There's been some misinformation going around on this thread which has been a partial cause for some really inane sub-discussions, so I thought I'd step in to provide some clarification.
Dinosaurs vs Reptiles
Dinosaurs are reptiles. The word "reptile" traditionally referred to every kind of four-legged animal except mammals and birds. So, it included lizards, snakes, turtles, frogs, salamanders, crocodilians and dinosaurs. It actually turns out to be an evolutionarily meaningless term, so science generally avoids using it as a technical term.
Science more often will use the evolutionarily meaningful term “amniote.” The word "amniote" refers to a vertebrate that lays eggs with an amnion, which is a membrane that protects the egg from drying out. This includes all vertebrates except fish and amphibians. So, birds, mammals, crocodilians, lizards, snakes and dinosaurs are all amniotes. Note that mammals no longer lay eggs, but still have an amnion surrounding the embryo as it develops.
There are three kinds of amniotes: anapsids, synapsids and diapsids.
Anapsids are probably extinct, although there are still some scientists who think turtles are anapsids.
Synapsids include mammals and various groups that are truly intermediary between mammals and reptiles, such as pelycosaurs, gorgonopsids and cynodonts.
Diapsids include lizards, snakes, alligators, dinosaurs, and birds (among others). Most scientists also think turtles belong here.
Within the diapsids, there are two main groups: lepidosaurs and archosaurs. The lepidosaurs (this word means "scaly reptiles") include lizards, snakes, tuataras and amphisbaenians. The archosaurs (this word means “ruling reptiles”) include dinosaurs, crocodilians, birds, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs and some others. I don't actually know where turtles fit in here: I think they are considered to be a third group, neither lepidosaurs or archosaurs.
ASIDE: Peg, please note that the word “sauros”---which literally translates to “lizard”---is taken to mean “reptile,” not “lizard,” even though this is not the classical usage of the word. Scientific Latin/Greek is not really Latin/Greek, but is a constructed system of naming things that is derived from Latin and Greek and used as a convenient way to invent new systematic words. There is a healthy dose of artistic license taken in coining scienfitic terms, and there are conventions that protect scientific terminology to keep it stable through the years and facilitate communication, even when new data reveals semantic issues. So always take the literal meanings of scientific Latin/Greek terms with a grain of salt.
You’ll note that crocodilians are considered to be more closely related to dinosaurs than they are to lizards or snakes. Euparkeria looks a lot like a crocodilian because both crocodilians and dinosaurs evolved from an organism that was very similar to Euparkeria. In fact, for the purpose of this discussion, we can go ahead pretend that Euparkeria was the ancestor of both crocodilians and dinosaurs, because, even if it isn’t a direct ancestor, it is very close to their common ancestor.
However, it should be noted that Euparkeria is quite different from lizards or snakes. Its ankle joints are archosaur-like, and it seems to have had upright or semi-upright limbs, as Dr Adequate illustrated earlier.
ASIDE: Buzsaw, it is thus ridiculous to argue that lizards are degenerate dinosaurs (and I’m rather certain that “torsal” is not a word: perhaps you meant “dorsum”?). Furthermore, in arguing that reptiles and dinosaurs are similar animals, you are not presenting anything that’s a problem for evolution. Evolutionary biologists and palaeontologists are well aware of the similarities, and have, in fact, organized these animals into groups based on these similarites, the results of which look like the nested hierarchy we expect from our Theory of Evolution. So, from our perspective, ToE is more realistic than Genesis.
The Word “Reptile”
Different people consider the word “reptile” to properly refer to a different grouping of animals. Most people think it only refers to scaly, cold-blooded diapsids (lizards, snakes, turtles, crocodilians and dinosaurs). Some, however, like to use it to refer to all diapsids, such that it also includes birds. I even know some who think it should only refer to lepidosaurs, and exclude turtles and crocodilians. Personally, I simply prefer to avoid the word altogether.
But Bluejay, your two word terms, misinformation and clarification are relative to your secularistic con-ID premise from which you extrapolate from observed evidence. I have demonstrated that your premise is no more falsifiable than the ID premise as per the Genesis record.
I’m confused as to why you’re the one complaining about this when it’s the evolutionists on this thread that I am accusing of spreading misinformation. My message was a correction of some things said by evolutionists that resulted in a really weird and confusing discussion about the differences between reptiles and dinosaurs.
One of the problems with your premise as to what happened to the dinos is that all (I say all) of the dinosaur species disappeard exclusively of the other reptiles which co-existed with the dinos.
Can you explain for me what you mean by this? I am currently under the impression that (1) dinosaurs can go extinct without causing my worldview any problems and (2) the coexistence of dinosaurs with the types of animals that survived the dinosaur extinction is strong evidence that these animals are not the same as dinosaurs.
Again, Bluejay, neither you or any other evolutionist is ever going to acknowledge evidence of a higher intelligence if you were wading knee deep in it.
It seems like I have to remind you in every thread that I’m a Mormon. I would be quite happy to acknowledge evidence for God’s existence if it could be shown to be genuine.
Can you try to remember this for next time, please?
...the evidence of resemblences lends support to my extrapolation from the Genesis premise more so than the evolution premise.
I contest this claim. Resemblances between different types of organisms is literally the hallmark of evolution. Just like people who are related typically look alike, so do related species of organisms look alike.
