Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds

Creationists and IDists have asked for examples of one kind evolving into another and this is my attempt to share with them what I've found convincing of just that.I went to a local park a while back and they had a little animal exibit with a petting zoo. In one of their cages they have an emu. I was standing on the other side of the fence looking this thing in the eyes and I couldn't help but notice that it did look like a dinosaur. I was messing with it a bit and the darn thing hissed at me!*(see below) It sounded just like a lizard. Then I looked at its feet and they really looked like some scaly-lizard dinosaur feet. And when you look at the whole animal, it is very similiar to a theropod dinosaur in shape.Let's look at some pictures:Here is a theropod: Here is an ostrich (its close to an emu): At first glance it should be obvious that these animals are two different kinds, but let's look closer.Here's some skeletons: I think they look similiar enough that you could get one from the other with microevolutionary changes. Their general 'body plan' is pretty similiar with the two long legs and small arms, kinda hunched over with a head on a long neck.And look how similiar their feet are: The emu feet still have scales on them!And it doesn't take much imagination to see how feathers could be elongated and modified scales.All these slight differences, or similarities, could easily be microevolutionary changes form to the other. But when we look at them as a whole, or in general, we see that they are different kinds.I'm trying to be very general here and am not implying that ostriches are direct decendents of velociraptors, but I think its obvious that birds did decend from theropods. And that its a great example of one kind becomming another.*here's the best youtube video I could find where you could hear an emu hiss. Turn it up and listen at 0:09 - 0:11:Sounds like a lizard, doesn't it? So what do you think? Two different kinds where one decended from the other through a bunch of microevolutionary changes.I found it convincing. Do you?

---

ABE:I don't intend this to be much of a scientific discussion, and don't want to get bogged down on defining 'kind', so I'd prefer it not in one of the science forums.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

From Message 3: I'm not sure I do. At first it seems like your saying that they look related.From Message 6: But its not just a cursory glance at their external morphologies. From that, it seems that the theropod and bird are different kinds. But when you look at them closely, or into them, and especially those feet!, you can see that a bunch of small changes, microevolutionary changes, to the theropod could easily get us to the point of being a bird.Or are you telling me that you are unconvicible? I'm not trying to prove it. I'm saying: "Look, here's two different kinds with which you could easily get from one to the other with some microevolutionary changes." Don't you think that's possible?Don't you think its a good example of the potential ability of one kind to evolve into another?There's nothing that would prevent a bunch of microevolutionary changes to a theropod from turning it into a bird, is there?Don't the pictures show that it is at least plausible?Back to message 3: Of course not, and especially not on its own. But it is evidence of relationship. I guess you're right, in that it would be better to try to prove that evolution couldn't do it, and then when we fail to prove that, we've shown that it could have, but that isn't the experience I'm trying to share here.We here from creationists and IDists that microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution, and they request examples of where it could. This is my attempt at providing that example, in addition to sharing an experience that I enjoyed and found helpful in understanding all this.Seriously, go look an emu in the eyes and taunt it to hiss at you and then come back and tell me that it didn't seem a lot like a lizard. Oh, and don't forget to look at its dragony feet while you're there. It was an awesome experience.From Message 12: Me and any other creationist or IDist, after a cursory glance of tasmanian tigers and dogs, or sugar gliders and flying squirrels, would conclude that they are the same kind. But when we look closer, and into them, I dunno about the feet :-p, we would see that the formers are marsupials and the latters are mammals and figure out that they are not, in fact, closely related. And I could see arguing that a bunch of microevolutionary changes wouldn't easily get us from one to the other.But with the theropod and emu, or ostrich or other large bird, I find that they are close enough that a bunch of microevolutionary change could get us from one to the other.Would you care to offer a reason why it couldn't?I don't care to get into the logic, or the logical implications, of my statements (I wasn't trying to imply all birds, for example). I didn't intend this to be an official formal argument but more of a 'hey look, isn't this neat' kind of thing.You guys have asked for an example of one kind becoming another, and I still think this is a great example of how it could happen.

Thanks for the addition, DC85. So the top one is a chicken and the bottom one is an archaopteryx.Creationists, those must be the same kind, right? Or not?

