Strontium Dog wrote:

CharlieM wrote:You are using theory to justify the facts.

No he isn't. He's using the fact that there is a clear line of descent from theropods to birds and the fact that true moles and marsupial moles follow entirely separate lines of descent.

How can there be clear lines of descent when we don't know what is derived what is convergent? Have feathers evolved from a single origin or have they evolved separately from different sources?

Can you give me the facts relating to the line of descent leading to marsupial moles and the causes of any morphological changes that may have happened during their evolution?

We need to separate facts from assumptions based on those facts.

CharlieM wrote:I've been shown some convincing evidence that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. But I wasn't arguing that the evidence isn't there. Not everyone takes it as beyond question. So I would say I'm still entitled to ask, should it be taken as an unquestionable fact?

No, you should question everything. Is that really what you are doing?

CharlieM wrote:This part of the discussion all started because I made a statement which I did not qualify but was obviously from my point of view and I was criticized for doing so. Other posters who are on the majority side of the debate make unqualified statements from their point of view which are not necessarily facts, so what is the difference?

The difference is the mass of data which I provided and I am almost sure you have not examined in the detail required. I'll show how I arrived at this conclusion a little later in this post. I qualified every single point by using proper citations with links to each.

CharlieM wrote:With regard to scientists who think that the bird from theropod explanation need not necessarily be true, the reference below is another example. I've included a couple of quotes:

I have never doubted that there are researchers that hold a different view. I used your Berkley citation to highlight this. The trouble is they are in the minority and overwhelmed by evidence they do not properly address.

I sure wish you would have cited your reference in a more commonly accepted manner, but that's a small issue. If this citation had a title, or author name, I could search for it an review it in a possible alternative format. I would also be able to see the publication date and in what journal in appeared. Do take note of the fact that I went to this effort in my opening post within this thread. Reciprocity would have been a nice gesture.

PDF Link Edited link format

Below is the missing publication information regarding your citation. Note that this paper was excluded from "the AUK" as it exceeded the required format length. When I attempt to search for this paper in Google Scholar using the ISBN number I get no results found. Since there is no DOI reference I cannot search for that. I also get the same results when I search for the title. Even using the advanced search function returns no match. This leads me to think that your citation is not a peer reviewed article. Perhaps if you can find a proper journal citation it would help your use of this work as a valid set of data. I'm not going to spend a lot more time looking for what should be provided as a matter of course. However when I enter the phrase "Cladistics and The Origin Of Birds" THIS is the result and scanning over 5 pages deep shows no such publication by the lead author.
--------
Library of Congress Control Number 2009923609
ISBN: 978-0-943610-85-6
Issued 30 April 2009
Ornithological Monographs, No. 66 viii + 78 pp
"Cladistics and The Origin Of Birds A Review and Two new Analyses"
Frances C. James, and John A. Pourtless

Evaluation of Alternative Hypotheses:
Although we think that the BMT (birds are maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs) hypothesis has not been tested and is not as overwhelmingly supported as has been claimed, it is not, for those reasons, necessarily incorrect. Analysis of our new matrix, however, which allows for evaluation within a comparative framework of the BMT hypothesis and four alternative hypotheses for the origin of birds (Fig. 3), and review of the literature, indicate (1) that several predictions derivable from the BMT hypothesis are not supported; (2) that some maniraptorans may belong within Aves, which potentially supports the three alternatives to the BMT hypothesis that incorporate this topology (the neoflightless-theropod hypothesis, the early-archosaur hypothesis, and the crocodylomorph hypothesis); (3) that avian status for even some maniraptorans weakens support for both the BMT hypothesis and the neoflightless-theropod hypothesis; and (4) that, of the alternatives to the BMT hypothesis, the early-archosaur and crocodylomorph hypotheses are equally compatible with currently available evidence. We expand on these points below.

The opening line is some bold talk from a paper that can't be found via Google Scholar!

The trouble with this study is that there is direct evidence that counters the bold and underlined claims above. If you had actually bothered to read my references the case for crocodylomorph relationship is overturned by a histology examination that has established beyond doubt that birds and theropods do not share the same bone growth pattern as that seen in all crocodylomorphs. You citations claim of connection to early archosaurs is unsupported by the fossil evidence.

One thing to keep in mind about this study is that it was conducted by Ornithologists. I'm not saying that just because these scientists were Ornithologists that their work is flawed but rather they are looking at the issue from their training and background which is vastly different that that of a paleontologist. Most, but not all, Ornithologists do not study fossils, and I am not suggesting the authors of this paper are lacking in this regard. However these researchers must have not been aware of the histology study I cited previously or they would not have made this glaring error of oversight.

