Birds are Dinosaurs?
My opinion and that of many Biologists is that Birds are in fact Dinosaurs and they are confirming evidence for Evolution.
This is obvious when examining such things as the Fossil Record.
My opponent will try to convince you that Birds are not Dinosaurs.
My opponent may start arguments in this round.
Good Luck to whoever takes the Con position.
Thank you Pro, I accept your challenge and will begin my arguments in the first round.
I was very pleased with our last debate, and happy to see you had an open one as well. Good Luck.
Now, since we are talking about animals, there is no need for definitions, as scientists have already helped us classify, or define, animals.
Now both birds and dinosaurs are part of the same kingdom and phylum. However, that is where there relationship ends with science.
Class: Birds: Aves Dinosaurs: Archosauria
I do not wish to continue with the differences as their order, family, genus, and species are all different from here. You may direct yourselves to the links below to see these differences. [(1-2)]
The Phylum, Chordata, has a very diverse range of animals. Bony fish, reptiles, amphibians, and even some sharks are all listed under Chordata. This would diminish any relation birds have to dinosaurs, as they would be equally classified with all of these other animals in the Chordata Phylum. 
To refute a possible point by Pro is the similarity in the DNA between birds and dinosaurs.
However, this has an explanation. 
DNA sequence are likely to come from a common ancestor. And small changes over time begin to mutate, or evolve certain into different categories of animals.
These small changes over extremely long periods of time create such a distinction we see in over 8 million species alive today. 
So while it may be completely true that the prehistoric dinosaurs have some similarities in DNA to birds, and may have even played a role in the evolution of the birds we see today...
Calling a dinosaur a bird, is quite similar to calling many other reptiles, amphibians, and even some mammals "part-dinosaur".
In conclusion of my opening arguments, birds are not dinosaurs per their classification. And they're similar DNA can be attributed to common ancestry, but the DNA changes over time have created to completely distinct animals.
Thanks Heaps Domr for accepting this debate!
I'm positive you have a lot more interesting insights to offer.
I'll save my rebuttals until the last/next round.
I will use this round to elaborate on my argument a little more.
I will endeavor to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Birds are in fact Dinosaurs.
Though I will leave the more technical evidence for this in the final round.
With a hint given in this round.
Some references claim that Dinosaur means Terrible Lizard.
Though this name was given to them before much was actually known about these creatures that dominated the Earth during the Jurassic period.
So the name Dinosaur was actually a bit wrong or a Misnomer.
They were apparently Egg laying reptiles, but early palaeontologists thought that they walked like lizards, but later when more fossils were found, they realized that they walked more like mammals. So essentially Dinosaurs were part way between lizards and mammals, except they lay eggs, with hard calcium shells.
Their thigh bones (especially noted in T-Rex) also contains medullary bone, which is now only found in female birds during ovulation, it assists in producing the Calcium needed for egg shells. This tissue being present in the T-Rex puts it in the same line as Birds in the Evolutionary model.
"Scientists believe the tissue is "medullary bone," a type of tissue found in present-day female birds only during ovulation. The tissue forms inside the birds' hollow leg bones and persists until the last egg is laid, at which time it is completely reabsorbed into the bird's body. The tissue provides calcium needed to produce eggshells."
Recent discoveries also demonstrated similar habits to birds like nesting, which demonstrates that dinosaurs were most likely warm blooded, which makes them non-Lizards, as lizards are cold blooded.
Here is an excerpt from About.com.
Regarding the myth that Dinosaurs have no living Descendants.
"Today, we have an ample physical evidence pointing to the fact that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs--to the extent that some evolutionary biologists insist that birds *are* dinosaurs, cladistically speaking. If you want to impress your friends, you can even make the case that ostriches, chickens, pigeons and sparrows are more closely related to dinosaurs than are any reptiles or lizards alive today, including alligators, crocodiles, snakes, turtles and geckos."
Within the next 50 years we may witness the hatching of a CHICKENSAURUS.
Researcher Jack Horner strongly believes that we can reverse the Evolution process and that birds still contain all the DNA that belonged to their Dinosaur Ancestors.
Thus by reversing the Evolutionary processes, they may produce their Chickensaurus.
