Check out Part 2!: • Evidence for Evolution... A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran from China with elongate ribbon-like feathers (published Oct 2008) www.nature.com/... Awewsome Video on feathered Dinosaurs: • Video Evolution!
2:53 - Sinornithosaurus, awesome! 3:55 - That is one BIG Oviraptorid 5:12 - Finishing it off with Microraptor, very nice. I wouldn't go so far as to call creationists idiots, but why they keep holding onto their scripture even when it's been proven wrong countless times, shows a mind that refuses to change. And a mind that cannot change is non-functioning by definition. Oh, and the Jurassic Park Music was a great touch.
"Sinornithosaurus", that's quite a name. There's been several new discoveries of feathered dinosaurs since the posting of this video. Perhaps, it's time for an updated epidsode.
14 лет назад
@kurtu5 I was the same way, myself. I was six when I heard about Archeopterix and I found it awesome how birds were in fact living dinosaurs. It made me become quite fond of them.
What about the fact that you can breed a new species of fruit fly all by yourself? You don't need fancy equipment, you just need a box, some fruit flies, fruit, and water. Keep them in there for about 100 generations and you'll have a new species by the end.
Great video! It baffles me how people can still deny evolution. They don't contest gravity, they don't contest the fact that the earth isn't the centre of the universe. Heck, most evolution denialists don't even contest the holocaust - which, while a fact, still has less amount of evidence going for it than evolution. Some people just won't do their research and think they know all about it anyway.
No matter how many transitional forms we find, the young earth creationists will try to point at some obscure organism, like a Cockatoo or a Wolf Spider, and demand a transitional form.
Maybe you should consider this peer-reviewed paper. "Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration". arguing for the irreducible complexity of two systems vital to bird flight -- feathers and the avian respiratory system. The author, Leeds University professor Andy McIntosh, challenges his critics to consider the design hypothesis as a valid scientific assumption "borne out by the evidence itself."
The Jurassic Park theme playing to Microraptor's gliding is so very right. what dvd has that footage? (of microraptor I mean, never mind the theme music), I'm hoping to use it for a later video maybe
@Howie47 You haven't defined 'information', Schneider has, but you wouldn't know that as you haven't read the paper. 'Random changes to a word or sentence, might on occasion change it's meaning' ; That's all that is required. 'Can a coherent story spontaneously generate?' Yes, all stories can be generated, and those with'meaning will be preserved. Schneider is a Scientist at University of Oxford. Luskin is a Lawer at the Discovery Institute, the Institute that hasn't discovered anything.
@jweeks1982 Missing link is an outdated term (from when their where none known) .There are gap less records now of a few invertebrates .Evolution is completely verified by fossils and genome mapping .
@Howie47 What you have failed to appreciate is that IC isn't a problem for evolution, something evolution certainly knew since 1918. It isn't an indication of ID. Information theory also is totally compatible with evolution, as I've shown with the Schneider paper. Do try and keep up. Remember the Discovery Institute is a political organisation. It isn't a scientific organisation.
@Howie47 I have no idea what 'god-like' might be, unless you mean mythical. For an idea how things develop might I suggest ‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000. It's available on-line.
@LavaDracovania So according to you, something that has feathers, is endothermic, and flies is a reptile? When you get to university, perhaps think about a biology course, I think you'll be surprised.
@Howie47 It was Ken Miller who used the mouse trap analogy at the Dover Trial, and you haven't shown why anything is irrelevant. What is required is that you disprove Muller's thesis, and that you haven't done. Systems can be as irreducably Complex as they want, it still a problem for evolution, still doesn't substantiate ID. You don't have an arguement.
@Howie47Ah, the 'Survival of the fittest' phrase, invented by the Economist Herbert Spencer, and never used by Darwin. Believe me, I would never doubt your confusion.
@Howie47 I would agree that when you analyze the genetics of various creatures, the resulting phylogenetic tree would be a nested hierarchy, would is indicative of evolution. In the other hand, I don't think that evolution is "developing" toward a "supreme kingdom". For example: there are more bacterial cells living on each human than there are human cells. Also, the biomass of bacteria vastly outweighs that of "higher" life forms.
