Birds from Reptiles?

[HelpMe]

please direct me to such a thread if it already exists.

i would like to know what proof you think there is.

archaeoraptor?

 

[Pah]

longisquama

Compsognathus

 

[HelpMe]

weak.

imo, feathers are amongst the least relevant differences between birds and dinosaurs.

longisquama

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ed.htm

Compsognathus

http://www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/Tabs/S082.htm

this is your strongest case?

http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/bioscience-archive/vol47/sept.97.birds.html


do you support the arboreal or the cursorial theory?

i'm much more interested in how you explain the difference in the lungs and the metabolic differences than feathers.i was obtuse to assume you would know this, my bad.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

this is your strongest case?

Having a poverty of evidence yourself, you've given no indication of your willingness to honestly evaluate evidence, much less your competency to do so. There is no argument capable of swaying willful ignorance. Unless and until you make crystal clear reasonable criteria for the evaluation of evidence, and show yourself willing to defend your position with evidence that meets that criteria, you're resistance to arguments reflects little more irritating petulance.

 

[anders]

I must confess that I don't understand neither the OP nor the answers, but for questions on evolution (which I think this one amounts to) I think that there is nothing like http://www.talkorigins.org/index.html.

 

[Valjean]

Archosauria is not Reptilia. Current biology does not class dinosaurs with reptiles. Birds appear to be a unique class of archosaurs that persisted into the Pleistocene.

 

[painted wolf]

well... feathers mean nothing to you?
The fact that most carnivorus dinosaurs had feathers of one sort or another means nothing
The fact that many dinosaurs had wings?
The fact that dinoasars had wishbones, flapping arms, folding wrists, s shaped necks and hosts of other features that are shared by birds.
how about the fact that if you look at the skeleton of an early bird it looks just like a dinosaur.
Jeholornis (bird): http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=687
various dinosaurs: http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=2044
Yandangornis (bird): http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=1808
Microraptor (four winged dinosaur): http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=1858
Rahonavis (bird): http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=1807
Caudupteryx (dinosaur): http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=468

I'll let the actual animals demonstrate.

I leave it at this, If others genuinely want to know about the dinosaur- bird transition I may later post showing the line extending back through to the earliset dinosaurs. (some of wich had amazingly advanced bird-like features like the Triassic Herrarasaurs)

Longisquama is interesting but not in the bird linage based on differences in the skull, legs, back, hips, wrists and so on. Plus the 'feathers' are not really feathers but are certenly similar if you don't look to close.

now lets touch on metabolism, all the evidence points to dinosaurs being warm blooded. This evidence is found in both bone histology (thier bones don't look reptilian on the inside) and thier tremendous growth rates. (6 oz hatchling to 6 ton adult in as few as 6 years) They had four chambered bird like hearts, thanks to the find called Willo. They didn't move or act like cold blooded animals, they were highly active and had very bird-like behaviors. (heaarding, running, jumping, flying)
As for the lungs clames that they are not bird like were made based on pictures not actually viewing the specimin... if you acutally look at it you can see details. Their arguments were refuted in 1997

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

Wolf -- I've not read that most carnivorous dinos were feathered, but this feature does show up in the fossil record.

A curious fact: While feathers appear in fossils of terestrial and ambiguously aerial/terrestrial archosaurs, the pteradons -- some groups of which were more highly specialized for flight than modern birds -- were clearly furred. Kind of opposite the present land/aerial animal design.

I'm sure you're also that aware that insulation like fur or feathers is a feature of endothermic, or warm-blooded organisms, not lizards.

 

[Scuba Pete]

My daughter's "Odyssey of the Mind" group had to design a "fictional" dinosaur. They also had to construct it and create a realistic diorama. Now this preceded the "dinosaur into bird" theories by about a year or two. But when they took one dino skeleten and came up with it becoming a bird, I had CHILLS.

A year or so later when they ran this "Scientific Breakthrough" on headline news as well as in the paper, I had to smile and think that it was only "kid's play". BTW, they won the local competition and came in third in state.

 

[HelpMe]

Having a poverty of evidence yourself, you've given no indication of your willingness to honestly evaluate evidence, much less your competency to do so...

There is no argument capable of swaying willful ignorance...

...defend your position with evidence that meets that criteria

thanks for your opinion, i would offer mine, but then i would also feel like scraping my dirty self off of the floor.

i tend to agree.

your criteria, of course! i thought my stance by definition was/is non-evidence, but w/e makes you happy.



thanks pw for a post without hate.

 

[Valjean]

NetDoc -- The Hot Blooded Dinosaurs was published in 1976. The "dinosaur-to-bird" theories are >30 years old.

Just out of curiosity, when did this "scientific breakthrough" appear in the paper? (I'm curious about the lag between scientific discovery and popular awareness).

 

[Pleio]

Archosauria is not Reptilia. Current biology does not class dinosaurs with reptiles.

Biologists should be informed of this. Archosaurians are diapsids. Diapsids are in Reptilia.
Reptilia is "All the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of both turtles and crocodiles."
In a non-evolutionary cladistic context as "All organisms that fall within a synapomorphic clade bounded by turtles and crocodiles." Birds fall within the clade Reptilia using soft anatomy, hard anatomy, or DNA - birds are classed reptiles.

http://tolweb.org/accessory/Phylogeny_and_Classification_of_Amniotes?acc_id=462


So this thread is titled "Chairs from Furniture?"
Despite that....

