|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Birds and Reptiles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
This article seem to say otherwise about dino-bird evolution. Maybe it was the other way around? http://www.physorg.com/news184959295.html It is speaking of a single species, microraptor. This doesn't mean that the analysis of this single species applies to ALL dino-bird intermediates.
There are many differences between birds and dinosaurs. Their lungs, reproductive system, etc. There is strong evidence that non-avian dinosaurs had the same type of lung: "Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina" ABE: tried to add the link to the source, but it gets messed up by the board software somehow. A google search for the title should point you to the original source material. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
There are some questions about that paper.
Here is what paleozoologist Darren Naish has to say. HE has quite a few criticisms of the arguments, and notes that the claims about bird ancestry don't even appear in the paper - bur are in the press releases. Which rather sounds like an attempt to hype up a paper that isn't really strong enough to back up the claims made to the press.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The study that your article refers to is that of Ruben and Quick:
But they also write:
Many of these skeletal specializations are not apparent in the earliest birds, including Archaeopteryx, confuciusornithine or enantiornithine birds (Hillenius and Ruben, 2004a). Their presence is also questionable in even Early Cretaceous ornithurines but well developed in the Late Cretaceous hesperornithiform birds (Hillenius and Ruben, 2004a). The femur most likely did not attain its subhorizontal position until the Late Cretaceous in ornithurines as indicated by the presence of the antitrochanter... So according to the very scientists you're referencing, Archaeopteryx did not have a fixed femur. But it did have feathers and wings.
--- I should like to add --- don't ever look to journalists to tell you the state of play about evolution. About any interesting fossil, they will tell you one of two things. Either they will tell you: (a) This is the final piece in the jigsaw that proves that evolution is true.
or --- (b) This is a weird anomaly that turns the whole theory of evolution on its head. And whichever one of those two things they say, they always turn out to be wrong. Journalists always over-sensationalize everything they write. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 328 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
they kinda have to to sell their newspaper
a title like new fossil found kinda does not get the attention that they want
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faith24 Junior Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 27 Joined:
|
quote: You know, people always thought that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That's why we got the idea "then how come there are still birds"? So now, they changed it and say that they share a common ancestor. So the ancestor between modern birds and dinosaurs is the Archeopteryx right? Some suggest that the Archeopteryx is just a perching bird. There are huge differences between birds and dinosaurs that it is impossible for birds to evolved from dinosaurs. The idea is so confusing even after looking on the subject for a while now i'm still confused because there are a lot of misinformation out there you don;t know which one to believe. What do you think about these birds foot print? Geotimes - June 2002 - Bird Fossil Feet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You know, people always thought that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That's why we got the idea "then how come there are still birds"? So now, they changed it and say that they share a common ancestor. No they didn't.
So the ancestor between modern birds and dinosaurs is the Archeopteryx right? No.
Some suggest that the Archeopteryx is just a perching bird. Yes, by definition it's a bird. But "just" a bird? No.
There are huge differences between birds and dinosaurs that it is impossible for birds to evolved from dinosaurs. Perhaps you could mention some of these "huge differences" and demonstrate the impossibility. Or perhaps you prefer to indulge in vacuous rhetoric.
The idea is so confusing even after looking on the subject for a while now i'm still confused because there are a lot of misinformation out there you don;t know which one to believe. If you have really been "looking at the subject for a while", how is it possible for you to write nonsense like this? ---
You know, people always thought that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That's why we got the idea "then how come there are still birds"? So now, they changed it and say that they share a common ancestor. So the ancestor between modern birds and dinosaurs is the Archeopteryx right? You evidently haven't even bothered to learn the ABC of the subject. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faith24 Junior Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 27 Joined:
|
quote: So if birds didn't evolved from the dinosaurs, then birds have their own lineage apart from dinosaurs. So then evolution would say that they both share a common ancestor. So how did people came up with the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? That must be a misconception of what evolution says then.
quote: Who are the ancestors? I'd like to know.