Damn...remember a few months back I said that the latest feathered dino was anchiornis Never mind...out dated again, this time its BIG! Tianyulong, and ORNITHOSUCHIAN dinosaur has been discovered witjh feathers This means that the LCA of ALL dinosaurs had feathers. Dinosaurs without feathers were the anomaly...blew my mind
@Howie47 Again you fail to appreciate the arguement. I'll summerise. ID states that IC systems could not evolve, example X, therefore IDer required. Counter arguement, X could have evolved this way, no IDer required. Note that the counter arguement does not have to show how it did evolve, mearly that it could. If there is possible route then the ID arguement collapses utterly, as indeed, it has.
@gamesbok Casey Luskin-"One can pick Scrabble letters out of a bag all day long and call that "information." But unless those letters spell words, the information is useless." Random changes to a word or sentence, might on occasion change it's meaning. But the new meaning has to fit and enhance the already existing paragraph before it is useful (functional). All these books and papers on how information can self generate; side step the real issue. Can a coherent story spontaneously generate?
@Howie47 This paper was published in International Journal of Design & Nature & Ecodynamics: and one of the peers involved seems to be a department secretary without qualifications. I will give you a banana if you can find an academic library that subscribes to this 'journal'.
@gluepot66 I think your referring to my comment about "there are more bacteria cells in the human body than there are human cells". Sure it is counterintuitive, but that seems to be the case. In fact, I was told this in my introductory biology classes in college. Just google "number of bacteria cells in the human body"......regardless, I still may need a head shrink.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because birds ARE dinosaurs. Modern birds are Avian Maniraptors and Maniraptors very much are dinosaurs. Do some real research in taxonomy and cladistics and you might learn something.
@Howie47 I haven't seen the paper, but I would point out that any educated commentater should be aware of '"Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, which shows that Irreducably Complex (he called it 'Interlocking Complexity') structures are to be expected in evolved systems. Critics of evolution are going to have to do better than Irreducible Complexity. Muller won a Noble Prize.
i dont really believe that the dinosaurs were COMPLETLY feathered. imean,if they had feathers they would probubly be for insulation. they lived in places were keeping warm isnt a huge problem(swamps,forests,deserts,ext.
@LavaDracovania I knew exactly what you were saying, and it's flat wrong. Dinosaurs are not simply ' cold blooded scaly non-avian reptiles'. Different dinosaurs were warm-blooded, had skin and feathers (not reptile scales), some species even birthed live young. I don't see too many reptiles doing any of these. The evidence is crystal clear that dinosaurs are indeed very closely related to birds, so stop spouting rubbish that they aren't.
When did this happen cause i still pretty sure archeopteryx is real and also that doesn't prove that birds didn't descend from dinosaurs cause of other transitional fossils like microraptor and the others who names i can't spell or pronounce
Again, feeding a troll here, but many feathered dinosaur fossils are not fake. You're probably getting what ever evidence you have from what happened with Archaeoraptor, when you clearly haven't heard of Microraptor and Archaeoptyrex.
@Howie47 You don't actually cite the 'scientific basics that undermine that proposition'. I don't know what you mean by 'supreme kingdom', and I don't think you do either. Darwin certainly would have rejected any such concept. No creation myth has any value. They all lack mechanism.
@Howie47 Intelligent design isn't a mechanism. How this mythical 'designer' impliments his concepts remains mysterious. Further 'higher' means little as there are amoeba that contain 100 times the genetic information we do, and will certainly be able to survive the vaiguaries of an uncertain future better than we. Nemotode worms live in a greater variety of environments and out number us. There are flat worms with 25% stem cells, almost immortal. Ever driven a Ferrari cross country?
@gamesbok (Change) is implicit, "evolution" is not happening at all. When you use two different meanings at the same time for the same word. It only serves to confuse. Not enlighten. Evolution doesn't just imply change. So you now admit, "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with it? You seem to be able to come up with fairly explicit answers to my incoherent arguments!
@gamesbok I was referring to the 1918 paper you brought up. Which was on P C. Myers blog. I know Ken Miller tried to refute the mouse trap irreducible argument. By saying it's parts could serve some other purpose. Instead of scientific evidence. You seem to want to rest your case on "the argument from authority". That is your privilege. I can't stop you from deluding yourself and others. I only warn you that, those who forsake their reason, end up in a bad place.