Here is the family tree of the Archosauria family. Notice where Birds sit.
Anybody versed in Taxonomy will understand where I'm heading with these.
Stay tuned and I will elaborate on this diagram and give more about this in my next argument.
Here is a bit of an amusing source, where Feathered Dinosaurs are driving Creationists Crazy.
Since there have been some very interesting finds in China, which has Ken Ham and other Creationists in TOTAL DENIAL.
I was informed that Ken and his so called Fossil expert, which is funny, because they have no real fossil expertise at Answers-in-Genesis. but Ham said nothing, not even his usual denial, oh, it's a Bird or its a Dinosaur.
Yes, they had him lost for words. Because it is a genuine Transitional Fossil and demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Birds evolved from Dinosaurs, but as usual, Answers-in-Genesis will be in complete denial of this, because it may cramp their book sales. Which is all Answers-in-Genesis is truly about, selling rubbish to the naive.
So this article is quite amusing:
I think it is quite Hilarious, but, I do have a somewhat ironical sense of humor.
Here is a site asking the same question as this debate is stating:
Though this site answers the question quite well.
The Video on this next link has Renowned palaeontologist Jack Horner Describing how he hopes to produce a Chickensaurus. Though for a Palaeontologist, he makes a pretty good stand up comedian.
I hope you enjoy his presentation.
Thanks Domr: I will hand it back to you for some interesting rebuttals I hope.
As my opponent has chosen to make any rebuttals yet, my only option is to make rebuttals on his claims, as I extend all of my previous arguments to this round as well.
"So the name Dinosaur was actually a bit wrong or a Misnomer."
Dinosaur is not a misnomer, the people who refer to them as terrible lizards are simply incorrect. Dinosaurs are called this because they belong to the Chordata or clade, of dinosauria. 
"So essentially Dinosaurs were part way between lizards and mammals"
"Recent discoveries also demonstrated similar habits to birds like nesting, which demonstrates that dinosaurs were most likely warm blooded, which makes them non-Lizards, as lizards are cold blooded."
I must refute these points together. First, if you are claiming dinosaurs are inbetween reptiles and mammals, there is a claim there is a new type of clade we are unaware of.
Mammals are classified differently from others because they have a few distinct features: Mammary glands, hair, and are warm blooded. 
Dinosaurs do not have these characteristic.
Pro establishing a claim that because dinosaurs have shown to nest, like birds, they must be warm blooded. This is an inferior claim. Reptiles such as snakes have also shown to nest. Some reptiles even nest with other female reptiles. 
"to the extent that some evolutionary biologists insist that birds *are* dinosaurs, cladistically speaking."
Cladistics is :"an approach to biological classification in which organisms are grouped together based on whether or not they have one or more shared unique characteristics that come from the group's last common ancestor 
Therefore, if two organism have ONE or more shared characteristic from a common ancestor, they can be GROUPED together. So a common medullary bone COULD be a reason to group these two organisms together.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE SAME ORGANISM.
If that were true, then our aposable thumbs with monkeys is a common trait and we would considered monkey, or monkeys would be considered humans.
The blowhole in dolphins and whales, all dolphins are whales, or all whales are dolphins. This is not how scientific classifications work.
Taxonomy means you can see these two organisms are similar and group them near each other throughout the animal kingdom. However, they are no way classified as the same organisms or species.
As mentioned in my previous argument, the taxonomy of birds and dinosaurs starts of similarly, however they branch off at the Chordata, or Clade, and have a different family, genus and species.
The Clade "Aves" is the most important. This is what we call birds today. Anything commonly referred to as a bird is under the Clade Aves. 
Dinosaurs are listed in the Clade "Archosauria".
"Archosaurs are a group of diapsidamniotes whose living representatives consist of birds and crocodilians. This group also includes all extinct dinosaurs, extinct crocodilian relatives, and pterosaurs. " 
Now yes, this definition does state the living representative are birds....and crocodiles. Therefore we must look at this simply to prove Pro's claim.
-Birds and Crocs are dinosaurs living rep.
-Birds are dinosaurs (Pro's Claim)
Birds are dinosaurs. If birds are dinosaurs, as they are the living rep. Then crocodiles are also dinosaurs.
