"Originally posted by Pie Hmm , just found this . Turns out that the theropod theory is n't as solid as it seems . If this is incorrect , and you can prove it ( this pertains primarily to Lurch ) try not to get your panties in a twist , okay ? There are a couple problems here : -There are supposed `` inherited similaritys `` in the forelimbs of birds and theropods . Both have a three-fingered `` hand `` , but embryological studies indicate that the `` hand `` of the bird consist of digits II-III-IV , but theropods have I-II-III . This is very contrary to the view that theropods evolved evolved into birds . ( Burke A.C. and Feduccia A. Developmental patterns and the identification of homologies in the avian hand . Science , 24 October 1997 , Volume 278 , 666-668 ) . -A second problem is the structure of the lungs . When studied , Sinosauropteryx revealed that in theropods , the thoracic cavity is seperate from the abdominal cavity near the diaphram . Birds have no such separation . There is no clear way that this could change without debilitating effects to the bird . ( Ruben J.A. , Jones T.D. , Geist N.R . and Hillenius W.J . Lung structure and ventilation in theropod dinosaurs and early birds . Science , 14 November 1997 , Volume 278 , 1267-1270 ) . -Finally , the hips are a trouble spot . While birds are `` bird hipped `` ( duh ) the theropod dinosaurs were `` lizard hipped `` . If evolution is true , then birds should have evolved from the ornithischian dinosaurs , whom were bird hipped ."
"Did you get this from a website or did you actually go and browse the journals ? I 'm guessing the former as these objections have been specifically addressed before . Do you really expect to learn anything by copying creationist argument after creationist argument from websites that usually requires an understanding , that has taken biologists years to learn , then simply say `` here , deal with this `` ? Yet when the errors are explained you simply move on to the next subject . I asked myself some time ago , `` What would it take to convince myself that evolution is a good explanation for biodiversity `` , then I set out a series of subjects I did n't understand , read as much creationist material as I could find , then juxtaposing it with as much evolutionary material as I could find and tried to see who was most convincing . Three years and half a biological science degree later I came to several conclusions . 1 ) Creationists have little understanding about the nature of science and evolution for many reasons . 2 ) Evolutionary Biologists have already thought of objections that take creationists years to come up with and debunked them several times over , or made appropriate changes to hypothesis with explanations that are several orders of magnitude more impressive than any creationist material . 3 ) Creationists will obstinately perpetuate falsehoods with inordinate banality , misquote out of context , demonise and vilify beyond logical explanation . 4 ) Evolutionary theory is predictive , falsifiable , consistent , parsimonious and well established amongst the scientific community ; it is the best scientific explanation for biological diversity . As much as I hate saying `` here read this `` , hip morphology is confusing and complicated but is well explained in the journal of dinosaur palaeontology . Follow the link if you want to resolve the confusion with hips . Let 's try and keep it civil people ."
"theropod theory inherited similaritys embryological studies birds should have evolved from the ornithischian dinosaurs"
"evolution is a good explanation for biodiversity Evolutionary Biologists , hip morphology dinosaur palaeontology"