Evolutionists Have Been WRONG About Dinosaurs for Years
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 02. 2024
- Evolutionists have been way off on the appearance and anatomy of dinosaurs for years. In this video, Dr. Gabriela Haynes and Joel Leineweber discuss the three big differences between dinosaurs and birds.
You can learn more about this topic here: AnswersInGenesis.org/store/pr...
========
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.
On our CZcams channel, you’ll find answers to your most pressing questions about key issues like creation, evolution, science, the age of the earth, and social issues. We desire to train believers to develop a worldview based on the Bible and expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and their implications.
You’ll hear from top teachers such as Ken Ham, Bryan Osborne, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Tim Chaffey, Bodie Hodge, Dr. Gabriela Haynes, Dr. Terry Mortenson, and more.
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world: AnswersinGenesis.org/give
What really gets me is that we continually see T-Rex depicted with feathers when they literally have never found a single feathered T-Rex fossil and have found many scaly skin T-Rex fossils.
Scientists have not claimed that adult T-rex had feathers. They were too big. It's possible that newborns did, but there is no evidence of that. But we do know that many if not most smaller theropods had feathers.
@@jockyoung4491If it had feathers, it was a bird.....period.
@@juliebaker6969
No. There are many different features that define a "bird" in modern biology, but they all evolved at different times during the tranistion form dinosaurs to birds. In fact, it happend so gradually that no individual ever gave birth to a different species, so the exact line between "dinosaur" and "bird" is somewhat arbitrary, exactly as is expected from evolutionary theory.
God haters & trolls will be God haters and trolls after all.
@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962
I can assure you that I have never "hated God". And I am trolling only in the sense that we all are, including you.
When naming systems and definitions change, it means you have to opt-out from a starting position of being in. You see this with race, abortion, LGBT, etc.
Please don't bring politics into biology.
@@magentamonster What do you mean? Politics is driven by a belief in where biology originated. All moral and ethical laws will appeal to a biological history and where we came from. The name changes I mentioned all make an appeal to biology.
The changing of definitions when presented with more data isn't a bad thing lol. It's to better categorize everything and have it make more sense. Ex. Redefining a planet which everyone got so pissed about since because of poor Pluto but we'd have to add 1000s of new planets without the redefinition.
@@magentamonster "Please don't bring politics into biology." Tell it to the GOP.
@@Sbittner and why is adding 1000s new planets bad? Your logic is flawed. Because you have preconceived ideals of what is good and bad.
TRUE STORY ! When I was in gradeschool I listened to Back To Genesis on the radio. When one of my teachers was seemingly forced to teach Evolution I hated it. During his class I would rebut Evolution with what I was learning from Ken Ham on the radio and my teacher would let me speak against Evolution for most of the class, adding comments like "can't argue with that" etc. Mr. Waddell was a GREAT teacher.
@cold_raptor - "endurance of creationists" It is business. And they have learned how to mislead ignorant victims
Well done. Those that think evolution is true are very well educated. And they can't even see that I habe insulted their intelligence in my sentence. LOL.
@Moist._Robot , show me the evidence. Show me the bones of the progression of macro-evolution, you who knows so much. Where is all of this PROOF, show the world !
@@garybonz Tiktaalik and the Maniraptors would like to see you
Lol, I never believed in it eīther. Just couldn't, it doesn't fit with God.
The best thing you did for your audience is the graphics... you really delivered the message home by visually presenting your arguments...
Well done🙌
The graphics which are not based on actual evidence?
@@StudentDad-mc3pu
Why yes! Those very same graphics that can't withstand the merest of scrutiny.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu The graphics that portrayed the exact same evidence that is available to you.
Red herring logical fallacy. Lets see any a graphic by you.
@@i7Qp4rQ They did not show any evidence.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu evolutionists apply their own imagination on the evidence/bones... why is it wrong then when we use the same bones & present different graphics in context of what we see in modern birds & lizards?
It's cool how changing the skeletal positioning of proven feathered theropods makes such a difference. They look like the birds they likely used to be and it is very interesting to see them that way (anatomically
more in favor of bird-knee locomotion as I also learned from this video). Same with the wrist and tail differences, I have seen fossils of dinosaurs like velociraptor and noticed the tail segments were fused, that being a pygostyle as I've learned in this video. Maybe birds used these longer tails for mating rituals and communication similar to a Peacock's beautiful tail or for balancing akin to a roadrunner.
It's a completely pointless and nonsensical argument since the anatomical differences in the bones still exist and are the basis for animal classification. The pose doesn't change anything. Wow, they posed a dinosaur to look like a bird. Even if the pose was accurate, it doesn't mean it is a bird.
@@erikhamann huh?
*Science has proven that one species changing into a different species is not only impossible, it's the MOST impossible idea that could ever be considered.*
Praise YHWH!
Yet speciation has been empirically observed numerous times. Your claim speciation is impossible is just silly.
@@kittykatters3972Speciation is based on YEC assumptions
@@kittykatters3972 Nothing has speciated into anything, all of them can interbreed.
What science?
Yep, as more data comes to light and as theories get more developed, scientists change their minds. And that’s a good thing.
Some scientists do, some do not. Science as in _knowledge_ does not.
Richard Dawkins in conversation with Peter Boghossian, October 11th (2013) at Portland State University
PB: "So, what would persuade Dawkins to believe in God?""
RD: "Well, Ive started to think nothing would."
Scientists in the last few decades created the peer review system for just this very reason. They use peer review the way the Catholic church used the Inquisition, to make sure scientists don't commit the scientific heresy of straying from the prescribed tenets of the secular humanistic faith. They can see that the evidence doesn't support secular humanism, so they came up with peer review to keep scientific theories within the realm of secular humanism. They're free to advance new theories, as long as they are compatible with the prescribed doctrine. But propose a theory that is out of line with that doctrine, and you will pay the price of excommunication. You will loose your professional standing, your research grants, your research facilities, your access to teaching your ideas to students, and if you don't already have tenure.....your job.
@@i7Qp4rQ “I’ve started to think” is not a claim to knowledge.
The point is it is not based on data but presumptions.
@@sierragrey7910 All science is based on data and evidence, that’s what distinguishes science from superstition. Does science need to change its mind sometimes? Of course, that’s part of the process. Religion does not and cannot change its mind because it’s based on unchangeable dogma.
When i read the nature paper of recreating a fossil down to the microscopic exactness of what is found in the ground, but created in 1 day in a lab with just pressure, heat, and clay, that was the first proof that these fossils are perhaps not as old as proposed, since the mechanism for rapid fossilization was shown.
The seond nail in the coffin for me was the research paper discussing soft tissue found in many dinosaur bones (6million year old fossils cannot have soft tissue). The paper claimed the red blood cells preserved them and the proof was a year long study of soft tissue in a jar soaked in blood - they only gave qaulitative analysis that after a year the soft tissue was "still present". A very weak result/claim for a preserving mechanism that is suppose to last 6 million years.
The third nail in the coffin for me is that secular archeologists never carbon date these fossils because the assunption is that "they are so old that there is no C14, so no point in carbon dating". However, when these fossils are carbon dated, the dates come back usually around 20,000 years ago (so around the time of the last mega fauna die off - these carbon dates were of a large non bird dino, i cant remember the species that was tested, just that the testing laboratory/facility was not told it was a dinosaur - so there was no bias from the lab that did the work).
All of this evidence combines to show that the very idea of dinosaurs in evolution is horribly wrong. I could go on with the fact DNA cannot mutate and remain stable, so mutations leading to different species has been proven to be scientifically impossible. And from an energy conservation standpoint, randomness does not create, we have no anti entropy mechanisms as this would violate energy conservation, so a disordered system could noy create order. But i will end this long winded comment here.
Just because something can be faked it does not mean it is fake.
No "soft tissue" has been found. The preserved remains of soft tissue has.
Where did you copy and mis- understand this nonsense from? C-14 dating cannot be used to date anything older than about 50000 years. You can try, and you might come back with a number, but it would be meaningless. It would be like trying to use a metre stick to measure the size of a bacterium, completely pointless to even try. Ages of dinosaur fossils are measured by radiometric dating using various more long- lived isotopes and the ages are only ratified when multiple measurements using different isotopes carried out by different groups show concordance. Anybody who understands the second law of thermodynamics knows that entropy cannot increase in a closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system.
@@gweilospur5877 Facts are facts.
Diamonds, and coal have been tested for C-14 many a time, and all come back with detectable levels, i.e. they are less than 50,000 years old.
The attempted evasion for the obvious conclusion from this fact, is to allege that the detectable C-14 in these specimens was contamination from the environment !
This is nonsensical in the extreme. There is no way you could force radio carbon atoms into a diamond, it had to be there in situ at the time of formation.
@@darkfielddiggermicrosafari *Diamonds, and coal have been tested for C-14 many a time, and all come back with detectable levels, i.e. they are less than 50,000 years old.*
_Any_ test for radiocarbon will return results, no matter how small the amount is. We can't make a perfectly C14-free environment to test for this sort of thing. And remember, the results you give for these are gonna be indistinguishable from the margin of error. The only way to know for certain if that's the case or not would be if you had a diamond or coal with _zero_ C14 in it. Awkward for you, huh?
*The attempted evasion for the obvious conclusion from this fact, is to allege that the detectable C-14 in these specimens was contamination from the environment! This is nonsensical in the extreme. There is no way you could force radio carbon atoms into a diamond, it had to be there in situ at the time of formation.*
Such tests try to detect radiocarbon in the sample, but _any_ test will, as mentioned, give _some_ result. You simply take what is pretty obviously the margin of error and demand that it be taken as a serious result, despite the id1ocy of such an action.
@@darkfielddiggermicrosafari _Diamonds, and coal have been tested for C-14 many a time, and all come back with detectable levels_ That is simply false. Coal which was mined from areas near radioactive sources (i.e. uranium) will rarely show detectable amounts of 14C which was produced in the coal by the uranium's decay. No 14C has even been found in any diamonds above the instrument background noise level.
eukaryotes: organisms with a membrane bound nucleus
Animalia: organisms that consume organic mater, use oxygen in their metabolism, have muscles, form from a ball of cells, etc
Chordate: any animal with a dorsal nerve cord, post anal tail etc
Sauropsida: for simplicity sake ill call these the lizards. Thos is the breake from our own ancestry, we are Synapsids marked by differences in the skull
Archosauria: simply put this group is everything from crocodiles to birds, but not things like iguanas or other reptiles. Categorized by traits like antorbital fenestra and serrated teeth.
