Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2018 4:54 PM
238 online now:
Faith, JonF, kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle (8 members, 230 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,879 Year: 8,702/29,783 Month: 949/1,977 Week: 87/380 Day: 37/50 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   Lignin in red algae supports the Genesis days chronology? What about birds?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13987
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 62 (827454)
01-25-2018 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by LamarkNewAge
01-25-2018 1:24 PM


Re: Combo reply to PaulK and caffeine
quote:

So what about the theropoda theory?

Completely unaffected by your pointless rambling.

quote:

It isn't my fault you said birds came from theropods.

And you will note that I am not criticising you for anything I said.

quote:

The theropods came AFTER the 245-235 million "common ancestor".

Descendants generally do come after their ancestors. The common ancestor of crocodiles and dinosaurs necessarily lived before there were crocodiles and dinosaurs.

quote:

And I deny that this 240 million year old (Dinosauriformes) "common ancestor" really dated BEFORE birds (and the line that led to Crocodiles).

You can spout opinions all you like but you aren’t going to convince anyone without actual evidence.

quote:

The PaulK views is what?

I’m going to stick with mainstream science which rejects Feduccia’s arguments - with good reason - and goes with the evidence. Speculating about internal organs which are generally not preserved is not evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-25-2018 1:24 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2018 3:13 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 20 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2018 10:27 AM PaulK has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1432
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 17 of 62 (827456)
01-25-2018 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by LamarkNewAge
01-25-2018 1:24 PM


Re: Combo reply to PaulK and caffeine
I think there is a major issue with the Crocodile heart (which is like birds), and there was, I suspect, common ancestor to both (300 million years ago?) which had hearts like birds/crocodiles on the one hand while it would later split off into other lines (with typical reptile hearts) like the LATER (in my opinion and speculation) "240 million year old common ancestor", which is only a "so-called common ancestor" birds.

Why on earth are you so interested in the heart? Everyone (except creationists) is in entire agreement that crocodiles are the nearest living relatives of birds. The hearts don't matter to their relations to extinct animals.

I'm a little bit confused by the rest of your sentence, but I am wondering if you're trying to suggest that dinosaur hearts were more like lizard hearts than bird and crocodile hearts. Why would anyone think that?

Just in case this is the source of confusion; lizards and snakes are not descended from dinosaurs. To be clear, here's a phylogeny of the main groups of living verterbrates (chosen because it simplifies things by not including anything with controversial or uncertain placements):

ABE: And to be clear about the above picture; dinosaurs would all be on the 'birds/crocodiles' branch; closer to birds than crocodiles.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-25-2018 1:24 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2018 10:11 AM caffeine has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13987
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 62 (827458)
01-25-2018 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
01-25-2018 1:56 PM


Re: Combo reply to PaulK and caffeine
And, for reference Physiology of Dinosaurs
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2018 1:56 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 19 of 62 (827592)
01-28-2018 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by caffeine
01-25-2018 2:29 PM


Caffeine
I lost some data on my computer. I was doing some research that looked at lungs types for Pteranodon (or some type creatures) and birds, but my computer crashed a few days ago.

I had something pasted (from Wikipedia?) that really caught my attention.

The off thing was that my narrow paste was (as I found out later) ALSO taken notice of on some blog dedicated to making the case that birds evolved from Pterosaur type creatures ( I don't think that exactly).

I found a blog that actually pasted the same thing I was going to paste here as part of a post(relatively small text from, Wikipedia?).

Now I can find neither the blog (which is quite detailed) nor the site that I got my paste from.

But the 4 chambered heart belonging to dinosaurs actually backs up my point ( I did not notice it earlier).

Theropoda have:

sac type lungs

hollow bones

(possibly) 4 chambered hearts

Just like:

Birds do.

Just like flying reptile pterosaurs do.

quote:

Why on earth are you so interested in the heart? Everyone (except creationists) is in entire agreement that crocodiles are the nearest living relatives of birds. The hearts don't matter to their relations to extinct animals.

But they do.

Here is a scientist that proposes a pre-dinosaur "crocodilomorph" creature that evolved into birds.

Artcile is "Birds do it . . . did dinosaurs?", by Pat Shipman (1997).

(It requires a subscription, and honestly, I might actuallysubscribe as the prices are dirt cheap for both print and web)

https://www.newscientist.com/...00-birds-do-it-did-dinosaurs

(all this blather about creationists, from various posters here, caused me to look for some creationists links this morning. It actually was helpful to see some of their references to evolutionary scientists, and in fact it led me to this New Scientist article)

quote:

I'm a little bit confused by the rest of your sentence, but I am wondering if you're trying to suggest that dinosaur hearts were more like lizard hearts than bird and crocodile hearts. Why would anyone think that?

Just in case this is the source of confusion; lizards and snakes are not descended from dinosaurs.


I was saying that there was a proto-bird that predated dinosaurs (but evolved from very early semi-aquatic reptiles or early land reptiles, at a time when most - but not all - reptiles were sort of amphibious), but already had an evolved (or transitioning) 4 chambered heart.