 

[Scuba Pete]

Seyorni,

I almost clipped the article! When it came out, I had my daughter read it which she thought was pretty cool.

 

[No*s]

Pleio, not to sound blunt, but who would determine what they are except a biologist?

 

[Pleio]

The point was that community of biologists must agree on terminology and they have not done so regarding "reptile".
Does the above link to tol represent the community? Or
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/subway/phylo/phylodat.html

According to Seyorni's renaming: anapsids (turtles, etc.) aren't reptiles, crocodilians etc aren't reptiles since they are archosaurs, tuataras aren't reptiles (neither all the extinct ichth's and pleis's and notho' -saurs), leaving only lizards and snakes. What then is the point of "reptile"? Use the collective term: squamata/squamates - or lizard and snake.

The antiquated "Reptile" began as a folk taxonomy term which every ordinary English speaker understands as all the above. Why change it? To keep out birds?

 

[No*s]

The community of biologists must agree on terminology.
Does the above link to tol represent the community? Or
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/subway/phylo/phylodat.html

According to Seyorni's renaming: anapsids (turtles, etc.) aren't reptiles, crocodilians etc aren't reptiles since they are archosaurs, tuataras aren't reptiles (neither all the extinct ichth's and ple's and notho' -saurs), leaving only lizards and snakes. What then is the point of "reptile"? Use the collective term: squamata - or lizard and snake.

The antiquated "Reptile" began as a folk taxonomy term which every ordinary English speaker understands as all the above. Why change it? To keep out birds?

I'm not a biologist, but I would assume because it isn't accurate. Our terms and classifications are purely arbitrary things that we subject nature to. If they cease being useful, then there is no reason not to change it in a technical enviroment. Popularly I use "cult" in a derogatory sense, but when writing technically, I use it properly. Definitions change all the time, and it's a good thing...and they change with needs. There's reason right there, but that's not what he strikes me as doing.

I interpret Seyorni's terminology being exactly that. He didn't specify the species you mentioned. He merely named some species of dinosaurs and said they weren't reptiles. If they fail to fit the definition, why keep them? After all, I've never seen a warm-blooded reptile with feathers, which is part of his assertion.

 

[painted wolf]

Reptile is an Order... Archosaur is a Class of this Order, Dinosaur is a subclass of the Class Archosauria.
There are four main groups, or sub-orders in Reptilia, each is based on the number and location of holes in the skull. They are Anapsid, synapsid, eurapsid and diapsid. Dinosars, crocodyles and birds are Diapsids.

as for the warm blooded and dinosaur- bird link they were first made by Thomas Huxley in the 1870's. It was brought back by Gerhard Heilmann in 1926 in his book "the Origin of Birds".
It was brought back again in 1960's by John Ostrom due to his discovery of Deinonychus.

as for the presence of feathers, they have been found in basal Coelosaurs, Tyrannanosarids, Dromaeosaurids, Therizinosaurids, Oviraptors, and quite probably Struthiomimids. It can be reasonably argued that save for the largest of the Theropods (certenly Carnotaurs for who we have skin impressions) had feathers. But we have 'naked' mammals so the idea of the larger Theropods being naked, or mostly so is not counter to the argument.

hope this helps.
ps. HelpMe you are welcome

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

i would like to know what proof you think there is.
archaeoraptor?

HelpMe - your use of the smilie that is rolling its eyes (sarcastic) is evidence that you are not beginning this thread with an open mind - in an effort to learn. Rather, you started this thread to give yourself a platform from which to ridicule the Theory of Evolution. Your mind is already made up, with no intention of trying to find the truth. This is self evident, from the tone of your original post.

Having a poverty of evidence yourself, you've given no indication of your willingness to honestly evaluate evidence, much less your competency to do so. There is no argument capable of swaying willful ignorance. Unless and until you make crystal clear reasonable criteria for the evaluation of evidence, and show yourself willing to defend your position with evidence that meets that criteria, you're resistance to arguments reflects little more irritating petulance.

Beautiful - absolutely beautiful. I can't frubal you (spread 'em around), but I have to say, that this is the most succinct, and to-the-point answer that I have seen posted on this site.

My only regret is that I did not say it.

TVOR

 

[Darwin Redux]

Reptile is an Order... Archosaur is a Class of this Order, Dinosaur is a subclass of the Class Archosauria.
There are four main groups, or sub-orders in Reptilia, each is based on the number and location of holes in the skull. They are Anapsid, synapsid, eurapsid and diapsid. Dinosars, crocodyles and birds are Diapsids.

I think this is currently in dispute - Anapsids are controversially included within the Reptilia clade, but Synapsids are not - they are basal to the Reptile clade. Otherwise the extant groups of Synapsids (Mammalia) would be included within the Reptile clade. Not that I have a problem with being called a Reptile, if that's what the phylogeny implies. It just so happens that as yet, it has not been included.

 

[painted wolf]

Right now its a tricky issue... do you bundle Aves within Dinosauria (and **** off the Ornithologists) or remove Archosauria alltogther? (and **** off Herpatologists)

Some paleontologist have suggested a new Order for Dinosaurs and Birds... I'm not sure how well that will go.

There is no easy answer to this one... I personally currently vote for the Dino/bird Order branching off Archosauria based on what I know now.

wa:do