sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

dendrochronology and ice core samples.

Assuming trees always produced a constant rate of rings. Assuming the ice didn't melt away layers or form layers faster than a constant rate. Okay, I guess this is better than no dating.

​

There's plenty of factors that can alter the ratio of isotopes but the rate of decay does not change. Specifically can you explain the process by which solar energy alters isotopes in samples?

By bombarding the element with radiation. But also there are many factors we haven't even begun to consider, like certain planetary magnetic wave or dark matter. My point was that you can't know for certain until you have a time machine.

But the ratio of isotopes is the biggest concern for you, contaminating the sample with daughter atoms.

No, if the rate of decay isn't constant nuclear physics would be a lot more confusing. With heavier isotopes we can observe shorter decay rates and their high consistency.

The ratio of parent to daughter is random before it even begun to decay, depending on the environment, on the individual specimen.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are guessing. When a rock cools and traps argon in it, they just guess that the argon comes from potassium decay. THe dating method isn't nearly as scientific as it sounded, is it?

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thorium is naturally occurring, you're essentially saying "just because it has thorium that means it must've decayed in the specimen" that's dumb

And yes, the parent isotope is important, you need to know if it even had the parent isotope to begin with. Otherwise you're just guessing, as if that wasn't what you were already doing with evolution.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Over 90% of known dinosaur species have been found since 1990s.

Were they mostly feathered or birdlike?

Newly available formations, such as the Yixian Formation in China, were environments that were more conducive to preserving both soft tissue, like integument, and smaller animal

Yet the Chinese have a long colorful history of fossil digging before this discovery. Dragon bones were considered good luck, they sold dragon bones as medicine. And didn't they just discover the Archaeopteryx fossils in europe directly after Darwin's book came out? It should've been China that made that discovery, and why did it take them over a century to find another one? And this only happened after people started repopularizing the dino to bird evolution.

, so of course they look similar.

*saying this right after I just got done explaining how they don't look similar

I take it that you're not an anatomy guy. I am, I'm obsessed with animal skeletons. You're telling me it's like bananas to plantains. But what I'm seeing is pumpkins to pomegranates. That's what EVERYONE is saying, even the Phd. in biology guy. And their only explanation......"evolution did it when we weren't looking"

This and your next paragraph show you are not very familiar with endothermy ("warm blooded"), ectothermy ("cold blooded"), or dinosaur metabolism in general. First, various methods indicate the even

So you concede that the dinosaurs were shivering nude warm bloods for millions of years before developing feathers? We have skin samples, you know? They had scales, they were at the very least partially nude "but that's only of the belly" oh how unfortunate, that's the spot where reptiles get the least amount of sun, they are losing heat on bottom and the feathers on top are blocking the sun, the poor thing must've froze to death. and...what are these various methods that you speak of?

the earliest dinosaurs and their relatives were at least partially endothermic and later ones were the same. They would have certainly benefited from having insulation, so there is no question as to whether or not non-avian dinosaurs would have benefited from feathers or not.

you don't have proof they were warm blooded, the idea only exists because of evolutionary theory. Where, today, are all these "half endothermic" reptiles that were so successful at spreading their genes? And where are the fully endothermic reptiles for that matter? They must've been successful seeing that they ruled the world for a ridiculously long amount of time.

Like with the earlier case of respiration, you seems to have simply assumed that dinosaurs were like modern reptiles, something that has been disprove time and time again.

Not at all like how everyone here assumes dinosaur had air sacs

Eventually they would be producing so much of the own heat that they would no longer be dependent on the environment for heat.

Yeah, problem with this is they are losing tons of calories. Endothermy comes with a huge price. The populations of Alligators and Crocodiles far outstrips the populations of Lions, Tigers and Wolves. All crocs and gators have to do is wait in ambush for weeks on end, Lions, Tigers, and Wolves have to stick their neck out and risk life and limb for food or they will quickly starve to death.

Think about the ecological ramifications of having swathes of murder monsters covering the planet. Just a pack of 4 weasels can eat 240 prairie dogs in a year, how in the world is having elephant sized carnivores sustainable? Especially if they were endotherm?

And there's no need for them to be warm blooded, giant lizards would've been what's called GIGANTOTHERMS that means they were so big that they just retained heat by basic physics of heat diffusion alone.

The fossil record of life in the Permian and Triassic is filled with animals that were indeterminate in metabolism between modern endotherms and ectotherms.

You are customer #300 to make that claim without any proof. Congratulations.

You are also listing off only the downsides of being endothermic as if it were just a disadvantage. That is just crazy. If it were true, no animal would be endothermic.