I do see the illogic in assuming that Theropod dinosaurs would have went back to having a "standard reptile heart" if they were descended from birds (or proto birds). I was suggesting that they lacked the exact "same" type of bird heart. Call it a "degenerate" bird heart that never quite was the same thing. I was assuming many intermediate or rapidly evolving heart-type variants in the proto-bird would have branched off into many directions. (Where it was, say 260 million years ago, is not known)

My big thing is that the "branches" on the family tree lack hundreds of horizontal cousins that would have been more accurately described as the actual ancestor (of whatever group), AND THAT STILL OVERLOOKS the fact that some single "common ancestor" from a given year (say 240 million years ago) might actually postdate the actual date of the common ancestor by 20 million years or (30 million?) so.

The branches lack vertical depth too.

Vertical means "years before or after", and "horizontal" means all the current cousins.

But as Dinosaurs aren't even reptiles(?), it seems they might have got warm blood from already evolved (with warm-blood) proto-birds.

They are a dead branch with no living descendants.

Snakes and lizards predated them like birds did.

YOU ASK ME WHAT IS THE ISSUE EXACTLY?

I suppose the issue is that the evidence can be argued both ways if one wants to argue that birds came from dinosaurs or from a previous reptile line.

The argument is mostly due to lack of fossils.

Do you have a list of all the reptile fossils before 300 million years ago?

Before 275 million years ago?

The number is very slight before 250 million years ago, but I don't know the exact number.

Flying birds are unlikely to be buried, and they must be considered a candidate for much earlier dates, considering all the evidence.

Look again at the butterfly issue from just this month!

quote:

Scientists have accidentally found the oldest ever butterfly or moth fossils

January 12, 2018 1.10pm EST

....

The fossil record of ancient Lepidoptera is surprisingly meagre. Although butterflies may appear to be delicate creatures, their external skeletons are made of the same tough material, chitin, that all insects are made of. And chitin, or chitin decay products, preserve really very well in the fossil record.

....

In fact, some of the best ever fossils are of insects entombed in amber. Fossil Lepidoptera have been reported from a few exceptional deposits. For example, butterflies are known from the famous Florissant fossil beds of North America dating from the Eocene epoch, 34 million-years-old. A fossil caterpillar with the characteristic spinneret (the body part that produces silk) typical of all modern butterflies and moths has been reported from 125 million-year-old Lebanese amber. But until now, the fossil record went back no further.

This is especially odd because the Lepidoptera are closely related to another familiar modern group of insects, the caddis flies or Trichoptera. This group has an excellent fossil record extending back to the Permian period of the Palaeozoic era (250m years ago). As these groups share a common ancestor, the earliest Lepidoptera should, theoretically, also be found in the Permian period.

Lucky accident

The newly discovered fossils aren’t quite that old but they do date to the end of the Triassic period, the beginning of the age of dinosaurs. The delicate fossils bear the highly characteristic scales of butterflies and moths. They were discovered entirely by accident when researchers tried to extract pollen grains from rock samples from a borehole in north Germany to date the strata.

https://theconversation.com/...tterfly-or-moth-fossils-90029


Also, another Archaeopteryx was found in Germany and published in the last day or so (after my thread and my last posts) Here is the oldest link (just 2 days old), among a growing number of news stories.

https://peerj.com/articles/4191/

(Nothing drastic was discovered as far as age though, but it is illogical to assume that this, very likely FLYING creature, was anywhere near the first of its type)

https://peerj.com/articles/4191/

The title might indicate a terrible bias (Theropoda?)

quote:

The oldest Archaeopteryx (Theropoda: Avialiae): a new specimen from the Kimmeridgian/Tithonian boundary of Schamhaupten, Bavaria

(side note, oldest plants found to be 472 million years old.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...lants-unearthed-Argentina.html )

I will conclude, for now, by saying that the Theropoda did not have original features which required birds to be seen as descended from them, did they?

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by caffeine, posted 01-25-2018 2:29 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:21 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 32 by caffeine, posted 01-29-2018 1:48 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 20 of 62 (827594)
01-28-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
01-25-2018 1:56 PM


PaulK
quote:

I’m going to stick with mainstream science which rejects Feduccia’s arguments - with good reason - and goes with the evidence. Speculating about internal organs which are generally not preserved is not evidence.

But, you better open your eyes to the additional possibilities.

I found this following the relevant part of Caffeine's Wikipedia paste.

quote:

Modern reptiles, which are coldblooded, have three-chambered hearts, with two aortas and only one ventricle; crocodiles have two ventricles but they are incompletely separated. Thus, oxygenated blood from the lungs and deoxygenated blood from the rest of the body become mixed in these reptilian hearts, reducing the overall oxygen content of blood returned to the body and limiting the metabolic rates and activity of these animals.

''A single systemic aorta communicating with the left ventricle greatly reduces the risk of shunting and can be considered a means of more efficiently supporting prolonged periods of high activity,'' the discovery team said in its report.