I find it hilarious when people claim science has problems over an internet discussion board. I mean, here we are, communicating instantly over great distances because of science.That, and it put a freakin' man on the moon... yeah, deep shizzles science is in I also think its funny that he had to resort to questioning the validity of my conclusion following from the premises when 1) I stated that I found it convincing for myself and was asking if others did and 2) didn't even conclude that my finding was a must, just that it seemed to all line up.Instead of addressing the thought as a whole, it was broken down to find a fault of one of the parts. But I guess if you can't rebut it as a whole then that's all you've got left. And additionally, that they are also seperate kinds and seem to show one kind evolving into another.

Just to add to the list of similarities:Theropods laid eggs in nests that they made... http://uhangridinopia.haenam.go.kr/eng/s_3/view_item.php?...

quote:

---

Dinosaur Eggs & Nest
The fact that the dinosaurs propergate by laying eggs was first discovered during the expedition of Gobi desert and Mogolia by Roy Andrews (1884~1960), who was the leader of the expedition led by the American Museum of natural History.

​

*fossil dinosaur eggs
Dinosaur eggs come in different sizes and shapes. The largest dinosaur egg discovered ever is about 45cm long, and it is not too big in relation to the size of its grown up.

​

*fossil nest
Fossil nest is valusable record for understanding ecological and behavioral charcters of dinosaurs. Fossil records of Oviraptors with nesting behaviors and Maiasaura that prepared the hatching conditions, covering nest with leaves to maintain the proper temperature suggest that dinosaur could also have maternal love, just like birds.

---

Here's some other links that talk about it:http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/...les/Eggs/Nests/thernest.htmlError 404 | Emory University | Atlanta GAEverything I've found so far fits with these two different kinds, theropods and birds, being related where birds decended from theropods and I've found nothing that suggests that they couldn't be.Its still obvious to me that one kind has evolved into another.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Thanks for the reply, Kaichos Man. Dinosaurs were probably warm blooded as well...

quote:

---

A vigorous debate on the subject of temperature regulation in dinosaurs has been ongoing since the 1960s. Originally, scientists broadly disagreed as to whether dinosaurs were capable of regulating their body temperatures at all. More recently, dinosaur endothermy has become the consensus view, and debate has focused on the mechanisms of temperature regulation. source

---

Here is some Evidence for Endothermy in Dinosaurs. Don't you think that evolving feather would HELP maintain body temperature?

quote:

---

There is now no doubt that many theropod dinosaur species had feathers, including Shuvuuia, Sinosauropteryx and Dilong (an early tyrannosaur). These have been interpreted as insulation and therefore evidence of warm-bloodedness.source

---

I'm not sure about that. Do you have any support for feather requiring hair growth first? Didn't you see the picture of the foot in the OP: Birds do have scales! And at first glance one might think they're the same kind. But then you look more and more and find out that there not.However, the more and more I look at birds and theropods, then more they seem to be the same kind. But at first glance, they are obviously different kinds.It still looks like one kind becomming another to me.

Thanks for the reply, Godismyjudge. Welcom to EvC. Its great here, I hope you like it. Not really in general, no. But for specific creation ideas, yes. Like man being created 6000 years ago, we know that's not true.But this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how some of the evidence we have, particularly that of the OP (opening post, Message 1), shows that birds evolved from theropods but they are two different kinds so we can see that one kind has evolved into another. What do you mean?

If you click "Peek" you can see the path to the image file and we find the name of it at the end:Arhaeopteryxskeleton.gif I'll take your word for it Neat. Got some pix or a link or something?

Science works by induction, not deduction. IF: Because only black ravens have been observed, the conclusion is that all ravens are black, and this conclusion is tentatively accpeted until a non-black raven is found. But just because only black ravens have been observed doesn't mean that there isn't a white one that we haven't observed. Its logically fallacious, yet it works. Last time you said that, I replied with this (from Message 16):

quote:

---

I'm not trying to prove it. I'm saying: "Look, here's two different kinds with which you could easily get from one to the other with some microevolutionary changes." Don't you think that's possible?

​

Don't you think its a good example of the potential ability of one kind to evolve into another?

