Dinosaurs and man lived together, which destroys the theory of evolution

Buz, quit throwing around the term 'obfuscate' - it is making you seem very childish, in my opinion. (And shouldn't be coming from someone repeatedly dishing out arguments about reptile-bird evolution, which seems to me to be a gross obfuscation of the dino-bird and dino-reptile evolution arguments at hand.)In reconsideration you may realize that I've made no argument yet about the images I presented - I simply asked for your opinion.Perhaps the fact that you seem flustered is that you see similarities between bird and dino not present in the gator. Truthfully, you could have easily argued differences between dino and bird, but you haven't done that... I think others have explain to you why this is an oversimplification. ALSO, if you want to follow this method of comparison, you logically need to include "if any of these bird's legs were cropped..."Besides, my assumption was that you would include 'leg cropping' in your analysis, not discount the images entirely because their legs are intact. Check my revised post which now includes a T.Rex skeleton.Feel free to imagine the skeletons as legless if you wish.What are your impressions?

Obviously, the alligator would be most like the dinosaur.But that's not the point under discussion. The point is not whether modern reptiles most resemble birds or dinosaurs - according to the evolutionary models, they needs must be most similar to dinosaurs - but rather, whether dinosaurs most resemble birds or modern reptiles.And the answer, of course, is that they resemble birds the most. Nobody's "obfuscating" your position, here, except for you. You keep asking a question that has nothing to do with what you're arguing - the fact that reptiles are more similar to dinosaurs than birds has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that dinosaurs are more similar to birds than reptiles - just like the fact that 1 is closer to 8 than to 9 has nothing to do with the fact that 8 is closer to 9 than to 1.

1. Tell it to Schrafinator and Percy. They're the ones who accuse me of obfuscating so I'm purposefully using the word where it fits with my counterparts to show them and others whom they've poisoned about my posting conduct and just who's doing the obfuscating. So PS, if you don't want me using it, don't do it to me. Cut and paste in such a manner that it is clear what I said in the statement you are purporting to be responding to.2. I am not an evolutionist and am not debating the evolution of anything. If you go back and read, you'll see that as a fundamental Biblical creationist I have presented an hypothesis concerning when created dino lived, what happened to dino and that imo, dino was the pre-cursed Edenic serpent of Genesis 3. By presenting this hypothesis, it is my contention that this is the best explanation for 1st millenial AD people to have had enough knowledge handed down about how dino looked to be able to creat a fairly, I say fairly good petroglyphic image of the creature since Noah's family, eye witnesses of the beasts would have passed that information down.Had dino evolved and been long extinct as most evos believe to be the case, they/you have a far less sensible explanation for the petroglyphics than my hypothesis offers. 1. My hypothesis calls for a belly crawling creature. Bird doesn't fit the ticket. Now you people, my counterparts are arguing that bird, not modern reptile more resembles dino in order to debunk my hypothesis. I regard neither bird nor modern reptile as having evolved from dino. The dino/bird, dino/modern reptile thing I've gotten drawn into by you, my counterparts is to debunk so my only purpose in talking about bird is to show that bird and dino are not as alike as modern reptile and dino which are both, in view of the majority, reptiles and whereas birds are not and never have been regarded as reptiles by anyone so far as I am aware.2. Say what? Go back and read the nine or so points where gator, not bird resemble dino. That means bird and dino are different in most of these points except for one or two where both apply to some extent. Your skeletal dwawing does not show things like feathers, hide/skin, organs, flight, etc which are equally as important as appearance of the skeleton. So as to not loose my posted work I will go ahead and post this much and then go back an take a look at your revision.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-22-2004 08:12 PM

Ok, CF, I see where I've messed up. Thanks! I've unintentionally obfuscated to an extent here in this statement myself. {I did state in the obfuscating thread that we all do it to some extent, including myself.} My sincere apologies to all. Instead of would gator most resemble these or any given bird, the phrase should read as stated below. Though this obfuscative wording of mine obscured the comparison to some extent, it did little to change the outcome of the debated positions. I believe I have effectively shown that dino most resembles modern reptile than bird. I have shown, as well, that the notion that dinos were not reptile is a a minority view. Your argument equates reptile to bird whereas mine equates reptile to reptile.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-22-2004 08:44 PM

Imo, you remove the colored in stuff, leaving only the skeleton as with gator, T-Rex wins hands down, especially adjusting his neck and legs to a belly crawler.