Feel free to find a better citation, as I cannot see a reason to accept this one without some indication that it underwent the peer review process. I can't find any such indicator, but if you can locate where, when and who reviewed this citation I will be more than willing to take another look at their claims. I have already downloaded the PDF file and will examine it in much more detail as time allows.

RS

Hi Theropod, I'm not an academic so I apologize if my sources are not suitably referenced.

There is a paper by the same people you reference that deals with the histology of bone here:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634%282004%29024%5B0555:GISDAP%5D2.0.CO%3B2

These are the details from the link:

Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24(3):555-571. 2004
doi: 10.1671/0272-4634(2004)024[0555:GISDAP]2.0.CO;2

GROWTH IN SMALL DINOSAURS AND PTEROSAURS: THE EVOLUTION OF ARCHOSAURIAN GROWTH STRATEGIES

KEVIN PADIANa, JOHN R. HORNERb, ARMAND DE RICQLÈSc

I do not have access to the full article but from the abstract it states:

Histological evidence of the bones of pterosaurs and dinosaurs indicates that the typically large forms of these groups grew at rates more comparable to those of birds and mammals than to those of other living reptiles. However, Scutellosaurus, a small, bipedal, basal thyreophoran ornithischian dinosaur of the Early Jurassic, shows histological features in its skeletal tissues that suggest relatively lower growth rates than in those of larger dinosaurs. In these respects Scutellosaurus, like other small dinosaurs such as Orodromeus and some basal birds, is more like young, rapidly growing crocodiles than larger, more derived ornithischians (hadrosaurs) and all saurischians (sauropods and theropods).

So this seems to suggest that some basal birds do show similar characteristic to crocodiles at least when it comes to bone growth rate. Also by what they say, "some basal birds" are not included in, "all saurischians (sauropods and theropods)". Are they saying that not all birds are theropods?

CharlieM wrote:Hi Theropod, I'm not an academic so I apologize if my sources are not suitably referenced.

No apology needed. I was just informing you that there is a proper way to cite a reference, and you seem to have grasped the basics very well. The citation below is formatted good enough for me. Neither am I an academic and have learned everything I know about paleontology by either hands on work or reading every scrap of information I can lay hands upon. I have just learned from experience that in such discussions as we are having it is best to be as precise as possible and present only citations that ones fellows may examine at their own pace and easily find. Again, no biggie, but I appreciate the effort.

CharlieM wrote:There is a paper by the same people you reference that deals with the histology of bone here:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634%282004%29024%5B0555:GISDAP%5D2.0.CO%3B2

These are the details from the link:

Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24(3):555-571. 2004
doi: 10.1671/0272-4634(2004)024[0555:GISDAP]2.0.CO;2

GROWTH IN SMALL DINOSAURS AND PTEROSAURS: THE EVOLUTION OF ARCHOSAURIAN GROWTH STRATEGIES

KEVIN PADIANa, JOHN R. HORNERb, ARMAND DE RICQLÈSc

CharlieM wrote:I do not have access to the full article but from the abstract it states:

Histological evidence of the bones of pterosaurs and dinosaurs indicates that the typically large forms of these groups grew at rates more comparable to those of birds and mammals than to those of other living reptiles. However, Scutellosaurus, a small, bipedal, basal thyreophoran ornithischian dinosaur of the Early Jurassic, shows histological features in its skeletal tissues that suggest relatively lower growth rates than in those of larger dinosaurs. In these respects Scutellosaurus, like other small dinosaurs such as Orodromeus and some basal birds, is more like young, rapidly growing crocodiles than larger, more derived ornithischians (hadrosaurs) and all saurischians (sauropods and theropods).

Nice!

CharlieM wrote:So this seems to suggest that some basal birds do show similar characteristic to crocodiles at least when it comes to bone growth rate. Also by what they say, "some basal birds" are not included in, "all saurischians (sauropods and theropods)". Are they saying that not all birds are theropods?

We need to look at the full paper to figure out what basal birds they are referencing and then read the papers that describe these histological features. Note that I made bold the part about young crocodiles. As a crocodile nears maturity this growth rate slows. They are making a comparison between the early rapid growth phase in young crocodiles and the specimen referenced. While it is true that all dinosaurs underwent a rapid growth rate when young the point at which this slowed is the issue here.

No, the basal birds are still theropods. What they are saying is that there is a difference in growth rates from the larger and more recent specimens than these basal representatives.

Take note of the other parts I made bold in the abstract. The specimen they are talking about isn't a bird. You really do need to go read my links where I explain the defining terms of dinosaurs. That will help you understand the terminology much better. An ornithischian dinosaur is not a bird, and not directly related to birds. This is a confusing terminology adopted long ago. This refers to the hip/pelvis structure and my opening post has a link to better explain this.

