@Matt
Quote:

I started this thread to see if any creationists had some real arguments about this, but its seems they dont.


bullshit. I already gave you plenty of arguments, many of which you havent responded to. All you did is harp on the fact that I thought a t.rex->chicken connection was funny. Thats not_all_I_had. And just because its a funny image is no reason to discount the evidence, I realise that, everybody who is honest realises that. But thats not the main point as to why this evidence is so useless(and it is practically useless).


The main reason is that of the similarity between the proteins. The similarity really says nothing. Basically youve got a 58% similarity between the t.rex and a chicken. Thats no big deal. Youv'e got a 51% similarity with the same t.rex DNA and a frogs and newts.

So thats the data. Now you have to interpret that data. There is no way to start making evolutionary connections based on what they have found. Why? Because there is a reported 81% dna similarity between humans and frogs, and a 97% similarity between the dna of humans and cows.

So what you need to do is put your "evidence" in perspective.

Now you wonder where Im getting these percentages? They come from science magazine issue 316 which is where the original research was published, you can get an account and read it yourself.

Schweitzer, M.H., Suo, Z., Avci, R., Asara, J.M., Allen, M.A., Arce, F.T., and Horner, J.R. 2007. Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein, Science 316(5822): 277–280.

Quote:

Also, considering the many morphological similarities between therapods and modern birds, the chances of the relationship being coincidence go down dramatically--making the evidence very strong.




This is a good example of the kind of confident announcement with which evolutionary literature abounds. As it stands, it is purely a guess. Just because some species are apt to look alike(albiet not even species within the same family), it is not at all safe to assume that all "look-alikes" are related. While looking at some of these transitional fossils, some of them may closely resemble modern birds from an anatomical point of view, but it is quite another thing to state categorically that they are closely related. Resemblance and relationship are by no means the same thing. While at least you are not makeing a catagorical announcement of fact,(and I appreciate that) but the basic assumption still remains that you think a blood relationship exists. Morphological facts indicate similarity and that is all. Relationship is totally unprovable by an appeal to morphology. If evolutionists had said, "There are great anatomically similar features between some small therapods and some modern birds," then they would be correct. As it stands, however, it is all very hypothetical, confusing hypothesis with fact.

The extent to which evolutionists on this forum today exercise faith, out of things that they can only hope to believe, is a much less sure foundation than that of the faith we Christians place in the intelligent design which is readily seen and observed throughout biological nature and throughout the stars.

@ventilator
Quote:

Apart from that , nobody claimed that chicken come from trex
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

exactly! i didn't read the whole thread and only a short german news article about the topic but it was about dinosaurs being the ancestors of birds and not trex being the ancestor of chicken.





The whole chicken->t.rex thing is definitely the central issue of this research, these articles, and this thread. The larger issue of dino->bird evolution is being strengthened by this specific research. So your absolutely wrong and it is actually a pet peeve of mine when someone comes into a thread like this with some one liner like this without having read the whole thread or even made a small effort to understand the issue at large. Apparently you come from the Arnold Swartzeneggar one-liner school of evidence.

The chicken->t.rex connection is VERY specific in this article which has as its title: "T.Rex Related to Chickens" It doesn't get plainer than that.

@Alberto
Quote:

Well I make you laugh again


Yep you made me laugh again. Good job.

Quote:


Elephants come from a mammal as big as a mouse
There are fossils and genetic evidence to support this theory



Where are they? Why do insist on making these large generalities? Try to concentrate on just one at a time. Noone with half a brain is going to accept this as truth just because you say so. Take a minute, find a source, read a book, get something specific.


Quote:

You simply seem to ignore the key factor : Time

You seem to ignore one key factor : Complexity. There is nowhere near enough time for even a single celled organism to evolve into an multicellular organism. Statements such as these belie a total ignorance towards the sheer complexity of the genome and how it works. And the reason why I wont bother to begin to explain it to you is that it would take quite a bit of typing.

Quote:


If our mouse inreases in weight, let's say 1% each generation , thanks to favourable conditions, than in 1000 generations, a fraction of time in the history of evolution, our mouse increases in weight about 21.000 times


Try it then, the gestation period of a mouse is only 20 days, if you breed them in parallel you could probably come up with a thousand generations pretty easily. Yet your never going to see any thing other than a mouse. Oh you'll get some larger ones, no doubt, but you'll come to a limit because you cant breed out of the existing gene pool(yet the gene pool is an illusion as any true geneticist can tell you)


Quote:


Apart from that , nobody claimed that chicken come from trex

yes they did, plenty of people did, the original research did, see the article I posted in reply to ventilator. This is an outright falsity. Posting evidence for a connection between t.rex and a chicken's dna pretty much makes that connection. helllo? anyone home? So, what? Are you saying now that a chicken is NOT a decendant to a t.rex? You probably wont answer that one because the truth is that you dont know.

Quote:


Big dinos died, very likely, because of the fall of a huge meteorit near Yucatan
The concentration of dust in the atmosphere increases consequently the irradiation of the sun decreases

this is a THEORY which is highly debated. One of the biggest problem with this THEORY is that the event occured 300,000 years BEFORE the dinosaurs went extinct.
Yucatan asteroid did not kill the dinosaurs

But there are many other THEORIES in existence, maybe this will help you realize that you shouldnt make statements, which are presented as though they were factual, when they are simple supposition without any positive proof whatsoever. However, chances are you'll come back with a dozen more points which you are 100% sure of yet in reality you are 100% wrong.

Quote:


Big dinos died while small mammals and small dinos could survive thanks to their lower energy consumption ( better diet )



OK, then why did the small predatory dinosaurs die out?


We would have expected them to survive because:

1)Their most likely prey (small invertebrates and mammals) survived.

2)Small animals are generally less vulnerable to extinction than large animals with similar life-styles, because they require a smaller quantity of food and other resources to support a viable breeding population.

So by your own small-animal logic small predatory dinosaurs should have survived, and probably would have survived to this day.

Quote:


The descendece of birds from some type dinos ( not the trex ) is proved by thousand fossil evidences


Thats an outright lie. Either that or you simply cant differentiate between fact and theory. As Phemox said, there are only dozens of so-called transitionals, I would be glad to look at some specific examples with you, but saying there are thousands without any citation at all is just arrogant and stupid.

@everyone else
I simply didnt have time to reply, but I by no means did not reply to things because I just didnt see the answer, but rather because I dont have the time to get to it all.