Real Science Friday: Many Modern Birds Found in Dinosaur Layers

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Of course it does. You cannot simply push back dates and change ideas and expect the theory to remain as strong as it was.

You are mistaken. Evolution isn't a monolithic "All or None" explanation, it doesn't claim to be infallible or even complete, and the actual dates and order that one class or genus diverges from another, has no bearing on whether the diversity of life is due to accumulated biological variation over time. That Neornithes arose 65 million years ago as opposed to 55 million years ago, does nothing to cast any doubt that Evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life we see today. Evolution like all scientific explanations is tentative and open to re-evaluation based on new evidence. It's a self-correcting process, that becomes more accurate with time.

 

[Cricket]

You are mistaken.

I am? They were your words!

That Neornithes arose 65 million years ago as opposed to 55 million years ago, does nothing to cast any doubt that Evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life we see today.

Well, I wasn't talking about this.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I am? They were your words!

I don't recall saying:

You cannot simply push back dates and change ideas and expect the theory to remain as strong as it was.

Well, I wasn't talking about this.

What were you talking about?

 

[Cricket]

the prevailing explanation was that the catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs is what caused Modern Birds (Neorithes) to evolve the way they did. Now we are force to rethink that explanation that we have found modern birds before the mass extinction event.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Yes, and Like I said it doesn't really present any problem to the overall veracity of Evolutionary Theory, the OP was presenting it as if it did, and using it to advance his own pseudoscience. This is what I was concerned with.

 

[Cricket]

Yes, and Like I said it doesn't really present any problem to the overall veracity of Evolutionary Theory, the OP was presenting it as if it did, and using it to advance his own pseudoscience. This is what I was concerned with.

When evidence overturns ideas produced by a theory, yes it is a problem for the theory.

tt

 

[Alate_One]

When evidence overturns ideas produced by a theory, yes it is a problem for the theory.

tt

There's a difference between minor aspects of a theory and the theory itself.

The question is not "did birds evolve from a reptilian ancestor?", it's when and from which one.

I know the murder took place, I know who did it, I know the weapon but I may not have the timeline down to the second.

Does that suddenly make the murderer innocent?

 

[Cricket]

There's a difference between minor aspects of a theory and the theory itself.

The question is not "did birds evolve from a reptilian ancestor?", it's when and from which one.

I know the murder took place, I know who did it, I know the weapon but I may not have the timeline down to the second.

Does that suddenly make the murderer innocent?

In our case, the timeline was adjusted which meant the murder weapon was not the one we thought. Yes we should reconsider carefully the guilt of the murderer.
tt

 

[Memento Mori]

In our case, the timeline was adjusted which meant the murder weapon was not the one we thought. Yes we should reconsider carefully the guilt of the murderer.
tt

It's a factor of 15%. It's the equivalent of moving the murder back 9 minutes when you're certain of the hour of the murder.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

When evidence overturns ideas produced by a theory, yes it is a problem for the theory.

tt

It's a problem for those overturned ideas, it presents no challenge to the theory itself. This objection is just silly.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

He is essentially saying, "They were off on the origin of Neornithes by 15%, therefore they must not have evolved at all, the whole theory is in crisis!"

It's a senseless objection. Desperation to replace it with creationism leads him to jump to drastic conclusions.

 

[User Name]

Interesting video on the topic:

Jack Horner Meets a Dinosaur

​

Some highlights:

* Modern birds are thought to have been descended from ancient dinosaurs. Virtually every characteristic possessed by modern birds was also shared by their dinosaur ancestors. For example, birds and their ancestral dinosaurs both use(d) "one-way breathing," meaning that they inhale and exhale simultaneously. Dino bones were hollow, and bird bones are hollow. The notable differences between modern birds and their ancestral dinosaurs include flight and flight feathers, size (modern birds are smaller), and some other specialized characteristics.

* It turns out that modern birds have atavistic genes, i.e., "ancestral genes," that have been turned off over time by proteins and/or other factors. Some of these ancestral dinosaur genes have been found and turned on again. For example, modern birds are descended from an ancestor that had teeth (although birds have lost the gene for the production tooth enamel). By turning on certain ancestral genes, researchers have grown teeth in birds. They have also used this process to change the bird's beak growth to that of a dinosaur snout.

Ancestral genes are strong evidence for the evolution of modern birds from ancestral dinosaurs.