What the authors are saying is that among the smaller, and more ancient, ornithischian dinosaurs the bone growth rates was slower than in the larger, and more recent, ornithischian dinosaurs such as hadrosaurs.

Sauropods and theropods share the hip structure that define the other branch of the dinosaur tree family. These dinosaurs were the saurischian branch which does include birds.

I know, it can be really confusing, but I'm quite sure if you read my OP link where I cover this it will be helpful. If you still have questions after reading that linked post feel free to fire away.

Just so you know, I'm not just some asshole on the net that talks a good game. I've been professionally employed in this field and have spent many years in deep study of paleontology. I'm not bragging or posting this to impress you at all. I'm just telling you that if I felt there was any reasonable alternative to birds being highly derived theropod dinosaurs I would be the first to accept that position. The alternatives, however, don't exist or can't withstand critical examination. It really is that simple.

RS

Well I can find one problem with that finding straight away. Scutellosaurus is an ornithischian dinosaur, and the theropods were all saurischians. In other words, it belongs to a totally different lineage.

EDIT: even worse, the Thyreophorians were all quadrupedal, none of them exhibited evidence of possessing feather like dermal structures, and the two best known groups were the Stegosaurs and the Ankylosaurs, the latter being about as far removed from theropods as it's possible to be - they were walking battle tanks covered in thick armour.

theropod wrote:
We need to look at the full paper to figure out what basal birds they are referencing and then read the papers that describe these histological features. Note that I made bold the part about young crocodiles. As a crocodile nears maturity this growth rate slows. They are making a comparison between the early rapid growth phase in young crocodiles and the specimen referenced. While it is true that all dinosaurs underwent a rapid growth rate when young the point at which this slowed is the issue here.

No, the basal birds are still theropods. What they are saying is that there is a difference in growth rates from the larger and more recent specimens than these basal representatives.

Take note of the other parts I made bold in the abstract. The specimen they are talking about isn't a bird. You really do need to go read my links where I explain the defining terms of dinosaurs. That will help you understand the terminology much better. An ornithischian dinosaur is not a bird, and not directly related to birds. This is a confusing terminology adopted long ago. This refers to the hip/pelvis structure and my opening post has a link to better explain this.

What the authors are saying is that among the smaller, and more ancient, ornithischian dinosaurs the bone growth rates was slower than in the larger, and more recent, ornithischian dinosaurs such as hadrosaurs.

Sauropods and theropods share the hip structure that define the other branch of the dinosaur tree family. These dinosaurs were the saurischian branch which does include birds.

I know, it can be really confusing, but I'm quite sure if you read my OP link where I cover this it will be helpful. If you still have questions after reading that linked post feel free to fire away.

Just so you know, I'm not just some asshole on the net that talks a good game. I've been professionally employed in this field and have spent many years in deep study of paleontology. I'm not bragging or posting this to impress you at all. I'm just telling you that if I felt there was any reasonable alternative to birds being highly derived theropod dinosaurs I would be the first to accept that position. The alternatives, however, don't exist or can't withstand critical examination. It really is that simple.

RS

I already know that an ornithischian dinosaur is not grouped as a bird, I saw that from your original cladogram where it is more of a sister group to theropods. But they do not group their "basal birds" along with ornithischians, they say these dinosaurs and some basal birds show a similar growth rate to crocodiles. Figure 7 from the link I gave does show which basal birds they are talking about, one example is patagopteryx.

I never did think you were "some asshole on the net", from previous posts I gathered that your field was paleontology and the title you use does give a bit of a clue.

CharlieM wrote:

I already know that an ornithischian dinosaur is not grouped as a bird, I saw that from your original cladogram where it is more of a sister group to theropods. But they do not group their "basal birds" along with ornithischians, they say these dinosaurs and some basal birds show a similar growth rate to crocodiles. Figure 7 from the link I gave does show which basal birds they are talking about, one example is patagopteryx.

Here's the cladogram in question:


Notice the line where Sauropomorpa, the solid black line, branches off. Following that is the Theropoda line, and branching from that is the Aves. This is an indicator of how all extant birds are derived from the Theropoda line. The basal birds in question, such as patagopteryx, are an extinct dead end. I have been claiming from the very beginning of this discussion that all the extant birds we enjoy today are all included in the group that is derived from Theropoda. This cladogram shows the same thing.

CharlieM wrote:I never did think you were "some asshole on the net", from previous posts I gathered that your field was paleontology and the title you use does give a bit of a clue.

I just wanted to make sure you understood that my motivations here have been educational and earnest. I don't make a habit of trolling folks or posting inane crap. If I honestly didn't think the evidence is overwhelming I wouldn't hold the position I do, or spend time gathering, checking and posting citations to support my position.

