Lignin in red algae supports the Genesis days chronology? What about birds?

It should be obvious. To anyone with an ounce of sense.Looking for stupid excuses to find support for the Genesis 1 account does nobody any good.

quote:

---

The idea is that all birds came from big bulky dinosaurs and it might be true

---

No it isn’t. The idea is that birds evolved from small theropod dinosaurs.

Idiot.Although you already proved that by trying to argue that where Genesis talked about trees springing up in land it really meant seaweed.So crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than lizards and snakes are. How is that relevant ? It doesn’t change anything.Stop trying to bury the conversation in irrelevancies.

Why ? It won’t tell you anything useful about when birds appeared.

quote:

---

How does this relate to the Sauropod theory?

---

What Sauropod theory ? And how is it relevant ? Sauropods don’t have anything to do with bird evolution, other than being dinosaurs.But to go back to the actual topic, if you just pick pairs of things out of context Genesis ought to be right nearly half the time by pure chance. Without indulging in creative reinterpretations. So really you are arguing that Genesis is remarkably inaccurate. Thinking beats googling for irrelevancies.

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.

And, for reference Physiology of Dinosaurs

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

quote:

---

Here is the complete list of PRE THEROPOD characteristics .from the 2012 book.

---

This is just Scanisoriopteryx again which I have already answered. Some of the traits are questionable (notably the reversed hallucinations). Feduccia is known to be strongly biased, and there is a lot of interpretation going on. In the absence of objective information I’m not going to be convinced by Feduccia’s opinions - when he convinces enough other researchers then is the time to take notice of opinions.

quote:

---

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.

---

That’s a complete invention on your part. Scanisoriopteryx is not a bird and could date after archaeopteryx so it doesn’t do much to move the order back in time. For that you have to buy Feduccia’s theory wholesale - and even that isn’t going to get you the Carboniferous birds you want (let alone the Cambrian birds you would need to have them appear at the same time as fish!)

quote:

---

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

---

Which split, and why is it relevant ? And just after is millions of years.

quote:

---

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

---

In other words, in your hypothesis, birds are descended from land animals living in the Triassic, and split away from the dinosaur ancestors before the first dinosaurs.But let us note that you have not one single fossil bird earlier than archaeopteryx. And yet we do have at least one fossil coelurosaur predating it. Which is rather odd if coelurosaurs are descended from birds rather than vice versa.

quote:

---

The more I respond to, the more I get ignored (PaulK, especially, is setting a record for ignoring everything, then claiming that he has covered an issue).

---

You have a habit of not clearly making points. But it is certainly false that even close to most of what you say is being ignored.

quote:

---

So, subtract 152 million years from 230 million years and you have a 78 million year discrepancy for things actually happening (while SO FAR undetected in the fossil record) verses what people like Feduccia (and the late Czerkas) are saying.

​

A 78 million year discrepancy.

​

Is this scientifically reasonable?

---

It is not very reasonable if we Feduccia and co are right as I pointed out. Although the idea that the gap makes them look foolish rather than their own efforts to force the data to fit their ideas seems silly.

quote:

---

A 50 to 60 million year discrepancy in just the last 100-125 million years!

---

But note that this refers to divergences within the birds, and that the ancestors found by that method would not have the full suite of distinctive characters.You don’t bother to actually make a point, however let us note that the time period is much smaller. Also that the new groups may have been relatively rare in that time. Feduccia et al propose that birds were successful enough to produce quite a range of theropod descendants - which turn up before birds!

quote:

---

The biggest problem with this cladistics issue is that ignores the fact that some creatures can maintain the ability to reproduce (and thus blend in genes) 34 million years after separating, like some frogs have done.

​

Early flying birds might have been part of a small number of rare types of creature that were constantly exchanging genes (reproducing) and over long distances too.

---

Note that this is not really a flaw in the article. It’s not even detailed enough to call it an implausible hypothesis. I think you will find that the frogs are pretty similar in appearance and that they represent a rare case. To propose something on a much greater scale, involving much more different creatures with no real evidence is little more than an excuse.

Because the lignin argument was so obviously stupid that not even LNA can bring himself to try and defend it.

quote:

---

I am not so sure he says that, but it sounds like something close to what I said

---

If he says that theropods are all descended from birds then it is certainly true. And if he restricts the presumed bird descendants then he starts to run into trouble explaining the evidence of relationships within the theropods.

quote:

---

I will only say (for now) that Pterosaurs are said to have come into existence at the exact same time as Dinosaurs, but there is only like 1 fossil found that dates before around 160 million years ago. (and it dates around 220 million years ago, and was discovered in 1973?)

​

Correct me if I am wrong (and I could be).

---

The graphical timeline of pterosaurs shows 8 known species from the Triassic, so you are certainly wrong. It was not exactly hard to find.

quote:

---

It has lots of references (and critical reviews? it seems so) to the recent journal by (the late) Czerkas and Feduccia

---

Most of what that search finds is either of little or no relevance. (Springer’s Journal crops up quite a bit)

quote:

---

Understand that Feduccia is often attacked over OLD stuff like the digit 1-2-3- and 2-3-4 issue.

---

From when that issue was being argued that was pretty much the best point he had...Feduccia is mainly attacked for insisting on his view when his evidence was very poor. You are going to need to show that he has good evidence now to overcome that. And has caffeine has shown he is still using poor arguments.

quote:

---

Now he is attacked for not having a cladistic tree for hypothetical 200 million plus year old fossils that he proposes MIGHT BE FOUND one day.

---

False. He is being criticised for using a weak analysis using only 13 (likely cherry-picked) characters when a much more comprehensive analysis is available.