quote: How do you tell if it's a bird or not?
quote: Birds cannot move their thigh bone so they must bend their knee while walking or running. Land creatures such as the theropods can move their thigh bone. Also birds required more oxygen than cold blooded animals and so to supply this need, birds have special lungs and supporting musculature. If birds have the same muscle structure as the dinosaurs and could move their thigh, their lungs would collapsed.
quote: Because people are saying different things. Edited by faith24, : No reason given. Edited by faith24, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You know, people always thought that birds evolved from dinosaurs. That's why we got the idea "then how come there are still birds"? So now, they changed it and say that they share a common ancestor. So the ancestor between modern birds and dinosaurs is the Archeopteryx right? No, not exactly. And no, it is unlikely that Archeopteryx is the common ancestor between birds and dinos. And I have no opinion yet on those footprints. As the article you linked to says, "Melchor and team indicate that there are some features that do not correspond to bird morphology, but these are few. One example is the presence of pad impressions in some of the footprints. Other features that might be bird-like, but could be common to other theropods include the wide angles between the second and fourth digits." It is simply too early say what the footprints mean. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So if birds didn't evolved from the dinosaurs, then birds have their own lineage apart from dinosaurs. So then evolution would say that they both share a common ancestor. So how did people came up with the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? That must be a misconception of what evolution says then. You certainly seem to be laboring under some kind of misconception. But your writing is not clear enough for me to find out what it is.
Who are the ancestors? I'd like to know. Dinosaurs, apparently.
How do you tell if it's a bird or not? I told you --- birds are defined as being Archaeopterx and anything more like a modern bird than it is.
Birds cannot move their thigh bone so they must bend their knee while walking or running. Land creatures such as the theropods can move their thigh bone. Also birds required more oxygen than cold blooded animals and so to supply this need, birds have special lungs and supporting musculature. If birds have the same muscle structure as the dinosaurs and could move their thigh, their lungs would collapsed. As you have already been informed, Archaeopteryx has the same sort of legs as dinosaurs. And Archeopteryx is a bird. So this can't be a "huge difference" between dinosaurs and birds. It would have to be a "huge difference" between birds and ... other birds. I notice you forgot to demonstrate the impossibility of one sort of leg evolving from another. Presumably because you can't.
Because people are saying different things. That's because some people are idiots. This is why you should get your information on fossils from paleontologists rather than from people who make stuff up. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2720 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Faith24.
faith24 writes: So if birds didn't evolved from the dinosaurs, then birds have their own lineage apart from dinosaurs. So then evolution would say that they both share a common ancestor. So how did people came up with the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? That must be a misconception of what evolution says then. First off, the theory of evolution doesn’t say either way. Neither of the two options are a violation of the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution is about how evolution happens, not about what sequence of events happened. As an example, compare it to the theory of combustion, which describes how a gas-powered engine propels a vehicle. This theory says nothing about where the vehicle powered by combustion goes. All it says is how the engine works, not what is accomplished with it. The Theory of Evolution is just the description of how the evolutionary engine works. Birds evolving from dinosaurs or birds evolving from some other group is just a description of where the evolutionary vehicle took the lineage using that engine. If dinosaurs did not evolve from birds, then this is a misconception of the evidence, not a misconception of the theory. -----
faith24 writes: How do you tell if it's a bird or not? That’s the question, isn’t it? The line between what is a bird and what is a dinosaur is not distinct, so, in many cases, you can’t tell if it’s a bird or not. -----
faith24 writes: Birds cannot move their thigh bone so they must bend their knee while walking or running. First, in case you didn’t notice, you have to bend your knees while walking or running, too. Second, not all birds have fixed thigh bone. Ostriches do not have fixed thigh bones, yet ostriches breathe like birds, and all indications are that ostriches breathe just fine. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Strongbow Junior Member (Idle past 4932 days) Posts: 26 Joined: |
Faith... you have clearly not read the refernced papers here. If you had, you'd have noticed some points:
1) Archaeoptyrex was long thought to have an "opposing claw" like modern birds, but all the fossils then found had distorted feet that made it appear that way. Recently a fossil of Arch was found WITHOUT distorted feet, and it does NOT have an opposing claw. It had a foot just like dinosaurs. 2) If you'd have read the blog that criticized the paper (posted by PaulK) you seem to refer to, you'd have seen that not all modern birds have relatively immobile thighs (an ostrich is an example of a modern biord with a m obile thigh) and that it has not been established that an immobile thigh is necessary to repirate with abdominal airsacs... in fact, the evidence is to the contrary (edit: I see Bluejay pointed this out... sorry for the dogpile). Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given. Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given. Edited by Strongbow, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1047 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
So if birds didn't evolved from the dinosaurs, then birds have their own lineage apart from dinosaurs. So then evolution would say that they both share a common ancestor. So how did people came up with the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? That must be a misconception of what evolution says then. People came up with the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs because of the many features that birds share with dinosaurs, specifically with a particular group of dinosaurs, the theropods. Like theropods, birds support most of their weight on just three toes while standing on the ground, with the first toe reversed to point backwards. Particular groups of theropods share more with birds than others - the ischium (part of the hip) is shorter than other theropods, they lose some of the digits on their hand, and the collar bone is fused with the interclavicle - a diamond shaped bone at its base. These are a few big examples that I've listed, but the complete list of shared features between the skeletons of birds and theropods is long and detailed. It's true that there are still a few palaeontologists who argue that birds aren't theropods, but their position is becoming less supportable the more that's discovered - for example the indisputable prescence of vaned feathers in some theropods, and what might be proto-feathers in other theropods thought to be less closely related to birds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wolfwing Junior Member (Idle past 4840 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
there are some things that do tie birds to dinosaurs. Best possible example, though havn't read up on if they fully checked it out, but B.Rex, the famous "soft"tissue T.rex had in the bones structures that looked alot like the structures that birds form within their bones when they are pregnant and about to lay eggs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tupinambis Junior Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
In regards to the definition of what a "bird" is, I'm just going to throw this out here. There were some rumblings not too long ago (a few years) about the idea of incorporating all of the birds into the reptile group, or folding the crocodilians and birds together into an archosaur group. Either way "Aves" would effectively cease to be its own MAJOR taxonomic group (more like "Squamata" within the group "Reptilia"). The ornithology professors flipped shits when they first heard of that though.
I personally support making a separate archosaur group since birds and crocodiles really aren't all that different: no less different than a whale, a bat and [maybe] a platypus yet they're classified together. IMO the current definition of a "bird' that separates them from other reptiles is extremely tenuous: Beaks, feathers, warm-blooded, and can fly. Turtles have beaks, Bats can fly, Great White Sharks are warm blooded, and feathers are really just fluffy scales. What was that about being off topic? Oops. As for the OP: Birds almost certainly evolved from a type of small dinosaur; if not then at the very least they shared a very close common ancestor. Edited by Tupinambis, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1366 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
tegu writes: In regards to the definition of what a "bird" is, I'm just going to throw this out here. There were some rumblings not too long ago (a few years) about the idea of incorporating all of the birds into the reptile group, or folding the crocodilians and birds together into an archosaur group. Either way "Aves" would effectively cease to be its own MAJOR taxonomic group (more like "Squamata" within the group "Reptilia"). The ornithology professors flipped shits when they first heard of that though. this is more than rumblings; it is now the majority viewpoint among paleontologists, and most biologists. ornithologists didn't particularly like it, at first, but the (vocal) opponents of "birds are dinosaurs" are a small minority in the ornithology community.
I personally support making a separate archosaur group since birds and crocodiles really aren't all that different the issue is not really one of difference or similarity, but of heredity. all the evidence points to aves being a subclade of dinosauria, not a sister clade. you might be able to find some information here or here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024