RS

theropod wrote:



Notice the line where Sauropomorpa, the solid black line, branches off. Following that is the Theropoda line, and branching from that is the Aves. This is an indicator of how all extant birds are derived from the Theropoda line. The basal birds in question, such as patagopteryx, are an extinct dead end. I have been claiming from the very beginning of this discussion that all the extant birds we enjoy today are all included in the group that is derived from Theropoda. This cladogram shows the same thing.

RS

I didn't expect the cladogram to show anything other than the generally accepted lines of descent. The interesting bit is in the detail they have superimposed on the cladogram. They have shown the subadult long bone growth rates for the various groups and several of the aves show the same slow growth rate as the reptilia. (0-5 μm per day).

CharlieM wrote:
I didn't expect the cladogram to show anything other than the generally accepted lines of descent.

Um, this was your citation CharlieM. It supports what I've been telling you from the beginning. There's a reason for that generally accepted thinking.

CharlieM wrote:The interesting bit is in the detail they have superimposed on the cladogram. They have shown the subadult long bone growth rates for the various groups and several of the Aves show the same slow growth rate as the reptilia. (0-5 μm per day).

The critical thing to understand is this feature doesn't arise until after the split with the crocodiles. This is important. The trait tells us that birds could not have arisen from the crocodiles as it is not a shared feature. The earliest reptiles didn't have this feature.

I'm really tired right now CharlieM, or I would spend more time dealing with this. Perhaps tomorrow I'll have more time and energy to devote to a better discussion. All I can think of right now is a good meal and some quiet time with my wife.

RS

CharlieM,

Have a look at THIS post, it's awesome! (not my post but the content therein).

It seems the more we find the more it supports the theropod/bird link.

RS

theropod wrote:
It seems the more we find the more it supports the theropod/bird link.
RS

I'm not sure how finding feathers from unknown sources supports the theropod/bird link. Looking through all the news reports it would seem that they have been confirmed as "dinosaur feathers". So that's another 'fact' supporting the theory.

Animavore wrote:I posted these on the Inside Nature's Giants thread but they fit here, too. These are the bones of a modern day bird, a ratite called a cassowary (smaller ones), and a theropod dinosaur called a Banjosaurs

The redneck of the animal kingdom eh?

Thought this was sort of funny from the article:

David Elliot of Australia's Age of Dinosaurs Museum discusses his latest findings, including a hunter that dwarfs velociraptor.

CharlieM wrote:

theropod wrote:
It seems the more we find the more it supports the theropod/bird link.
RS

I'm not sure how finding feathers from unknown sources supports the theropod/bird link. Looking through all the news reports it would seem that they have been confirmed as "dinosaur feathers". So that's another 'fact' supporting the theory.

Well, the following excerpt from the paper might give us a clue:

The fossils include primitive structures closely matching the protofeathers of nonavian dinosaurs, offering new insights into their structure and function.

Give me a couple days to fully review the paper, which I now have in full, and I'll present a much more detailed response. From the quick read I have given the paper there is ample reason for the researchers to arrive at the conclusions they have. I suspect I will post that review over in the feather thread.

I actually find your use of scare quotes (ie 'fact') somewhat disturbing. Considering you haven't any reason to dispute the findings aside from some vague overall objections, which I suspect is driven by a basal objection to evolution in general.

I have gone back over your posts in this thread and I have picked up on the fact that you haven't bothered to fully review the citations I have already provided. I know this because when I told you I had professional experience you gave your reasons for believing me. At least one of the links I provided details one aspect of that work. Had you read those posts I wouldn't have had to mention this as it would have been self evident. So, if you aren't going to bother to examine that which I provide why should I expend even more effort in order to establish the broadly accepted connection, based on evidence, that birds are theropod dinosaurs? I am going to do so anyway, but my motivations will now be altered to appeal to the general readership.

RS

theropod wrote:
I actually find your use of scare quotes (ie 'fact') somewhat disturbing. Considering you haven't any reason to dispute the findings aside from some vague overall objections, which I suspect is driven by a basal objection to evolution in general.

I have gone back over your posts in this thread and I have picked up on the fact that you haven't bothered to fully review the citations I have already provided. I know this because when I told you I had professional experience you gave your reasons for believing me. At least one of the links I provided details one aspect of that work. Had you read those posts I wouldn't have had to mention this as it would have been self evident. So, if you aren't going to bother to examine that which I provide why should I expend even more effort in order to establish the broadly accepted connection, based on evidence, that birds are theropod dinosaurs? I am going to do so anyway, but my motivations will now be altered to appeal to the general readership.

