1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
'''Birds''' are normally feathered and flying [[animal]]s. [[Ostrich]]es, [[penguin]]s, and [[emu]]s are birds that don't fly. [[Robin]]s, [[sparrow]]s, and the [[Bald Eagle]] are more typical flying birds. Birds lay [[egg]]s and often have beaks.
== Creationists' Perspective ==
[[Creationism|Creationists]] also contend that birds being descendants of [[dinosaur]]s is unreasonable and is also not scientifically supported with any evidence.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref> We just don't know.
In addition, creationists cite the current online World Book Encyclopedia which states:
"No fossil of any such birdlike [[reptile]] has yet been found." <ref>http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes</ref><ref>http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/dinosaurs/creatures_birds</ref>
Creationist scientist Dr. [[Jonathon Safarti]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the [[dino-to-bird]] advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-[[crocodile]]s. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
</blockquote>
The Apostle Matthew notes that:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."
</blockquote>
Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:
''“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."'' <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html</ref>
Creationists also cite the March 2003 issue of [[Scientific American]] which stated:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers'''...." <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp</ref><ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF</ref>
</blockquote>
Creationist also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp</ref>
==Scientific Viewpoint==
Some scientists assert that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs over 100 million years ago. There are many well known transitional [[fossil]]s to prove this. The best known (and one argued as fake by creationists despite there being 10 different fossils found at different times) is ''Archaeopteryx lithographica'' which is from the late Jurassic (about 150 million years ago) of Germany. However, ''Archaeopteryx'' fossils have been proven to be real as a result of studies<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html</ref>. There are many other transitional fossils <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird</ref> and more are being found.
There are many publishings in the well respected peer-reviewed science journals such as ''Nature'' and ''Science'' that also agree with birds evolving from dinosaurs. Here is a publishing in Nature:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Several features, including a carinate sternum and reduced fibula, suggest that ''Mononychus olecranus'' is more closely related to modern birds than is ''Archaeopteryx lithographica''. The two skeletons are among the best preserved fossils known of a primitive bird, and emphasize the complexity of the morphological transformation from nonavialian theropods to modern birds. The occurrence of such a primitive bird in the Late Cretaceous reflects the paucity of Mesozoic bird fossils and suggests that the early radiation of avialians is only beginning to be sampled
<ref>Nature 362, 623 - 626 (15 April 1993)</ref>
</blockquote>
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Birds]]
== Creationists' Perspective ==
[[Creationism|Creationists]] also contend that birds being descendants of [[dinosaur]]s is unreasonable and is also not scientifically supported with any evidence.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref> We just don't know.
In addition, creationists cite the current online World Book Encyclopedia which states:
"No fossil of any such birdlike [[reptile]] has yet been found." <ref>http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes</ref><ref>http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/dinosaurs/creatures_birds</ref>
Creationist scientist Dr. [[Jonathon Safarti]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the [[dino-to-bird]] advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-[[crocodile]]s. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
</blockquote>
The Apostle Matthew notes that:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."
</blockquote>
Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:
''“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."'' <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html</ref>
Creationists also cite the March 2003 issue of [[Scientific American]] which stated:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers'''...." <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp</ref><ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF</ref>
</blockquote>
Creationist also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp</ref>
==Scientific Viewpoint==
Some scientists assert that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs over 100 million years ago. There are many well known transitional [[fossil]]s to prove this. The best known (and one argued as fake by creationists despite there being 10 different fossils found at different times) is ''Archaeopteryx lithographica'' which is from the late Jurassic (about 150 million years ago) of Germany. However, ''Archaeopteryx'' fossils have been proven to be real as a result of studies<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html</ref>. There are many other transitional fossils <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird</ref> and more are being found.
There are many publishings in the well respected peer-reviewed science journals such as ''Nature'' and ''Science'' that also agree with birds evolving from dinosaurs. Here is a publishing in Nature:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Several features, including a carinate sternum and reduced fibula, suggest that ''Mononychus olecranus'' is more closely related to modern birds than is ''Archaeopteryx lithographica''. The two skeletons are among the best preserved fossils known of a primitive bird, and emphasize the complexity of the morphological transformation from nonavialian theropods to modern birds. The occurrence of such a primitive bird in the Late Cretaceous reflects the paucity of Mesozoic bird fossils and suggests that the early radiation of avialians is only beginning to be sampled
<ref>Nature 362, 623 - 626 (15 April 1993)</ref>
</blockquote>
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Birds]]