@gamesbok It only "escaped "those who only listen to those in scientific community that march to the establishments drumbeat! But your HJ Muller hypothesis does seem to have escaped the scientific community. As they (both sides of the debate) are still arguing if said systems are or aren't irreducibly complex. Your the first I've ever heard try to make the argument that evolution can produce such systems!
@Howie47 Please provide some clear and tangible evidence of said "Creator" that goes beyond mere biblical mythology. Otherwise, don't respond to this reply because I don't want a video about bird evolution to be used as a springboard for a theistic discussion.
@Howie47 'The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.' Judge John E. Jones Kitzmuller v Dover Area School District.
@gamesbok What you fail to appreciate is that just posting "papers", shows you fail to understand the subject. I just posted why P. C. Myers objection isn't relevant. Again, Irreducible systems, that them selves are necessities for their host life. Can't be used for some thing else while they are evolving. The whole point of I. S. is they are both necessary for the life and all their parts are also necessary to function. IF a mouse trap is necessary, it isn't useful in a house, as a tie clasp.
@cadman2300 Oviraptorid is very much like a modern Cassowary. All the raptors were part of the "Ratite" bird family. Modern Ratite's still have "claws", small or no wings, up to 15' high, 1,000 lbs. Act very much like what raptors would have acted. See RU-vid Video. "Killer Cassowary Bird Attacks". Also latest research cast serious doubt on Dino to bird evo. Modern birds (ducks) are found in the fossil record long before raptors. Birds still carry the "genetic reserves" for teeth.
@ndjarnag Evolution is the proposition that life is naturally developing toward a nested hierarchy that will finally be isolated from all competition and will attain a supreme kingdom. A nice fairy tale for those who ignore all the other scientific basics; that undermine that proposition. I think some creation myths have more value then current culture directed science. Artist supersedes scientist, when it comes to visualizing the future and the past.
@Howie47 Evolution is implicit in any system showing reproduction, variation and selection. It's true because of the meaning of the words, logically necessary, a priori true, inevitable, inescapable. The intricate web of life is precisely the inevitable consiquence of natural selection, the inevitable consiquence of evolution. You seem to be making claims based on some idiology. You are not making coherent arguements.
@gamesbok This would be a huge change in the Darwinist's tactic. It would mean, they are now admitting, that some systems ARE irreducibly complex. Something, up to this paper, they have vehemently denied! This paper is apparently to new to have been reviewed and commented on by the scientific community. So I wouldn't rest much weight on it, until it is critiqued by others! Maybe it is Darwinist that will have to come up with something better. I.D. already has! Information Theory.
@hachijuuhachi1 See, there are holes in your logic. If you lived in the desert, or in a tundra your descendants wouldn't die out. That's microevolution also. My previous example wasn't microevolution because they were bacteria. A single mutation in a gene in a population is microevolution, and it happens in all species, even within your own body. If many genetic changes occur slowly over time, a species will change into a new one, with no break in fertility. Anyway, have a good evening.
@ndjarnag "What convinced you evolution is not true?" Reason, logic and lifes experiences. Mankind is to undisciplined to reach a clear, clean, unbiased paradigmn of origins. Intricate systems of life are unlikely to form by them selves. More so when the strong resistence to such complexity existing, is taken into consideration. Life self generating and evolving into what we see today. Is the biggest myth ever concocked by man. Creation myths have more truth then today's, just so fairytales.
@gamesbok I don't have to read every paper. Because the basic principles never change! No stupid, random changes is not all that is required! The change must fit in a coherent fashion and add new or enhanced function. It also must not inhibit the all ready in place functionality. "Yes, all stories can be generated" A statement of pure bluster. And Dawkin's is a big mouthed pseudoscientist, who never published a single scientific paper. Just to put things in perspective.
@cadman2300 P.S. Your stereotypical characterization of "creationist", bemoans your own ignorance of the whole subject. Of course Evolutionist never want to look to closely at whole picture. Lest their darkened minds be enlightened to the presence of a Creator.
