Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it’s unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.
The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.

“It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird biology,” said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. “This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.”

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

We’ll probably be taught that as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in schools across the land and world, with dissenters laughed and kicked off campus, and then, years or decades later, “Whoops! Our bad! Tee hee!”. That’s the Big Science (think they) know-it-alls for you. I like how religion, Catholic Church style, is consistent with what it says is the truth, as much truth as grace has enlightened our leaders, and that’s nothing but the truth–as helped by God. That’s why creationism should be taught side-by-side with evolution, if we have to keep the latter. The Bible has an inerrant story, the literalism and symbolism of which gets debated; macroevolution, however, is full of holes and honest scientists, who see the irreconcilable problem with it and don’t mind losing the world’s respect for the truth (though now it can be profitable to write books about their open-minded discoveries), join creationists, I.D. adherents or at least macroevolution debunkers.

Adam and Eve named the animals God created. There’s a family tree going from them to Jesus. Who cares what “day” means in the Bible there? It’s a fallen world and, if Satan can work wonders and deceive the masses about religion, he can deceive us in the natural sciences with false “evidence” or “perceptions”.

Of course, this kind of cynicism is only OK to use against religion in this society. Even people with religion trust the newest scientific understandings (yes, some pre-Vatican 2 popes said macroevolution was a possibility, but before evidence debunked it) before trusting their scriptures, which is OK unless it’s the Bible, especially the inerrant Catholic one (though translations can be errant and that’s why we have the Catholic Church thanks to God). Real science truth is making the Bible to be more trustworthy than the scientific community

Ah, so one model of evolution has been found to be disproven. It’s a good thing there are other models of evolution!

Very cool article.Thanks for sharing it! I’ve printed it up for my son who’s interested in science.

Microevolution is OK. It seems prehistory is pretty unimportant. It’s interesting for curiosity’s sake, but it doesn’t cure diseases or help mankind in any way. Of course, if you say that about Big Religion, especially The Catholic one, people say, “Yeah!”, even though most religions, most especially The Catholic one, do help people and have for millenia.

BTW If there ever were a patron of LESBIGAY kind of people, the person either would have converted from being one, helped them not be hated but not helped their lifestyle be accepted, or was not suffering from any of those mentalities and the corresponding sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance and tried to help them convert to heterosexuality.

All history is important. God is the Lord of history and He wastes nothing. He has given us creatures to help us live and to teach us lessons. He has created life in such a way that it will benefit us. He makes time flow for our good. And there is much we can learn from any point in history, whether it’s prehistoric or more recently, and not just because the past was once present and the present had an impact on the future.

The question of whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs or that birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor has been around for quite a while. I would suggest that this doesn’t settle the question one way or the other, but adds one more piece of data to the discussion.

One of the researchers, John Ruben, has been a long time advocate of the common ancestor not direct descent hypothesis. I think that both sides have made strong argument, with the direct descent hypothesis being in the lead.

By the way, I understand that the point of this thread is to show that evolution is somehow flawed, but I find it interesting that this study was funded by the NSF. Where is the conspiracy to keep funding from researchers that find evidence that contradict evolution?

Peace

Tim

I think the aarticle is fascinating. All this does is make the dinosaurs that much more of a mystery. Thinking birds were their decendants seemed to make them less of a mystery.

I’m all for social studies and what not, but is it worth people being banished from academia over it? I think archaeology has been abused for the Atheist cause, to make God not the creator of man as a separate being, and for scientific communism to make us out to be mere advanced animals that can kill off its weaker members, so the field of archaeology should be put into perspective. It’s run by flawed people, who can abuse it, and their works are not inerrant. Even the Church’s opinions as of yet are not inerrant, except to say God created us specially with a soul that cannot be destroyed and which receives the benefit of Christ’s act of redemption at one’s own baptism, but can lose the benefits with mortal sin until pardoned by authorized clergy or perfect contrition (I’m sure a theologian could say it better).

The book on origins of any species or the Earth, other astronomical bodies and the universe should never be closed, despite a majority of scientists believing something and this, amongst other beliefs, illustrates why. It’s probably allowed to be OKed because it doesn’t unravel macroevolution for the Atheists, top Freemasons (and their stooges) and Communists, but makes out a bird coming from a reptile. So what? We have creatures that look similar, but are not the same kind, like Koala “Bears”. Hummingbirds flap their wings like insects. Of course, radiation can affect the age of carbon things. It’s not a perfect science, but it’s not really necessary anyway as we’ll never know about some of these prehistoric happenings, if they’re truly prehistoric (as the Bible probably has the real history of the universe, planets, and mankind, but omitted unnecessary elements and only the Church can make any definitive statement on that).

