Is anatomy the evidence that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds? No!

On another forum the claim was strongly put that the anatomy of theropod dinosaurs was so similiar to moderrn birdds that its excellent evidence for birds to have evolved from dinosaurs. So some evolutionists  say birds today are really the end game of dinosaur evolution.

yEC say birds wewre created in their kinds on creation week and were on the ark in kinds. So were creatures we call dinosaurs and so these theropod ones.

So its impossible birds evolved from theropod dinos.

The only evidence they have is the anatomy of theropods . Some say they had feathers.

I have another hypothesis. That it is only a convergence of bone structures(anatamy) for the same needs. It is not that these dinos have bird bones but thart birds don’t have bird bones. they both only have bones to join body with physics. the theropods needed to be liught on their feet and the only answer is size and structure of bones to allow this. birds have the same need and so have the same bones. Yet its physics that determoines the bone structure and not a biological ancestry. there is no ancestry. they were created in whole right away. Perfect. its just the right and only conclusion .

This theme is common in nature. in fact i deny their are dinosaurs as a group. they are just kinds of creatures that might have some like traits. likewise no mammal or reptile group.

The theropods would be a later adaptation but they had the same problems and needs. to move quickly with light bodies. Variety’s might become big like our ostriches but special cases.

the point here is that classifying biology by likeness is not demanding as a conclusion. Convergence is a great theme in biology and so neither theropods or birds have bird bones. they just have suitable bones for like needs but never evolved from each other.

 

30 thoughts on “Is anatomy the evidence that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds? No!

  1. yEC say birds wewre created in their kinds on creation week and were on the ark in kinds.

    I say they were not. Stalemate!

  2. It is not that these dinos have bird bones but thart birds don’t have bird bones

    And thus another immortal Byersism was penned.

  3. petrushka:
    My son had a sixth grade teacher who said snakes don’t have bones. Perhaps she also taught Robert.

    It is a given that evolutionists don’t have spines

  4. Why don’t bats have the bones that birds do? Or feathers? Or the better lungs that birds have?

    Just the general questions that any creationist/IDist should explain (evolution certainly does), but can’t. Byers gives their “answer,” because he doesn’t seem to realize how pathetic it sounds.

    Glen Davidson

  5. GlenDavidson:
    Why don’t bats have the bones that birds do?Or feathers?Or the better lungs that birds do?

    Just the general questions that any creationist/IDist should explain (evolution certainly does), but can’t.Byers gives their “answer,” because he doesn’t seem to realize how pathetic it sounds.

    Glen Davidson

    How does evolutionism explain bats and birds seeing that you don’t have a mechanism capable of producing them?

  6. Frankie: How does evolutionism explain bats and birds seeing that you don’t have a mechanism capable of producing them?

    Joey wanna cracker?

  7. TristanM:
    Tell me Byers, is Archaeopteryx a “bird” or a “dinosaur”?How do you know?

    Its not the point. these fossils are too vague to make conclusions.
    Anyways its not the point. its about anatomy and physics in league to make results in biology.

  8. GlenDavidson:
    Why don’t bats have the bones that birds do?Or feathers?Or the better lungs that birds have?

    Just the general questions that any creationist/IDist should explain (evolution certainly does), but can’t.Byers gives their “answer,” because he doesn’t seem to realize how pathetic it sounds.

    Glen Davidson

    bats are a post flood adaptation of a rat thing to the air. Again its physics plus limited options in the biology.
    The theropod was created as a light creature and then adaptation would enlarge on this. So it had nowhere to go but to decrease bone density and shape in order to move quick on the ground. it was very quick as they had great tails for helping change direction as i understand.
    yet these like bones are not proof of common descent. Just common design principals which is common in biology and physics.

  9. Robert Byers: bats are a post flood adaptation of a rat thing to the air.

    But we have bat fossils from approx. 50 MYA which all YECs say were buried in the Flood. How could bats be buried in the Flood sediment if they didn’t evolve until after the Flood? Isn’t a “rat thing” evolving wings from legs an example of macro-evolution?

  10. TristanM: Because the question was directed at Robert Byers and my name is name is not “Robert Byers”.

    OK, so you can’t answer the question. Figures

  11. I’ve been working on the theme “How God did it” for a while now… I was thinking of posting it here… I changed my mind now….

  12. J-Mac:
    I’ve been working on the theme “How God did it” for a while now… I was thinking of posting it here… I changed my mind now….

    We’ll wait for the movie

  13. Frankie: OK, so you can’t answer the question. Figures

    I’m not obligated to answer my own question for anyone. What part of the question being directed at a certain individual do you find it particularly difficult to understand?

  14. Adapa: But we have bat fossils from approx. 50 MYA which all YECs say were buried in the Flood.How could bats be buried in the Flood sediment if they didn’t evolve until after theFlood?Isn’t a “rat thing” evolving wings from legs an example of macro-evolution?

  15. For this , and many but not all, YEC the flood line is the Pg-t ;ine. So no bats are found below the line . All post flood.
    So the bat is just a quick adaptation.
    A theropod seems to have been a original creature and then with adaptations.
    So being a light on its feet creature it had the same anatomical/physics construction of its bone structure. the birrds had it too but its that the bone structure is for birds only. Just a good idea on how to do it within existing blueprints of biology.

  16. Robert Byers:
    So the bat is just a quick adaptation.

    So a mammal undergoing macroevolution and developing a wing from a ground walking paw is just an “adaptation”?

    Why do you have so much trouble with whale evolution then? By your standards it’s just “adaptation” from a fully terrestrial mammal to a fully aquatic one.

  17. Adapa: So a mammal undergoing macroevolution and developing a wing from a ground walking paw is just an “adaptation”?

    Why do you have so much trouble with whale evolution then?By your standards it’s just “adaptation” from a fully terrestrial mammal to a fully aquatic one.

  18. I agree marine mammals are land lovers who adapted to a sea world after the flood. there was no marine mammals before the flood. At least no fossil evidence.
    Indeed sudden change in body plans does need a mechanism. however i see it as passing a threshold there is a trigger that affects the genetic control. just like what happened to people when changingf colours etc upon post flood migration.

Leave a Reply