​

There's nothing that would prevent a bunch of microevolutionary changes to a theropod from turning it into a bird, is there?

​

Don't the pictures show that it is at least plausible?

---

Close enough. In all honesty though, I know that birds evolved from theropods because of other evidence that is not presented in this thread. I replied to something simliar in a previous message (also Message 16):

quote:

---

This is why it is more important to look at the differences, and see if an evolutionary mechanism can account going from one state to the other.

​

I guess you're right, in that it would be better to try to prove that evolution couldn't do it, and then when we fail to prove that, we've shown that it could have, but that isn't the experience I'm trying to share here.

​

We here from creationists and IDists that microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution, and they request examples of where it could. This is my attempt at providing that example, in addition to sharing an experience that I enjoyed and found helpful in understanding all this.

​

Seriously, go look an emu in the eyes and taunt it to hiss at you and then come back and tell me that it didn't seem a lot like a lizard. Oh, and don't forget to look at its dragony feet while you're there. It was an awesome experience.

---

I don't think we're ever going to prove anything to creationists/IDist.They've said this thing (one kind becomming another) has never been shown to be able to happen.I think what has been presented here does show that it could have happened.I'm not trying to offer proof that it has, I'm showing that it could have.

Think about it though....How do you tell one kind from another if not by how they look? Things that look different are different kinds and things that look the same are the same kind.Having the same feet is just another reason them being the same kind.That there's so much similarity when we look close suggests that they're not the different kinds that they look like as a whole. Like the feathers?There's pleny of websites that show the evolution of feathers:http://www.sussexdinosaurmuseum.co.uk/feathers.htm
Feather Evolution - from Dinosaur to Bird Evolution
Feather - WikipediaSome theropods already had feathers before the birds.I don't see that one as being particularly difficult.Is there another one that you think would be better?

They put down feathers in coats because they ARE great for thermoregulation.And do you have any links for this supposed bird that was found to be before the proposed ancestor(s)?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

He put a space after the '=' in the url coding and that puts a %20 in the address line...Here's the paper:http://www.nature.com/...rnal/v461/n7264/pdf/nature08322.pdf

That would make them the same kind but then how'd they get so different if they only bring forth after their own kind? I think its obvious that they're different kinds too. And that they have been shows that one kind has become another, i.e. the point of this thread.

Nah, it doesn't really have "wings"...Here's the skeleton: Scientists think it might have been covered with small feathers and could have looked something like this: Although, there's not enough info yet:

quote:

---

Some relatives of Compsognathus, namely Sinosauropteryx and Sinocalliopteryx, have been preserved with the remains of simple feathers covering the body like fur,[27] promoting some scientists to suggest that Compsognathus might have been feathered in a similar way.[28] Consequently, many depictions of Compsognathus show it with a covering of downy proto-feathers. However, no feathers or feather-like covering have been preserved with Compsognathus fossils, in contrast to Archaeopteryx, which was found in the same sediments. Karin Peyer, in 2006, reported skin impressions preserved on the side of the tail starting at the 13th tail vertebra. The impressions showed small bumpy tubercles, similar to the scales found on the tail and hind legs of Juravenator.[29] Additional scales had earlier been reported by Von Huene, in the abdominal region of the German Compsognathus, but Ostrom later disproved this interpretation.[24][13]

​

Like Compsognathus, and unlike Sinosauropteryx, a patch of fossilized skin from the tail and hindlimb of the possible relative Juravenator shows mainly scales, though there is some indication that simple feathers were also present in the preserved areas.[30] This may mean that a feather covering was not ubiquitous in this group of dinosaurs.source

---

You really gotta give us links to this stuff

In Message 35, arachnophilia provided this information:

quote:

---

so, birds have two kinds of scales on their feet: reticulae (on the bottoms, the round reptilian scales) and the scutellae (flat plate-like scales on the top).

​

it turns out that the scutes have a strong relationship to feathers, and lacking a certain protein in development, become feathers. this likely means that birds have one gene that controls feather development all over their bodies, including their feet (such as in microraptor), and another that turns them off in particular places.

​

ie: the dinosaurian scales evolved from feather, not vice-versa.

---