Birds and Reptiles
Posted on: Thu, 2007-04-12 02:08
Offline
Birds and Reptiles
I only learned this recently on antoher forum, but birds are actually classified under reptiles. Sorta. A guy mentioned it on another forum and I looked on wikipedia and he was right. For some reason, Aves is like a subclass of reptiles or something. I might be wrong, I don't know.
Also, if birds are reptiles, then that would make them dinosaurs. A dinosaur is a reptile with legs directly beneath it.
Well, new fossil evidence reinforces the theory that birds evolved from maniraptors, theropods or bird-like dinosaurs. Also, it is commonly acknowledged that birds are the closest living relatives to crocodiles.
Indeed.
Anatomically impossible, even if scientists say that it is the case.
The reptile lung uses the same in-out system we use. Air comes in and exits from the same place.
The avian (bird) lung works on a continuous flow. The air does not go in and out, but follows a continuous path from the intake port, through the lungs, to the hollow air-sacs in the bones, and to the exaust port. The air never flows backwards.
Note: this is an example of irriducible complexity, but it is also the grounds for Archiopterix being concidered a true bird and several dissenting evolutionary factions that claim that, as that birds cannot anatomically evolve from reptiles, that they directly evolved from fish. It is not just a clever theist argument against evolution. It is an exaple of theists agreeing more with evolutionists than evolutionists with other evolutionists. I will agree with the mainstream that birds did not evolve from fish, and I will agree with the dissenters that birds did not evolve from reptiles.
*Reads Egann's post...then reads Egann's signature*
?
That's right. The "unbeliever" is inconsistant by asserting that birds evolved from reptiles because it is impossible.
The "unbeliever" is arbitrary because the science used to prove the impossibility of the evolution is not founded on anything beyond an assumed ability to prove anything.
Birds did evolve, stupid.
AnswersInGenesis.com has been refuted to death. (I bet you're getting your info from there.)
No, actually. (although if you are so sure that it has been refuted, sources or links would be appreciated)
Denton, Michael, [i]Evolution: a Theory in Chrisis[/i] Pages 210-11
web references:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_03.html
Non-creationist / Intelligent Design / etc. web references
http://www.people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdrespiration.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung
overview of anatomy:
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/multimedia/birdlungs/
It is the Parabronchii (the portion with air continuously flowing in one direction regardless of the inhale or the exhale) that is the problem for evolution. It cannot evolve from a pure in-out system because the alveoli must function in order for the creature to survive, and for the air to constantly flow, there must be both air sacs present (in other words, this is real irreducible complexity. It cannot come from a less complex reptilian lung without multiple simultaneous and physiologically large steps.)
Check out the creationist claims index at talkorigins.org
And look around this site.
http://edwardtbabinski.us/
I read it. It ammounts to this:
Life evolved
Birds are alive
Therefore, even if we can't explain it, birds evolved.
Face it, that doesn't cut it. The avian lung is the irreducible complexity writ large. If evolution cannot explain all of the diversity of presently found life, [i]don't claim it can.[/i]
*SIGH*
Did you read it from the creationist index claims at talkorigins.org?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/nov99.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
Just in case anybody is interested.
[quote=liberal agnostic]
Also, if birds are reptiles, then that would make them dinosaurs. A dinosaur is a reptile with legs directly beneath it.[/quote]
I was probably in a hurry when I wrote my last post. Sorry I wasn't very specific.
Dinosaurs and reptiles are [b]not[/b] the same thing. Dinosaurs [i]evolved[/i] about 230 million years ago from primitive reptilian relatives, but dinosaurs belong to their own separate group.
You might think that since dinosaurs came from reptiles, and birds came from dinosaurs, then technically birds came from reptiles. But that's not the case. That's like saying humans came from monkeys, and we didn't. We are a [i]relative[/i] of monkeys. Like I said, birds are the closest [i]relative[/i] to crocodiles.
The striking resemblances of birds and dinosaurs, especially the little meat-eaters, are what convince many scientists that birds evolved from dinosaurs, not reptiles. Dinosaurs had hollow bones and walked upright as birds do. Meat-eating dinosaurs had very similar skulls to birds, and a few of the smaller meat-eaters had bodies and arms similar to birds'. It is agreed, for the most part, that the Archaeopteryx was the first bird. It had feathers, however, unlike a bird, it had a bony tail and teeth instead of a beak, and claws on the wings. It was contended that, if the feathers had not been found with the fossil, the creature would have been identified as a small dinosaur. The skeleton does have some bird-like features such as a wishbone and bird-like feet.
(Information about the Archaeopteryx from here.)
All in all, I don't think that birds came from reptiles...or, fish? :O But I think there is enough evidence to show that they are descendants of dinosaurs.
Egann has told me to tell you that he does not appreciate people who claim to be "open minded" yet resort to strong-arm tactics.
Well, even among biologists there seems to be some sort of argument about the classification of birds. I believe that the cladeists (spelling?) believe in only classifying things according to evolutionary relationships, while the traditionalists (probably a different word.. but that is what they are..) believe in classifying things by physiological characteristics. (I have heard that there was a marsupial 'big cat' - marsupials split from mammals before the cat group was formed (I believe) , so by evolution this cat is closer to a kangaroo than a tiger, but physiologically speaking it was closer to a tiger)
However, this deals more with the position of organisms on the classification chart. - Birds are close to reptiles
[quote=logos]Egann has told me to tell you that he does not appreciate people who claim to be "open minded" yet resort to strong-arm tactics.[/quote]
There's a difference between open-minded and ignorant of the facts.