Changes

Birds are normally feathered and flying animals. Ostriches, penguins, and emus are birds that don't fly. Robins, sparrows, and the Bald Eagle are more typical flying birds.  Birds lay [[egg]]s.

'''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 ==

== 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>

Creationists also contend that birds being descendants of dinosaurs 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>

 

In addition, creationists cite the current online World Book Encyclopedia which states:

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>

"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>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

<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-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!  

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>

<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

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>

''“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:

Creationists also cite the March 2003 issue of Scientific American which stated:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

</blockquote>

</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>

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>

==Science==

==Science==

Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs over 100 million years ago.  There are many well known transitional fossils 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. There are many other transitional fossils <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird</ref> and more are being found.

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. 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:

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;">

<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

''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>

<ref>Nature 362, 623 - 626 (15 April 1993)</ref>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>