RS

It is all over the internet that some of the samples are indeed dinosaur feathers. I'd be interested if you can demonstrate that this actually is an unquestionable fact. Have any tests been done that compare dinosaur proto feathers with extinct and extant bird feathers? I mean specialized bird feathers or possibly nestling feathers that have the same appearance as dinosaur proto feathers. What would be the difference between them? Would microscopic examination of these feathers in amber show up any differences?

As for criticizing me for not fully reviewing your links, well I have reviewed them as much as time allows at the moment, but, with all the tangents I find myself going off on it does take time. Sometimes I feel like I'm swimming upstream, with time spent responding to posts and going over what is disappearing into the past. Its a bit of a juggling act with balls getting dropped now and again. So you are wrong to say that I am not bothered about examining the links you provide. You didn't have to mention your area of experience on my account because as you say it was self-evident and I never said it wasn't.

I look forward to reading your review of the paper on the other thread.

CharlieM wrote:
It is all over the internet that some of the samples are indeed dinosaur feathers. I'd be interested if you can demonstrate that this actually is an unquestionable fact. Have any tests been done that compare dinosaur proto feathers with extinct and extant bird feathers? I mean specialized bird feathers or possibly nestling feathers that have the same appearance as dinosaur proto feathers. What would be the difference between them? Would microscopic examination of these feathers in amber show up any differences?

As for criticizing me for not fully reviewing your links, well I have reviewed them as much as time allows at the moment, but, with all the tangents I find myself going off on it does take time. Sometimes I feel like I'm swimming upstream, with time spent responding to posts and going over what is disappearing into the past. Its a bit of a juggling act with balls getting dropped now and again. So you are wrong to say that I am not bothered about examining the links you provide. You didn't have to mention your area of experience on my account because as you say it was self-evident and I never said it wasn't.

I look forward to reading your review of the paper on the other thread.

You intentionally removed, in your reply above, this sentence. I'll include it again so you might get a basic idea of why this isn't a case of identification error.

The fossils include primitive structures closely matching the protofeathers of nonavian dinosaurs, offering new insights into their structure and function.

Frankly, I don't find this adds to your credibility.

Nobody is pressuring you to post within a time frame that forces you to digest the material provided hurriedly. I even stated it might take someone dedicating nearly all their free time to the material more than a month to properly grasp the contents. This thread isn't going to go away any time soon, nor am I. Until such time as you do fully review the previously provided citations and my own posts, to which I linked, I fear most of the conversation will be a rehashing of the same topics again and again. I find that disrespectful of the effort I have expended.

To review your last posting;

As for criticizing me for not fully reviewing your links, well I have reviewed them as much as time allows at the moment, but, with all the tangents I find myself going off on it does take time.

What I am being critical of is the fact that without reviewing those references you still feel the need to pose questions and provide more citations that detract from what was already on the table. The tangents are of your own creation, and I refuse to accept any responsibility for your lack of focus. Again, I make no demands that you post within any time frame, or at all. I think my criticism is valid in this regard.

Sometimes I feel like I'm swimming upstream, with time spent responding to posts and going over what is disappearing into the past.

Barring a server failure these posts, and thread, is not going to vanish. I make no demands of you. Take your time.

Its a bit of a juggling act with balls getting dropped now and again.

Tell me about it! Now imagine how much dedication it takes to be a professional in this field.

So you are wrong to say that I am not bothered about examining the links you provide.

Excuse me? I said you hadn't bothered to review the material in depth. I never said it hadn't bothered you, personally. There is a difference. Please don't distort my meaning like this.

You yourself just said you didn't have time to go over the material because you didn't have time. It's statements like this that lead me to question, not indict, your credibility. Can't you understand the frustration this causes me? Take your time. If for no other reason than to take advantage of a chance to learn. I'm not just bullshitting my way through this, which was the main reason I mentioned my professional background.

You didn't have to mention your area of experience on my account because as you say it was self-evident and I never said it wasn't.

Addressed above, but seeing as I knew you hadn't reviewed the material I provided I felt it was prudent to advise you that my methodology would be of a nature that would reflect a standard of professionalism. I'm striving to maintain that posture in what is, for me, a frustrating situation. This is all my issue, and I am not displacing that onto you. Had a more even keel in this regard I perhaps could have been a teacher, but alas I have never been particularly patient about such things.

I look forward to reading your review of the paper on the other thread.

Well, like you, I also have several balls in the air. When I can find the time to digest the paper, and write a review, I hope to be able to translate the more technical aspects into language anyone can grasp. This sort of thing isn't an easy task, but I do promise to expend all due effort to try.

Try not to be offended by my direct nature. I've got a crooked nose, as a direct result of a large right fist, from being a relentless ass!

RS

theropod wrote:
You intentionally removed, in your reply above, this sentence. I'll include it again so you might get a basic idea of why this isn't a case of identification error.