What makes the discovery especially surprising and puzzling is that the heart resembles a mammal's or bird's but it belonged to an ornithischian, or bird-hipped, dinosaur, one of the two main lineages of these great reptiles. Despite the name, these dinosaurs were far removed from those that were presumed by many paleontologists to have been ancestors of birds; these ancestors were presumed to be theropods, members of the other main lineage known as the saurischian, or lizard-hipped, dinosaurs.

It is therefore possible, Dr. Russell said, that dinosaurs of both lineages -- not just the bird ancestors -- had advanced hearts and high metabolisms. This physiology may have evolved independently or it could stretch all the way back to a common ancestor, some 235 million years ago.

''This means our entire conception of dinosaurs may have to be revised,'' said Dr. Norell of the American Museum of Natural History.

The discovery team said in its report, ''Whether high metabolic rates and advance hearts arose once or more than once among dinosaurs remains an open question.''

http://www.nytimes.com/...found-the-heart-of-a-dinosaur.html



This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2018 1:56 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:27 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13987
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 21 of 62 (827599)
01-28-2018 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by LamarkNewAge
01-28-2018 10:11 AM


Re: Caffeine
quote:

I will conclude, for now, by saying that the Theropoda did not have original features which required birds to be seen as descended from them, did they?

Birds have the same unusual wrist joint as the Maniraptora, the branch of the theropods that the birds are thought to have come from. The article also states that:


Maniraptorans are the only dinosaurs known to have breast bones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2018 10:11 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2018 11:37 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13987
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 22 of 62 (827600)
01-28-2018 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by LamarkNewAge
01-28-2018 10:27 AM


Re: PaulK
Possibilities are only possibilities. The idea that evidence might turn up to support your view does not in any way support your view.

Following the evidence is not a sign of blindness or a closed mind. Refusing to follow the evidence is.

Neither irrational arguments nor long boring posts crammed with irrelevancies are going to change that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2018 10:27 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 23 of 62 (827603)
01-28-2018 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
01-28-2018 11:21 AM


PaulK mentions an issue! Finally. "Breastbones" a distinguishing "bird" feature.
Maniraptora

Late Jurassic–Present (167 million years ago to now)

quote:

Maniraptorans are the only dinosaurs known to have breast bones

But Pterosaurs have breast bones.

google Pterosaur sternum

My computer has essentially shut down. (there is a ghost of windows appearing over my post)

I will try to write down my sites, so I can respond later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:40 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13987
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 24 of 62 (827604)
01-28-2018 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by LamarkNewAge
01-28-2018 11:37 AM


Re: PaulK mentions an issue! Finally. "Breastbones" a distinguishing "bird" feature.
Pterosaurs aren’t dinosaurs, so there’s no contradiction there.

More importantly you aren’t addressing the wrist joint. In fact you seem to be deliberately ignoring it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2018 11:37 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2018 12:34 PM PaulK has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 25 of 62 (827605)
01-28-2018 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
01-28-2018 11:40 AM


Re: PaulK mentions an issue! Finally. "Breastbones" a distinguishing "bird" feature.
quote:

Pterosaurs aren’t dinosaurs, so there’s no contradiction there.
More importantly you aren’t addressing the wrist joint. In fact you seem to be deliberately ignoring it.

Thanks for proving my point. Because these features predated dinosaurs (230 million year ago start?).

(and my computer, and all of the windows crashed, I was lucky to even get my post sent. I couldn't even pencil down my sites and google searches)

from Wikipedia page:

quote:

Alternative interpretations[edit]

In 2002, Czerkas and Yuan reported that some maniraptoran traits, such as a long, backwards-pointed pubis, short ischia, as well as a perforated acetabulum (a hip socket that is a hole) are apparently absent in Scansoriopteryx. The authors considered it to be more primitive than true theropods, and hypothesized that maniraptorans may have branched off from theropods at a very early point, or may even have descended from pre-theropod dinosaurs.[13] Zhang et al., in describing the closely related or conspecific specimen Epidendrosaurus, did not report any of the primitive traits mentioned by Czerkas and Yuan, but did find that the shoulder blade of Epidendrosaurus appeared primitive. Despite this, they placed Epidendrosaurus firmly within Maniraptora.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniraptora


Follow the link in that paragraph

quote:

Alternate interpretations[edit]

Main article: Origin of birds

Czerkas and Yuan used the suite of primitive and birdlike characters in Scansoriopteryx to argue for an unorthodox interpretation of dinosaur evolution. They stated that Scansoriopteryx was "clearly more primitive than Archaeopteryx", based on its primitive, "saurischian-style" pubis and robust ischia. Scansoriopteryx also lacks a fully perforated acetabulum, the hole in the hip socket which is a key characteristic of Dinosauria and has traditionally been used to define the group. While the authors allowed that the hole may have closed secondarily, having evolved from a more traditional dinosaurian hip socket, they cited the other primitive features to argue that it is a true primitive trait, which would make Scansoriopteryx among the most birdlike and the most primitive known dinosaurs. Czerkas and Yuan called it a "proto-maniraptoran", supporting the hypothesis of Gregory S. Paul that the lager, ground-dwelling maniraptorans like Velociraptor evolved from small, flying or gliding forms that lived in trees. The authors took this idea further than Paul, however, and lent support to George Olshevsky's 1992 "birds came first" hypothesis, that all true theropods are secondarily flightless or at least secondarily arboreal, having evolved from small, tree-dwelling, Scansoriopteryx-like ancestors. Czerkas and Yuan also argued that, contrary to most phylogenetic trees, maniraptorans form a separate lineage from other theropods, and that this split occurred very early in theropod evolution.[1]