Simple math (a=b b=c then a=c).... Birds are crocodiles.
This point is clearly drastic as birds cannot be dinosaurs, they are only similar in some characteristics, and may have evolved from them.
If we are to call every organism by what they evolved from, we wouldn't have this classification of animals.
Humans would still be known as Neanderthals.
Thank you Domr for your insightful Argument:
1: Con Stated: "As mentioned in my previous argument, the taxonomy of birds and dinosaurs starts of similarly, however they branch off at the Chordata, or Clade, and have a different family, genus and species." No they Do Not, Birds are included in the Taxonomy of Dinosauria, thus they are Technically, Dinosaurs. Birds are more closely related to T-Rex than the T-Rex is related to the Triceratops.
2: Con also made comment about my statement that Dinosaurs were between Lizards and Mammals.
My main reason for using this is that Dinosaurs evidently used their bodies to incubate their eggs, thus meaning they were warm blooded, unlike lizards. They also tended their young as is evident by findings around their nesting areas of Dinosaurs providing food for their young, lizards just leave their young to survive on their own. This also demonstrates that the brains of Dinosaurs were becoming more than just reactive (Lizard Brain trait) and possibly the start of the formation of the Avian brain, which differs from both Mammalian and Lizard brains, being larger than the lizard brain, but smaller than the mammalian brain, indicating a position between the two, but this does not diminish their intelligence as Corvids (Crows, Ravens, etc.) have demonstrated Consciousness or Self Awareness with mirror tests.
So they are somewhere in between lizards and mammals in such aspects.
Extending my Argument:
The Fossil evidence that Birds are in fact Dinosaurs is Overwhelming.
Velociraptors were really nothing like those images people saw in the movie "Jurassic Park" as in fact, the majority of Raptors had either Proto-Feathers or fully formed Feathers. There are numerous Feathered Dinosaurs in the fossil record.
The Nesting habits of reptiles differ from birds, in that since reptiles are cold blooded they do not incubate the eggs with their bodies and the eggs of reptiles are soft shelled.
Where Dinosaurs had hard shelled eggs (calcium) which required the medullary bone found in the fossil of the female T-Rex.
So it does appear that dinosaurs sat on their eggs to incubate them and tended to their nests just as modern birds do, the use of their bodies to incubate, demonstrates a warm blooded creature which differentiates them from lizards.
Here are some excerpts from the source describing those diagrams which was compiled by genuine Palaeontologists, so it is far more authoritative than any Creationist sources such as Creation.com, ICR.org or Answers-in-Genesis:
I will again bring to your attention the last image in my previous statement:
The Taxonomy argument:
As you can obviously see, the Taxonomy of Birds comes under Dinosauria or Dinosaurs.
So this definitively classes birds as Dinosaurs and here is the statements from the source showing that in Fact, Birds are categorized as Dinosauria (Dinosaurs) thus providing the Burden Of Proof I need. My Debate Title is Scientifically (Taxonomically) Correct.
From this Palaeontological Source on the Diagrams I have cited:
1: The whole lot of animals on this cladogram are in a branch of the reptiles called the Archosauria (that’s why the name is down at the bottom-most node of the cladogram). Further up the cladogram we have the name Dinosauria. Next I’ll circle up all the animals that belong in the group Dinosauria.
No surprises here (unless you forgot that pterosaurs aren’t dinosaurs). Birds are in the circle because they are in the group Dinosauria. But do they really belong? Well yes, actually they do. If you know how to read the diagram correctly it says that the pelican and the T. rex are the two most closely related animals depicted.Triceratops is the next most closely related animal to those two. Did you catch that? T. rex and the pelican are more closely related to each other than T. rex is toTriceratops. They are both in the group Theropoda (that Triceratops isn’t part of). The T. rex and the pelican have been on the same evolutionary path for longer than any other two things on this diagram. Here I’ll show you the same information diagramed slightly differently"
2: "Bird are dinosaurs not just because they evolved from dinosaurs, but because they are more closely related to some of the extinct dinosaurs than those dinosaurs are to each other! So next time that someone tells you that dinosaurs are extinct, you can tell them that, actually, there are probably more species of dinosaur alive today than there were in the Mesozoic!"