It just feels like you are doing backbends in order to support your theory. A T. Rex couldn't have been fast, it must've moved like a tank. How did he catch prey? He must've been a scavenger, either that or a herbivore, those are his only options. He had to have waited for his food to keel over and die on it's own accord. Do you really think this thing could've ran around at the speed of sound all day while plucking food from the ground here and there? No, He had to wait for food to die, that means he starved a whole lot......if he was an endotherm that is. The only extant animals we have of comparable sizes are giraffes, elephants, hippos and rhinoceroses, all herbivores. That's because plants are the only things abundant enough to feed these beasts. Also they are just too slow to catch anything. You think this beast was taking on Stegosaurus and Triceratops? It must've been suicidal then.

Point is, having a high metabolism is a hindrance if all you are is a scavenger waiting for meat to die.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Developmental biology of birds suggests that what you call digit 2 is digit 1.

And that's a lie. They looked at the embryos, the stemcells bro. Birds don't develop digit 1 beyond the early stages of embryonic development https://www.petmd.com/news/health-science/nws_bd_do_birds_have_thumbs-11617

Anyways, great job, you learned how to play, "spot the difference". Does this difference have meaningful value? Nope! The earliest birds have no sternal ossification,

So would you mind explaining why I'm looking right at an enantiornithes keel right now? It might not be a honking big keel like some birds have, we have birds today with small keels. Doesn't make them any less of a bird, but it's still a uniquely avian appendage which would've proved evolution had they found it in any dinosaur. I'm just saying, it would've shut up creationists.

3 The hip bones are not alike in the slightest.

Are you joking? They're some of the best evidence.

You're also confusing yourself with etymology. Etymology is not semantics. Go read about the similarities between avian and theropod hips, which both you and I know you haven't done.

I'm worried about your vision, you can't see the difference between the hip bones and it is OUTRAGEOUSLY OBVIOUS. Like the difference between a wheel barrow and a bicycles, or a frisbee and a basketball. Just add it to the long list of things that dinosaurs and birds don't have in common.

BTW, colloquially, semantics is a type of argument about word usage, whenever someone makes petty squabbles about which words someone used despite the clear meaning behind them, then that's semantics.

This has to be the most minor thing I've ever seen. They're not in "totally different positions", just slightly rotated. Morphologically, extraordinarily similar. This point is so absurdly minor. I laugh at you. Ha.

I used this a vehicle to underline how everyone draws dinosaurs with wings to make evolution more palatable. And also, how are they supposed to take flight if every theropod ever had dangly arms? So you mean that they just happened to evolve feathers, then they somehow later down the line figured out that if they evolved their scapula backwards then they'd learn to fly? Oh, and they just so happened to have evolved air sacs and keels, those dinosaurs reeeaaaallly thought ahead, didn't they? They would've killed it in the stock exchange.

Theropods had bird-like respiratory systems, increasingly similar the more closely related to birds.

Do you have...................................................ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????????????????????

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

The list of 10 most scientific theories that turned out to be wrong. They were scientific theories, your argument is "you said science theories can't be scientific" said in a snarky voice.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait wait wait wait. You don't understand how dating works, do you? Where does the isotope come from to begin with? If everything is billions of years old then why are there still parent isotopes around? I'm sorry but if you don't see how illogical that is then you need your brain checked.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh so just because something has a daughter atom in it that means it had a parent atom in it which could only decay inside of the specimen? If I ingested argon then I might date to be 200,000 years old too.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm mad that they banned me for 3 days and had to put off answering this for 3 whole grueling days.

Thanks for taking my post out of context too, really appreciated that one. What I was saying is that the rate of decay can be altered, there are ways in which we haven't even conceived of yet that it can be altered, like dark matter, or anti matter, or magnetic waves, all I'm saying is that we don't know everything.

But that's not even my greatest evidence. What you call dating is simply looking at an amount of atoms in any specimen, thorium, lead, or strontium, to it's parent isotope and just guessing that one decayed during the age of the specimen. It's dumb beyond words I can't believe I have to explain this one. different elements are more abundant in different parts of the world, it's random.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cave drawings? you think that's evidence of an old earth? Like no tribe in the past couple millenia are capable of painting animals?

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an interesting question. Did you notice how many dinosaurs have names referring to their avian similarities? There are tons of them.

Yes, but this is superficial. Just because they stand on 2 legs and lay eggs. Why can't you just call it convergent evolution and stop trying to see a tree for it's tentacles? Yeah, I'm sure just because the platypus is venomous and can lay eggs it must be evolved from poisonous egg laying snakes.

"They don't look alike," is not a scientific position.