Avemetatarsalia: literally everything more closely related to a bird then an alligator.
Dinosaurs: Triceratops, birds and everything in between.
Theropoda: one of the last major clades to also include things AIG would say are dinosaurs. If you can "pose it to look like a bird. It's also i. This group.
Ornithurae: this is the point at which aig would say "thats a bird" basicly anything in the above categories with a reduced bird like tail. However if I'm understanding this right these are still nonavian dinosaurs
Lastly Aves: the modern birds. Not that genetics confirms the relationships we can trace from anatomy alone and that each of these levels and more that i didn't cover are all based on shaired features. Everything with a spine has a post anal tail, even if like in the case of humans this is reabsorbed in early development. For exsample birds have scails. They also still have the genetics required to develop teeth, just disabled by mutation.
They had cars, with no floors too
They all need prayer and Jesus
Why? Why don't they need Muhammad? Or Joseph Smith? Or L Ron Hubbard? Why do they need Jesus? What makes your religion any less ridiculous than the other religions you don't believe in?
You all need an education.
The creationists need to gain some sense, because they're making the best arguments for birds being dinosaurs while insisting that birds aren't dinosaurs.
well because Jesus is the way. only Jesus rose from the dead, and they (we) made a whole dang religion out of it. even secular scholars agree, that jesus's diciples and followers believe they saw a risen jesus after three days in the tomb who walked, guided the church and performed miracles for 40 days.
After this Christianity exploded through the known world.
The Shroud of Turin, the burial cloth of Jesus Christ has his image on it. it is not currently known how this image was transcribed, but it evidences Jesus's moving hands as he is resurrected.
ask for evidence of your maker; it will be shown to you in your personal way. i hope you come back to Christ. Hell isnt a place of punishment, its just a place absent of love, which is God. God wont force you to be with him, he detests fakers. @@fohrum4757
@@Icewind007 i agree
Draemosurids looks isn't crocodile like.. it's rather bird like. It's Divergent kind.
Prehistoric planet dinosaurs are the most best accurate looks currently.
And most theropods had lips not the Jurassic Park lipless.
Most dinosaurs are warm blooded not like reptile that's cold blooded.
The hands should position like a clapping position. It's not like Jurassic Park hand position
The only theropods from my research that probably didn’t have lips would’ve been the Spinosaurids since they lived near water a lot. So they would’ve functioned more like walking crocodiles in comparison
Bro what? You acknowledged that dinosaurs like Microraptor have feathers (and acknowledged that Microraptor was a dromaeosaur) and then said dinosaurs have no feathers.
they're preaching to an audience so ignorant that they can get away with showing actual evidence that proves they are lying. It's very sad.
I think that quite simply, they see maniraptorans as birds, not dinosaurs. That includes dromaeosaurids.
@@magentamonster
one of the proofs that archaeopteryx represents a transitional form between 'dinosaur' and 'bird' is the fact that creationists have never been able to agree conclusively on whether it's a bird or a dinosaur.
@@bengreen171
To be fair neither have scientists. But that is exactly what we should expect from evolutionary theory.
@@jockyoung4491
just because you don't understand it - or don't want to understand it, doesn't mean no-one does.
Feathers in dinosaurs is not only possible, but it’s proven. I’m a Creationist through and through, but the fossil record shows these animals had feathers. Just not big animals like Tyrannosaurus. But Deinochierus, Yutyrannus, and Beipiasaurus have fossil evidence of feathers. They just didn’t evolve into birds, birds are just a type of dinosaur. Avian dinosaurs.
My first critique of this video is that the changing of language it accuses scientists of using to fit their world view is exactly what the video here does at the end. You took what was called dinosaurs and changed them to fit into the birds. This was not purposed in a very articulate way that was compelling to be the correct way to categorize these creatures because it isn't exactly far off from what scientists believe anyways. The ways that the video categorizes birds is also very weak. Because you can simply change the pose of any dinosaur or any creature for that matter and paint over the bones in any way you want the creature to look like. The video also fails to try and make the information they are presenting as palatable for everyone. For instance they don't go into full detail as for the reasonings scientists change some definitions. The video presents evolutionists as people who actively go out of their way to change names and definitions to fit a narrative. Which isn't the case. For instance with feathers. The logic of the feather structure is a key feature in what differentiates birds from dinosaurs would also mean that porcupines are less mammal due to having quills (which are modified hairs). We see this in the real world and it is not groundbreaking to suggest that feathers are somehow modified scales. The video also seems to fail at understanding at exactly what science is and i think hurts the point they are trying to make rather than helping it. The video claims that simply because we have not found a in between form of feathers that the process of feathers deriving from dinosaurs is impossible. This seems disingenuous at best and they blatantly show feathered dinosaurs and pass it off as possibly a structure that was under the skin. This is obviously very ignorant to do.
I think many issues we have in this world, science being one of them, is the problem of definitions, language, terminology, and the way we perceive. One issue is, back before we discovered the first dinosaur bone, the word dinosaur had not existed. It had no meaning. It was only after we discovered dinosaur fossils was the word created. However had we known of their existence from the beginning they would have been called something else. Some people believe that the word dragon is what dinosaurs were called biblically or even across the world culturally due to them finding fossils on their own and that sparking the myth of dragons. Terminology is the root of all of these problems as well as how and when we perceive them. We could also have an argument over exactly what the Bible means by "kind" because it is so vague and nonspecific because the words we use today to classify animals did not exist back then. We did not have scientists back then learning the details that differentiate animals from one another which is why they relied on obvious attributes. Which is exactly the kind of classification this video is trying to push. Which is equivalent to saying that a gun is not a weapon because its not a spear or sword and doesn't resemble any weapon from the past. And only when there was some other cultural significance was special classification was given.
The only way for everything to make sense is to have a complete reset of terminology, and as consequence taxonomy as a whole as well so that everything is on the same page. No more biased naming which has this Telephone effect where words do or don't change despite new knowledge coming up. The truth of our world never changes, we all just must try our best at understanding it. Science is the serious attempt at learning theses truths, and sometimes being humans we get it wrong. But we may never fully know the truth. This is evident from the very process of paleontology. We thought dinosaurs were literal lizards that walked on all fours sprawled. Now we know they stood upright. And there are endless examples of this.
This is all to say that I do not believe this video addresses the issue we have with taxonomy in a compelling way and makes hypocrites of themselves by doing the exact same thing they accuse scientists of doing. This is also to say that I myself am a Christian and I have been tirelessly trying to make sense of our world myself and when i find videos like this I feel like we are back tracking and its disheartening. I believe there is a better way at understanding the world from a Christian point of view, but asking everyone to go back to an objectively privative way of classification will only alienate us from the rest of the world even more. And before anyone says we should not try and merge the two views, the way the world sees us when we make these kinds of videos is as if we are telling them to deny the very floor they walk on and we look unintelligent when we do this. Even in this video I could tell that these people did not do any research in the things they are talking about because they did not give any time explaining both sides. Which would have been the more educated thing to do. Do your research, explain both sides, then present evidence to support your view then let everyone else decide for themselves what they want to better believe. Which the video tried to do but then stopped a fifth of the way. Which is disingenuous to do if you truly believe your point of view.
They’re playing on the fear of change.
Like you said, back in the day people used to referred these animals skulls as dragons and all sorts of other mythical creatures.
If found a skull that look like a big chomping monster. I’m going to call it a dragon or whatever word I come up with. Science is not meant to be static. They are very dishonest in their approach, even with her Phd, which I want to do more research on.
Them going back-and-forth on the poses of a dinosaur and a bird kinda gives evidence to the evolution of birds evolving from dinosaurs, I think
Also, they’re just completely negating the fact if there were just birds in the first place… Those birds were huge really really big birds 🦅
So with this established what about the massive raptorids like Utahraptor, Achillobator, Therizinosaurus, or Oviraptor that could range from horse up to the size of an elephant. Were they somewhere between the mix of birds capable of flight with beaks? Or Un-flying dinosaurs such as Ostriges, Emus, and Penguins?
Not to mention why is the difference in these extinct birds the tail is so much longer then the average bird tail? (Despite being thin) and How come we don’t see these long bird tail skeleton structures today? 🤔 what did the birds use long tails for?
oviraptor wasnt that massive
Also bare in mind that Therizinosaurus only has a hand full of bones to its name, many of which were found from different dig sites, there were also many turtle bones found in the same area.
@@rpm6425Ovirapter had a big brother called Gigantoraptor
@@kronosaur417And we have found numerous other fossils of relatives if Therizinosaurus.
@@matthewadams1674 supposed relatives, from what I’ve seen most of those fossils are still missing large portions, of course it’s probably just a case of different breeds of the same animal kind (much like today we have Bulldogs, Poodles, Great Danes and Wolves, or Lions, Tigers, Bob cats and tabby cats.)
God bless you all brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ🙏🙌. When I see you 👀 I can see Kevin.
real gold for all the non believers
No it isn't lol. They're demonstrably wrong. This is absolutely no issue for evolution. It never is. It's always always always just religion (and this channel) trying to attack the idea and failing so very hard, not once ever being correct 😂
@@fohrum4757 He meant that there are a lot of kgs of popcorn getting consumed atm
One may enjoy science fiction as literature.
And some excellent science fiction weaves genuine facts, reasonable speculation, and fantasy into a compelling narrative.
But straw is only gold in color …not a precious metal.
And imaginary woven fabric …no matter how fantastic…doesn’t clothe anyone.
Intelligent design is science fiction gold …the books sell but it isn’t relevant to science it is reliant upon real science then misrepresents it ….”Oh what wondrous garments!”👑
I’m not even an atheist and I’m still baffled by the ignorance
Comedy gold?
9:43 They similarly bungle the concept of clades. Linnean taxonomy and clades are similar ways of thinking about animals. Linnaeus taxonomy focuses on observable features and resembles creatures’ genetics.
The entire system is flawed
@@thedude4594how so?
The meaning of words changes over time. So?
kinda like they changed the definition of bird.
@@hrbacon Or the definition of "tiny". Seriously, how is Microraptor's tail that's more than half the total body length a "tiny tail"? Seems like they're more than happy to bend definitions when it benefits them
If birds evolved from dinosaurs, how come there are still monkeys?
sarcasm? or is that a real question?
LOL
OK, now THAT was funny.
