Summations Only

Wow!
I didn't realize that the TOE included such a claim.

I would venture to guess that you are the one that needs a lesson in probability theory. Do you really think you have destroyed the TOE in a way that no one has ever thought of in the past? Do you not realize that if you in fact have overturned the TOE you would be internationally famous and win at least one Nobel prize.

So you got nothing?Present your argument or move along. None of us want to waste time pandering to you.

Since you seem to be having trouble with basic science here is an explanation geared to high school level.

quote:

---

If birds evolved from dinosaurs, would that make them reptiles too?

​

Yes, birds are reptiles, but let me explain a bit. Biologists use two types of classification systems, the Linnaean and the phylogenetic. The Linnaean system was developed by Carolus Linnaeus in the 1730's. In the Linnaean system, organisms are grouped by characteristics regardless of their ancestry. So a reptile is an animal that is ectothermic and has scales, and birds would not be reptiles. In the 1940's, a biologist named Willi Hennig came up with another classification system that he called phylogenetics. In this system, organisms are grouped only by their ancestry, and characteristics are only used to discover the ancestry. So a reptile is any animal descended from the original group called reptiles, and birds (as well as mammals) would be reptiles.
Usually what people mean when they say birds are reptiles is that birds are more closely related to reptiles than anything else, and this is true in a way, but there are many types of reptiles. Birds are most closely related to crocodiles. To understand this, we should look at some history. The first groups of reptiles evolved about 300 million years ago. About 40 million years later, (very quickly by geologic standards), a group of reptiles called therapsids branched off, which eventually became modern mammals. Other groups of reptiles split off over the next 120 million years, and one branch called the dinosaurs were very successful. These dinosaurs were only distantly related to modern snakes, lizards, and turtles, groups that had split off at different times. But 65 million years ago there was a massive extinction event, and all dinosaurs were killed except for a single group of feathered dinosaurs. These evolved over the next 65 million years into modern birds. So birds aren't just closely related to dinosaurs, they really are dinosaurs! This is what most people mean when they say that birds are reptiles, although technically according to the phylogenetic system mammals are also reptiles.
You may wonder why biologists have two systems of classification. One reason, of course, is the history behind them, but they are also both useful in their own ways. The phylogenetic system is useful for understanding the relationships between animals, whle the Linnaean system is more useful for understanding how animals live. It's sort of like cooking. If you organized all your ingredients phylogenetically, you would put everything that was made from peanuts on the same shelf. Then you could see that peanut butter, peanut oil, and peanut brittle are related to each other. But when you really want to cook, you would use something like the Linnaean system and put all your oils together, all your dry goods together, etc. So both systems have their uses.

---

Birds, Dinosaurs, and Reptiles | Ask A Biologist

I don't give a rats ass about your probability argument you refuse to divulge. I was commenting on the strawman you made in the post I responded to.

Still waiting for you to present your argument.Yawn!Still not sure you even know what the TOE is.
Because transforming reptiles into birds is not part of it as far as I can tell.
Do you think it claims humans transformed from chimps or monkey?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

I have a problem with his simplistic statement that reptiles transformed into birds. I guess technically it is correct but he seems to be trying to confuse the issue by using term reptiles instead of dinosaurs. The idea of common ancestor seems to be lost on him.

Why?

Well thats embarrassing. For you. Only took me one minute using the google.

quote:

---

Last year, scientists announced the discovery in Siberia of Kulindadromeus, a small, 150 million-year-old, plant-eating dinosaur that had both scales and feathers. The finding of such an ancient plumage prompted the group to speculate that a fuzzy coating of feathers may have been the rule for dinosaurs rather than the exception. Some artists have run with the idea and drawn up depictions of giant feathered brontosaurs.

---

Most dinosaurs had scales, not feathers, fossil analysis concludes | Science | The GuardianSo according to you there was no evolution from single cell to muticell creatures?

I wonder if he could calculate the odds of the one particular raindrop hitting me on the head this morning. I mean they must be astronomical.

Isn't he just repackaging a bizarre amalgamation of the Junkyard tornado and Behe's irreducible complexity arguments?

Do you think the TOE states birds descended from modern reptiles?Edited by Theodoric, : Reword question

How many genes must be transformed to make this change?
What is the limit of the number of genes that could allow the transformation?

So your answer to these questions is?
I mean really they are simple questions. You have made it very clear that you have figured this all out therefore you must know the answers.
Sorry but that you have a dead link that asserts something doesn't cut it.
Is the answer for the first question 8 or not?
You know the math, are you saying you don't know the answer for the second question?

No you did not answer whether you are YEC. If you did please reference post. But easier just to answer again. Unless you want to hide something.If RMNS cannot explain dinosaurs evolving to birds, what does?Can RMNS explain any evolution from one species to another?How do you explain that there are birds? How did they come to exist?