In 2014, Czerkas, along with Alan Feduccia, published a paper further describing Scansoriopteryx and stating their opinion that certain archaic features of the skeleton and the hypothesis that it was arboreal ruled out the possibility that it was a theropod or even a dinosaur, but that Scansoriopteryx and all birds evolved from non-dinosaurian avemetatarsalian archosaurs like Scleromochlus.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopteryx


I will have more to say later.

Now time is not convenient.

I lost like 25 windows of research like twice now (once today and around 4 days ago).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 11:40 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 1:02 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13987
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 62 (827606)
01-28-2018 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by LamarkNewAge
01-28-2018 12:34 PM


Re: PaulK mentions an issue! Finally. "Breastbones" a distinguishing "bird" feature.
quote:

Thanks for proving my point. Because these features predated dinosaurs (230 million year ago start?).

You’re wrong about the wrist joint and the breast bone is more likely parallel evolution - it’s the simpler change of the two.

And I’ll point out that Feduccia’s arguments have been largely discredited, and only the more extreme “alternative interpretations” help you - and they lack evidence.

And the article you quote of Scanisoriopteryx indicates more problems for you:


One distinctive feature of Scansoriopteryx is its elongated third finger, which is the longest on the hand, nearly twice as long as the second finger. This is unlike the configuration seen in most other theropods, where the second finger is longest. The long wing feathers, or remiges, appear to attach to this long digit instead of the middle digit as in birds and other maniraptorans.

The dating is uncertain even for Epidendrosaurus (which may be the same species or a very close relative)


The holotype skeleton of Epidendrosaurus was recovered from the Daohugou fossil beds of northeastern China. In the past, there has been some uncertainty regarding the age of these beds. Various papers have placed the fossils here anywhere from the Middle Jurassic period (169 million years ago) to the Early Cretaceous period (122 ma).[10]

But even worse for Scanisoriopteryx


The provenance of the Scansoriopteryx type specimen is uncertain, as it was obtained from private fossil dealers who did not record exact geologic data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2018 12:34 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2018 12:53 AM PaulK has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 27 of 62 (827632)
01-29-2018 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
01-28-2018 1:02 PM


Re: PaulK mentions an issue! Finally. "Breastbones" a distinguishing "bird" feature.
quote:

And the article you quote of Scanisoriopteryx indicates more problems for you:

The dating is uncertain even for Epidendrosaurus (which may be the same species or a very close relative)

quote:

The holotype skeleton of Epidendrosaurus was recovered from the Daohugou fossil beds of northeastern China. In the past, there has been some uncertainty regarding the age of these beds. Various papers have placed the fossils here anywhere from the Middle Jurassic period (169 million years ago) to the Early Cretaceous period (122 ma).[10]

But even worse for Scanisoriopteryx

The provenance of the Scansoriopteryx type specimen is uncertain, as it was obtained from private fossil dealers who did not record exact geologic data.


The man who named it is dead.

First, the man who named the variant is dead.

http://dinosaur-museum.org/stephenczerkasmemorial.htm

quote:

Dinosaur Museum Journal[edit]

In 2002 the Czerkases published a volume through their Dinosaur Museum titled Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight. In this journal they described and named several species.[16] Of the six species named in the book, five are disputed.

Despite the work of Zhou et al. (2002), Czerkas and co-author Xu Xing described the upper portion of the "Archaeoraptor" fossil as a new bird genus, Archaeovolans, in the Dinosaur Museum Journal. The article does include the caveat that it might actually be a specimen of Yanornis.[17] Thus, this same fossil specimen has been named "Archaeoraptor", Archeovolans, and Yanornis, in different places.

