Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dinosaur-bird link in trouble?
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 1 of 17 (511863)
06-12-2009 11:31 AM


A recent find of how the leg structure of birds and their lungs have seemingly led to a doubt among a few scientists about the dinosaur origin of birds. The story is in Science Daily at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/06/090609092055.htm
comments?

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 06-12-2009 12:03 PM LudoRephaim has not replied
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-12-2009 8:01 PM LudoRephaim has not replied
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 07-17-2009 9:00 AM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 2 of 17 (511866)
06-12-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LudoRephaim
06-12-2009 11:31 AM


I'm not following their reasoning. From a quick read through of the paper, they appear to be saying Theropods (for which they bizarrely pick Tyrannosaurus as an example rather than any of the group more closely associated with bird evolution, such as microraptor) don't have features present in modern birds and central to their respiration. But they also say these features are not present in Archaeopteryx, and didn't emerge until "the appearance of Late Cretaceous ornithurines"...
So... doesn't that rather imply it's a feature that evolved within the avians and wasn't present in whatever group they evolved from, anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LudoRephaim, posted 06-12-2009 11:31 AM LudoRephaim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 06-12-2009 12:16 PM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2009 1:14 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3 of 17 (511870)
06-12-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr Jack
06-12-2009 12:03 PM


Mr Jack writes:
So... doesn't that rather imply it's a feature that evolved within the avians and wasn't present in whatever group they evolved from, anyway?
After reading the Science Daily article I went and read the Wikipedia article on birds, and it says you're right, that the current most popular theory is that birds evolved their hip structure independently.
I read a couple of the related articles, and one was about Alan Feduccia, who is another scientist who demurs from the out-of-dinosaurs theory. He claims to have shown that bird hands are actually digits 2, 3 and 4, while therapod hands were digits 1, 2 and 3, and if true it reduces the likelihood that birds descended from the therapods.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 06-12-2009 12:03 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Jack, posted 06-18-2009 11:28 AM Percy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 4 of 17 (511884)
06-12-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr Jack
06-12-2009 12:03 PM


But they also say these features are not present in Archaeopteryx, and didn't emerge until "the appearance of Late Cretaceous ornithurines"...
Can you give me a quote about Archaeopteryx please?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 06-12-2009 12:03 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Blue Jay, posted 06-12-2009 1:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 5 of 17 (511890)
06-12-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
06-12-2009 1:14 PM


Hi, Dr A.
Dr Adequate writes:
Can you give me a quote about Archaeopteryx please?
They basically argue that birds have restricted movement in the femur, which is contained inside the body of the bird, rather than as an external segment of the limb, as in the theropods. This arrangement allows the femur to support the airsac and prevent it from collapsing when negative pressures are generated during inhalation.
But, in the same paper, as Mr Jack pointed out, they mention that these adaptations are not found in birds until the Late Cretaceous. From page 10 in the article (Quick and Ruben, 2009):
quote:
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...
-----
They did not formally present this as an argument against the theropod-to-bird theory in the paper, but rather, as an argument against the idea that theropods had an avian respiratory mechanism. This was a wise choice on their part, because, by their own admission, the fossil evidence is still fluidly consistent with theropod-to-birds.
However, to the popular media, they unscrupulously present the work as definitive evidence against the idea that birds evolved from theropods, despite the fact that they refuted this argument themselves in their own paper!
The ScienceDaily article is just a ploy to get attention for their unpopular theory.
Edited by Bluejay, : Rewording.
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2009 1:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2009 3:37 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 17 (511904)
06-12-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Blue Jay
06-12-2009 1:57 PM


Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Blue Jay, posted 06-12-2009 1:57 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 7 of 17 (512469)
06-18-2009 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
06-12-2009 12:16 PM


I read a couple of the related articles, and one was about Alan Feduccia, who is another scientist who demurs from the out-of-dinosaurs theory. He claims to have shown that bird hands are actually digits 2, 3 and 4, while therapod hands were digits 1, 2 and 3, and if true it reduces the likelihood that birds descended from the therapods.
Pharyngula has just done a piece on this.
In summary: it's true that birds develop from digits 2,3 and 4; and that dinosaur digits are usually numbered 1,2 and 3 on morphological grounds. However, birds were numbered 2, 3 and 4 by morphologists until embryological data overturned that; we don't have embryological data for dinosaurs so the comparison can't stand.
The link has some more detailed discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 06-12-2009 12:16 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 06-18-2009 11:37 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 8 of 17 (512471)
06-18-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Jack
06-18-2009 11:28 AM


