Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds

quote:

---

CS wants to prove relationship with similarity, but it just isn't enough. It's the classical case of affirming the consequent:

​

Related species would have similar features
Two species have similar features
therefore they are related

​

Which is fallacious. Besides, any knowledgeable evolutionists should know this, considering the sizeable amount of convergent evolution examples in my biology book ...

---

If genetic proof and visual proof doesn't convince you... what does? Humans share well over 98% of DNA with chimps but for some reason that doesn't even raise you eyebrow. I suspect nothing will be good enough for you.also this seems to be a better look

quote:

---

Because the areas where it needs to be shown that the transition can be done must be in the hard ones unfortunately. .

---

what would you consider a transition? and what needs to be observed to show the relation of two species? As far as Humans and chimps we not only have physical similarities but DNA and embryonic.To be honest it confuses me when people say that isn't evidence. To add to that evidence we also have fossilized Hominid fossils.What else is needed?I will admit our theropod to bird evolution case is not nearly as strong as our human evolution case however it is a strong case based on similarities between multiple species. Yet even human evolution is not seen to be a strong case to you. Most creationists admit "microevolution" happens however when someone says generations upon generations of "microevolution" produce a new "kind" for some odd reason that isn't acceptable when it's the exact same mechanism....Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm afraid I don't find transitional fossils to be compelling evidence at all.

---

do you find the complexity of life as proof of a creator? I know this is off topic however I find important to ask as such and assumption is a far larger stretch.

quote:

---

AbE. I meant here to say that the concept of transitional fossils is good, but that the current evidence in it is what I do not find compelling.

---

what would be compelling evidence? DNA isn't compelling to you. Transitional fossils aren't. ... What do we need to show you?

quote:

---

Maybe I guess. But my point was that if convergent evolution can produce structures in two independant species that are the same even at the DNA level, then there is no way to know if it couldn't have done the same with these introns

---

there is one and we have how many between humans and chimps? Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There exists no half dinosaur/half bird fossils

---

Of course not they would be separate species in a chain of evolution

quote:

---

I have already mentioned that birds appear before their supposed ancestors in the fossil record,

---

This isn't true. They did find an animal that dates to the late Triassic period and theropods existed in the early Triassic. So I do have an issue with the statement. Protoavis is also considered to be a coelurosaurian and not a bird. Which means it was a Triassic theropod . Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

quote:

---

u gave an example of a bird that dates after the therapods. This is not surprising.

​

What I am saying is that there are birds found before the therapods, and so whatever whatever link between the two is found after that does not explain how those earlier birds came to be in the first place.
You gave an example of a bird that dates after the therapods. This is not surprising.

---

please give the example of a bird found before the late triassic... I'd love to see it. Protoavis is the earliest one I know of and it pre-dates Archaeopteryx by almost 60-65 million years. Please show your source. Besides this protavis is no longer thought to have been a bird.Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

I do believe before we continue we should understand the time periods we're talking about.I do believe you need to brush up on the followingPermian
Triassic
Jurassic
CretaceousThese are very important to this discussion before you keep spouting about proto feathers and the lack of insulation. please try to understand. the climates of the time periods and that these animals most likely didn't go jumping into lakes. Notice how hair has some of the same problems? I wonder why cats have fur and why whales and seals have far shorter and less of it.I'd also like to submit yet another transitional animal. Please tell me if the following is a Mammal or if it is a reptile. This Animal lived during the late permian and early Triassic Edited by DC85, : No reason given.Edited by DC85, : spelling error

So even though climates and earth formations are an important part of evolution I shouldn't use the enivonment the animal lived in to to explain? my point was the Jurrassic period was very different then it is today

it keeps changing and they're debated. The more they find the more diverse they seem to be. The line is sketchy just as the line between birds are. This is a wonderful example of diversity and evolution