Tuesday, September 27, 2011

* The Missing SERIES

By the way, it is not just ONE hypothetical most recent common ancestor that is missing in the dino to bird purported lineage - it is a whole series of them along the purported lineage line. Cladistics has not discovered or described ANY of them!

Luckily there are other more common-sense approaches to establishing phylogeny, that includes the effort to determine ancestors and descendants.


  1. Could you please present the names of a few of the creatures along the Pterosaur to Dromaeosaurid line?

    I would like to compare theories.

  2. If you present some of the creatures along the dinosaur to bird line we can compare. Could you please do that for me?
    That would be great.

  3. there aren't any, so if you can name just one that would certainly be a plus for your theory

  4. If you realize that there are no ancestors on the dino to bird theory line at all, that is good. I will remind you of the large number of ancestors I have already proposed in the lineage from pterosaurs to birds. Please see my Dec 17, 2010 post* and also additional details in my most recent comments here:

    * http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2010/12/colorpurpleba-dromaeosaurid-subgroup.html

  5. None of that post or your comments mention the transitional ancestors between pterosaurs and dromaeosaurid.

    Surely you can name one creature between the two groups as the theory is supported by the fossil record, right?

  6. Hello Tuesday - I have already proposed the pterosaur to bird ancestor lineage at a certain level of detail.
    Could you please give the dino to bird lineage at that level of detail please. After that we can go to a deeper level of detail that you are asking about.
    If you cannot give the dino to bird lineage at the level I have already given, then why should I give you even more detail in what I am proposing?

  7. because it's your blog about your theory and because you directed to me to your blog if I had questions about your theory.

    If you're not going to answer my queries then just say so.

    I cannot present the dino to bird lineage as you have requested because it is quite obvious that they did not. You are basically asking me to present something false before you'll answer my queries. If you like, I could just make something up like the dino-bird people have if that helps.

  8. You said you wanted to compare theories.
    It is not possible to compare theories if I have a theory and there is no alternative.
    If you actually understand that fact then perhaps you would like to work with me on the details of what I am proposing.
    The first step is to identify the dromaeosaurid subgroups that are on the lines leading to seabirds, shorebirds and landbirds respectively.

    I have proposed in the other thread how microraptor might fit in.
    What pterosaur subgroup and dromaeosaurid subgroup might be the particular taxa that are on the landbird line?
    Care to work with me?

  9. I am more interested about the pterosaur to dromaeosaurid connection. And it appears you are unwilling or unable to name one creature along that line let alone a series of ancestors leading from pterosaur to dromoaeosaurid.

    It appears your theory has the same problems you were talking about in this very blog entry.

    I suppose, as seems to be par for the course, you will continue to evade the issue rather than just naming a few of the creatures along the pterosaur to dromaeosaurid line. I don't understand why this would be so difficult since you claim to have done extensive research on the subject and claim the fossil record supports the theory.

  10. Nice chatting with you Hello Tuesday.
    If you change your mind and would like to work with me on the details of the idea I am proposing please let me know.

    By the way, I saw all this coming from the very first post from Hello Tuesday.
    The dreary party line from the dino to bird enthusiasts is to demand more and more detail from me while at the same time they do not feel the need to give ANY detail for their model. NO DETAIL WHATSOEVER.

    If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

  11. How do you identify ancestors? How do you know that it is Pteranodon which is ancestral to the albatrosses and not Nyctosaurus or another ornithocheirid? Especially as there are dromaeosaurs older than it?

    This is not a problem for the alternative as it doesn't propose that one group is ancestral to another- it calims that it is impossible to do so with any degree of certainty

  12. DaveGodfrey posted:
    "Especially as there are dromaeosaurs older than it?"

    This is the kind of unsupported statement that people make. I ignore it until you support it with a reference and a copy and paste what you think is the relevant material.

  13. I am not making claims of certainty.
    Science is not based on certainty is it.
    That is not how science works. You should know that.