The fossils include primitive structures closely matching the protofeathers of nonavian dinosaurs, offering new insights into their structure and function.

Frankly, I don't find this adds to your credibility.

I didn't remove this sentence because I was ignoring it. After all I asked questions in my last post about these type of feathers. I'll repeat them here. Have any tests been done that compare dinosaur proto feathers with extinct and extant bird feathers? I mean specialized bird feathers or possibly nestling feathers that have the same appearance as dinosaur proto feathers. What would be the difference between them? Would microscopic examination of these feathers in amber show up any differences? I would seriously like to know in what way they closely match dinosaur proto feathers and if this excludes them from matching other types of bird feathers.

If I have to wait until I see some relevant detail from the paper or your review of it to find the answers then so be it, until then I'll keep googling to see what comes up.

theropod wrote:
Nobody is pressuring you to post within a time frame that forces you to digest the material provided hurriedly. I even stated it might take someone dedicating nearly all their free time to the material more than a month to properly grasp the contents. This thread isn't going to go away any time soon, nor am I. Until such time as you do fully review the previously provided citations and my own posts, to which I linked, I fear most of the conversation will be a rehashing of the same topics again and again. I find that disrespectful of the effort I have expended.

You seem to think I've ignored what the information you have provided is telling me, things such as the cladograms or the series of pelvic girdle drawings. I'm not ignoring these, I've been busy looking into them in order to work out what they are telling me. Having only a very basic knowledge of dinosaurs and their place in pre-history its taking me some time to work out the different families, genera etc and how they relate. And looking at cladograms, I like to know which traits they take into account and how they fit in with other data such as quality of the fossils and the estimated time of their death.

theropod wrote:
To review your last posting;

CharlieM wrote:
As for criticizing me for not fully reviewing your links, well I have reviewed them as much as time allows at the moment, but, with all the tangents I find myself going off on it does take time.

What I am being critical of is the fact that without reviewing those references you still feel the need to pose questions and provide more citations that detract from what was already on the table. The tangents are of your own creation, and I refuse to accept any responsibility for your lack of focus. Again, I make no demands that you post within any time frame, or at all. I think my criticism is valid in this regard.

So you think that all the questions and criticisms I have made have been answered. Well there are other experts in the field who disagree.

Don't worry, I accept full responsibility for my shortcomings, I would never expect you to share any blame.

theropod wrote:

CharlieM wrote:
Sometimes I feel like I'm swimming upstream, with time spent responding to posts and going over what is disappearing into the past.

Barring a server failure these posts, and thread, is not going to vanish. I make no demands of you. Take your time.

I will thanks.

theropod wrote:

CharlieM wrote:
Its a bit of a juggling act with balls getting dropped now and again.

Tell me about it! Now imagine how much dedication it takes to be a professional in this field.

At least professionals get paid for their efforts

theropod wrote:

CharlieM wrote:
So you are wrong to say that I am not bothered about examining the links you provide.

Excuse me? I said you hadn't bothered to review the material in depth. I never said it hadn't bothered you, personally. There is a difference. Please don't distort my meaning like this.

You yourself just said you didn't have time to go over the material because you didn't have time. It's statements like this that lead me to question, not indict, your credibility. Can't you understand the frustration this causes me? Take your time. If for no other reason than to take advantage of a chance to learn. I'm not just bullshitting my way through this, which was the main reason I mentioned my professional background.

Yes I didn't communicate very well, its no big deal.

I am willing to learn but I like to make my own mind up about things.

theropod wrote:

CharlieM wrote:
You didn't have to mention your area of experience on my account because as you say it was self-evident and I never said it wasn't.

Addressed above, but seeing as I knew you hadn't reviewed the material I provided I felt it was prudent to advise you that my methodology would be of a nature that would reflect a standard of professionalism. I'm striving to maintain that posture in what is, for me, a frustrating situation. This is all my issue, and I am not displacing that onto you. Had a more even keel in this regard I perhaps could have been a teacher, but alas I have never been particularly patient about such things.

Well I'll never do a professional review of the material but that does not mean that I won't look very closely at it, as I've been doing since this thread started. I came here to challenge and be challenged so I don't mind any impatience shown to me.

theropod wrote:

CharlieM wrote:
I look forward to reading your review of the paper on the other thread.

Well, like you, I also have several balls in the air. When I can find the time to digest the paper, and write a review, I hope to be able to translate the more technical aspects into language anyone can grasp. This sort of thing isn't an easy task, but I do promise to expend all due effort to try.

Try not to be offended by my direct nature. I've got a crooked nose, as a direct result of a large right fist, from being a relentless ass!