@@luish1498 I'm intrigued by this whole Young Earth Creationism debate, and one argument against Evolutionism I've heard is that if we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys. But now I hear that birds came from dinosaurs, but there aren't any dinosaurs. So I'm confused: it seems like the same argument, or am I wrong?
@@ClementGreen Birds are considered to be dinosaurs. In fact, modern birds are the only surviving group of dinosaurs. The scientific consensus is that birds evolved from a group of small, feathered theropod dinosaurs known as maniraptorans, which also included dinosaurs like Velociraptors and Tyrannosaurs.
Over time, these maniraptoran dinosaurs evolved various adaptations that allowed them to fly, such as the development of feathers, a lightweight skeleton, and a modified forelimb structure that eventually became wings. These adaptations were further refined over millions of years, leading to the diverse array of bird species we see today.
The relationship between birds and dinosaurs is supported by a wealth of scientific evidence, including fossil discoveries that show a gradual transition from non-avian dinosaurs to early bird-like creatures. Additionally, genetic studies have provided further confirmation of the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs.
So, while birds may look quite different from the dinosaurs we typically think of, they are indeed considered to be a type of dinosaur.
Evolution does not involve the outright replacement of one group of organisms by another. Instead, it involves the gradual accumulation of genetic changes in populations over long periods, leading to the development of new species. So, while dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago, some of their descendants, the birds, survived and continue to thrive today alongside other groups of animals like monkeys.
Thank you.
Emu and Ostrich move through large muscles at the hip. Straight wrist. So Emu and Ostrich are not birds? Or are you saying they are Dinos?
More on this subject, please. Thank you!
I agree! This is a very important topic that warrants in depth details. This was a great overview, for sure, but I would like to know more about the definition changes and see many more examples. This is such a fascinating topic and so relevant to our time. Keep up the good work!
Even if you ignored evolution and just went by the definition of what is considered a dinosaur. Birds are included in that definition. They are theropod dinosaurs.
@@garrettbrown775 Birds are birds. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs. Never the two ever met.
You can create a fantasy in your mind, but it does not make it so.
@@strongbredbreederwhat's wrong with changing definitions? If we see the similarities between modern birds and some dinosaurs, like velociraptor, it's natural to think they could be related. The idea that dinosaurs must be reptilian because that's what the definition was in the mid 19th century is insane, like, we learn more as we discover more. Science always corrects itself when it finds new evidence.
great explanation of the differences between dinos and birds
There is no difference, birds are dinosaurs.
@@captivedesk3168
You just committed _ipse dixit_ logical fallacy.
@@i7Qp4rQ you committed cant understand scientific understandings like morphology
@@captivedesk3168 And pond scum and humans have a common ancestor.😂
@@i7Qp4rQ
From a taxonomic perspective, the comment was true by definition, so it can't be any kind of "fallacy"
You guys always bring the receipts. I love you guys! You're doing God's work.
Which god? There are thousands of them.
God would wish for people to be educated. This video is directly contrary to that, pushing forward long outdated ideas
If you don't think birds are related to dinosaurs then you've never seen a Cassowary. 😂
So basically, they clearly demonstrated that our explanation of things changes over time based on the evidence. I would certainly hope that our classification system would change to reflect our growing understanding of the history of life on this planet!
Thanks for sharing!
How do birds like the ostrich or the emu fit into this?
They had ancestors that could fly, but lost the ability later.
@@jockyoung4491 I doubt creationists would accept that ratites had flying ancestors. Why would they? Their closest living flying relatives are the tinamous. Apparently, they tend to deny common ancestry when organisms belong to different families. So their kinds for extant palaeognaths would be something like this:
* Ostriches
* Rheas
* Tinamous
* Kiwis
* Emus
* Cassowaries
Despite each ratite kind, and penguins, being entirely flightless, creationists still seem to accept them as birds. I wonder if they'd say they were still created on day 5. Maybe Answers in Genesis would, given they say flightless maniraptorans were created on day 5 in this video.
@@jockyoung4491 I'm not picking one side or the other, but I want to know how the philosophy of adaptation according to environment applies to birds. Wings are made for the sky, but the sky will never change in a way where being flightless is beneficial for the bird to fit into it's environmental niche, so maybe it has to do with the trees and mountain cliffs they put their nests in; playing keep away from ground bound predators. If that's possibly the case, why would becoming flightless benefit its ability to survive and propagate it's genome into the following generations? Now I'm aware that not all mutations are beneficial, but we are always taught in school that those with traits not benefiting to their environment will die off. How then does becoming flightless survive in the gene pool, and not get bottlenecked out of existence? I'm not implying that the evolutionary step isn't possible, nor that it didn't happen; just trying to figure out the prime directive of evolution. At one time we were taught it was survival of the fittest, then it was survival of the niche (those that fit the job application the environment needs). So becoming a flightless bird, I don't see how it serves any of those philosophies. Maybe evolution hasn't figured out the prime directive, or maybe it has multiple directives, some which have priority over the others in certain contexts???
Maybe being flightless isn't something the environment can heavily punish to the point your offspring will die off. Obviously we aren't talking about many animals that survive just fine without flying, because their ancestors were never able to fly before. Maybe the idea that evolution has a prime directive is outdated. So maybe the idea that poor genetics get punished should be discarded, because it doesn't actually happen like that in reality, and maybe DNA isn't some sentient entity with a prime directive that has the ability to evolve towards an environmentally favored goal, and maybe the environments of most organisms are not as punishing enough to be a mechanic in evolution as we thought. The only problem is that how does evolution ever make sense as a system without a prime directive that scientific method can reliably test? If evolution has no real philosophy to why organisms change, and its just random mutations, which don't show a pattern of any sort, and some of which get lucky enough to not go extinct, how can evolution by definition become a science? If evolution cannot be a science, because it doesn't have a reliable pattern to why it happens, then the floodgates open up. Now we would have phenomena that exist in reality, but are not consistent enough to be proven. This would open up all the doors for other so called pseudo sciences, some of which are only called that, because the phenomena they claim exists, cannot be tested and replicated by scientific method. Sure, evolution has many things within it that can be tested by scientific method, but if no consistent pattern exists between them, can it ever be considered truth?
@@Eastra3 It's very simple. Having to grow a body part is extremely metabolically expensive. If you don't need it it becomes a disadvantage. Most flightless birds evolved in an island habitat that lacked predators. Without the pressure of predation, birds wouldn't need wings and those that had larger wings would be at a disadvantage in that environment, because they'd require more food.
Edit: An additional explanation is that the larger a bird, the more difficult it is to fly. Get big, wings are useless and cost energy, lose wings.
@@Eastra3 As for the "prime directive" there really isn't one. Natural selection is closest to what you're talking about but there are other explanations that all work together in the system. Some traits are selected because of different pressures. Sexual selection, natural selection, and genetic drift are the main drivers. In order for evolution to take place you have to survive by eating, not dying, and then you have to reproduce. Any environmental pressure that changes those variables will lead to the best adapted of each generation to survive and procreate. A change in the allele frequency of a population.
Since no definitive dinosaurs with feathers have appeared in the fossil record-only dinosaurs with fuzzy-looking collagen fibers that do not qualify in any way as transitional feathers-many evolutionists seeking to explain the evolution of feathers would like to find transitional evolutionary forms. Microraptor did not help their case.---Aig
I basically said the same thing in my other comment, but the transition from momofilaments to pennaceous feathers do exist in the fossil record, as well as from non-avian to avian dinosaurs (a.k.a. birds).
Additionally, none of the monofilamentous feathers were collagen. Collagen does not preserve with a single shaft that branches outwards along the shaft, unlike feathers. Additionally, many of the monofillamentous dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx and Beipiaosaurus have preserved melanosomes, showing that Sinosauropteryx was ginger with a white-striped tail, while Beipiaosaurus was mostly a dull brown all over, with darker shades on its back and lightwr shades underneath. Collagen does not have melanosomes, therefore they cannot be collagen.
Microraptor is not a transitional genus between birds and dinosaurs, but it's family, the dromaeosaurids are a transitional family between birds and non-avian dinosaurs, since they share more similarities with birds than other non-avian dinosaurs, while still not having enough of the exact anatomical characteristics that classify them as dinosaurs. Microraptor has a more similar anatomy to Velociraptor and Deinonychus than it does to Archaeopteryx or any other species of extinct or extant avialan - it is most definitely a dromaeosaurid dinosaur (unless you want to pull an Alan Feduccia and claim that dromaeosaurids, or basically the entirety of maniiraptoriformes, aren't actually dinosaurs, despite the obvious glaring anatomical characteristics that say otherwise).
@@bonniemob65I don't understand whether AIG believes Microraptor is a bird or not.
@@bonniemob65 "micro raptor is not a transitional fossil it it is still in the family...." Sounds like a subjective opinion to me based on your belief in evolution
@@bonniemob65 as far as the rest of your comment goes I don't believe you. I will take AIG's word over yours on that.
There's always a catch and you aren't explaining everything. Creationists have the better explanations.
@@TJforChrist Creationists don't have any explanations at all. Evolution explains the consilience of the independent evidence. Claiming "God did it that way just because!" explains exactly nothing.
It's kind of funny to think that people who believe in a talking snake would try to criticize anyone else's ideas about animals.
I don't think that feathers on Dinosaurs contradicts creation but when they try to claim that anatomical bird are dinosaurs it gets pretty ridiculous
Oh geez, scientific nomenclature has changed? News flash: that’s the way science works. Experts in the field devote their life to study esoteric subjects then occasionally get together to discuss findings and attempt to find consensus. Religion on the other hand holds on to beliefs in many cases of ideas put forth by people thousands of years ago and clings to that.
I’m actually in love with how this comment is number 2 but no one has tried to argue with you. (They can’t argue and be right, so they don’t)
The argument they offer is that the definitions were altered without sufficient scientific evidence.
lol yea. This video is pure second hand embarrassment to watch. Like imagine having a PHD in paleontology and not understanding anything you learned
No, once there is a theory with facts, science doesn't stray from it.
@@catherinecook3359 no Catherine. Scientific theories change all the time. But certain theories like evolution are so irrefutable that it is pretty well proven. However the minute details are constantly being revised as new evidence comes along. Religious people that take the Bible literally and believe that woman was made from man's rib, Noah's ark saved creatures from the flood, etc. are living in a fantasy land. But if that's what you feel comfortable believing, all the power to you.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but did these two just confirm that birds once had toothed mouths, clawed hands, and were primarily terrestrial?