Across the monographs in the Dinosaur Museum Journal, Stephen Czerkas built a case for his controversial view that maniraptoran dinosaurs are secondarily flightless birds. In so doing, he criticized prominent paleontologists. In the text on Cryptovolans, Czerkas accused Dr. Mark Norell of misinterpreting the fossil BPM 1 3-13 as having long leg feathers due to the "blinding influences of preconceived ideas."[17] In fact, though, Norell's interpretation was correct, and Czerkas added leg feathers to his own reconstruction of the fossil in the art that promotes the traveling exhibit.[18]

Two other taxa that Czerkas and his co-authors named were later treated as junior synonyms by other authors. Czerkas' Cryptovolans was treated as Microraptor,[19] and his Scansoriopteryx was treated as Epidendrosaurus.[19][20] Czerkas described Omnivoropteryx, noting that it was similar to Sapeornis. Later specimens of Sapeornis with skulls demonstrated that the two were probably synonymous.[21]

Another taxon that Czerkas assigned to the pterosauria and named Utahdactylus was reviewed by Dr. Chris Bennett. Bennett found multiple misidentifications of bones and inconsistencies between Czerkas' diagrams and the actual fossils. Bennett found the specimen to be an indeterminate diapsid and criticized the previous authors for publishing a species name when no diagnostic characters below the class level could be verified. He made Utahdactylus a nomen dubium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor


Secondly, it seems that ALL feathered dinosaurs (aside from Archaeopteryx) date from the same period as they are from the same Chinese formation. They are from the Barrremian stage of the Early Cretaceous? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Archaeopteryx is STILL the "oldest" after all of this?

And even the feathers are controversial.

http://bio.unc.edu/...2011/04/Journal-of-Morphology-2005.pdf

quote:

You’re wrong about the wrist joint and the breast bone is more likely parallel evolution - it’s the simpler change of the two.

And I’ll point out that Feduccia’s arguments have been largely discredited, and only the more extreme “alternative interpretations” help you - and they lack evidence.


The issue is older lines than theropods having these features (though they might fully develop after the 230 million year beginning of dinosaurs).

I didn't exactly mean to include the wrist issue in with the breastbone.

The theory is about how distal carpal becomes the semilunate carpal, which allows a swivel in the wrist joint. It is related to maniraptorans and birds.

But there are strange disappearances and reappearances.

And the pterosaur issue is relevant.

http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/...4/semilunate-carpal.html

p. 154 of this recent Feducia book, about our specimen (Scansoriopteryx) in question "there is an avian like semilunate carpal".

Mark Witton said that wrists in pterosaurs "bore a sliding joint permitting at least 30 degrees of rotation between them" in his book.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=SihlpQTlVdAC&pg=PA150&lp...(as%20opposed%20to%20a%20theropod)&source=bl&ots=jTl0Vyg1bh&sig=0pKrv2ph457hUDTn1c3T4-yEBC0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WyYTVP6qCcSryATTxYCwDQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=pelvis%20is%20still%2 0like%20that%20of%20a%20reptile%20(as%20opposed%20to%20a%20theropod)%20&f=false

quote:

p.149-150

IN 2002, STILL ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCOVERY WAS REPORTED IN SEVERAL JOURNALS INDEPENDENTLY. a DIMINUTIVE AND PECULIAR ARCHOSAUR, EPIDENDROSAURUS ("upon tree lizard"), was described by Fucheng Zhang and colleagues as a maniraptoran dinosaur, the group containing dromaeosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, and troodontids ( and perhaps therizinosaurs and alvarezsaurids), although it apparently lacks any salient theropod synapomorphies. 142 Though not well preserved, Epidendrosaurus possessed feathers that resemble those of the dromaeosaurid Microraptor, lacked the fully perforated acetabulum characteristic of theropods, and had a strange elongate outer finger, which is longest of the manus (in theropods the middle is the longest) and analogously resembles the digger finger of the tiny Malagasy primate aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis), which uses it elongated tool for probing in tree crevices. To date, a number of specimens have been described, and important questions are raised by this enegmaic group, not the least of which are just what they are and which groups they are most closely allied with. Overlooking the obvious specialization of the elongate outer finger, it is difficult to justify classifying ythis small ancestral archosaur as a theropod. Are they simply basal birds or even basal archosaurs? Why are they even called theropods? Stephen Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, and his Chinese colleague Chongxi Yuan independently described another specimen of the small Epidendrosaurus in 2002 and named it Scansoriopteryx (climbing wing"). There was some confusion concerning priority because of the near simultaneous descriptions of different specimens, but Scansoriopteryx is generally accepted as a junior synonym of Epidendrosaurus, although the family name is derived from the designation by Czerkas and Yuan (hence Scansoriopterygidae, "climbing wings"). 144


Here are 5 (of 13) Features that predate theropods, and read on to see about 6 avian features.

quote:

p.154
Outer digdit of manus longer than other digits (in all theropods the middle digit is the longest)

Outer metacarpal straight, more robust, and longer than the mid-metacarpal

Phalanges of outer manus digit becomes a progressively shorter distally (as in basal archosaurs)

Acetabulum shallow and largely closed (fully opened in theropods and dinosaurs in general)

Supro-acetabular crest absent or with only incipient development as a low rim


Put this into search engines

www.bing.com

www.google.com

scansoriopteryx feduccia

His theories are current and he published a 2014 journal article on the issue.

NOT REFUTED AT ALL!

And he is not the only one who reached the pre theropod view btw.

It seems to have come largely from others.

quote:

Dinosaur Museum Journal[edit]

In 2002 the Czerkases published a volume through their Dinosaur Museum titled Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight. In this journal they described and named several species.[16] Of the six species named in the book, five are disputed.