RS

Well I'd like to tell you I've got a crooked nose from banging my head against a brick wall, but I got it falling down a flight of stairs in a drunken stupor. Thankfully, those days are well behind me.

My post over in the amber feathers thread is up.

RS

All,

Yet more evidential support for the bird/dino link. To read a report about the paper here submitted click HERE, which is a Science Daily write up. See **citations below.

Science Daily wrote:
Therrien and Zelenitsky found that the extinct bird Archaeopteryx, known to have evolved from small meat-eating dinosaurs, had an olfactory bulb size comparable to most theropod dinosaurs. Although sight is very good in most birds today, their sense of smell is usually poor, a pattern that does not hold true in the ancestry of living birds.

"Our results tell us that the sense of smell in early birds was not inferior to that of meat-eating dinosaurs," says Therrien. "Although it had been previously suggested that smell had become less important than eye sight in the ancestors of birds, we have shown that this wasn't so. The primitive bird Archaeopteryx had a sense of smell comparable to meat-eating dinosaurs, while at the same time it had very good eye sight. The sense of smell must have become less important at some point during the evolution of those birds more advanced than Archaeopteryx."

**Below are a pair of papers involving the progression of study in the study of the brain morphology and what sorts of data has been collected.

FULL ACCESS PDF

Proceedings of the Royal Society
Published online before print April 13, 2011
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0238 Proc. R. Soc. B

"Evolution of olfaction in non-avian theropod dinosaurs and birds"

Darla K. Zelenitsky, François Therrien, Ryan C. Ridgely, Amanda R. McGee and Lawrence M. Witmer

Abstract:
Little is known about the olfactory capabilities of extinct basal (non-neornithine) birds or the evolutionary changes in olfaction that occurred from non-avian theropods through modern birds. Although modern birds are known to have diverse olfactory capabilities, olfaction is generally considered to have declined during avian evolution as visual and vestibular sensory enhancements occurred in association with flight. To test the hypothesis that olfaction diminished through avian evolution, we assessed relative olfactory bulb size, here used as a neuroanatomical proxy for olfactory capabilities, in 157 species of non-avian theropods, fossil birds and living birds. We show that relative olfactory bulb size increased during non-avian maniraptoriform evolution, remained stable across the non-avian theropod/bird transition, and increased during basal bird and early neornithine evolution. From early neornithines through a major part of neornithine evolution, the relative size of the olfactory bulbs remained stable before decreasing in derived neoavian clades. Our results show that, rather than decreasing, the importance of olfaction actually increased during early bird evolution, representing a previously unrecognized sensory enhancement. The relatively larger olfactory bulbs of earliest neornithines, compared with those of basal birds, may have endowed neornithines with improved olfaction for more effective foraging or navigation skills, which in turn may have been a factor allowing them to survive the end-Cretaceous mass extinction.

** and the proceeding work;

Short version LINK.
FULL ACCESS HTML
FULL PDF

Proceedings of the Royal Society
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1075 Proc. R. Soc. B 22 February 2009 vol. 276 no. 1657 667-673
"Olfactory acuity in theropods: palaeobiological and evolutionary implications"
Darla K Zelenitsky, François Therrien and Yoshitsugu Kobayashi

Abstract:
This research presents the first quantitative evaluation of the olfactory acuity in extinct theropod dinosaurs. Olfactory ratios (i.e. the ratio of the greatest diameter of the olfactory bulb to the greatest diameter of the cerebral hemisphere) are analysed in order to infer the olfactory acuity and behavioural traits in theropods, as well as to identify phylogenetic trends in olfaction within Theropoda. A phylogenetically corrected regression of olfactory ratio to body mass reveals that, relative to predicted values, the olfactory bulbs of (i) tyrannosaurids and dromaeosaurids are significantly larger, (ii) ornithomimosaurs and oviraptorids are significantly smaller, and (iii) ceratosaurians, allosauroids, basal tyrannosauroids, troodontids and basal birds are within the 95% CI. Relative to other theropods, olfactory acuity was high in tyrannosaurids and dromaeosaurids and therefore olfaction would have played an important role in their ecology, possibly for activities in low-light conditions, locating food, or for navigation within large home ranges. Olfactory acuity was the lowest in ornithomimosaurs and oviraptorids, suggesting a reduced reliance on olfaction and perhaps an omnivorous diet in these theropods. Phylogenetic trends in olfaction among theropods reveal that olfactory acuity did not decrease in the ancestry of birds, as troodontids, dromaeosaurids and primitive birds possessed typical or high olfactory acuity. Thus, the sense of smell must have remained important in primitive birds and its presumed decrease associated with the increased importance of sight did not occur until later among more derived birds.

Pounding the target to a fine red mist? Affirmative!