Hell, while we're at it, propose that dinosaurs were cold-blooded, had two extra toes, and non-calciferous eggs.I mean, yes. If you imagine dinosaurs having the traits that reptiles have, then, not so surprisingly, they're more like reptiles than birds.But dinosaurs aren't like that. Dinosaurs, left just as they are, are more like birds than they are like dinosaurs. Where? Everybody knows what a reptile is - a polyphyletic, arbitrary organization of tetrapods with five toes (when they have any at all), are ectothermic, have leathery, non-calciferous eggs, and three-chambered hearts. At the very least, everybody agrees that reptiles are cold-blooded and five-toed.Dinosaurs don't have any of that. You might just as well claim that mammals are reptiles; they're about as similar. Hell, a mammal is just a lizard with fur and tits.

Well, CF, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There's many who argue this dino/bird hypothesis both ways. Here's a link which goes into the history of this hypothesis at quite great length. Near the end of the study is this conclusion: - On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds -

This is hilarious! *edit change reptile to lizard, even funnier.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-22-2004 11:05 PM

Even if the dinosaur/bird phylogeny is in dispute, the taxonomic similarities, including those I have described, are not.At any rate, I find this rather rich coming from the guy promulgating a conjecture supported by neither a literal Biblical reading nor any grounding taxonomic reality.Back to our regularly scheduled topic, I guess.

quote:

---

If you go back and read, you'll see that as a fundamental Biblical creationist I have presented an hypothesis concerning when created dino lived, what happened to dino and that imo, dino was the pre-cursed Edenic serpent of Genesis 3. By presenting this hypothesis, it is my contention that this is the best explanation for 1st millenial AD people to have had enough knowledge handed down about how dino looked to be able to creat a fairly, I say fairly good petroglyphic image of the creature since Noah's family, eye witnesses of the beasts would have passed that information down.

---

Ok, you've presented an hypothesis. Do you have any idea how you're going to to test it?

quote:

---

whereas birds are not and never have been regarded as reptiles by anyone so far as I am aware.

---

The term reptile is invalid unless you include Birds in it. In fact, the term 'reptile' really doesn't mean anything, biologically, anymore.

quote:

---

2. Say what? Go back and read the nine or so points where gator, not bird resemble dino. That means bird and dino are different in most of these points except for one or two where both apply to some extent.

---

I'd say you had the responsibility to address the substantial refutation of those nine points by myself and others before you can again refer us to them as valid arguments.RegardsDarwin Redux

Buzsaw, 1. In fact, only a handful of extant reptiles are larger than extant ratites. Not that I consider size a valid synapomorphy, anyway.2. They all have four limbs. Furthermore, birds & therapods are bipedal. Crocs aren't.3. That most birds can fly does not make them non-terrestrial.4. True, except Archaeopteryx, of course. In any case, "generally" is not good enough.5. False. Non-avian feathered dinos exist. Mononykus Protoarchaeopteryx, & Caudipteryx, to name but three. THis actually represents some of the strongest evidence that birds are closely related to therapods, not archosaurs/crocs.6. Archaeopteryx had teeth, so do some Odontornithes, & some dinosaurs had beaks minus teeth.7. You have no evidence dinos didn't migrate.8. In fact the evidence is that many dinos did make strong use of vocal communication. Large complicated nasal passages inside cranial outgrowths testify to this.9. False. Therapodan legs are almost identical in layout to bird legs. In fact it would be difficult to find two tetrapod leg layouts that could be more different than crocodile/birds.Try again.But when we examine in detail the morphological similarities, birds are nested (pun unintented) firmly in the therapod clade.Birds are most similar to a specific type of dinosaur. You are on a hiding to nothing trying to deny this. See post 109.Just to give one example of why Aves is found in the therapod clade. The furculae, or wishbone to you & I, is found in birds, Dromaeosaurids, Oviraptorids, Tyrannosaurids, Troodontids Coelophysids, & Allosauroids. All of the above are dinosaurs, moreover, they are therapods. Can you name a crocodile/alligator with a furculae?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I consider size as valid a synapomorphy, and as relative to the debate as some of CF's points for his arguments. That doesn't cancel out my point. All limbs are not legs. Of course, but how does that negate my point? All species have flukes. We're talking about by-and-large differences and similarities.5. False. Non-avian feathered dinos exist. Mononykus Protoarchaeopteryx, & Caudipteryx, to name but three. THis actually represents some of the strongest evidence that birds are closely related to therapods, not archosaurs/crocs.I believe no actual feathers were established on mononykus and views like the one below show that it is speculative as to whether these are early ratite birds or dinos. Angelfire - error 404 Again, these are rare oddities. How many dinos had toothless beaks? That, imo, would be highly unlikely, given how few land animals migrate presently, and of course, it would be difficult to migrate any significant distance. Good. That may be a plus for the Biblical record and my hypothesis as well, since it would implicate at least one Edenic dino as communicating with humanity. Likely, though it would be too volumnous for birdlike sounds. I've already addressed this in that the Creator would likely have made some necessary adjustments to compensate for the adjustment to short legged reptiles and snakes.As to the rest of your post, I have not denied some similarities. After all, many varied species have a number of similarities.