Ooo, and more: Limusaurus inextricabilis appears to a be a transitional on this very feature.
To quote the summary:
quote:
In short Limusaurus and the accompanying hypothesis are associated with the following evidence:
1. The reduction of digit I
2. The modification of digit II to resemble that of a traditional digit I
3. This corrects for the discrepancy between avian digits and the I-III hypothesis, but
4. A secondary reacquisition of digit IV as a functioning digit.
Now we just need a five fingered tyrannosaur with a modified digit V and we can start the whole thing again.
So: Feduccia argues that birds can't have evolved from dinosaurs (I'm presuming he's actually talking Theropods here?) since the dinosaurs they evolved from have the wrong three fingers (I, II and III instead of II, III and IV) but we couldn't tell from a fossil bird that this was the case, making it an invalid comparison and we've found a transitional form showing the matching loss in a suitable basal dinosaur.
Case closed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Jack, posted 06-18-2009 11:28 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 17 (514789)
07-12-2009 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LudoRephaim
06-12-2009 11:31 AM


This information is not new. What may be new is that more scientists may be following Feduccia's lead and agreeing with him.
I've never found the avian-therapod connection too strong for multiple reasons. There are other morphological similarities that do make it appealing, but there seem to be some internal inconsistencies that make it less plausible.
The older theory that they are more closely related to modern-day reptiles makes more sense to me, in my opinion.
But honestly I don't really give a crap either way so...

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LudoRephaim, posted 06-12-2009 11:31 AM LudoRephaim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 07-13-2009 4:17 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 10 of 17 (514811)
07-13-2009 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Hyroglyphx
07-12-2009 8:01 PM


What may be new is that more scientists may be following Feduccia's lead and agreeing with him.
I don't see any evidence at all of that happening. If anything, things are moving the other way.
I've never found the avian-therapod connection too strong for multiple reasons. There are other morphological similarities that do make it appealing, but there seem to be some internal inconsistencies that make it less plausible.
Could you elaborate? What internal inconsistencies are these?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-12-2009 8:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 4:54 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 17 (514876)
07-13-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Jack
07-13-2009 4:17 AM


I don't see any evidence at all of that happening. If anything, things are moving the other way.
The article seemed to imply otherwise.
Could you elaborate? What internal inconsistencies are these?
Well, one could look at some of the more superficial morphology like backward hinged legs like avian and dinosaurs have and make an argument. But there are a lot of differences between avian and therapods.
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.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 07-13-2009 4:17 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Perdition, posted 07-13-2009 5:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 13 by Meddle, posted 07-13-2009 8:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 07-14-2009 4:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 12 of 17 (514879)
07-13-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2009 4:54 PM


For instance avian are ectothermal and therapods are exothermal.
Do you have some evidence for this? I've only heard that people are beginning to think that therapods were not cold blooded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 4:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1271 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 13 of 17 (514897)
07-13-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2009 4:54 PM


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.
However, the bones of therapod dinosaurs exhibit haversian canals, which today are generally only found in endotherms, although this may not be a direct correlation.
Also in Message 9 you suggest birds are more closely related to modern reptiles, and Feduccia's argument is they share an early common ancestor with therapods i.e. a basal archosaur. Yet is there any evidence that either of these groups were endothermic?
As for organs, it has been shown that some therapod bones were pneumatised, along deep infiltration by air sacs in a similar distribution to that seen in birds. You can read more here
Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 4:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 8:30 PM Meddle has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 17 (514899)
07-13-2009 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Meddle
07-13-2009 8:10 PM


Therapods versus diapsids.
The website I found agrees that that there were avian-related and non-avian-related dinosaurs, which I think we distinguished with therapods versus diapsids? Here are some of his theories concerning endothermy as they relate to our current duscussion.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Meddle, posted 07-13-2009 8:10 PM Meddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Meddle, posted 07-14-2009 3:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1271 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 15 of 17 (514926)
07-14-2009 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2009 8:30 PM


Re: Therapods versus diapsids.
The website I found agrees that that there were avian-related and non-avian-related dinosaurs, which I think we distinguished with therapods versus diapsids?
No because all dinosaurs are classed as diapsids, whereas therapods are a suborder of dinosaurs. The term diapsid relates to the ancestral structure of the skull, and includes crocodiles, snakes and lizards as well as birds, unlike mammals which are synapsids (like dimetrodon).
I'm not saying dinosaurs were definitely endothermic, it was just you were suggesting this was a significant obstacle to a theropod/bird relationship, yet you argue for ancestral birds being related to some other group showning no evidence of endothermy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 8:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024