lol!
...now I've heard it all, the men in white coats need to tighten those straps on your jacket lady!

rkc
Why are you wasting your time on a Christian web site where people believe that the God who created the heavens and the earth (not to mention dinosaurs) has the ability to speak to His children? Seems like you should be surfing the web where your opinion will be taken seriously.
"Bird thingy" <--my very own term.
I am not concerned with what you believe about dinosaurs. I was responding to a Christian who post a question. I am not concerned with people that spend their whole life studing skeletons believe.
Wait a minute. They spend their whole life studying skeletons? ...okay. That is ok with you.

And you, who don't know me from Adam have appointed yourself as a judge to commit people to mental institutions.

Oh, and then there is the site rules about ridiculing other members who post.

I am gonna pray that God will speak to you. Then I am going to ask Him to tell you that you must tell other people that God spoke to you.

Be blessed.

 

[jwu]

While rkc's post wasn't exactly polite, could you nevertheless answer my question how a palaeontologist could possibly mistake giraffe leg bones for dinosaur tail bones?

You've seen the pictures, these look totally different.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

While rkc's post wasn't exactly polite, could you nevertheless answer my question how a palaeontologist could possibly mistake giraffe leg bones for dinosaur tail bones?

You've seen the pictures, these look totally different.

Beats me. I am not an expert on bones, dinosaurs, palaeontologist, or their mistakes. I simply was curious about dinosaurs at one point in time and asked the Lord about them. You should try prayer. God could answer your questions better than I.

 

[Lewis]

Do you have a reference for that?`

A reference? For a conversation I had with God?

a conversation you had with God?...are you for real??, come on this is ridiculas!, Dose God reference these creatures as "bird thingys"?? and he told you people that spend their whole life studying skeletons can make such a obvious mistake?, come on thats got to be the lamest story I've ever heard, what a worthless tale for God to fill your head with lol!
...now I've heard it all, the men in white coats need to tighten those straps on your jacket lady!

Why would you insult her like that ?

 

[jwu]

Beats me. I am not an expert on bones, dinosaurs, palaeontologist, or their mistakes. I simply was curious about dinosaurs at one point in time and asked the Lord about them. You should try prayer. God could answer your questions better than I.

I already am a Christian.

However, do you consider the possibility that in this case it wasn't actually God who told you that? Because it's just too absurde to be true.

 

[Poke]

There are other transitional series too, such as the one that resulted in whales from land dwelling animals.

Here's what's in the fossil record:

S-scales
F-feathers
T-transitional, something between scales and feathers

<--- earlier later ---->
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
..........................................FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

The Evolutionist explains this by insisting feathers didn't evolve until long after scales.

The Creationist explains it by insisting that birds more easily avoided rising flood waters in Noah's day.

The Evolutionist insists the fossil record looks like this:
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
.......................................TFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Archeopteryx isn't T, it's F. Jwu, your link says, "Recent discoveries in the Yixian formation in China, which has exceptional preservation conditions for integuments, are most exciting in pointing out the origin and evolution of
feathers. Sinosauropteryx ([35••]; ~120 mya) has ‘fuzz fibers’ surrounding the body." So you have a few fossils with fuzz. Not only is it scant evidence, but it's also recent which means it hasn't had time to be disposed of, like nearly all pro-Evolution evidence of more than a couple decades ago has been.

If Evolution were true, here is what the fossil record would look like:
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
.................TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Various species at any time would be at various stages between feather and scales. Whatever pressure that caused scales to become feathers would be on those species still with scales. And, whatever benefits scales have would be pressure for reversion. And, whatever it is that is between scale and feather necessarily has value by itself.

In all the great divesity of life there might even be an animal with something that looks like T, but that's still not what Evolution really predicts.

Actually that's not true, sharks and rays have eggs which develop internally, hatching relatively developed young but these do not get any nourishment from the mother while they are inside the womb.

Sharks might come close to countering my statement. But, as a stipulated fact, the sharks using these reproduction methods have never led to live-birth, post-shark species, let alone anything like mammals. So, it's far from a given that their reproductive methods represent a viable transitional state.

I must have missed that explaination (other than a mere assertion), could you quote it again?

It's a burden to carry babies to the point that they can feed independently of the mother. So, egg-layers lay eggs while the babies continue to the point (or nearly so) where they don't need the mother to eat. Mammels have glands that feed babies. One thing that might help sharks be a near exception is that they live in the ocean where "baby food" is a natural and abundant element of the environment.

 

[jwu]

Archeopteryx isn't T, it's F.

Umm...care to point out where i mentioned Archaeoperyx? While it is a good example for a transitional, it has nothing to do with the feather thing.

The Creationist explains it by insisting that birds more easily avoided rising flood waters in Noah's day.

Except that no global flood happened anytime recently...but that's a matter for a different thread. However, how come so many birds were outrun by snails and all kinds of other slow stuff (even plants) when they supposedly flew away from the rising flood waters?

Various species at any time would be at various stages between feather and scales. Whatever pressure that caused scales to become feathers would be on those species still with scales. And, whatever benefits scales have would be pressure for reversion. And, whatever it is that is between scale and feather necessarily has value by itself.

This depends on the niche - just like there are flightless birds which are doing just fine. If that niche now does not exist anymore, we don't expect to see them alive anymore.

