Interesting find that further shows the relation between dinosaurs and birds

[Greg Jennings]

*

Explain to me what the difference is between reptilia and aves... then, you have your answer. Are you arguing that some dinosaurs may be incorrectly classified?*

It's pretty hard to tell where one begins and the other ends, yes. I think some might be incorrectly classified. You're failing to see my point: there is no need for a hard boundary between reptiles and birds in the ToE. It should be what we see - fluid, transitional species that are extremely hard to call one way or the other. Another example would be the therapsids of the Triassic, which are nearly perfect blends of reptilian and mammalian characteristics (hair, live birth, reptilian skull/jaw/ear canal, reptile limbs, etc)

However, this is a MASSIVE problem for your "kinds" definition. Your biblical creation model demands clear divisions between all animal "kinds". This division isn't supported by the fossil record. Birds don't come along until long after therapods had been around, and they closely resemble winged dinosaurs in every single way.

* Actually, its quite useful if we are dicussing Biblical context. It is much more specific than rubbery words such as 'species'. Google- Species Problem "The*species problem*is the set of questions that arises when*biologists*attempt to define what a*species*is.

If "kinds" is useful, then it should be useful. Except for you can't use it scientifically, because it's a useless term.

Species is rubbery because new species branch from older species, and the line where one ends and another begins is very blurry. Hence why it takes so long for two species that come from a recent common ancestor to reproductively diverge

 

[Jonahdog]

Greg: 6 days still wants to find a crocaduck.

 

[6days]

*It's pretty hard to tell where one begins and the other ends, yes. I think some might be incorrectly classified.

Then we are in agreement. The fossil mentioned in the OP may be a bird like archaeopteryx.

You're failing to see my point: there is no need for a hard boundary between reptiles and birds in the ToE.

Evolutionism REQUIRES that there is no boundaries. That is why evolutionists try so hard to find transitionals, often making illogical arguments.*

It should be what we see - fluid, transitional species that are extremely hard to call one way or the other.

So where is your crocaducks...Jonahdog wants one.

*Like Gould said, the fossils that even might be considered as transitional are extremely rare. It's impossible to determine if anything is actually transitional...its a belief.

However, this is a MASSIVE problem for your "kinds" definition. Your biblical creation model demands clear divisions between all animal "kinds".

Once again...that is your MASSIVE strawman. *

. ..Birds don't come along until long after therapods had been around...

Actually...birds were created one day before the land animals.*

If "kinds" is useful, then it should be useful. Except for you can't use it scientifically, because it's a useless term.

Again... a strawman. What I said its that its useful in Biblical context.

Species is rubbery because new species branch from older species, and the line where one ends and another begins is very blurry. Hence why it takes so long for two species that come from a recent common ancestor to reproductively diverge

It often takes very little time for 'species' to diverge. The Biblical model is rapid adaptation.*http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?t=110849