I suppose I should ask him myself, but I wonder whether the inferences of this new evidence would be met with support or opposition by Alan Feduccia.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Feduccia
And on the flipside..."Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,” Ruben said. “That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories. “But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs,“ Ruben said. “However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link."
"Reexamination Of T. Rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729103737.htmClaims a Xian YEC, "As the evidence for original protein in these dinosaur bones grows, the discussion of how it could last for 65 million years goes strangely quiet."
From your post: "New evidence reinforces the theory that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs"How 'bout the other way around?http://www.physorg.com/news184959295.html"The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds."Note, that was from PNAS, not AnswersInGenesis.
Post a Comment