What the Church does say about creation, as understood by the masses, is under threat and “science” is being used to threaten it even more. They try to keep religious stories out, even the true ones, as only The Bible has, despite the areligious Einstein saying science and religion need each other. Most (scientists and those religious who want to feel smart according to the zeitgeist want religion, if involved at all, to stamp its approval on all Big Science says is true, so the latter can sell their deceptions to the masses. I think Big Science is afraid of science. Why, besides using weaker people like cattle, else can embryonic stem cell research continue as something more elevated than mad science? It’s mostly all about the arrogant wanting to have their way with certain people and trying to convince their consciences it’s OK. Some of them just have a grudge against religion for something done to them (maybe it’s a perceived power-trip) or not done for them by a person or institute of a classic religion (nature religions, Buddhism and Hinduism get big brakes in this regard, because there’s no connection to the God of the old testament), some were raised by radically Atheist parents, and many now learn from these people their emotion-ridden excuse for rational thinking in all years of schooling and think themselves so smart. I think Fr. Groeschel should cover Big Science, but he probably believes in macroevolution too, despite it’s vulnerable area, as pointed out by Darwin, was struck a fatal blow years ago. Would Darwin disown it today? I don’t know. He was in favor of eugenics–a quote can be heard on “Expelled”. Only special interests and pride keep the myth alive.

Huh?

I think archaeology has been abused for the Atheist cause, to make God not the creator of man as a separate being, and for scientific communism to make us out to be mere advanced animals that can kill off its weaker members, so the field of archaeology should be put into perspective. It’s run by flawed people, who can abuse it, and their works are not inerrant. Even the Church’s opinions as of yet are not inerrant, except to say God created us specially with a soul that cannot be destroyed and which receives the benefit of Christ’s act of redemption at one’s own baptism, but can lose the benefits with mortal sin until pardoned by authorized clergy or perfect contrition (I’m sure a theologian could say it better).

Interesting. Why the rant against archaeology?

The book on origins of any species or the Earth, other astronomical bodies and the universe should never be closed, despite a majority of scientists believing something and this, amongst other beliefs, illustrates why.

Isn’t that exactly what biblical literalists want to do? Science is always looking for better explanations of the data. It is those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis that say that the book on origins is closed.

What the Church does say about creation, as understood by the masses, is under threat and “science” is being used to threaten it even more.

Perhaps as understood by the “masses”, but not as understood by the Church.

Peace

Tim

forrestmims.org/scientificamerican.html

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/661973/posts

suppressedscience.net/archeology.html

All examples of people who “got in the way” of archaeology’s Grand Pooh-Bahs and paid the price for it professionally. Academia charged them with heresy, convicted them, and destroyed their careers for daring to challenge The Standard Party Line.

Go ask Virginia Steen-McIntyre, Forrest Mims, or Thomas Lee (as well as numerous others) if they were “banished from academia”. See what they have to say about the way they were treated.

“Huh?” indeed.

Thank you Wolsely! I appreciate any assistance as I am too Barney Fife-like in my approach and need a cooler head to better state things as they are.

What is my problem with archaeology? What is your problem with the big picture? This is what you get from the pro-macroevolutionists. They think they’re right because most scientists say something is so, but most scientists were for labotomies and cutting up the mentally deranged (not unlike how, in earlier times, unless privileged, these people would be considered possessed or into witchcraft–same guessing game; different lack of scientific understanding, but with special interests and not true fear backing up the treatment of those not having “quality of life”).

This isn’t about science, but I heard that Neville Chamberlain (sp?) was praised by most of the free world for his results from his meeting with Hitler except Winston Churchill. Guess what would have happened if he had not thought critically? Thinking critically is only a virtue of the liberals when used to think opposite of conservatives’ beliefs. Otherwise, the scientific method, Hippocrities, and other objective, wiser ways or people are disregarded if certain people need to be done away with, including the persons of the Godhead.

Christians should be more concerned Bg Science doesn’t care what religion says–at least one worth its salt like the Catholic Church (the only one, though Fundamentalist Protestants and Mormons have been helping out recently where our church’s leaders have gone soft), unless it agrees with them, if only unofficially.

Peace. It’s an intellectual argument, though a conservative Protestant and I got called in by a professor for asking a tough question of her macro-evolutionist guest speaker (how we are like apes or whatever she was saying in that vein having nothing to do with fixing families is exactly the problem–it’s indoctrination schools are used for these days as were those of Mao, whose first instruction was that of macroevolution and not his red book). Isn’t asking questions what school is about?