...are we sure that evolution doesn't exist? 😅
Lol its sad gems like this comment are wasted on ideologically locked theists who think they're literally smarter than you while you make funny clever jokes on the topic that point out their delusion in clear terms... while they make actual fart sounds with their mouths and butts alike thinking they just owned you...
Pretty sure their stance is that there are hundreds of different bird kinds, all created separately. So the toothed birds never share a common ancestor with toothless ones. By the way, we still have birds with wing claws and terrestrial birds. Emus, hoatzins and turacos have wing claws. Palaeognaths, landfowl, buttonquail and many others are terrestrial.
Note that the birds with wing claws likely got them back after losing them.
Adaptation vs. mutation is an interesting distinction. As I understand it, the key difference between most creationists and evolutionists is that the former accepts adaptation within a species (or ‘kind’) occurs and the latter considers that one species can change into another (and even that all life started from a single cell and mutated into everything we see today from there). I am yet to find anything persuasive from an evidentiary point of view that species mutate into other species. There seems to be fairly strong evidence though for species adapting to climatic and other environmental factors.
@@Moist._Robot ah the old ‘start with an ad hominem’ and then try to not understand the other persons point of view. Have a read a few more times then get back to me. It’s a discussion, not an argument. Lots of people use different terms to discuss concepts. I’m pretty sure with a bit of genuine desire to understand another person’s point of view you will get the distinction between adaptation vs. mutation thought (or to say it differently, changes within a species in response to environmental factors vs one specifies ‘evolving’ into a different species). I’m genuinely interested to know if we have any direct evidence of the latter.
@@Moist._Robot Thanks for the reply.
It might be helpful for our discussion not to start from the position of assuming what I 'am'. What I am is actually openminded to productive discussions about topics, rather than starting with a predetermined position and trying to defend it. I enjoy thinking about the possible hypothesis that exist to explain things, and I also enjoy having productive discussions with people about them, even if we might end up coming to different conclusions at a given point in time. I don't think that means we have to be enemies, rather, I find it is helpful to always be open to learning something new, or even just seeing something from someone else's perspective.
I'm more than happy to go with the term 'species' for the purpose of our discussion. I only refer to the term 'kind' here because I suspect that there are people who watch this channel and read the comments who consider those terms to be synonymous given the reference to the term 'kinds' in the biblical account of Noah and the ark. I don't think it is helpful to just say 'there is no such thing'. For people who attribute meaning to the Biblical text, they consider the use of the word 'kind' in that text must have some meaning.
As to the other points you made:
- with genuine respect, I believe your point about a species not changing to a different species, but rather changing to the extent it can be classified as a different species to be a distinction without a difference. To me what we are exploring here is the difference between two propositions. The first is that all species have a common origin in the sense that they all evolved from a common ancestor. The second is that species are limited to adaptation within their speciel 'boundaries' and that this alludes to them being created rather than evolved.
- I have indeed looked for the evidence of one species evolving into another; I am just yet to find it. That is not to say it doesn't exist. Your reply seems to imply that you have found it. I would therefore be most grateful if you could show it to me rather than just effectively saying 'go look'.
Again, thanks for taking the time to reply. It is greatly appreciated.
It is refreshing to hear science based on searching for truth. Thanks for your work.
This isn't searching for truth, this is pseudoscience affirming a confirmation bias.
did you not notice they claimed that only birds have feathers - then showed archaeopteryx and microraptor - both with no beak, a reptilian skull with teeth, and a long bony tail?
Show me any bird with those features.
Think about this and be honest with yourself. Ask yourself if these creationists are honest people.
How is this “science based on searching for truth”?
You're redundant.
Science has, have, and always been about truth. It seeks objective facts backed by accepted researches and valid well-grounded evidences.
This is not science, it's lies trying to prove a fairytale is real.
First, יוֹם “Yom” is not “Day” a 24hr, Earth spin, as it is in modern Hebrew. I recommend reading it in modern English as “Age”. It is a finite time you use ‘day’ in this sense when you say “in my day” or “in that day”. So, although when KJV translated to ‘Yom’ to ‘day’ it was not a bad translation it was one that has become archaic. Feel free to blame the Enemy; I do. Second, if the the current evolutionary model is correct, the animals of the modern age do appear on the timeline chart in the order of the Genesis, because it doesn’t say the _fish_ of the sea and the _birds_ of the air, then the _reptiles_ and _mammals_. It says let the waters abound/teem with swarming life (not fish) and let the ‘עוֹף’ “ophs” “flyers” swarm the air, then in the next _day_ / yom / *age* comes the ‘בְּהֵמָה’ “behemaw” “beast”, and the ‘רֶמֶשׂ’ “remes” “swift things” (this word has been used for sea creatures and land creatures). Third, they didn’t change dinosaur from a reptile that walks up right, the earliest reconstructions was for the large quadruped; the early iguanodons, being reconstructed right in the middle of ‘dinosaur’ becoming a term of art was a quadruped. Fourth, you’re redefining ‘bird’ throughout the time when ‘bird’ even was a word in English separate from scientific jargon, it meant feathered, egg laying, scaled footed, *beaked* creatures, here you tossed out a key anatomical feature to pull in all these fossils that bird-like, but with dinosaur heads. Fifth, the avians have been found pin feather holes in the bones of dromaeosaurs, which is why they have guessed the feathers existed, but have not been preserved as impressions. Sixth, your feather is a pin feather, found on flying birds, the feathers that are found on large non flying birds are much more like those theorizes to have existed on the large non flying avian dinosaurs. Seventh, you use a number of logical fallacies like the _ad hominem_ in phrases like “…you guys are smart; you can probably….” you undermine your ability to appeal to anyone not already believing what you have to say.
Spot on, they needed to use a different path of logic , I'm a young earth creationists to the core , but this presentation left alot of holes . I appreciate the effort they put in though, just needs more
How do these evolutionary scientists explain the cold blooded system of reptiles and the warm blooded circulatory system. Birds don’t necessarily like the cold however they don’t become lethargic in cold weather either.
The ancestors of birds, the therapod dinosaurs, had already evolved endothermy (warm bloodedness) by the time birds began to evolve 150 MYA. Evidence we have suggests endothermy evolved twice, in mammals and in the archosaurs in the early Triassic. See the 2021 paper
*The origin of endothermy in synapsids and archosaurs and arms races in the Triassic*
Migration is a wonderful thing too.
The transitional species are absent from the fossil record also. To many pieces and biological systems that have to be in place in order for those species to survive.
Archosaurs were ancestrally mesothermic, and this gradually evolved into the endothermy of modern birds. What really needs to be explained is "why are crocodilians cold-blooded?"! For serious if you're going to separate birds from Class Reptilia due to their warm-bloodedness, you should do the same for crocodilians. Did you know that crocodilians have 4-chambered hearts, like birds and mammals?
Leatherback sea turtles are also mesotherms, but they still have 3-chambered hearts similar to other turtles.
@@magentamonster There was a recent paper that argued the ancestors of crocodilians were endothermic at one point and then lost endothermy when they became semi-aquatic. This was based on their high-crawl position along with the heart and breathing system they developed seemed to link with endothermic or at least mesothermic metabolism rather than exothermic.
Please look at “Stabilization Theory” by Dr Eugene McCarthy. You both ask some similar questions and make similar observations. Also check out Dr Bob Horners Ted Talk about juvenile dinosaurs.
Thank you. Love this channel! PtL!
I heard hip structure and bone structure (density) are significant differences.
That is usually the criteria between dinosaurs (great lizards) and (small) lizards.
Yeah avian dinosaurs still have hollow bones like birds without either that wrist feature, or an enlarged breast bone, and very few non avian vertebrates have hollow bones.
@@HH-ru4bjhuman bones are hollow. You're spreading rubbish because you don't understand the subject. Bird and dinosaur bones are completely different
So people don’t have hollow bones?
@@chay516 its difficult to know who is asking a real question and who isn't, but no we do not have hollow bones. Hollow skulls now that's a different topic.
I can think of a modern exsample of "changing kinds."
Look at the mudskipper. It's a fish that spends most of it's time out of water and can and will climb trees to stay out of the water. It's clearly not just a fish. It's like what you would expect if the first terrestrial vertabrates had been ray finned fish instead of lobe finned. Life style wise it is clearly much more like an amphibian then a fish.
Good stuff! I enjoyed learning about the philosophies behind the changes. One thing I know is the truth doesn't change. The biblical account of creation is the same as it was way back when.
So let me get this straight. You acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs but you believe they lived 6000 years ago?
Of course. Why wouldn't someone not believe in dinosaurs? Dinosaurs also lived along side people. What's wrong with it? My son actually prefers penguins over dinosaurs.
Yo, dinosaurs still live with humans, I saw one in the forest. Velociraptors are way cooler than penguins.
That's what God says. You going to call him a liar and believe money grabbing liars?
@amjgholson the only dinosaurs that lived along side humans, were birds. Some birds and humans never coexist (examples include Gansus, Hesperornis, Parahesporornis, etc) but there are plenty of birds coexisting humans like robins, eagles, starlings, crows, hawks, emus, cossowaries, ostriches, etc. Some birds coexist with humans and later went extinct, like moas, elephant bird, etc. Terror birds and human overlapped in terms of time.
You two play well together! Very well done!
One thing that is objectionable here is the presenters’ fussiness that scientific terms change. It is no evidence of something sinister. As science develops, words change their meaning. “Atom” means indivisible. So are subatomic particles deliberately deceptive?
Phylogenetic is literally based on how similar the dna between two animals is. With a hand full of exceptions where the new evidence has moved a few species over a branch or two it lines up with the relationships we where able to draw from morphology alone. Birds fit comfortably in the category of theropods. These aren't arbitrary classifications like "fish" but diagnostic.
That's as blatant of a misrepresentation of their theories and animal description. You downplay the amount of feather evidence and then downplay the fact those dinosaurs do still have tails, so you're already wrong. Unless you can show me birds with tails.
But the amount wrong with this outcome is too large to debate online. Would be an interesting debate. Though I always find it annoying that both sides have to misrepresent each other and always bad faith arguments.
Well, they're diametrically opposed, how would good faith argument look? It's not just a minor difference in like 2x2=4 vs 2+2=4
@user-yq9im9dk9z that doesn't have anything to do with my point. If someone was arguing 2+1=4, you could and should explain their actual reasoning. Not lie to make your argument, which in my point doesn't even matter who is right.