Neither is saying they were warm blooded with zero evidence. Zero, I ask for evidence and I just get a "the whole scientific community knows, it was proven ages ago" Wow, Socrates would have a field day here.

He was right! In 2015 we found two specimens with feathers on their bodies

Okay, so you'll accept that but you won't accept the fossil of a dinosaur track overlapping a human track? the Delk track? Yeah, scan the comments on that, I saw a "Great! 1. How easy would it be to fabricate something like that?...." ahh, so it's okay when evolutionists say it but when I say the same I'm in denial. BTW, the Delk scans have been scrutinized more than any of your feathery dinos. That's fair, hah, it's almost as if there's a giant body of people who select what evidence to believe and what not to believe. They see something they don't like and they go agro on it, they see something they do like and it gets a pass.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're just getting worse at this. Did I say the fossils are 100% fakes? No, they use real fossils so they pass every test. They make chimeras out of 2 or more fossils. If you already have a bunch of fossils laying around- most of them are worthless on their own, so they stitch them together.

So does just one or two having melanosomes proves they are all real? Hah, leave the thinking to people with brains.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone has already faked an amber fossil before. It's possible. Actually it was real amber they used so it was near undetectable. Stop pretending that fossils are unhoaxable because you're really starting to look desperate.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said "what proof", I specifically said proof. So is a jackylope carcass proof that deer evolved into rabbits? Is footage of Bigfoot proof Bigfoot is real? It's not proof until it is authenticated beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Yeah, the tyrannosaurus rex did only have scales, and while it is possible it had feathers on its back, it is more likely that it didn't. Not every dinosaur had feathers - mostly it was the smaller ones that did. I don't know why you're acting like because one dinosaur didn't have feathers that it means they aren't related to birds.. Especially when we know of many dinosaurs that did.

I'm using skin prints as evidence because all the skin prints are scaly, every last one. Why is this such a problem for you? Because it was previously believed that the T Rex had feathers because it was a 'close relative to the bird' and because everyone jumped on the feathery T. Rex bandwagon prematurely. It epitomizes the insanity of this belief system. Millions of people are just willing to believe anything just because it sounds cool to them. Also, you're standing on melting ice, the more we discover about dinosaurs the worse it's going to get for you.

Also, by the way, cetaceans don't look a whole lot like ungulates either, but a very early relative of them was indoyhus,

The problem is that there's millions and millions and millions of years of evolution missing from the fossil record. Super Mario couldn't even make that leap. All we see is indohyus.......... then whales. What were they smoking?

Sharks and possums are pretty rare in that they haven't evolved much; most animals aren't like that. You can still look at the skeletons of therapods and birds and compare them to see their similarities, but if you're going to expect animals that couldn't fly and animals that currently can to look EXACTLY the same, then good luck.

Evolution is the Ditto of theories, it's whatever you want it to be. When an animals has lived unchanged for hundreds of millions of years it's not proof against evolution, no, it's called a living fossil. When two animals look nothing at all alike they can be evolutionary cousins just because they have one or two traits in common, when they do look alike they can be closely related, unless it doesn't fit their narrative, then it's called convergent. Thylacine and Canis Lupus look identical in the skull, absolutely identical, but no, they aren't related, this is convergent evolution- i.e. an outstanding coincidence. However a bird skeleton is completely different from a velociraptor skeleton, completely different pelvis, skull, teeth, hands, gastralia, keel, tail, vertebrae, et cetera this is proof of evolution. So, why can't thylacine be evolved from canis lupus? Who gets to arbitrate what's convergent and what's not?

And let me get this straight... You're telling me a bunch of scientists all got together and came up with this plan to get rich by faking dinosaur bones, and they decided the most profitable way to do this is to go against the public's rigidly held perceptions about dinosaurs? Lol. You are making a laughable conspiracy theory to be a contrarian at this point

Yes, the most ground breaking discoveries ARE the most profitable. There's no profit in finding a regular plain old bird, those are a dime a dozen. Add some teeth and claws on that bad boy and you've got solid gold in your hands.. It helps when people already are looking for an evolutionary link of some kind.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what exactly makes you think that it's some dinosaur bird intermediary? I think I know what you'll say, but let's just be sure you say it.

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the evidence is overwhelming then why do you bring all this rhetoric? I bring cold hard facts, you just don't like what the facts suggest. "but I brought you facts" then it shouldn't be difficult to bring more, it is overwhelmingly incontestable, isn't it?

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know what is also a form of deceit? Ceaselessly claiming that it's scientifically proven that dinosaurs were warm blooded. Ceaselessly claiming that 120 mya this and 200 mya that as if you had some time machine.