You do realize, don’t you, that this thread has nothing to do with archaeology?

However, none of those stories are true, at least the way that they are presented.

Mims never worked for Scientific American so he couldn’t be fired.

Virginia Steen-McIntyre and Thomas Lee have been refuted.

Peace

Tim

What is your issue with accounting? This thread is no more about archaeology than it is accounting.

Peace. It’s an intellectual argument, though a conservative Protestant and I got called in by a professor for asking a tough question of her macro-evolutionist guest speaker (how we are like apes or whatever she was saying in that vein having nothing to do with fixing families is exactly the problem–it’s indoctrination schools are used for these days as were those of Mao, whose first instruction was that of macroevolution and not his red book). Isn’t asking questions what school is about?

No. This thread is about a discovery about the thigh bone of birds and it’s affect on the pulmonary capacity of birds. Did you miss that in the article?

Peace

Tim

Why, of course, Orogeny. No one would ever doubt that the “scientific community” would do anything underhanded or vindictive. If anything happened to these people, it must have been their own fault, or else it’s a complete fabrication. The “scientific community” always acts with complete correctness, and never harbors any agendas.

Sure. Right. Whatever you say.

By the way, you wouldn’t be interested in purchasing a couple of bridges, would you? Good investment, solid returns. Get back to me and let me know. :thumbsup:

It’s about reptiles becoming birds. That’s macroevolution. Archaeologists, or are they paleontologists–natural scientists–have been going left well before the '60s. Just take the Fr. Merrin character from the Exorcist: The Beginning movie. His character was probably based upon the laicized Teilhard deChardin, though the latter didn’t quite go agnostic. These natural scientists look for ways to take God out of the picture. It’s not unlike how we have a premise (a dogma) upon which truth is exegeted, though our premises are obviously divine in origin. God not being the creator is a premise upon which the laws of nature get sidelined in public schools; dogma can have laws of nature being bent because God can bend them, but not in the ways macroevolution believers would have it. Macroevolution what Mao had taught first in the schools of his government. Why? Do I really have to state it? This indoctrination of a doctrine of hate (as people are no more than fancy animals, according to those who fashioned it) is alive and well in public schools and, sadly, so many Christians, even high in rank, have taken the bait. It’s interesting it’s not a dogma. Maybe God is protecting it from this pernicious lie sugarcoated by Christians with a fable of God directing the false evolution of species. Satan is the only liar of the two and God does not endorse his lies, but lets us believe them as a punishment for our sins.

We are not anti-science; the Commies are. Why is it that not approving of macroevolution (and embryonic stem cell research gets tacked on as well by the liberals, as their lies are what they want us to believe are scientific) is being afraid of science, when science has unravelled Darwin’s theory and understood macroevolution as impossible? Like those who followed the majority of doctors who went wild with labotomies and seeing the mentally challenged as “useless eaters”, you’re free to follow the majority of “experts”. Reason sees it’s bunk, because there are experts, who are no less experts in the field, who have thought this out critically as scientists and converted to ID or even creationism.
If the Catholic Church would close the book on this, it’s called religion. That’s what ours is. Science is not that. It has no infallible teachings and its leaders don’t seem to care objectivity, as Piltdown Man was praised for years before being discovered as a hoax. We’re tired of this dictatorship of thought. Those in this article who see this “science” indoctrination as religious seem to be using reason. Any true free-thinker would be so skeptical of the ACLU in this regard, but people left their freedoms aside when their liberal buddies won the culture war from religion and many of religion shivered (I’m not talking about the popes, but they should be more open-minded when equally-capable scholars have a minority report)–at least in the fields of influence over people’s thinking.

nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/aclu_wants_revision_in_science.html

You do realize, don’t you, that this thread has NOTHING to do with archaeology?

Believe your propaganda films all you want, but your examples have been shown to be wrong. That being said, I would be surprised if the number of scientists who have lost their jobs because of their faith is zero, just as I would be surprised if the number of athiests who have lost their jobs at religious universities who have lost their jobs is zero. Losing one’s job just because of one’s faith is wrong. Losing one’s job because they reject the massive amount of evidence for the accepted explanation for one based solely on one’s faith is not.

Peace

Tim

Correct.

Archaeologists, or are they paleontologists–natural scientists–have been going left well before the '60s.

If going left means following the evidence, they have been doing so for much longer than that. And it is paleontologists we are speaking of. The fact that you don’t know says a lot.