Their claims do not matter. If you lie about it and their why.
Do you know any birds that have teeth or a bony tail like Archaeopteryx? No? Gee, it’s like a transitory phase between non-avian and avian dinosaurs!
Bony tails? Not to my knowledge, but teeth? Absolutely
First of all there’s a multitude of examples of prehistoric birds having teeth, this is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record, second of all we have species of birds on earth TODAY who have teeth! Kakapos are an example of this, but some hummingbirds actually have teeth on their beaks as well
Toucans penguins and browser birds also have teeth
What we do have Birds with teeths and dinosaurs with beaks lol
@@ianmonk6211
Not teeth made out of dentine.
@@jockyoung4491 splitting hairs won't convince me of the lies of evolution
My chickens are clearly little dinosaurs. They act like the creatures in the movies, which clearly means they act like dinosaurs did, not that movies base dinosaurs behavior on hunting birds. And I know a chicken is not a raptor, but a lot of bugs and small rodents have also "known" that right before falling to a spur.
And also, the term Dinosaur just came into existence, before that they were always Dragons. Yes Dragons that they said never existed.
TL;DR
You bring up many misunderstood functions of science, most notably it's frequency to change, and try to use these as a discredit to the evolutionary theory. you pose the idea that despite masses of information, some of which you even use, that it somehow doesn't equate to a single book which has also endured edits in response to cultural stimulus.
you frequently use terms that are not of an evolutionist diction but are from a creationists vocabulary, such as "kinds".
I do not wish to be unkind, as such things are not needed, but it might serve you to better understand the information from both sides of this discussion before you attempt to half use science as a means to disprove it.
below are some of my notes from this video.
2 mins in and we've already arrived at the first argument.
I'll say this, at least it's direct to the point.
your first argument is, evolutionists (let's ignore the mountains of supporting material on this for now) birds came from dinosaurs, but our one book says the opposite, so clearly evolutionists must be wrong. without getting offensive here, this seems like an unbalanced statement, why is one argument better or worse than another if both provide the same written (i use this term very lightly here) evidence.
Right on cue, argument number 2 - evolutionists change definitions.
Unlike doctrine which is a finality, an exact and unquestionable position, science changes in support of new information.
consider this option, start with a question and work your way backwards to an answer rather than starting with an answer and fabricating the information to fit.
for example, you find yourself on a dessert island, in front of you is a scrunched up piece of paper with the word "help".
would you deduce from this, that some supernatural power had washed that letter to your shore or that it had probably been there due to some natural process and if so what and how.
straight into issue 3, as i said earlier, you guys are quick.
"Kinds" is not an evolutionary statement, creationists use this to differentiate between dogs and cats for example, where every breed of dog is a different form of the same "kind".
evolutionists acknowledge this as a more granular pace, smaller changes within one population changing their traits over generations until variations within the population arise and eventually split the population.
think of this a gradient that goes from black to white, it's easy to say where black or white is as they sit at both ends, but it's not possible to define the exact point in which black stops being black and white starts. any segment you pull form that line is arbitrary, which is also one of the reasons why evolutionists conflict and overlap with each other as to what counts as a species.
the house of cards is required - sadly not true, if you toppled all of it, the terms and the talk, there is still mountains of information to distinguish the development of this track, this also comes back to how science changes over time as only a few decades ago it wasn't the general agreement that birds and dinosaurs were that closely related, but new information prompts better understanding.
there seems to be quite the hold on this last point, that science changes over time, so let me give you a for instance.
the bible states (depending on which version you read) that those of a black skin color are that way due to their inherent sin.
as a result, culture saw no issue with slavery as they were demonized away from humans.
since the abolishment of slavery, many bibles have been reprinted to omit this portion of the book.
in much the same way, one stimulus gives rise to a need for change, leading to a better understanding overall.
hopefully you can follow that and understand that science is not too different from this, old information is changed and replaced by better and newer information.
I'll not speak for the feather evolution graphic as without cited reference for the source, i can't say what or where that information came from but a basic principal of evolution is that no structure is ever a half formed purpose, there are no partially formed eyes or legs or wings, each structure has to have a function and a use in it's entirety.
you use the dinosaur bones as a great example here actually, the differences in structure in the early stages would make both bones difficult to distinguish but as the structures change over time this difference becomes more and more pronounced.
you then start to use homology to acknowledge the difference between birds and dinosaurs, (one bone, two bones, little bones, long bones)
If you have read this far, thank you.
please feel free to correct any information i may have misconstrued or misinterpreted in a reply.
I love this format to get the concept across. Thank you
By your criteria, Deinonychus and Velociraptor would qualify as birds, too.
Very interesting and well said. Thank you 😊
And I would like to hear more about it
GOD bless in JESUS name
Great work. Keep em coming
Awesome video. Love all the hard science and the in depth explanation of the material. Please do more just like this, love y'all
Did you watch a different video or something?
In fairness… A single married man-is pretty relevant to today’s society. I was married to an unfaithful wife, and yet maintained Christian integrity as one who is still tethered to a wife. I didn’t date outside of our marriage or but continue to exercise monogamy.
When we were separated, she continued to commit adultery. It wasn’t till 7 years later, that we finally got divorced.
So you could actually say that I was a “single/married man”. It doesn’t make it invalid it just makes me the oxiest of morons.
Wow this is great! I have been following you guys for years. But I haven't seen any of your published work in peer reviewed papers or journals. Where is your nobel peace prize for this discovery? Why would everyone but you be in on this conspiracy 🤔
That is desert sand dry sarcasm!
I thought like you do before I understood the truth about how people will often suppress truth that is inconvenient and costs them something to see, acknowledge and champion it. I suggest you study history, check out communisim and you may just see the similarities with the current “scientific” empire in America.
The skin on my finger is peeling, am I turning into a dinosaur?😂😂😂
No, you already are one.
Individuals don't evolve; species do.
16:30 Now wait a minute, many of the reposed fossils still have that long tail. It’s okay to present an alternative hypothesis, but it doesn’t help the theory to make no arguments for why many of the species are breaking the rules you put forward.
Yes but they are small bones while some have longer tails they have small thin tails not used for balanced
The most ridiculous claim i have ever heard was that the chicken is the closest relative to the T-Rex. Hahaha. It takes a very specific type of special.
thank you so much for this video! ive needed it for a while, im a creative writing a fantasy setting very much based off of the biblical explanation for history, research has been difficult on this specific topic for revitalizing extinct animals, and designing unique ones when it comes to dinosaurs, so thank you
If it's based on the Bible it's not fantasy.
@@ChristaFree well, yes, but its a fiction project, with traditional fantastical element, such as the typical fantasy form of magic, which is very much not the same thing as which craft, and traditional fantasy dragons that are very much based off of Therapod, we don't have any precedent for Therapods with wings, I can go on and on, but I would like to make the distinction, this is Fantasy, because its fictional, it may be heavily based off of reality, but there are still things in the fantasy, that have no historical precedent, that, and also, I am a man, not a god.
Well if it’s fantasy you’re looking for then the Bible is chalk full of it lol
@@leroyjenkins3744 why are you watching this than?
Thank you for all the work you do. I often save your videos for when I need to reference them during conversations with non-believers.
Except, the things AiG says have no basis in reality. They make up stories to try and explain away the bible's inconsistencies. Stories that they have no evidence for and aren't mentioned in the bible.
If only their arguments made any sense…
Too bad - they'll do you no good whatsoever. These videos are beyond inept and extraordinarily dishonest.
U should just not talk to non believers..stay safe in your Jesus bubble
By the way, where did Gabriela Haynes get her PhD for Paleontology and Geology? All I’ve found about her is that she is a researcher at AiG. Which is an insurance company.
I will say after owning chickens for a few years I can totally see the velociraptor from Jurassic park. 😂
Great video! Thank you for this content! I would love to see a roundtable discussion with Creationists like Matt McLain or Marcus Ross who believe that some dinosaurs had feathers. I believe that would be very informative. Thanks again AiG for all of the work you do! God Bless 🙏
thank you.. great differenciaton
Differentiation.
Aiya... where to begin?
The first argument presented - that we can't trust evolutionary science because our understanding of how the world works has changed over time, is a problematic one. The fact is, all sciences are constantly revising as new feedback and information become available, and rejecting one particular field because it doesn't fit a cherished worldview shows more about the presenter's bias than it does anything else.
The presenters then move on to list some very arbitrary qualifiers for dinosaurs and birds, as well as glossing over the fact that different feather types exist, even in modern birds.
But, when it comes to their criteria for what is a dinosaur and what is a bird, why not make clawed hands or toothless beaks a defining feature? Because then suddenly all of their "birds" would become dinosaurs again. Saying "Look! There are differences, therefore these aren't dinosaurs!" doesn't make sense. Of course there are differences between maniraptoria and therapods, just like there are differences between therapods and ceratopsians - that doesn't suddenly mean that ceratopsians aren't dinosaurs anymore.
As for a couple of their other points:
"Dinosaurs have scales" - so do birds, just take a look at their feet.
"Feathers would get in the way of the animal catching things with it's hands" - most dinosaurs did not use their hands to catch things, they used their mouth (much like many modern birds).
I genuinely can't tell if these presenters are being dishonest, or if they are so indoctrinated that they are unable to see anything other than what they want to. Sorry guys, but this was wrong on so many levels...
I think most at AIG are true believers and are simply ignorant of the science of evolution. They have no incentive to learn because they don;t want it to be true. But there may be a few of the leaders who know they are lying, but think that is justified in order to "save" people.
@Kelisic Your statement:"All sciences are CONSTANTLY CHANGING." I don't think you realize that your statement clearly shows the very same thing you've pretty much accused the presenters of. And that is bias! When you said,"All sciences ," that was preparing the way to elaborate in an excusatory defense of evolution! All sciences ARE NOT under scrutiny here. Evolutionary Science is. Furthering my point: If you trusted someone that was, CONSTANTLY CHANGING WHAT THEY SAID " about a particular thing, would you so easily brush it aside? Nope I don't think so! But you readily do it for evolution. Someone constantly changing what they say about one subject, is lying OR they just don't know what they are talking about. So , evolutionistc proponents ARE guilty of one or the other. Or could they be guilty of both? Your take?