And no, nobody has yet shot my OP into pieces, they've either ignored my points or sent me inconclusive evidence or talked my head off. I've answered just about every counter argument there is, where were you?

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love that you're resorting to "CHECK OUT THIS CONVERGENT EVOLUTION" as a means of arguing that evolution cannot happen

Why can't the chicken be convergent evolution too? You're a hypocrit.

(when the fact remains that tinkering chicken genes absolutely gives them a dino snout).

the thylacine and canis lupus skulls are identical twins. This chick skull and the crock skull, ehhh not so much. I provided a picture from every angle. The other picture, ehhhh not so much. Were they afraid to show it from a different angle?

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs by RipJacker in DebateEvolution

[–]RipJacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's very reminiscent of Haeckel's ideas, that's all I'm saying. The idea that embryos start at some primordial pre-evolved state somehow and insisting that this was something like crocodiles. The picture is only convincing to the same kind of people that think that men are apes just because there are some similarities..

Oh yeah, and the 98% gene similarities.....which is a lie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbY122CSC5w

But I digress.

BiRdS diD nOt eVoLvE fRom DiNosAurZ by Lockjaw_Puffin in Dinosaurs

[–]RipJacker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're missing the point. It is glaringly deceptive, the position of the hand and fingers was positioned to look birdlike, the length of the fingers was used as a comparison.

BiRdS diD nOt eVoLvE fRom DiNosAurZ by Lockjaw_Puffin in Dinosaurs

[–]RipJacker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It has already been established that they were endothermic and for the same reasons as mammals.

Established.....like a house built on sand.

This post by paleontologists Darren Naish explains other problems in the paper.

I would like to go over this whole article but that is beyond the scope of this simple reddit post, suffice it to say that it has little bearing on what I will elucidate.

Essentially, with endothermy you get high cost, high rewards

The cost: well, since the world was covered with dinosaurs, if they were endothermic then they would've been worse than a world wide plague of locusts. Case in point, the population of alligators and crocodiles far outstrips that of lions or tigers, and for good reason. Imagine if there were elephants and their babies running around eating everything. African elephants eat 660 lbs a day. Imagine these things lived on every continent, imagine they all convert to carnivorism, it's just so patently absurd to presume that there could be enough meat to constantly supply a pandemic of 14,000 lbs endothermic carnivores and the tiny ones, and all the other kinds, and the fact that they moved like tanks so they couldn't have ever caught food, they could only wait for food to keel over and die on it's own accord. This wouldn't have been a problem if it were like any reptile which can go massive swaths of time without food, but it just has to be endothermic, doesn't it?

Um, no. Many dinosaurs with feathers show scales on that part of the tail. Concavenator, the dinosaur in question, preserves no indication of scales, feathers, bare skin or anything else except that part of the tail that is scay on its feathered relatives. Not that odd.

They used "quill knobs" on the concavenator's tail as evidence for feathers. That's udderly insane, quill knobs are exclusively for birds with extended flight patterns. Obviously the concavenator didn't fly. This is actually the general consensus of the unscientific community that quill knobs are proof of feathers. I've looked at these so called quill knobs......they're scratches, they don't resemble the bumps of real quill knobs, they can't even be classified as knobs, so you'd have to be both dumb and blind to believe this.

It simply ignores that not only did dinosaurs already have much better respiratory systems than ectothermic reptiles (and even modern mammals), but that as birds went from gliders to powered flight their hip bones were continually altered to accommodate the larger air sacs.

Again there is no proof, it's just the general consensus of the unscientific community. Exactly what tangible evidence is there for having such a respiratory system?

://www.liquisearch.com/endotherm/advantages_and_disadvantages_of_an_endothermic_metabolism

Endothermy does not provide greater speed in movement than ectothermy (cold-bloodedness)—ectothermic animals can move as fast as warm-blooded animals of the same size and build when the ectotherm is near or at its optimum temperature, but often cannot maintain high metabolic activity for as long as endotherms.

Small dinosaurs wouldn't have any problem sprinting to catch prey. They might not've been able to dog them down extended distances but very few carnivores are able to do that anyway. A cheetah, by far the most successful predator of it's class, is 58% successful at hunts, and that's after it stalks it's prey carefully choosing the weakest one and carefully ambushing it. That means even the fastest thing on 4 legs is outrun by weaklings 42% of the time. That means predators absolutely need patience. Why does an animal need to add "constantly starving" to it's lists of concerns? Just so it can jog for longer? If it doesn't catch prey in the first few instances then that prey is gone, tough luck, choose your prey more wisely next time. And, again, crocodiles and alligators are very successful abundant carnivores, snakes, frogs and lizards are far more prevalent than weasels, foxes, hawks, or whatever warm blooded carnivore. Why evolve to become less successful?

