The article seemed to imply otherwise.
Given an inkling of a chance journalists would paint there as being a growing number of scientists with serious concerns about heliocentrism.
But there are a lot of differences between avian and therapods.
Yes, there are. But, neatly, many of these differences are bridged by basal avians (i.e.
Archaeopteryx, or have turned out to have existed in therapods (i.e. feathers).
For instance avian are ectothermal and therapods are exothermal. If they were directly related, shouldn't we see some exothermic avian that survived? Those are some of the internal inconsistencies. I suppose I should have clarified. When I said "internal inconsistencies" I was referring to the organs.
Then again, we know next to nothing about therapod organs since they didn't survive decay. So I suppose we should assume more about what similarities that we do know about versus the proposed dissimilarities we only know of with avian.
So you're basing your argument on some stuff we don't know, rather than looking at what we can compare - interesting approach. Also, as others have already pointed out; there are good reasons to think that many theropods were endothermic - or at least on the path to homeothermy - whereas as other alternative ancestor groups show no such signs, and there are no fossil links and no linking features.
™ Version 4.2