"Dinosaurs" LOL
I am a Christian who takes the authority of scripture very seriously. But I gotta say, after watching this video and seeing the similarities in modern birds and extinct reptiles, I think I am more convinced by the notion that birds descended from dinosaurs.
This is actually quite humorous, as on another one of your videos, David Menton acknowledges that velociraptors, deinonychus, caudipteryx, sinornithosaurus, etc., etc., not only have feathers, but that they are in fact birds!
He even makes a bit of a Freudian slip, saying, "if a dinosaur has feathers, it's a bird." Luckily he realized what he had just said, and saved himself brilliantly by saying, "and of course dinosaurs are not birds." Lol.
I also find it odd that apparently Menton cannot tell the difference between an early bird skeleton, and a non-avian dinosaur skeleton such as a dromeosaur, unless there are remnants of feathers. He also quite dishonestly kept comparing _modern_ birds to non-avian dinosaurs, instead of comparing _early_ birds, such as archaeopteryx(if that's still considered a bird, I can't remember) and derived theropod like troodontids and dromeosaurs.
Then you've got another article, written by(I think?) Todd Wood, saying not only that some dinosaurs had feathers, but also saying that birds are a subset of dinosaurs in the same way that squirrels or elephants are a subset of mammals.
To suggest that these derived theropods did not have feathers is just completely dishonest/disengenuous, and is on no way at all based on the science/evidence, but instead(like everything else AIG puts out), is based entirely on their bedrock assumption that (their particular interpretation of) the Bible is perfect, inerrant, and infallible.
I highly encourage anyone here who thinks Ken Ham and AIG are right to look into the science/evidence themselves(as opposed to having it filtered through YECist "God Glasses" by the apologists at places like AIG) and objectively examine the evidence and arguments of YECist, as compared to that of the actual scientists who are doing this research, and have studied the fossils themselves, and went to school for 8+ years, and thus know things that you and I don't, instead of reading an online article by an astronomer or something, claiming to disprove the entire scientific consensus on a given subject.
If an ancient creature possesses feathers, it cannot be classified as a dinosaur but rather as a bird. This is because dinosaurs are terrestrial animals that lack feathers.
Litteraly no?
@@Retro-Design-4033 dinosaur bones have been found with feathers impressions.
@@dankmouse632 As previously mentioned, the presence of feathers on ancient creatures does not automatically mean that dinosaurs had feathers. Upon watching the video, it becomes clear that the dinosaurs claimed to have feathers did not actually possess long feathers, indicating that they were more bird-like than dinosaur. Additionally, dinosaurs are characterized as land animals with large tails and no wings, making them distinct from birds. Furthermore, it is important to note that hair and feathers are two different things, as some creatures have fur instead of feathers. This is why I remain skeptical of evolution, as it often seems to alter facts to fit its narrative. For instance, the recent claim that humans and fish are related lacks substantial evidence, and the lack of observable animal evolution further weakens the theory of evolution.
@@Retro-Design-4033 1. What “ancient creatures” do you refer to which had feathers? MANY dinosaurs have been found with feathers on them in their fossils, but I would like to hear which ones you refer to specifically.
2. I am confused as to what you mean by “didn’t have long feathers”. If you do mean the length of the feather, simply search up “feathered fossil” and you will find dinosaur fossils with long thin feathers. And, birds today can also have relatively short feathers.
3. Dinosaurs are at the core characterized off of where they are placed on the evolutionary tree. Since you don’t believe in that, a better way to define them is by their bone structure, and how that bone structure relates to other extinct species of dinosaur. A dinosaur doesn’t have to be on land. While most were, certain ones could have adopted a semi aquatic lifestyle. Dinosaurs also are not exclusively without wings, although again, most were. But, again, you probably will decline that some dinosaurs could swim and some dinosaurs could fly based off of the fact that you don’t believe in evolution to begin with.
4. I’m not sure why fur vs feathers is relevant, as the fossil impressions were feathers.
5. What facts have been altered to “fit a narrative”?
6. The substantial evidence for that claim lies in the observable fossil record. Ancient lobe finned fishes which had limbs and boney fins, to Tiktaalik with extremely similar limbs, but now made for supporting walking, with
extremely similar skeletal traits but with other adaptations for land, to early reptiles which have the same bone structure and limbs, to synapsids and early mammals (found with hair, whiskers and mammary glands), to small prehistoric mammals that lived with the dinosaurs(rodents, essentially), and then following the dinosaur’s extinction, mammals diversified and took over. Now, since (I believe) there haven’t been confirmed transitional fossils of these mammals -> early primates, if you want to claim that from here primates suddenly appeared and happened to have almost all of the same traits as other mammals, you can I suppose, although you have to admit that would be far fetched. And then from there, primates -> our early ancestors. This is a highly simplified version of the evolutionary line, but it paints the picture I’m trying to say.
Have the evolutionists ever considered that the similarities they see between different types of animals like the claws on birds and reptiles and the similarities between apes and humans are there because we all have the same creator?
No. Same ancestor
Yes it was considered and rejected by science over 150 years ago. We have no physical evidence for any "common designer" and lots of physical evidence including observed mechanisms for producing common descent.
What sort of designer would design the recurrent laryngeal nerve the way it is?
@billyb7465 or we just don't understand the utility of why it is the way it is...
@@nicolesousa1836 Did you look up the recurrent laryngeal nerve to see what I mean? It’s not so bad in humans, but look at it in giraffes.
Thank you for your hard work. All of you at Answers In Genesis always provide such great resources to defend our faith and hope in God Almighty.😊
I have no reason to have any faith or hope in the God of the Bible. It is a fiction, you see.
Very interesting! I have been fascinated by Dinosaurs since childhood. I've always been skeptical about Dinos being feathered. Yes, please do more about this subject.
The evidence clearly shows they were. Even the video shows they were (they simply ignore their own evidence).
@@mrastin821Okay, Mr. expert! 😅
@@vapsman88…So are you saying he’s wrong? Because this video does indeed show feathers, and if you dismiss his comment because he’s not an “expert,” then there are plenty of experts that agree with him. Do you care what they have to say on the matter?
@@vapsman88 Experts in this field are the ones who have made these discoveries. Some dinosaurs had feathers. I'm not sure why such clear evidence has people upset.
@@billyb7465 every expert agrees that dinosaurs like triceratops did not in any way have bird-like feathers. The only experts who think that no dinosaurs had feathers at all are experts in creationism and not paleontology
And creationists have been wrong about everything for forever.
Glad that's settled.
You're too asleep.
@@marcj3682
Creationist may be right about the Bible, but they are completely wrong about science.
@@marcj3682 lol says the person who believes things bc someone said so 😂
@@jockyoung4491 Science is a man made idea, meaning knowledge. You should try and look into the ancient past, and you'll see the Bible to be true.
Using monkey man as your cornerstone, you won't have a clue about history.
For example, do you know why Egypt is called Egypt? Monkey man won't tell you. Bible does.
@@mrdgenerate "lol says the person who believes things bc someone said so 😂"
Please do continue to believe that bacteria, pond sludge , fairy dist and lightening strikes are more intelligent than you. Why? Because it was able to create the DNA for a dog, for example.
Now let's see you do that. See - bacteria, pond sludge, fairy dust - or whatever nonsense you believe - is far more superior than you. And you believe the thoughts of a 20+ year old from the 19th century, who got his ideas from hiss grandfather, a freemason. Look into what they believe, and who they serve, and why they lie about creation. It should be an enlightening awakening for you.
Until then, when I walk past a pond and see the sludge, I'll think just how cleverer it is than you.
Answers in Genesis. Please make a video about which creatures that are classified as Dromaeosaurid are either TRUE Dromaeosaurid Dinosaurs or are actually birds. Especially with that whole arm/hand thing.
It might b a waste of time, when there are 3 non-connected bones per a "specie".
They have an article on it. Check it out.
@@TJforChrist then please give me a link to this article that you mentioned.
@@Firedrake-SP it's very likely that the link won't post but I'll try. More often than not links get blocked. You can also simply type in 'Archaeopteryx answers in Genesis' as a general search. There are actually multiple articles written on it.
@@TJforChrist thank you.
I knew birds were not dinosaurs but didn't know why so I love how you broke it down so simply! I also loved your graphics and showing the skeletons posed differently. That was really cool and powerful to show how scientists can distort facts to push their assumptions.
Why are birds not dinosaurs?
If all I need to do to differentiate a bird from a dinosaur is pose them differently, why would that suggest they are not related??
@@captivedesk3168 They do not share a common ancestor.
@@captivedesk3168Because birds are older than dinosaurs, so how could they have once been dinosaurs?
@@tone9358God created a basic blueprint for life, and reused it many times over. So birds ARE related to dinosaurs in that they have a similar design because they have the same Designer. But birds were created a day EARLIER than dinosaurs were.
You pulling up how they make dinos wholecloth from like three bones reminds me of my own frustrations with skeletal reconstructions. I'm an artist and I've been drawing feathered dinos (because I love birbs) and when I started I challenged myself to do them from the skeletons as opposed to finished reconstructions. Imagine my frustration when I started discovering that a lot of these dinosaurs were basically made up.
Personally I love drawing feathered dinos (also dinos aren't reptiles because reptiles are splay-legged, why are dinos not considered their own group like birds and reptiles and mammals are?) because from an artistic perspective it's fun, but I know that I could never be in the paleontological field because as a Christian (and of course Creationist) I'd be constantly butting heads with people there. As it sits, I stick to drawing dinosaurs with feathers and fur (8:15! That's fur!) and ears because only our ancestors saw live dinosaurs, so they can't prove otherwise. XD
Could the "filaments" actually have been hairs?
Probably not because hair is exclusive to mammals
So I'd dinosaurs and bird both can't have feathers well being different kinds explain why cats and moles have fur are you suggesting mammals are all one kind.
Sadly, creationists can't really provide a scientific definiton for what a "kind" is. It's a continual point of failure in these kinds of arguments.
Just turn off your brain and praise Jesus..no more logicing!
This really pains me
Why cant they believe in theyr fate and still accept the trueth we can observe around us?
I even ackowledge that I'm not opposed to the idea of a greater beeing having created th beginning of the universe
We just dont truely know if it really just was the big bang
So I'm personally open to other theorys aswell
If I may, and I understand we may disagree, if any of you are willing to have a good faith discussion, let me offer some answers to your questions and understanding of the creationist view.