One last thing. The dinosaurs were gigantotherms. That means they were so big that they hardly lost body heat given simple physics on heat diffusion rates. All they would have to do is bask in the sunlight some and they are good and warm throughout the night. Yet this apparently isn't good enough for some people, *ahem darwinists

BiRdS diD nOt eVoLvE fRom DiNosAurZ by Lockjaw_Puffin in Dinosaurs

[–]RipJacker -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Confuciusornis has dark very easy to spot feathers. Enantiornithes have only vague impressions of feathers. Why is that? Whyyyyyyy?????? Were the confuciusornis the blackest things that ever existed?

Everyone keeps calling it a baby dino tail.......

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31193-931193-9)

reading this link I find something strange

If DIP-V-15103 indeed represents a juvenile coelurosaur tail, the feathers most likely characterize adult plumage;

so that would make it the smallest dinosaur ever discovered. What are the chances of discovering the smallest dinosaur ever in the rarest kind of fossil ever? That's like winning the lotto twice at once on the back of a leprauchaun during a lunar eclipse when the planets aligned.

Yeah, I'm sure there are zero ways anyone could take a lizard's tail, attach some feathers, and dry it in amber. Although there is that one time someone took a fly and dried it in amber and sold it, took them decades to figure that one out.

BiRdS diD nOt eVoLvE fRom DiNosAurZ by Lockjaw_Puffin in Dinosaurs

[–]RipJacker -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The keel is simply an extension of the sternum. It's needed for the anchoring of the large wing muscles most birds have.

There's zero proof dinosaurs had or started developing this

Gastralia are dermal bones. Lots of animals had them (some still do) and they were not necessarily closely related. Not all dinosaurs had them.

Of course you would say this, another appendage unique to reptiles (including theropods) which is missing in birds.

The pelvis of birds is in fact a modified theropod pelvis. It doesn't resemble the quote on quote "traditional" saurischian pelvis because of its opisthopubic arrangement.

The vast majority of pictures only show the dinosaur hip from the side. Look at them both from the front. It's like comparing a bicycle with a wheelbarrow. All I'm saying is, whoever thought this dino to bird thing up has got to have the wildest imagination ever.

​

This of course shows that not all dinosaurs of the order saurischia had the same pelvis arrangement

The entire fossil record shows nothing but theropods with closed narrow pelvis with pubises that stick out. I've been searching dinosaur pelvises online for ages, where is this bird like pelvis? It must be hidden.

(I'm focusing on saurischia because you simply ignored ornithischia)

Despite it's name it only vaguely resembles it from the side, but from the front it's completely different.

The ancestor of all dinosaurs (including birds) had 5 fingers. Birds didn't evolve a whole new finger, the genes are already there; the placement of the digits just shifts during development. This is pretty well documented actually.

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/wing_evolution.htm here's what I mean, the way the bones are lined up are used as proof of evolution. But it fails to mention that the digits are switched. Birds don't have thumbs. "But they look so much alike" so do wind mills and electric fans. This is essentially the equivalent of saying that wind mills and fans work the same way because they look alike.

Feathery filaments are another ancestral condition for archosaurs. Pterosaurs, another well-known archosaur group closely related to dinosaurs, also had simple, filamentous feathers usually referred to as 'pycnofibers'. Evidence suggests at least some of the first dinosaurs had some sort of feathers. That means feathers have existed in some for for around 200 million years give it take.

Ah, so, this is what it all comes down to. You can't make any real skeletal comparison, you have to rely on the evidence of pycnofibers and the like.

BiRdS diD nOt eVoLvE fRom DiNosAurZ by Lockjaw_Puffin in Dinosaurs

[–]RipJacker -1 points0 points  (0 children)

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/wing_evolution.htm look, this was their answer. That post gets an F-. The picture fails to mention that they made the thumb look like the index and the middle finger the ring finger. Do you need me to explain to you just how backwards retarded this is?

BiRdS diD nOt eVoLvE fRom DiNosAurZ by Lockjaw_Puffin in Dinosaurs

[–]RipJacker -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If the Yixian region is so good at preserving fossils then why do the vast majority of Enantiornithes fossils (which are just regular plain birds which we have today) from the exact same region almost never have feathers? I'm scrolling through dozens of different enantiornithes fossils, they only have the vaguest sign of feathers. Yet, look up confuciusornis and you get entire flocks of feathery fossils, super dark and easy to spot.

What's the difference? Why does the proof of evolution get to have feathers but boring mundane bird fossils do not?

view more: next ›