Despite the work of Zhou et al. (2002), Czerkas and co-author Xu Xing described the upper portion of the "Archaeoraptor" fossil as a new bird genus, Archaeovolans, in the Dinosaur Museum Journal. The article does include the caveat that it might actually be a specimen of Yanornis.[17] Thus, this same fossil specimen has been named "Archaeoraptor", Archeovolans, and Yanornis, in different places.

Across the monographs in the Dinosaur Museum Journal, Stephen Czerkas built a case for his controversial view that maniraptoran dinosaurs are secondarily flightless birds. In so doing, he criticized prominent paleontologists. In the text on Cryptovolans, Czerkas accused Dr. Mark Norell of misinterpreting the fossil BPM 1 3-13 as having long leg feathers due to the "blinding influences of preconceived ideas."[17] In fact, though, Norell's interpretation was correct, and Czerkas added leg feathers to his own reconstruction of the fossil in the art that promotes the traveling exhibit.[18]

Two other taxa that Czerkas and his co-authors named were later treated as junior synonyms by other authors. Czerkas' Cryptovolans was treated as Microraptor,[19] and his Scansoriopteryx was treated as Epidendrosaurus.[19][20] Czerkas described Omnivoropteryx, noting that it was similar to Sapeornis. Later specimens of Sapeornis with skulls demonstrated that the two were probably synonymous.[21]

Another taxon that Czerkas assigned to the pterosauria and named Utahdactylus was reviewed by Dr. Chris Bennett. Bennett found multiple misidentifications of bones and inconsistencies between Czerkas' diagrams and the actual fossils. Bennett found the specimen to be an indeterminate diapsid and criticized the previous authors for publishing a species name when no diagnostic characters below the class level could be verified. He made Utahdactylus a nomen dubium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor


Secondly, it seems that ALL feathered dinosaurs (aside from Archaeopteryx) date from the same period as they are from the same Chinese formation. They are from the Barrremian stage of the Early Cretaceous? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Archaeopteryx is STILL the "oldest" after all of this?

And even the feathers are controversial.

http://bio.unc.edu/...2011/04/Journal-of-Morphology-2005.pdf

quote:

You’re wrong about the wrist joint and the breast bone is more likely parallel evolution - it’s the simpler change of the two.

And I’ll point out that Feduccia’s arguments have been largely discredited, and only the more extreme “alternative interpretations” help you - and they lack evidence.


The issue is older lines than theropods having these features (though they might fully develop after the 230 million year beginning of dinosaurs).

I didn't exactly mean to include the wrist issue in with the breastbone.

The theory is about how distal carpal becomes the semilunate carpal, which allows a swivel in the wrist joint. It is related to maniraptorans and birds.

But there are strange disappearances and reappearances.

And the pterosaur issue is relevant.

http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/...4/semilunate-carpal.html

p. 154 of this recent Feducia book, about our specimen (Scansoriopteryx) in question "there is an avian like semilunate carpal".

Mark Witton said that wrists in pterosaurs "bore a sliding joint permitting at least 30 degrees of rotation between them" in his book.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=SihlpQTlVdAC&pg=PA150&lp...(as%20opposed%20to%20a%20theropod)&source=bl&ots=jTl0Vyg1bh&sig=0pKrv2ph457hUDTn1c3T4-yEBC0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WyYTVP6qCcSryATTxYCwDQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=pelvis%20is%20still%2 0like%20that%20of%20a%20reptile%20(as%20opposed%20to%20a%20theropod)%20&f=false

quote:

p.149-150

IN 2002, STILL ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCOVERY WAS REPORTED IN SEVERAL JOURNALS INDEPENDENTLY. a DIMINUTIVE AND PECULIAR ARCHOSAUR, EPIDENDROSAURUS ("upon tree lizard"), was described by Fucheng Zhang and colleagues as a maniraptoran dinosaur, the group containing dromaeosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, and troodontids ( and perhaps therizinosaurs and alvarezsaurids), although it apparently lacks any salient theropod synapomorphies. 142 Though not well preserved, Epidendrosaurus possessed feathers that resemble those of the dromaeosaurid Microraptor, lacked the fully perforated acetabulum characteristic of theropods, and had a strange elongate outer finger, which is longest of the manus (in theropods the middle is the longest) and analogously resembles the digger finger of the tiny Malagasy primate aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis), which uses it elongated tool for probing in tree crevices. To date, a number of specimens have been described, and important questions are raised by this enegmaic group, not the least of which are just what they are and which groups they are most closely allied with. Overlooking the obvious specialization of the elongate outer finger, it is difficult to justify classifying ythis small ancestral archosaur as a theropod. Are they simply basal birds or even basal archosaurs? Why are they even called theropods? Stephen Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, and his Chinese colleague Chongxi Yuan independently described another specimen of the small Epidendrosaurus in 2002 and named it Scansoriopteryx (climbing wing"). There was some confusion concerning priority because of the near simultaneous descriptions of different specimens, but Scansoriopteryx is generally accepted as a junior synonym of Epidendrosaurus, although the family name is derived from the designation by Czerkas and Yuan (hence Scansoriopterygidae, "climbing wings"). 144