I have read Genesis many times in my life, and I’m not sure what part of that book is in any way supported by animals of different species showing hallmarks of relatedness with other species.
My position is not that the degenerate types are one and the same as the dinos. They are vastly different by design, due to the curse, nevertheless co-existing with their dino parents and precursed dinos.
So, you believe that lizards look like lizards today because of the curse. But, they also looked like lizards before the curse, when they coexisted with dinosaurs?
This is my understanding of what you’re writing. It directly contradicts itself, and I therefore find it unsatisfactory.
You are welcome to show me what I’ve misunderstood, but this really seems to be what you’re saying.
I can't, for the life of me, understand how a professed theist can deny ID...
Theism is a personal belief that I have always had since I was a child. The empirical evidence I have seen in the world around me currently seems to contradict my personal beliefs in several ways. I am not ready to fully reject my personal belief in deity yet, because I do not feel that it has been entirely ruled out, but it would be dishonest and irrational of me to let my personal beliefs overrule real evidence.
Sure, it seems so bizarre for a person to go against their own gut feelings and impressions, but this is what honest pursuit of knowledge requires. I’d like to think I’m getting better at it as I go, but only time will tell how well I’ve learned my lessons.
Nobody responded to an obvious point here, probably because there were too many obvious points to respond to, and nobody thought it was that important, but I still feel like this needs to be said:
Your problem remains: why did the alleged Ice Age allegedly render exclusively the dinos extinct, leaving the other co-existing reptiles alive and well to flourish and survive. That is your position. No?
The dinosaurs did not go extinct in an ice age. The Ice Ages were something that happened within the past 2 to 3 million years, and the most recent one ended just at the edge of recorded human history.
The dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, more than 60 million years before the Ice Ages. They were killed in some sort of catastrophic event, most commonly attributed to an asteroid collision.
I didn't want you to go away from this thinking our ignoring this issue meant we believed that dinosaurs were killed in the Ice Age.
As I have explained repeatedly, the parent cursed dinos would not have been zapped, but their egg genes were altered so that the hatched offspring became the shorty type reptiles.
Let me see if I can put this together now.
You say that, before the Fall, reptiles were giants, like dinosaurs.
Then, because one of them tempted Eve, they were cursed to become "belly-crawlers" (i.e., lizards and snakes).
But, it wasn't them, exactly, that were cursed: rather, it was their offspring.
So, after the dinosaurs were cursed, their offspring hatched, not into dinosaurs, but into lizards and snakes.
Then, since the original dinosaurs had not yet died, they coexisted with the lizards and snakes until the Flood killed the last of the dinosaurs.
In your view, this explains why we find lizards and snakes and dinosaurs together in the fossil record, and explains why there are no more dinosaurs.
What if I could show you a baby dinosaur that coexisted with lizards and snakes? Wouldn't this prove that dinosaurs were giving birth to dinosaurs when they were supposed to be giving birth to "belly-crawlers," and therefore defeat your argument?
Zen, the fall, according to the Genesis curse account, i.e. non-dino types would not have existed until the time of the curse when the existing dinos laid their eggs. All embryos from then on would be non-dino types.
Except, I can present you with dinosaur eggs that contain dinosaur embryos at the time of the Flood. This source (you may need a paying subscription, but a citation is provided below) shows many dinosaur eggs, one of which contains a dinosaur embryo, dated to a short time before the K-T/Flood.
Within that paper, we find this quote:
quote:In addition to over 300 mammal and lizard skulls, 20 theropod skeletons (including several adult and juvenile oviraptorids), and many protoceratopsian and ankylosaurid dinosaurs discovered at this locality, at least five types of eggs were found. Many of these were arranged in nests. One egg, from a heavily weathered nest, contains the nearly complete skeleton of an embryonic oviraptorid dinosaur. Also among the broken eggshell fragments in this nest were two tiny skulls (~5 cm long) of a dromaeosaurid theropod, one preserved with eggshell adhering to it.
Dinosaur embryos developing in dinosaur eggs, and newly-hatched dinosaur young, with lizards found nearby, all dated to the same age, is sufficient evidence to disprove your notion that all dinosaurs were cursed to give birth to lizards at some point in history.
Citation: Norell MA et al. (1994). A theropod dinosaur embryo and the affinities of the Flaming Cliffs dinosaur eggs. Science 266 (5186): 779-782.
But it is amusing to see creationists fall back on some form of hyper-evolution to explain the shortfalls in their conjectures, whether its diversification of post flood 'kinds' or dinosaurs becoming snakes.
Buzsaw isn't arguing hyper-evolution: he's arguing that dinosaurs were transformed into snakes by a divine curse, which is very consistent in its appeal to supernatural and avoidance of any evolutionary mechanisms.
What most creos dont get is that even finding a tyrannosaurs Rex living somewhere in the jungle would not put the slightest dent in the theory of evolution.
If we found a species from the Cretaceous in the modern world, it probably would be quite a problem for the Theory of Evolution, given that current views of evolution aren't very friendly toward the idea of a single species living unchanged for 65 million years.
But, your general point is right, of course. Finding a tyrannosaur, or some relative of Tyrannosaurus rex would not be a problem for ToE to cover.