We have histology, biomechanics of breathing (pneumatic skeletal elements), feathers, pelvic/arm/foot structures and suppressed genetics that has been reactivated in embryonic birds to grow teeth, AND still there are those that want to deny the connection? At what point does the overwhelming conciliation of data not become convincing? Seriously, how much more needs to show to establish an obvious connection?

Just add the above brain studies to the list of yet more supporting data.

There are dinosaurs in my birdbath at this very moment! I must arm myself. DINOSAURS! They're everywhere!

SEND HELP!

No, wait, it was just a family group of crested titmice. I think I'll be alright. THIS TIME.





RS

Here is a bird which looks a bit more like a Theropod Dinosaur:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xQA0fEQjSg[/youtube]

Referring to my statement

CharlieM wrote:I'm not sure how finding feathers from unknown sources supports the theropod/bird link. Looking through all the news reports it would seem that they have been confirmed as "dinosaur feathers". So that's another 'fact' supporting the theory.

You replied:

theropod wrote:

I actually find your use of scare quotes (ie 'fact') somewhat disturbing. Considering you haven't any reason to dispute the findings aside from some vague overall objections, which I suspect is driven by a basal objection to evolution in general.

RS

You are saying that explanations of findings, if they are well supported by confirming evidence, should not be questioned. Well I think that if there is even the slightest hint of doubt then they should be questioned and I do have some doubts.

I take evolution seriously, perhaps more seriously than you do. What I disagree with is the explanation as to how it came about. I happily accept that the evolution of the vertebrates progressed through fish, amphibian, reptile and on to birds and mammals. Where I differ from the majority here is that I don't see it as a directionless process with human awareness and consciousness being just an incidental by-product of this process.The earth gave birth to life and we can see the evolution of vertebrates as a separation, the beginnings of an emancipation from outer nature. This process moves through certain stages. There is a general progression from more primitive animals who leave their offspring in the hands of wider nature to mammals and birds who themselves take the responsibility for the upbringing of their young. From exothermic beings who rely on the external environment for their inner warmth to endothermy where the beings are to a greater degree able to maintain their own heat independent of the environment. Bipedalism is another stage of freedom from external nature.

The stage of transformation between reptiles and the later vertebrates is a very interesting time in this development, Here we see the birth of dinosaurs, birds and mammals. We see the beginning of endothermy with the appearance of hair and feathers. Creatures begin to adopt bipedalism thereby freeing their forelimbs for potential uses other than supporting and moving their bodies. Thus even in the single animal we see differing rates of evolution. The functions of the forelimbs advance while the hind limbs remain behind. The forelimbs can only reach their potential because the hind limbs remain behind and in the same way humans can only reach their potential because certain animals remain behind.

A snake has lost its limbs and so its whole body becomes the bearer and source of movement of itself whereas on the other hand a bird having freed its forelimbs makes them available to develop flight. The snake descends while the bird ascends and there is a whole range in between. Here we see the dialectical process of life. A snake's body is an extension and repetition of form that tapers slowly toward the end, whereas with birds the tail reduces until it becomes the pygostyle. Bipedalism, whether in reptiles, birds or mammals is a step up (excuse the pun) from quadrupedalism.

This is what we should be examining, the interconnecting morphogenesis of the various forms that are and have been expressed on this planet of ours. We can get too caught up in the details of fitting individual fossil finds precisely into their neat little boxes. If we believe that life as we know it is just a conglomeration of substance that is down to a lucky but blind rearrangement, then we assume that we need look no further, as we already have the answer. Why should we bother trying to understand why our heads tend toward the spherical and how the skull relates to the thoracic bones and the form of the pelvis?. According to current understanding, it is just the way it happened to be. But there is much more to it than that. Novel forms don't just accidentally appear out of the blue.

The most accurate cladogram you can draw is the one where you see the various animal forms deviating from the archetypal animal form which has its most full expression in the human. Look at how the bones morph into forms that express the specialized nature of the individual. The pentadactyl limb bones elongating, degenerating, thickening, thinning in order to suit the needs of the animal. Look at the move to bipedalism with the earliest evidence reaching back well over 200 million years as in sphingopus. Study the skeletons of theropods, birds, bipedal marsupials such as kangaroos and mammals such as jerboas, to see how the forms varied. They are all variations away from the human form where individual bones were enlarged or reduced. Forms that became too extreme died out. Look at the human skeleton and how it expresses the golden mean in its proportions.

You can group birds with theropods, archiopteryx can be classed as a bird or a dinosaur, but it makes no difference, its all just human convention. Whether a bird is a theropod dinosaur or a theropod dinosaur is a bird can change on the whim of human fancy. Angels dancing on the head of a pin comes to mind.