Proof birds evolved from dinosaurs?

[Beto]

Creationists never agreed dinosaurs "adapted" into birds, correct? Dinosaurs were reptiles, birds are... well, birds.

It's a known fact that creationists don't use the word "species" as "evolutionists", since "species" is used in an entirely different context. A context where evolution is already part of the equation. Well, duh...

Anyhoo, now that we have molecular confirmation of phylogenetic relationship between the T. Rex and modern-day birds, what exactly is the creationist stance at this point? Species can change into other species after all? I hate saying that, since it makes no sense in either context. Or will they concede that this level of "adaptation" is possible, thus having little ground to say a higher level of adaptation isn't possible.

So, to creationists here, my question is: do you now agree that a reptile-like creature can "adapt" into a bird-like creature? If so, do you agree that a fish-like creature can adapt into a human-like creature? If not, why not?

[Goat]

Creationists never agreed dinosaurs "adapted" into birds, correct? Dinosaurs were reptiles, birds are... well, birds.

It's a known fact that creationists don't use the word "species" as "evolutionists", since "species" is used in an entirely different context. A context where evolution is already part of the equation. Well, duh...

Anyhoo, now that we have molecular confirmation of phylogenetic relationship between the T. Rex and modern-day birds, what exactly is the creationist stance at this point? Species can change into other species after all? I hate saying that, since it makes no sense in either context. Or will they concede that this level of "adaptation" is possible, thus having little ground to say a higher level of adaptation isn't possible.

So, to creationists here, my question is: do you now agree that a reptile-like creature can "adapt" into a bird-like creature? If so, do you agree that a fish-like creature can adapt into a human-like creature? If not, why not?

Well, Dino's aren't reptiles, and T-Rex tastes like chicken

[MeowTseTung]

Creationists never agreed dinosaurs "adapted" into birds, correct? Dinosaurs were reptiles, birds are... well, birds.

It's a known fact that creationists don't use the word "species" as "evolutionists", since "species" is used in an entirely different context. A context where evolution is already part of the equation. Well, duh...

Anyhoo, now that we have molecular confirmation of phylogenetic relationship between the T. Rex and modern-day birds, what exactly is the creationist stance at this point? Species can change into other species after all? I hate saying that, since it makes no sense in either context. Or will they concede that this level of "adaptation" is possible, thus having little ground to say a higher level of adaptation isn't possible.

So, to creationists here, my question is: do you now agree that a reptile-like creature can "adapt" into a bird-like creature? If so, do you agree that a fish-like creature can adapt into a human-like creature? If not, why not?

Well, who knows what excuse they will come up with.

With evidence such as fossilized feathers being found on dinosaurs and now T-Rex collagen having a similar molecular make-up as Chicken collagen, it's so obvious now that Birds were descended from Dinosaurs. Anyone today who would try to deny this is refusing to know the facts.

They share a lot of similar bone structure anyway, and Paleontologists have long believed birds came from dinosaurs before the T-Rex collagen was analyzed. Archaeopteryx was the "Oh, duh!" moment.

[Beto]

Creationists never agreed dinosaurs "adapted" into birds, correct? Dinosaurs were reptiles, birds are... well, birds.

It's a known fact that creationists don't use the word "species" as "evolutionists", since "species" is used in an entirely different context. A context where evolution is already part of the equation. Well, duh...

Anyhoo, now that we have molecular confirmation of phylogenetic relationship between the T. Rex and modern-day birds, what exactly is the creationist stance at this point? Species can change into other species after all? I hate saying that, since it makes no sense in either context. Or will they concede that this level of "adaptation" is possible, thus having little ground to say a higher level of adaptation isn't possible.

So, to creationists here, my question is: do you now agree that a reptile-like creature can "adapt" into a bird-like creature? If so, do you agree that a fish-like creature can adapt into a human-like creature? If not, why not?

Well, who knows what excuse they will come up with.

With evidence such as fossilized feathers being found on dinosaurs and now T-Rex collagen having a similar molecular make-up as Chicken collagen, it's so obvious now that Birds were descended from Dinosaurs. Anyone today who would try to deny this is refusing to know the facts.

They share a lot of similar bone structure anyway, and Paleontologists have long believed birds came from dinosaurs before the T-Rex collagen was analyzed. Archaeopteryx was the "Oh, duh!" moment.

You're absolutely right. All this really did was add to the already high probability of phylogenetic relationship inferred through skeletal structure analysis.