First to @thysillybilly
"Mammal" (latin for breast) like "Bird" and "Reptile", is a broad "scientific" classification of living creatures that share a criteria of physical attributes. One attribute of mammals is breasts. (Producing milk for offspring)
A "Kind" is specific species that has the exclusive ability to breed within that species.
Example) Canines, more commonly known as dogs, are mammals (having breasts), yet can only breed with other canines. In spite of many different "dog breeds/types", all dogs are canine. No breeding with other mammal species like humans, cats, or moles, etc.(all having breasts, also)
Therefore, "Cats" and "Moles" are both mammals yet are different knids/species. Likewise, "Birds" and "Reptiles" both lay eggs, but no bird can breed with any reptile, nor reptile with bird.
Lastly, there are no living Reptiles with feathers, and there are no living Birds with no feathers. You can find birds suffering from Psittacine Beak and Feather Diseases (PBFD) that causes them to lose the feathers they originally and naturally had. (A virus, Not a genetic class of species)
Second to @mrastin821
As stated above;
A "Kind" is specific species that has the exclusive ability to breed within that species.
Example) Canines and Felines are two "Kinds". You Can have "Breeds" within a "Kind". You Can have a Pomsky dog (half Pomeranian half Husky), and you Can have a Liger (half Lion half Tigger, yes the exist, though only few in the world) because all Dogs are Canines who can breed with other canines, and all "Big Cats" are Feline are can do the same.
Also, No animal "Kind" mashups like Platypus Bears (From the Last Airbender), and no half humans, like Minotaurs and Centaurs. "Platypus", "Bears", and "Humans" are not the same Kind/species and cannot crossbreed. However, each can breed within their respective "Kinds".
Third to @shadowlazers
I found no logic in your argument correlating faith to a lack of brain activity, but I did detect mockery and irony. I assure you Jesus loves you none the less.
And Fourth to @jonaswerner8480
I am glad to hear you are open to hearing both sides of any argument.
First, the observation of what is around us in the natural atomic universe (sience) is accepted and even supports the claims of the Bible. (Romans 1:20)
The painful part is when two or more "people" claim "science" supports their view, and then you are left to wonder who you believe. But like a needle in a haystack, the truth can be among you just lost in plain sight. All you need is a magnet (something objective/true to compare what you are presented) and to do some digging.(the willingness to pursue and accept the truth you find)
And secondly, when you're unsure of the beginnings of the universe, I ask you this.
To you, does life in of itself have value?
Both options take "faith" to believe in, but only one says you DO have value. Just know, that also means so do your choices. Or, you're just a walking mistake in a meat suit who could do any evil imaginable and it's all okay because you "wanted" to and life has no meaning.
Either there is THE God, He determines morality, and life matters.
Or...
Humans are evolved "gods", who's morality is subjective case by case, and life is to hurt everything and everyone around you just to loose everything and die. But at least you proved there's no God... right?
Thank you all. I hope this clarifies some things, and may spark some other questions that you pursue with your own research. Just a reminder, please apply the same scrutiny to all things (including evolution and what you may already believe) as you do to Creationism and the Bible. You may be surprised by what holes you can find if you look. Take care, and God bless.
We get no evidence for creationism here, just assertions, strawmen, and ad hominem. But that's the creationist modus operandi; it is such a scurrilous, disingenuous, negative philosophy.
The evidence is EVERYWHERE BEFORE YOU. There is no evidence for the fable of evolution. Name the 1 thing that causes you to BELIEVE the fable of evolution. I will SHOW you the truth. Evolution can never SHOW.
For me , it seems that there is a mental block that occurs in classifying animals , the taxanomic system developed by Carolus Lineaus was a categorization tool used to make it easier to study and classify animals , but it does not mean that the animals grouped together are in any way related , its like a library , you may have a book labeled ducks and it might be right next to a book labeled ducts , just because we group them together for our ease of access and understanding does not make them related outside of the alphabetical order system , it is much the same in taxonomy , evolutionists look at homology and see ancestral relation , young earth creationists look at homolgy and see common solutions to common life problems by a common creator , but the taxonomic classification system has set a bias in most people's minds due to how it has been used , for example , a hummingbird and an eagle are both classified as birds due to homology , feathers beaks , ect.. , but a humming bird is no more related to an eagle ancestraly than it is to an elephant , it was created separately from the eagles and therefore despite being similar in so many aspects , it and the eagle aren't weren't and never will be related accept in homologous classification just as ducks and ducts are in no way related outside of alphabetical order, in order to embrace biblical creation, you must understand that, taxonomic classification is not the same as ancestral classification , just because monitremes lay eggs doesnt make them related to birds , same with reptiles , im going to coin a new term here and call this CONVERGENT CREATION , everyone understands the concept of Ocham's razor simplest explanation, likeliest explanation, marsupial moles and true moles have nearly identical tools for their nearly identical lifestyles, evolutionists call this convergent evolution, their similar but unrelated, creationists need to look past the current taxonomic system if they wish to understand classification correctly , a person in the previous comments pointed out that the "birds " ie archeopteryx ect.. have different anatomical features from birds that are still around ( fyi , clawless birds with no tails or teeth have been found alongside dinosaurs claimed to be their ancestors, so modern birds could also be called prehistiric too ) using the hummingbird/ eagle argument I'd ask is the hummingbird related to archeopteryx ? Not according to creationists, so dont get caught up in defining all encompassing words such as bird or dinosaur , cows arent related to horses , triceratops aren't related to ankylosaurs, eals aren't related to salmon , crickets aren't related to dragonflies,( is starting to make sense ?) Therefore, microraptor may be classified in either dinosaurs or birds , but no matter where you put it , microraptor is uniquely and fearfully and wonderfully made in its own kind, just as the hummingbirds , just as the eagles , just as the tyrranosaurids, just as the canines ect... , the taxonomic classification system is tremendously beneficial in organizing our vast planet into digestable chunks for study and education, but that's it , cows and horses both have hair and hooves but there is no ancestral link , microraptors and eagles have no ancestral link yet they both have feathers, triceratops and t-rex both have scales but they arent ancestraly related , so if we discover a (taxonomicaly classified) dinosaur ( or any other creature) with fur or feathers or milk giving abilities or gills, and this doesn't fit the original taxonomic definition, don't sweat it , God's masterpieces dont give a hoot about your classification system , it's no more earth shattering than finding out that the unrelated eagle and hummingbird both have feathers , it is cooler though, because I'm a huge dino nerd . In conclusion, yes , evolutionists have been jumping through hoops to make definitions work for their theories, but feathered creatures on day six , ie ostriches or feathered/furry dinosaurs ( or feathered frogs ;) is , as far as I can tell , as acceptable as flying creatures without feathers alongside feathered flyers, ie pterosaurs , bats , flying insects . The bible simply states that the flying creatures, ( not emus etc.. ) and fowls of the air were created on day five alongside the aquatic creatures, it never said that the day six creatures didn't have feathers . A feathered dinosaur cannot shake my belief in young earth creationism , in fact it'd be cool , i hope they discover some with fur , that would be epic! Every kind of creature is uniquely created by a common designer to live in a common world , to fulfil common roles and meet their common needs , no wonder so many are similar, like I said at the beginning how you see something determines how you perceive it , im sure an evolutionists will find this note absurd to the highest degree, because, they don't start at the same point ( creator god ) so they cant end at the same point ( special design ) thats ok , don't let anyone tell you whats true , go and find out for yourself, test and prove , absolute truth exists , but only you can convince yourself of that , I'd challenge you to thoroughly research evolution and yung earth creationism on an unbiased footing and draw your own conclusions, i did that and I think this , good luck with your journey
I found Their three criteria very helpful in classifying creatures taxonomicly
But maybe you should classify long tailed " birds" separately
YES! I for one would love to see more of what you've worked on for three years! God's people must prepare for this battle because we are coming late to the fight in many cases. THANK YOU ALL and may God bless your efforts.
And you all believe that everything was created in seven days, and all we see is only six thousand years old. Wow! Nuff said
No, no, no, no! 6 days! Because an all powerful being that has no beginning needed some downtime on the 7th day. Wish I could work 6 days and get eternity off. Paid of course!
Why does bird DNA still have the unexpressed genes for making teeth?
Only the embryos have teeth
@@globalcoupledancesYes… And?
@billyb7465 - Embryonal teeth = expressed genes
@@globalcoupledances
But the comment was about adult birds still having many of the GENES for making teeth. They just no longer get the signal to do so from the underlying tissue. Experiments have shown that if you put in underlying tissue from mice, the signal is received and "teeth" are made. They are not complete teeth, probably because some of the genes actually have been lost.
@@jockyoung4491 Yes, I have heard of such mice experiments. Wasn't it about a human ear?
What we have here is a subspecies of long-tailed toothed birds that once lived on the earth before the Flood.
that weren't saved?
Archaeopteryx lived about 150 million years ago.
The skeletal drawings and pose comparisons were interesting and persuasive. There’s also an alternative (or potentially adjunct) hypothesis. Consider the book of Enoch as referred to in Jude and 2 Peter as well as the Genesis 6 discussion (including the implication some genetic games might have been being played before the flood and that the destruction of those genetic mutants might have been part of the judgment - ie ‘kinds’ that were not ‘perfect’ in their generation). I’m not saying it’s necessarily right, but it’s worth considering or at least accepting that alternate hypotheses exist. In saying this, I’m aware of the Job references, which seem to suggest that God did create at least one large land animal and sea animal that we would call a dinosaur. That doesn’t mean, however, that there weren’t also genetic games played with the created animals to come up with hybrids.
Wow absolutely one of the best videos on this topic. Thank you
@@JP-je6jg really how can you say that? Academics couldn't get how a fossil was formed right, they couldn't get the length of time it takes to form a fossil and they were totally wrong about it foe what 100 years or more....you seriously want to say evolution is right? I hope your joking because that's one of the dumbest things you can say. I can't believe you would buy into any of academics crap after that
@@JP-je6jg well why don't you say what's bollox then and point out your problems with it? Are you afraid I'm going to make you feel stupid or something?
@@vikingskuld LOL no, i'm not worried you're going to embarrass me. The creationists i engage with on here tend not to like it when i present facts to them. I wasn't sure if you would engage or not, it's a lot to type if you just ignore it. Now you have though...
Let's go
1. So i'll start with...who are these people? They are self proclaimed creationists, who work at the creationist museum, their agenda is obvious. They misrepresent and lie to make their argument fit. This is dishonest. They have their conclusion and they will make the facts fit around it. This is not how you engage in honest learning.
