The Reptile-Bird Theory. Real or Fake?

[painted wolf]

I think so... their whole argument against dinosaurs being the last common ancestor of birds would work against anything else they chose to replace it with... and it can't simply dismiss all the other evidence of the dinosaur/bird link.

wa:do

ps.... I'm also just going by the article... I have yet to read the actual paper, I have to wait to be able to order through my university. Who knows, they may have some evidence? Otherwise it sounds like they did an interesting and important experiment and then sort of "jumped the shark" with the conclusion.

[eselam]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

I think so... their whole argument against dinosaurs being the last common ancestor of birds would work against anything else they chose to replace it with... and it can't simply dismiss all the other evidence of the dinosaur/bird link.

wa:do

so it seems we are back in bussines then.

ok. let me see what this theory suggests.

we have dinosaurs, we have the archaeopteryx ad we have modern birds.

so where are the creatures in between these 3?

i mean you would expect to see a dinosaur with feathers, then a dinosaur with more bird like features then you would expect to see the archyx who should indeed have a mixed up lung (which by now we all know what i mean by that unless someone hasn't been listening) then a creature that does not have the bony tale nor the teeth and finally a bird. but instead we have a dinosaur magically poofing into a seriously sick looking bird who then becomes an atractive bird by another magical poof.

if anyone thinks this is wrong please axplain with support from evidence that what i have said is wrong.

[painted wolf]

so where are the creatures in between these 3?

It's more of how the three blend in together... "dinosaur" and "bird" are pretty broad categories... especially "dinosaur".

i mean you would expect to see a dinosaur with feathers

Yup.. like Epidexipteryx (who is older than Archy)

then a dinosaur with more bird like features

Like Scansoriopteryx also a bit older than Archy...
(sorry, I can't find a good pic of the actual fossils.. but this gives you an idea of what it looks like... it had traces of true feathers on the tail and hands that are left off the drawing.)

then you would expect to see the archyx who should indeed have a mixed up lung (which by now we all know what i mean by that unless someone hasn't been listening)

right...

then a creature that does not have the bony tale nor the teeth

We have a pretty good variety of these kinds of birds...
Like Confuciusornis

and finally a bird.

True 'birds' ... that is what you think of when you hear the word bird arrive in the late Cretaceous. Even these true birds are still a little different from what we have today, but then that makes sense.

but instead we have a dinosaur magically poofing into a seriously sick looking bird who then becomes an atractive bird by another magical poof.

Actually what we see is a wide variety of birds showing up after Archy... trying a wide variety of things and filling all kinds of niches... from large predatory birds to seed eaters to swimming fish eaters and flying fish eaters... lots of birds that are almost like modern birds but not quite.. (one group is known as the "opposite birds" because they did something different from modern birds with their shoulders.)

wa:do

[eselam]

thank you for that painted wolf, i appreciate your response.

but where can i find out a bit more about these creatures?

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by eselam

so it seems we are back in bussines then.

ok. let me see what this theory suggests.

we have dinosaurs, we have the archaeopteryx ad we have modern birds.

so where are the creatures in between these 3?

i mean you would expect to see a dinosaur with feathers, then a dinosaur with more bird like features then you would expect to see the archyx who should indeed have a mixed up lung (which by now we all know what i mean by that unless someone hasn't been listening) then a creature that does not have the bony tale nor the teeth and finally a bird. but instead we have a dinosaur magically poofing into a seriously sick looking bird who then becomes an atractive bird by another magical poof.

if anyone thinks this is wrong please axplain with support from evidence that what i have said is wrong.

Keep in mind that small genetic changes can result in large morphological differences. When looking a fossils of a Chihuahua and a Great Dane, one might be tempted to say they are different species but they would be wrong. Just because archyx looks different from modern birds doesn't prove that they are not related.

[painted wolf]

I'll see about getting a list of websites and books for you to look at.
(I'm a bit fussy so it may take me a little while to get a good list put together. )

And you are more than welcome... Like I said I love to try to help when I can.

wa:do

[Jose Fly]

Eselam,

I gave you a link to a number of scienceblog articles specifically about reptile-bird fossils, written for laypeople. And now you're asking Painted Wolf, "where can i find out a bit more about these creatures?"

[Autodidact]

So eselam, to summarize, you have no special expertise in the subject. You asked for a list of transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, and were given one as well as pictures of the fossils, clearly showing these transitional features. You asked where you could learn more about this, and don't have enough information to show why this is not so, therefore you think you've disproved this connection. Is that about right?

[painted wolf]

Is there anything wrong with wanting to find out more information away from the forum?

Rather than attack the guy... can't you give him a chance?

wa:do

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Is there anything wrong with wanting to find out more information away from the forum?

Rather than attack the guy... can't you give him a chance?

wa:do

The problem is that he's been given all kinds of information over and over and over again on these very questions, and he has shown that he has no real interest in trying to learn new information.