quote:
I wonder if you can imagine that Archaeopteryx could be able to reproduce with a creature it shared a common ancestor with back around 190 million years ago.
It’s easy to imagine things. Assuming that they are true when they are incredibly unlikely is another matter.
quote:
I still haven't found the exact time period for birds loosing the ability to have viable hybrids.
There isn’t an exact time (do you really think that an average of 2-4 million years for mammals is an exact time ?). But if you can multiply by 10 you already have an adequate estimate.
quote:
But the ability to have viable hybrids is a way to enable evolutionary events FROM OUTSIDE your own species GET SHARED by your own species. Call spreading the wealth (of rapid evolution) around.
That’s an assumption, and not one supported by the article. Since the article doesn’t claim that birds evolved incredibly rapidly over the period in question - the main point is that crocodiles evolved very slowly after the dinosaurs died it it doesn’t exactly seem relevant. (And is there any reason to think that crocodiles are any faster to lose the ability to hybridise ?)
quote:
No wonder birds would look more evolved than Dinosaurs. They were.
No wonder everyone thinks you are a loon. You are. That is a very silly statement.
quote:
The cladistics analysis will see birds as having more evolved features, while Dinosaurs look more archaic (except there will be fossils that complicate the picture like the one we keep talking about that Czerkas named). The relationship between the two (birds and one line of dinosaurs) clearly exists. But which one truly (and ultimately) comes from the older line?
Birds will appear more evolved than their ancestors (for obvious reasons). But that only applies to the ancestors and close relatives, not to other dinosaurs - especially those living later. However cladistic analysis clearly shows birds as descending from dinosaurs.