Here are 5 (of 13) Features that predate theropods, and read on to see about 6 avian features.

quote:

p.154
Outer digdit of manus longer than other digits (in all theropods the middle digit is the longest)

Outer metacarpal straight, more robust, and longer than the mid-metacarpal

Phalanges of outer manus digit becomes a progressively shorter distally (as in basal archosaurs)

Acetabulum shallow and largely closed (fully opened in theropods and dinosaurs in general)

Supro-acetabular crest absent or with only incipient development as a low rim


Put this into search engines

www.bing.com

www.google.com

scansoriopteryx feduccia

His theories are current and he published a 2014 journal article on the issue.

NOT REFUTED AT ALL!

And he is not the only one who reached the pre theropod view btw.

It seems to have come largely from others.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2018 1:02 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2018 1:48 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13987
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 62 (827633)
01-29-2018 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by LamarkNewAge
01-29-2018 12:53 AM


Re: PaulK mentions an issue! Finally. "Breastbones" a distinguishing "bird" feature.
There’s a long list of irrationality and irrelevance. So Czerkas has died? How is that relevant? Or is it just an excuse to make your post really boring so that nobody will read it.

While preserved feathers are rare evidence of feathers can be found in specimens found outside China (e.g. quill knobs) and the most famous archaeopteryx. A feathered tail, preserved in amber was found in Myanmar. Even inside China many come from a different formation, the Yixian. So your idea that only a single formation provides all the feathered dinosaur fossils is definitely wrong.

Pterosaurs are unlikely bird ancestors from the differences in wing structure alone.

Epidendrosaurus has already been discussed and pointing to arguments about the classification is hardly sufficient to resolve the argument in your favour.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2018 12:53 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2018 8:11 AM PaulK has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1111
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 29 of 62 (827651)
01-29-2018 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
01-29-2018 1:48 AM


PaulK on the run. Won't respond to 2014 journal (nobody will).
Here is the complete list of PRE THEROPOD characteristics .from the 2012 book.

Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: Hidden Birds of China
By Alan Feduccia

p.154

Table 4:2

quote:

Pretheropod characteristics

Outer digdit of manus longer than other digits (in all theropods the middle digit is the longest)

Outer metacarpal straight, more robust, and longer than the mid-metacarpal

Phalanges of outer manus digit becomes a progressively shorter distally (as in basal archosaurs)

Acetabulum shallow and largely closed (fully opened in theropods and dinosaurs in general)

Supro-acetabular crest absent or with only incipient development as a low rim

Anteriorly directed pubic bones of short length reminiscent of the lagosuchid archosaurs(Marasuchus)

Pubic peduncle very small and expanded

Distal ends of pubes and ischia not fused distally

Pubes lack pubic boot

Ischia longer and more robust than pubis

Femus without offset head (offset at right angle even in baby theropods); this indicates that scansoriopterids did not have a fully upright limb posture

Femur lacks a distinct neck or rounded head

Scapula expanded distally

Avian characteristics

Forelimbs long, greater than known theropods, nearly the length of that in Archaeopteryx

Presence of semilunate carpal

Primary feathers on manus present (as indicated by impressions of several rachides preserved along the metacarpals; note that the total length is unknown, and whether these feathers were fully asymmetrical and pennaceous is unknown)

Anisodactyl perching foot with reversed hallux

Tail with short anterior caudal vertebrae followed by elongated posterior vertebrae in Sansoriopteryx/Epidendrosaurus (note that the tail is short and resembles a pygostyle in Epidexipteryx)

Elongate tendons overlapping two or more vertebrae in Sansoriopteryx/Epidendrosaurus (similar to dromaeosaurs)


Then text on page 154.

quote:

Czerkas and Yuan conclude by noting that while the scansoriopterid "represents an aboreal precursor of Archaeopteryx, in essence it also represents a 'protomaniraptoran' ...and it prepresents 'an arboreal lineage of theropods,' or a 'pre-theropod' lineage of saurischian archosaurs [which the authors favor] which could climb." 147 Even Zhang and colleagues, who described Epidendrosaurus provisionally as an aboreal coelurosaur, note, "Phylogenetic analysis has shown that Epidendrosaurus is very close to the transition to birds." They do not go so far as to state that this animal is not a theropod, but they do state that the "climbing function in Epidendrosaurus was acquired before birds." 148


I believe the creature lacks a wishbone (considered a significant theropoda piece of bird evolution evidence, but we might very well see that it wasn't there originally) or any collar bone, but I need to check again.