As you can now understand, birds like the Pelican are closer related to T-Rex tan T-Rex is to the Triceritops. So that confirms that Birds truly are species of Dinosaur. Which evolved feathers to go from gliding to flying, which allowed them the ability to survive the hardship that destroyed the larger and lesser mobile Dinosaurs.
In fact, it is now perceived that all Dinosaurs had variations of Feathers from scales, proto-feathers to fully formed feathers. Feathered Dinosaur finds are now fairly common such as the recent find of two different winged Dinosaurs in China, called the
Yutyrannus huali, which appears closely related to the T-Rex.
and the small Four Winged Eosinopteryx brevipenna which is believed to be flightless, but may have had the ability to glide short distances to escape predators and catch small prey by surprise.
We being small shrew like animals in the Jurassic period meant that very likely we were prey for these Dinosaurs or if you like Dinobirds.
Source for the Likelihood that All Dinosaurs had Feathers: http://www.theverge.com...
"A newly discovered raptorial dinosaur fossil with exceptionally long feathers adds to growing evidence that dinosaurs flew before birds did."s://news.usc.edu...; alt="Flying Dinosaur" />
So as can be clearly seen and shown by all sources I have cited.
An advertisement, but an Honest Add, which is rare!
Birds are not only Technically or Scientifically classed as Dinosaurs (Taxonomy of Dinosauria), as Dinosaurs are also feathered and contain tissue that only exists in Birds (medullary bone) and evidences of the habits of Dinosaurs were similar to that of birds, nest building, incubating eggs and tending their young, no lisards tend their young in the same way as birds and dinosaurs. The Evidence presented so far Demonstrates Clearly that Birds are Definitely Dinosaurs.
Both by Classification and Genetics.
All the Genetics of the Early Raptors still exist inside the Genome of Birds.
It is just that Evolution has turned off functions that form tails and teeth, though very little else has changed in some species.
So I believe with the Evidences I've presented so far, I've exceeded the task of satisfying my Burden Of Proof that Birds are in fact Dinosaurs. There can be no other conclusion. Evolution is thus deemed Factual.
I am extremely grateful and thank Domr for taking on this debate!
I will look forward to more inciteful Rebuttals.
As they should be very interesting!
Thanks Domr, and Best Of Luck!
Pro has tried to refute my arguments by not posting any sources to counter the sources I posted showing the taxonmy of birds and dinosaurs.
Birds are shown to be in the Clade of : AVES, and Dinosaurs in: DINOSAURIA
The relation between triceratops and T-Rex, vs Birds and T-Rex is not cited, nor is it relevant.
Pro stated that Dinosaurs were inbetween "lizards and mammals". (without source) based on their habits.
Birds are neither mammals or lizards(repitles), so this comparison confuses me.
The only point in need I need to bring up from Pro's last round is:
"Birds are not only Technically or Scientifically classed as Dinosaurs (Taxonomy of Dinosauria), as Dinosaurs are also feathered and contain tissue that only exists in Birds (medullary bone) and evidences of the habits of Dinosaurs were similar to that of birds, nest building, incubating eggs and tending their young, no lisards tend their young in the same way as birds and dinosaurs. The Evidence presented so far Demonstrates Clearly that Birds are Definitely Dinosaurs.
Both by Classification and Genetics.
All the Genetics of the Early Raptors still exist inside the Genome of Birds.
It is just that Evolution has turned off functions that form tails and teeth, though very little else has changed in some species."
I do not know if the first sentence was a typo? But Pro stated Birds are NOT classified as Dinosaurs. As this quoted by a source, It would seem Pro has refuted his own premise by this statement alone.
If we consider this a typo, and Pro meant to say they 'ARE DINOSAURS' I have still sufficiently proven that while they may be related from common ancestry, this does mean birds are dinosaurs as they are classifed differently in the animal kingdom. (Birds are in the Chordata, or Clade, of Aves)
I have proven birds and dinosaurs are classifed differently from their Class, Order, Family, Genus, and species.
I have also given reason to why their genetics have similarities. AS do many different organisms, this does not mean they are the same (but possibly related).
s://facinatingamazinganimals.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|