That's news to me. In the American West, migratory bison herds were so large that the land would rumble for two days as they passed.Most of the major herd mammals, as I recall, are migratory. Predictably, herd dinosaurs leave evidence of having migrated - footprints, spoor, etc.

Hi DR. I appreciate you patience. I believe my responses to others have fairly well applied to most of your points as well. Much of what you posted is outside of the by-and-large majority within the species discussed. If there's something in particular you want me to address, I'll attend to it another time. Presently I have other matters to attend to.

quote:

---

I consider size as valid a synapomorphy, and as relative to the debate as some of CF's points for his arguments.

---

What basis do you have for this? Size is not a valid synapomorphy. As explained before, the closest relative to the Kiwi (a small flightless bird of New Zealand) is the Ostrich, which measures in at least 5 or 6 times the Kiwi's weight. The closest extant relative of the Elephant is the Hyrax, a small unassuming dog sized creature. Your claim is invalid.

quote:

---

That doesn't cancel out my point. All limbs are not legs.

---

That is true, but the way in which those limbs are used does cancel out your point. Extant aves and the extinct theropods were bipedal - that is, the forelimbs were co-opted or evolved a use other than locomotion. Either they became vestigial, (most likely to allow a balancing of weight between massive skulls and long tails) in the Tyrannosauridae or they were involved in grasping at prey, and eventually flight, in other theropods. In that respect, Theropoda, the clade that gave rise to modern birds, is more similar to modern birds, than it is to extant reptiles.

quote:

---

Of course, but how does that negate my point?

---

Your point was that dinosaurs and reptiles were/are land creatures, while birds are air creatures. The problem with this, as pointed out by several people, is that the majority of birds spend more time on land, or in the trees, than they do on the wing. There are always extremes, yes, such as the migratory sea birds of the polar and temperate regions, that do spend an awful amount of time on the wing, or the Royal Crested Grebe which never sets foot on dry land (spending it's time floating on lakes and rivers, nesting on floating vegetation), but these are the oddities, and have comparable examples in the paraphyletic grouping of 'reptiles' - Numerous species of turtles only come on land to lay eggs, as well as the salt water crocodiles of Northern Australia. Therefore, their use as a valid synapomorphy is moot.

quote:

---

All species have flukes. We're talking about by-and-large differences and similarities

---

Precisely. It is no fluke that theropods possess more morphological characteristics with birds than they do with extant reptiles. You have provided no skeletal synapomorphies shared by the theropods and crocodiliamorphs.

quote:

---

Caudipteryx zouii is a newer find, discovered in the middle of the 1990's in China. It looks like a good missing link, doesn't it? Look closer at the fossil. How many feathers do you see fossilized? The tail feathers and some of the wing feathers, right? Now look at the model. Where are the feathers? On the tail and wings! The body feathers are little protofeather thingys. You see, model constructor wanted the model to look like a missing link, so they only put real feathers where they absolutely had to! If you gave Caudipteryx decent plumage, it would look like a flightless ground-dwelling bird!

---

No-one is claiming that this specimen is either a bird or a theropod. Phylogenetically speaking, all birds are theropods. What you have stumbled across here is an academic question as to a) where Caudipteryx fits into the clade and b) which specimen represents the basal specimen for the avian clade. None of the academics listed dispute that modern extant aves are descended from theropods. They are simply debating the order of things.

quote:

---

That, imo, would be highly unlikely, given how few land animals migrate presently, and of course, it would be difficult to migrate any significant distance.

---

Many modern land mammals do migrate substantial distances, particularly on the grasslands of the Serengeti Plains and in the Mongolian Steppe.

quote:

---

Good. That may be a plus for the Biblical record and my hypothesis as well, since it would implicate at least one Edenic dino as communicating with humanity. Likely, though it would be too volumnous for birdlike sounds.

---

You are backtracking. Your original assertion was that Dinosaurs and Reptiles do not vocalise, and birds do. Now you are asserting that they do vocalise. If you wish your 'hypothesis' to remain credible, find a position and stick with it, rather than shifting the goal posts.Some bird like sounds are very voluminous. For example, the flightless night parrot of New Zealand, the Kakapo Strigops habroptilus booms during mating season at low frequencies that travel up to 7km. How is that not voluminous?RegardsDarwin ReduxThis message has been edited by Darwin Redux, 10-23-2004 07:30 PMThis message has been edited by Darwin Redux, 10-23-2004 07:32 PM