Jayjay4547 wrote:If you haven't come across that notion before, remember that you heard it first from a creationist.

Fenrir wrote:I'm quessing you wouldn't know what a cladogram represents and couldn't generate one if your life depended on it.

Or how progression from sea to land to air is reflected in the age of fossils for that matter.

Jayjay4547 wrote:If you haven't come across that notion before, remember that you heard it first from a creationist.

If one can dedicate a thread to someone, I dedicate this one to Jonathan Wells. Although, in his Icons of Evolution I think Wells was wrong to pour scorn on the idea that some non-flying dinosaurs had feathers. Dinosaurs might well have had feathers because they were descended from flying critters, like the ostrich is. It's seldom a good idea to pour scorn on an idea; an idea can be right or wrong or maybe partly right. To pour scorn is just to the express the crowd position.

The prospect that dinosaurs might be descended from flying critters back in the Triassic, comes from the perception that dinosaurs had somehow learned the trick of making a strong and yet light skeleton; something that mammals never learned, (except for bats). As exhibit, I plan to drop in a pic of giraffe neck vertebrae, compared with those of argentinosaurus.

Many pitfalls face the prediction that such a fossil will be found in the Triassic beds. It could even be wrong but it would be marvelous if true; that a particular lineage repeatedly budded species that shuffled between flying and walking. How creative our Creator!

Wortfish wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:If you haven't come across that notion before, remember that you heard it first from a creationist.

If one can dedicate a thread to someone, I dedicate this one to Jonathan Wells. Although, in his Icons of Evolution I think Wells was wrong to pour scorn on the idea that some non-flying dinosaurs had feathers. Dinosaurs might well have had feathers because they were descended from flying critters, like the ostrich is. It's seldom a good idea to pour scorn on an idea; an idea can be right or wrong or maybe partly right. To pour scorn is just to the express the crowd position.

The prospect that dinosaurs might be descended from flying critters back in the Triassic, comes from the perception that dinosaurs had somehow learned the trick of making a strong and yet light skeleton; something that mammals never learned, (except for bats). As exhibit, I plan to drop in a pic of giraffe neck vertebrae, compared with those of argentinosaurus.

Many pitfalls face the prediction that such a fossil will be found in the Triassic beds. It could even be wrong but it would be marvelous if true; that a particular lineage repeatedly budded species that shuffled between flying and walking. How creative our Creator!

No. Birds are not descended from dinosaurs. They are descended from smaller tree-dwelling archosaurs.

theropod wrote:Wortfish,

Please cite something to support your assertion that maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs did not give rise to birds, and please use a source from actual studies of real specimens.

In the mean time take a look at the post I put together HERE. I would appreciate your input. Considering the years I spent in both deep study, and hands on application, I feel my cited sources tell a different story.

RS

Along with unique adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle, Scansoriopteryx fulfills predictions from the early twentieth century that the ancestors of birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and instead were derived from earlier arboreal archosaurs which originated flight according to the traditional trees-down scenario.

theropod wrote:Ok, if you want to resort to this, and it raises no red flags for you, feel free to buy into this argument. The trouble arises when one examines a broader spectrum of sources. If you had bothered to read the post wherein I examine this issue more fully you would discover that many of the findings of A.F. et al have been found wanting.

Nevertheless I expected your response to be just so, and it informs me that rather than examine the issue in depth you have reached a conclusion via confirmational bias.

Thanks for playing.

RS

Theropods were unlikely to have possessed a specialized bird‐like, air‐sac lung. The likely absence of bird‐like pulmonary function in theropods is inconsistent with suggestions of cardiovascular anatomy more sophisticated than that of modern crocodilians.

theropod wrote:Wortfish,

For the love of all that is good just go read the thread I posted and stop making a fool of yourself. This issue highlights just how little you understand about the ongoing, and constantly improving, research into this issue. Your citation is from 2009, and was wrong then. Now there have been confirmation in several different types of theopods WITH the exact pulmonary anatomy as described. Some of these theropods are far removed from the maniraptoran theropods, which is an indicator of the pervasive trait among all theropods.

Please use proper citing format so that we all may check your sources more easily, and include the DOI number if possible. Need I explain why this common curtesy should be extended? Besides ease of use by other forum members such practice allows for searching for other repositories where full access is possible.

Unless you are willing to at least review my post, and the extensive citations therein, I have little interest in continuing this. I addressed every issue you are raising, and I refuse to cover the same ground twice. I feel I amassed a preponderance of positive evidence in said thread, and your apparent refusal to even look is tantamount to a slap in the face. Surely you can appreciate my position in this regard, and if not there is no point in further exchange.

RS

Wortfish wrote:and most ornithologists dismiss it outright.

hackenslash wrote:Sorry, did you really just say that theropods were too big to have given rise to aves?

Wortfish wrote:

theropod wrote:Wortfish,

For the love of all that is good just go read the thread I posted and stop making a fool of yourself. This issue highlights just how little you understand about the ongoing, and constantly improving, research into this issue. Your citation is from 2009, and was wrong then. Now there have been confirmation in several different types of theopods WITH the exact pulmonary anatomy as described. Some of these theropods are far removed from the maniraptoran theropods, which is an indicator of the pervasive trait among all theropods.

Please use proper citing format so that we all may check your sources more easily, and include the DOI number if possible. Need I explain why this common curtesy should be extended? Besides ease of use by other forum members such practice allows for searching for other repositories where full access is possible.

Unless you are willing to at least review my post, and the extensive citations therein, I have little interest in continuing this. I addressed every issue you are raising, and I refuse to cover the same ground twice. I feel I amassed a preponderance of positive evidence in said thread, and your apparent refusal to even look is tantamount to a slap in the face. Surely you can appreciate my position in this regard, and if not there is no point in further exchange.

RS

Theropods, including Maniraptora, are just too large and too specialized for terrestrial cursoriality to give rise to birds; they possess anatomical characters that preclude an avian ancestry, and appear too late in the Mesozoic record to be ancestral to Archaeopteryx. It isn't even a serious proposition (Kentucky Fried Dino) and most ornithologists dismiss it outright.