However, today there are still birds that hatch with an intermediate between scutes and feathers, such as this one:

Birds also still have the genes for teeth, albeit typically deactivated - why would they have these if they were seperately created? This makes sense if they come from reptiles though...

In this case the genes were reactivated by a mutation:

 

[Lewis]

Evolution is garbage all animals were created the way they are, on purpose.

 

[ikester7579]

I heard a theory on this the other day.

The moon is losing orbit by 3 inches a year, which means back in time is was much closer. If you go back a in time, you will find that the moon at one time was just above the surface of the earth. Which means the tall dinos met their death by being mooned to death.

 

[jwu]

Actually no...the rate of movin away is not constant as this is influenced by tidal effects.

However, even if we assume it to be constant, then this still isn't a problem:

The moon is about 400.000 kilometres away now.
A billion years ago, long before there was any land dwelling life and especially no dinosaurs yet, it still was 323.800 kilometres away. No big deal.

 

[Lewis]

I heard a theory on this the other day.

The moon is losing orbit by 3 inches a year, which means back in time is was much closer. If you go back a in time, you will find that the moon at one time was just above the surface of the earth. Which means the tall dinos met their death by being mooned to death.

That was good.

 

[MrVersatile48]

I heard a theory on this the other day.

The moon is losing orbit by 3 inches a year, which means back in time is was much closer. If you go back a in time, you will find that the moon at one time was just above the surface of the earth. Which means the tall dinos met their death by being mooned to death.

Ike: if you still da General, we may well win da next warble!

Lewis: loved the OP

This being Sat, the title gave me the profound thought...

"We dino's went because da bronto saur us" :wink:

For any USA etc viewers unfamiliar with NW UK accents, we kinda put an 'r' where there ain't none :roll:

Or as SW UK might say, 'Oooh-aaarrr, me hearties!' :P

Or is that a line from Pirates of the Caribbean? :o

Caribbean Ian handing you back to da studio.. :angel:

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I used to work with a man that read tabloids on his coffee breaks. He explained it to me once.
"You wanna know what happened to the dinosaurs? UFO's used them for target practice."

 

[jwu]

I heard a theory on this the other day.

The moon is losing orbit by 3 inches a year, which means back in time is was much closer. If you go back a in time, you will find that the moon at one time was just above the surface of the earth. Which means the tall dinos met their death by being mooned to death.

That was good.

Does it not matter to you that i have demonstrated that this argument doesn't hold any water? Or do you just see what you want to see?

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Does it not matter to you that i have demonstrated that this argument doesn't hold any water? Or do you just see what you want to see?

I am hoping mine won't either.

 

[ikester7579]

I heard a theory on this the other day.

The moon is losing orbit by 3 inches a year, which means back in time is was much closer. If you go back a in time, you will find that the moon at one time was just above the surface of the earth. Which means the tall dinos met their death by being mooned to death.

That was good.

Does it not matter to you that i have demonstrated that this argument doesn't hold any water? Or do you just see what you want to see?

Actually, no. Why? There are other variables to consider as well.

1) Back in time, the earth's magnetic field was much stronger which means it gravitational pull was probably stronger as well

2) As the moon is closer, you have whats called the Inverse Square Law.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... .html#isqg

Being that the gravitational pull is actually "multiplied" between two objects that attract one another, as they get closer. Instead of a gradual increase as most would think is what would happen. Makes me also bring up the third question.

3) How did the moon escape the gravity pull so close to the earth, when the Inverse Square law multiplies that pull?

The moon would have had to be orbiting the earth so fast, moving away from it would have slung it out into space. Because if you subtract the Inverse Square Law, as the moon drifts away. The loss of gravity is multiplied which means the moon could not have held it's orbit over billions of years. And this would also apply to every other planet, with moons.

4) The gravitational pull upon the earth's crust is also multiplied by the Inverse Square Law, which means around the time of when the plants started to grow, then the dinos appeared. The every day earthquakes, each time the moon went by, would have caused such massive lava flows. High tides, etc.... It would have killed all life as we know it.

In fact, if the moon were just 1/4 closer to our earth today, it's gravitational pull upon it's crust would be almost double. Which means there would be earth quakes every day. And volcanic eruptions would increase 10 times which would have darkened our atmosphere so. The air would have been un-breathable. And the earth would be mostly frozen. because the sun would not be able to shine through it.

And how far do we go back in time before the moon is 1/4 closer to the earth? Not by much.

The moon being 1/4 closer, with double the pull would:

1) Increase earth quakes.
2) Double our tides height.
3) Increase volcanic activity.
4) The pull would also affect the health of every living thing upon our planet.

And because the pull would be a lot greater. And it's the moon's orbit that gives the earth it's tilt that makes life possible. More pull means that tilt would change, drastically changing the weather.

6,000 years, no problem. Billions of years, big problem. You can ignore reality of physical laws to make what you want to believe sound true. But it does not make a new reality just because you want it to.

 

[Poke]

I heard a theory on this the other day.

The moon is losing orbit by 3 inches a year, which means back in time is was much closer. If you go back a in time, you will find that the moon at one time was just above the surface of the earth. Which means the tall dinos met their death by being mooned to death.

The moon's recession is caused by tidal effects, which themselves are caused by the moon's gravity. The closer the moon, the stronger the effect. Therefor, the moon's recession would have been exponentially fasterr going backwards in time. Long before the moon could be close enough to touch the earth, the tidal forces would have ripped it apart (the Roche Limit).