Just take the Fr. Merrin character from the Exorcist: The Beginning movie. His character was probably based upon the laicized Teilhard deChardin, though the latter didn’t quite go agnostic. These natural scientists look for ways to take God out of the picture. It’s not unlike how we have a premise (a dogma) upon which truth is exegeted, though our premises are obviously divine in origin. God not being the creator is a premise upon which the laws of nature get sidelined in public schools; dogma can have laws of nature being bent because God can bend them, but not in the ways macroevolution believers would have it.

So because some people use the evidence to justify their (lack of) beliefs, the evidence is false? Many civilizations have worshipped the sun as a god. Does that mean, using your logic, that the sun doesn’t exist?

Macroevolution what Mao had taught first in the schools of his government. Why? Do I really have to state it? This indoctrination of a doctrine of hate (as people are no more than fancy animals, according to those who fashioned it) is alive and well in public schools and, sadly, so many Christians, even high in rank, have taken the bait. It’s interesting it’s not a dogma. Maybe God is protecting it from this pernicious lie sugarcoated by Christians with a fable of God directing the false evolution of species. Satan is the only liar of the two and God does not endorse his lies, but lets us believe them as a punishment for our sins.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a lie from Satan. You can go on believing that science is evil, but it is not. It is a wonderful gift from God that way too many on this forum denigrate and deny. What a shame.

We are not anti-science; the Commies are.

Yes, you are.

Why is it that not approving of macroevolution (and embryonic stem cell research gets tacked on as well by the liberals, as their lies are what they want us to believe are scientific) is being afraid of science, when science has unravelled Darwin’s theory and understood macroevolution as impossible?

Interesting that you make a claim like that when it is demonstrably false.

Like those who followed the majority of doctors who went wild with labotomies and seeing the mentally challenged as “useless eaters”, you’re free to follow the majority of “experts”. Reason sees it’s bunk, because there are experts, who are no less experts in the field, who have thought this out critically as scientists and converted to ID or even creationism.

Let me ask you, foolishmortal, is evolution the root of all evil?

If the Catholic Church would close the book on this, it’s called religion. That’s what ours is. Science is not that. It has no infallible teachings and its leaders don’t seem to care objectivity, as Piltdown Man was praised for years before being discovered as a hoax. We’re tired of this dictatorship of thought.

Then do something about it. If science has so clearly shown macroevolution to be false and you hear of a biology teacher teaching that it is true (go to any university and you will find plenty of them), file a lawsuit to stop them from intentionally lying to advance a religious belief. Otherwise, you are a willing participant in “this dictatorship of though”.

Peace

Tim

While the article is interesting, I am not all that impressed by it.

First of off, I am not a paleontologist, but have been quite interested in the bird-dinosaur relationship for some 30 years. My reasons for skepticism about the caliber of the article is that belief in birds descending from theropods is in considerable part based on their sharing hollow bones and an oxygenating system which is far more effective than possessed by non-avian warm blooded animals. Dinosaurs share the hollow boned trait, and while evidence of their oxygenating system has not been conclusively established at present, evidence so far weighs heavily in the affirmative. Findings of a “mummified hadrosaur” and scanning of soft tissue with an MRI may very shortly provide an answer to the latter trait. Already, the “mummified” specimen has shown the existence of a gizzard.
The ability of dinosaurs to attain such large dimensions probably is due to their superior oxygenating system.

There are other reasons, quite compelling, which point to birds belonging within the dinosaur family. These reasons range from the fossil record, to stages of gestation in certain ratites, which exhibit features only found in dinosaurs. A very interesting topic.

In Christ

The fact that you don’t know says a lot.

  That you point that out shows you are arrogant enough to miss the point.  The point is that we are being lied to by science and I, average Joe American, am skeptical of the industry that has sold itself out to special interests (they still are out to save the world despite the planet cooling and they still want to experiment of embryonic humans, despite miraculous alternatives) in only being skeptical of spiritual happenings (especially of God and Satan's, despite the byproduct of them defying the laws of nature, such as statues weeping, the miracle of the sun, and the preternatural occurances surrounding exorcisms).  Teachers teach the lies either because they are atomatons about everything, but religion (which is fine by those Freemasons who have brought us Big Science, the demonic archenemy of the true form of Big Religion, Roman Catholicism and its other rites) or because the powers that be have them do so or else there's little future for them in teaching.  Big Science is more afraid of Big Religion (especially The Catholic Church) than vice versa and so its Freemasons got their kind into the high and low ranks of the Church to affect its philosophy (what about Quas Primas?) and liturgy and Church culture (need I provide reminders?).  This cannot affect dogma, as the Holy Spirit protects it from formal error, but having Catholics helping them unwittingly while in or while out of The Church is obviously good enough for them even if their spiritual father bangs his head against the wall of dogma to no use.  

Wake up! It’s a turf war!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.