No Apatosaurus did not have hollow bones? It is a dinosaur, not a bird.Oh crap, I almost forgot the very important trait that KittenKoder's post reminded me of( sorry to end a sentence with a preposition, hey wait, now I didn't!)
Maz, did Apatosaurus have hollow bones?
Do birds have hollow bones?
Can you guess the next question?
Are you now trying to suggest that an 18 ton dinosaur could fly or flap its front feet?
Yes birds do have hollow bones. Arch did not have hollow bones either.
The next question is, what are you talking about? And the answer is, you don't know.
“Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view,” Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosa urs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that “some scientists disagree.”
Actually I would have thought evolutionary scientists would be used to being humiliated time and time again on the back of history of falsifications of was once irrefuteable evidence that only an idiot would not accept.
I have already provided a link to pictures of modern bird footprints dated to 212mya. There is no other creature that could have made them, including the 3 digit dino Kong linked to that was gobble about impressions made of the back of some spastic reversed claw, that still did not dispaly a reversed hallux anyway.
So evos can chase their tail as much as they like and I will still have modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and over half way to the Devonian, and you have nothing more than tales as to why these fotprints aren't exactly what they look like!
Hence of my 6 points you are challenging one of them number 3 being, that what should be found in the fossil record was first published in Genesis, and evos were not the first to think plants, sea creatures, land animals then mankind up. Secondly only whales and birds are out of alignment with Genesis. The actual data better supports a creationist paradigm than an evolutionary one. The hypothesis and scenarios evolutionists invent to expalin them is all that supports evolution.
Not only can I present whale bones found in an area over 290myo, the carbon dating was contaminated and gave inconsistent results, and your whale fossil line up is a fraudulent misrepresention. I can present modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and also more than half way to the Devonian, and all you can present are fossils that have lost their bird traits to dinos, making them dinosaurs, not birds. I am clear and you are still left to chase your tail.
Here is something else you may like....
A new analysis by researchers at the University of Michigan, the University of Chicago, the Centre for Biodiversity Conservation Mexico and Central America, and Boston University offers the strongest molecular evidence yet for an ancient origin of modern birds, suggesting that they arose more than 100 million years ago, not 60 million years ago, as fossils suggest.