The 2014 journal was published.

http://esciencenews.com/...ng.great.great.grandparents.birds

quote:

Researchers declassify dinosaurs as being the great-great-grandparents of birds

Published: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - 18:52 in Paleontology & Archaeology

The re-examination of a sparrow-sized fossil from China challenges the commonly held belief that birds evolved from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs that gained the ability to fly. The birdlike fossil is actually not a dinosaur, as previously thought, but much rather the remains of a tiny tree-climbing animal that could glide, say American researchers Stephen Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, and Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina. The study appears in Springer's Journal of Ornithology. The fossil of the Scansoriopteryx (which means "climbing wing") was found in Inner Mongolia, and is part of an ongoing cooperative study with the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. It was previously classified as a coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur, from which many experts believe flying dinosaurs and later birds evolved. The research duo used advanced 3D microscopy, high resolution photography and low angle lighting to reveal structures not clearly visible before. These techniques made it possible to interpret the natural contours of the bones. Many ambiguous aspects of the fossil's pelvis, forelimbs, hind limbs, and tail were confirmed, while it was discovered that it had elongated tendons along its tail vertebrae similar to Velociraptor.


see also

quote:

Ground-Dwelling Dinosaurs May Not Have Evolved into Birds: Fossil Reveals Different Origins

"Instead of regarding birds as deriving from dinosaurs, Scansoriopteryx …

Science World Report3y


(this below was mistake on my part. Something else)sorry

quote:

Convergent evolution - ScienceDaily

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/convergent_evolution.htm

... birds, pterosaurs, and bats. ... Convergent evolution is similar to, but distinguishable from, the phenomena of evolutionary relay and parallel evolution.


PaulK can respond to this cutting edge discovery or not.

Even Zhang and his team noticed the primitive shoulder blade (I THINK THERE IS NO COLLAR BONE OR AT LEAST NO WISHBONE ), while Czerkas and Yuan made a bigger issue out of many more primitive characteristics and flatly stated that it was of an order no later than the very early Theropoda (like 230 million years ago when they started).

PaulK is dancing around the issue that Archaeopteryx is STILL the oldest, so he can't make an issue out of this creature dating AFTER the fully formed bird. The order is still earlier, based on the evidence.

Pterosaurs date just after the 240 million split from dinosaurs common ancestor, or so they say.

quote:

There’s a long list of irrationality and irrelevance. So Czerkas has died? How is that relevant? Or is it just an excuse to make your post really boring so that nobody will read it.

While preserved feathers are rare evidence of feathers can be found in specimens found outside China (e.g. quill knobs) and the most famous archaeopteryx. A feathered tail, preserved in amber was found in Myanmar. Even inside China many come from a different formation, the Yixian. So your idea that only a single formation provides all the feathered dinosaur fossils is definitely wrong.

Pterosaurs are unlikely bird ancestors from the differences in wing structure alone.

Epidendrosaurus has already been discussed and pointing to arguments about the classification is hardly sufficient to resolve the argument in your favour.


I would say that Pterosaurs and birds might have had a common ancestor back around 275 million to 300 million years ago then split (say 270 million years ago). Birds might have split around 250 million years from theropods. Birds were the original (or a major part of the original) theropods, though they weren't fully formed (as they would be later with archaeopteryx) and were different. Archaeopteryx was not a theropod and neither were many bird-like "dinosaurs" though some might have been (residual features in some theropods would be possible).

It isn't as much classification as recognizing that Epidendrosaurus was from a line that predated the 230 million years old (originating then) Theropoda Dinosaurs. Even if chronologically later than Archaeopteryx, the evidence is that is was a pre-theropoda line, and the features predated theropods, and one must especially hold this view if theropods are seen to have bird features/creatures too.

And PaulK won't give a date for any specimen.

And Czerkas (1951-2015) was a coauthor, with Feduccia, of the 2014 journal article that you refuse to respond to.

I am going to keep asking for ANY actual response from you or anybody.

(or any links to ANY RESPONSE anywhere on the web period)

There are:

13 pre-THEROPODA features for these specimens.

6 Bird features.

EDIT: Classification has more to do with man's convenience. The recognition of something having major features that clearly predate the origins of something else is the issue. It is origins and not arbitrary classification. Birds predated dinosaurs and many "theropod" birds simply don't come from the theropod line, though there is a possibility that "birds" split off into pre-theropod and theropod lines, while looking fairly birdish in both. The classification of "theropod" might (probably!) not indicate a common SINGLE theropod ancestor.

What is described as Theropod by a classification system NOW USED means that this creature is not Theropod. Regardless, it has features that originated before 230 million years ago.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2018 1:48 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AdminPhat, posted 01-29-2018 8:57 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2018 1:23 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 01-29-2018 2:14 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1858
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


(4)
Message 30 of 62 (827653)
01-29-2018 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by LamarkNewAge
01-29-2018 8:11 AM


EvC Members Take This Poll
I would like to take an informal poll. Any members here at EvC who would prefer LamarkNewAge to stop pasting long excerpts from articles please indicate by liking this post.

I have seen you make some great posts without the added pasting, so I know that you can do it LNA. Anyone here can google the same stuff that you post. A link would be more helpful than a lengthy paste.

And if you see a lot of green likes next to this post, you will know that many share my view.

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


  • Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
  • Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
  • The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2018 8:11 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

        
    Prev1
    2
    345Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018