2. So they are genuinely trying to say that Richard Owen, in 1842, was the definitive knowledge on dinosaurs? That because he, basing his categories off 3 dinosaurs (iguanadon, megalosaurus and hylaeosaurus) called them terrible lizards, that that couldn't possibly change as we find out more? Owen was the first to categorise dinosaurs, he was bound to get things wrong. If you look at the crystal palace park dinosaurs (which Owen advised on) he got the depictions of megalosaurus wrong. He didn't know enough. As we have discovered more, we have to adapt our understanding. This is how science works, as you learn more, you adapt your understanding. You don't just say 'well in 1842 they said this, now they are changing their minds'. This point is so insanely stupid, i'm really surprised they actually said it out loud.
3. Erm, there is lots of evidence for evolution. There are 1000% fossils that evidence evolution, Archaeopteryx being one of them. Other ones include Pakicetus (early whale relative, in fact, whales are documented as having residual back legs, which speak of the land animal they used to be). Whilst we don't see animals turning into other animals (that isn't how evolution works)...(also..the work kind is not scientific and speaks of their ignorance), we see animals adapting and changing. Dogs, which are related to wolves, have evolved to have eye muscles that wolves don't have. This allows them to make 'puppy eyes'. This is an adaptation to living with humans, the dogs we could sympathise with, would get preferential treatment. Same for cats. Cats do not meow to other cats, it is a sound they only make at humans and it just so happens to be at the same sort of pitch as the cry of a human baby. Cats have evolved to target that paternal instinct in humans because they get more from us if they do. These are survival traits and adaptations. It is visible and observable evolution. We also see it in bacteria and viruses. This is something we can document. The flu vaccine changes every year because the strains of flu change and mutate. Covid did the same, there were so many strains because it mutated. This is evolution in real time. Anti Bacterial resistance is the same. It is bacteria adapting and changing to be able to survive drugs that previously had worked on it. To deny evolution is to ignore literally all the evidence around you...because you just don't want to believe it.
4. Depictions of dinosaurs in jurassic park are notoriously playful. Velociraptor did not look like it does in the movie. They more closely resemble deinonychus, but Michael Crichton preferred the name velociraptor. There is no evidence T.Rex roared like it does, it was just the movie expectation. So poking holes in jurassic park depictions and acting as if that's modern science's fault is a little bit pathetic.
5. Archaeopteryx is not a bird. It has some bird like features yes, but it has more features that are reptilian/dinosaur. It has a jaw with teeth (unlike any bird iv ever seen) it has a long, skeletal tail, it has claws on its forearms. It is a transitional fossil. It is one of the earliest animals that went on to form the family that became birds, but it is not a bird. It is evidence of evolution.
@@vikingskuld 6. Dinosaurs have been found with direct evidence of feathers, what they say is a lie. Yutyrannus and archaeopteryx are the most famous of these. Why couldn't dinosaurs have feathers though? Like physically why? There is a thing called convergent evolution where different animals and species that aren't very related have similar solutions to the same problem. Look up the hedgehog tenrec, it looks remarkably like a hedgehog...but is unrelated. Look up carcinization as well, the phenomena of non crustaceans evolving crab like forms. If this can happen, why can't animals other than birds evolve feathers?
7. Linneus was categorising things in the 18th century...again...do you not think we might have got better at understanding the world? Why is it an issue scientists are improving their categorisations? That is just how science works, it builds on itself and expands its knowledge.
8. Their three categories are just ridiculous. A. As pointed out, dinosaurs did have feathers, so they are lying. B. They are looking at evidence of evolution and refusing to see it. The wrist ones clearly show a connection between bird like dinosaurs and birds. Allosaurus is not a dinosaur that is related to birds, so it would not display similarities. C. Archaeopteryx did have a long skeletal tail, for its size. It's about the size of a magpie, so wouldn't have a comparatively massive tail. They show it in the diagram though, chickens have virtually no tail muscles, allosaurus had huge ones...the microraptor was in the middle and had a bigger set of muscles comparatively, to the chicken but smaller than the allosaurus. It's literally a transitional fossil. I'd also like to point out, what is the most obvious feature of a bird when you look at it's face...that's right, a beak. All modern birds have a beak, these dinosaurs listed, all had jaws and teeth. Why did they ignore that fact? Is it perhaps because it isn't convenient to their point?
Does it mean all science is correct? Of course not. Does that mean everything iv argued for you above will be true in 10 years time? No, a new discovery might change our understanding again. But if you stick to the evidence, it at least gives you a good grounding on which to build knowledge. It will be scientists who do correct other scientists work also, i can guarantee it won't come from any creationists.
So, i hope you can see that the points they made are total bollox...i look forward to your response.
@@vikingskuld 6. Dinosaurs have been found with direct evidence of feathers, what they say is a incorrect. Yutyrannus and archaeopteryx are the most famous of these. Why couldn't dinosaurs have feathers though? Like physically why? There is a thing called convergent evolution where different animals and species that aren't very related have similar solutions to the same problem. Look up the hedgehog tenrec, it looks remarkably like a hedgehog...but is unrelated. Look up carcinization as well, the phenomena of non crustaceans evolving crab like forms. If this can happen, why can't animals other than birds evolve feathers?
7. Linneus was categorising things in the 18th century...again...do you not think we might have got better at understanding the world? Why is it an issue scientists are improving their categorisations? That is just how science works, it builds on itself and expands its knowledge.
8. Their three categories are just ridiculous. A. As pointed out, dinosaurs did have feathers, so they are lying. B. They are looking at evidence of evolution and refusing to see it. The wrist ones clearly show a connection between bird like dinosaurs and birds. Allosaurus is not a dinosaur that is related to birds, so it would not display similarities. C. Archaeopteryx did have a long skeletal tail, for its size. It's about the size of a magpie, so wouldn't have a comparatively massive tail. They show it in the diagram though, chickens have virtually no tail muscles, allosaurus had huge ones...the microraptor was in the middle and had a bigger set of muscles comparatively, to the chicken but smaller than the allosaurus. It's literally a transitional fossil. I'd also like to point out, what is the most obvious feature of a bird when you look at it's face...that's right, a beak. All modern birds have a beak, these dinosaurs listed, all had jaws and teeth. Why did they ignore that fact? Is it perhaps because it isn't convenient to their point?
Does it mean all science is correct? Of course not. Does that mean everything iv argued for you above will be true in 10 years time? No, a new discovery might change our understanding again. But if you stick to the evidence, it at least gives you a good grounding on which to build knowledge. It will be scientists who do correct other scientists work also, i can guarantee it won't come from any creationists.
So, i hope you can see that the points they made are total bollox...i look forward to your response.
Thank you for the video. Valuable information. I had a bit of trouble understanding Dr. Gabriela's accent.
The only way to make a missing link is with imagination.
Scientists have found many missing links and it wasn’t by imagination.
@@razark9 Name a missing link that has not been disproven.
Thank you for explaining the 17:13 difference between cladistics and naming based on anatomy. It makes all the difference. These days there is science and then there is 'science' pretending to be science. No wonder people are confused.
why did you start using ai thumbnails
Great analysis
... "great" ... "analysis" ...
This video was literally the exact opposite.
For me the beaver is a major wrench in the evolusionary tale. What an animal.
Why is that a problem? It's just a big rodent.
Casteroides
Good job pointing out the linguistic malfeasance. It's an easy trick to miss if you're not on the look out.
Great information!
they're lying to you.
They claimed dinosaurs don't have feathers - but they have so little regard for their audience that they even showed archaeopteryx and microraptor - dinosaurs with feathers....and long bony tails, lizard-like skulls with teeth, and hands with fingers and claws.
@@bengreen171 Maybe you're the one that has been lied to🤔
@@leahgreenwalt1219
I literally pointed out a lie they told you. Did you not understand what I said? Do you think birds can have teeth and long bony tails?
I found a study from 2020 where they describe a stage 3 feather from the late cretaceous of Myanmar.
Flight feathers very similar to modern forms had evolved by the Jurrasic, so they were common in the Cretaceous.
@@jockyoung4491 Yeah, I was just wondering since they claimed stage 3 feathers hadn't been found in the fossil record. But there have, it seems.
I like this a lot. I didn't realize the evolution myth they perpetrate could be made to look so real just by posing skeletons differently. don't archeologists put work into understanding rest positions and range of motion based on bone structure?
The only difference in the skeletons were that they changed between a walking pose and a resting pose. Whether or not those animals were non-avian dinosaurs or birds, they would still use both of those positions during their life. All of those skeletons at the end belong to feathered non-avian dinosaurs, except for the Archaeopteryx, Jeholornis and Sapeornis, who are just avian dinosaurs (birds).
Also this video is about palaeontology, not archaeology. Palaeontology is the study of prehistoric life, while archaeology is the study of human life and activity.
Regional University of Cariri, the school of Dr. Gabriela Haynes
country rank 129
world rank 5442
10:41 without knowing what species this is, If you can use the same skeleton in different poses & not tell if its a bird or a therapod, wouldn't that suggest that they are in fact related?
Or it would suggest similar designs from the same designer: God.
Darwinism - Because putting things in order according to our personal interpretations is fun !
( "motivational poster" about forks )
@@kirkshairpiece6741 You could, but if you follow with this logic, you could argue less visually similar things that we know are related like Emus & Penguins are also just similarly designed & are not related. Which makes a hell of an issue for lumping everything in "kinds."
Also why would God make Therapod dinosaurs so similar to birds both visually & anatomically even in areas that don't make sense if they're not related if they are in fact not related? With no other living taxonomy would you hold this logic, weather its cats, or whales, or so on.
@@tone9358 "*therapod dinosaurs so similar to birds both visually & anatomically"
They arent. You take artists' deciptions too granted. And imagination is a great thing as well...
"..Emus & Penguins "
All the birds might be related. On the other hand within "bush- model" (as opposite to "tree of life") there may be multiple kinds of birds, some of which are more lookalike to the others than the rest.
@@i7Qp4rQ You miss the point when I say visually & anatomically. Both birds & dinosaurs have things like keels & wish bones. Why would they both have these things in the same place?
I find it odd your willing to accept a bush model of isolated branching while suggesting its impossible for those isolated branches to also have common ancestry. You already have to grant a extreme hyper evolution that no science accepts to have the bio-diversity today while still trying to fit all the animals on the ark, rather than taking a story in a book filled with allegory as allegory.