  14. "This is not a problem for the alternative as it doesn't propose that one group is ancestral to another- it calims that it is impossible to do so with any degree of certainty".

    I have addressed this in the most recent comments on this site. And I even said that I addressed it already.
    I am not interested in the tiresome excuses of cladists.

  15. There are dromaeosaurid teeth from the Late Bathonian. Sinornithosaurus is a dromaeosaur older than the earliest Pteranodon There are Troodontids from the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation. This information is readily available from your favourite source of Wikipedia, which cites multiple references, and gives links to pdfs which you would do well to read. Furthermore you have been informed of this information multiple times before, both here and at Talkrational.


    Go there, read the articles. Read the references you have access to. You do want to learn more about how dromaeosaurs fit into your scheme don't you? Go and read the descriptions of the fossils they're pointing you at.

    You are making claims of certainty, much as you try to deny it. You claim that ornithocheirids are ancestral to albatrosses. Cladistics claims you cannot tell if Geosternbergia and Pteranodon have an ancestor-descendant relationship. You can say if they are more closely related to one another than any other genus is, but that is all. You on the other hand are making claims about ancestor-descendant relationship based on even flimsier evidence- the general shape of the wings, wings of totally different design, on animals with noticeably different skeletal morphologies.

    So I ask again, how do you know that Pteranodon is ancestral to albatrosses and not Geosternbergia or any of the other pteranodontians?

  16. I repeat. If you make a claim, give the reference and copy and paste what you think is the relevant material.
    I post references and copy and paste the material that supports the points I make.
    Please do the same.

  17. Or you could read the section article where it discusses the fossils and their dating, and stop acting like a spoilt child demanding to be spoon-fed information.

    Sinornthosaurus: "It was found in the Jianshangou beds of the Yixian Formation, dated to 124.5 million years ago. Additional specimens have been found in the younger Dawangzhangzi bed, dating to around 122 million years ago"

    Wikipedia cites "Zhou, Z. (2006). "Evolutionary radiation of the Jehol Biota: chronological and ecological perspectives." Geological Journal, 41: 377–393." for this.

    The reference cited in the Wikipedia article for the Bathonian Dromaeosaur teeth is: "Metcalf, S.J., Vaughan, R.F., Benton, M.J., Cole, J., Simms, M.J. and Dartnall, D.L. (1992). "A new Bathonian (Middle Jurassic) microvertebrate site, within the Chipping Norton Limestone Formation at Hornsleaslow Quarry, Gloucestershire". Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 103: 321–342"

    Anchiornis: "Anchiornis fossils have been found in the Tiaojishan Formation of Liaoning, China, dating somewhat uncertainly to the mid-late Jurassic period (Callovian or Oxfordian stage), 160 to 155 million years ago"

    Your further reference for that is: "Hu, D; Hou, L.; Zhang, L. & Xu, X. (2009), "A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus", Nature 461 (7264): 640–643"

    And the Morrison troodontid is: "WDC DML 001 (nicknamed "Lori") is an as-yet undescribed, substantially complete, fossil of a small troodontid dinosaur from the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation of east – central Wyoming"

    So far this specimen has been announced, but not yet fully described.

    Now, how does this affect your claims that Pteranodon is ancestral to albatrosses?

  18. Dave Godfrey, your post is insulting.
    If you wish me to respond, clean up your act.

    By the way your objections have no merit.

  19. No insult is intended. It is, as far as I can see an accurate description of your behaviour.

    Now try addressing the points. Explain why these objections have no merit. Cite sources and copy and paste the parts you think are important.

  20. If you see that insult as just an accurate description, then this is not the place for you.
    There are other places for you - this is not one of them.

  21. For those following this (if any) you may note a pattern that I have seen many times.
    The pattern is that someone posts what are likely reasonable questions and points but they slip in an insult as well, which they simply expect me to accept.
    I do not accept it.

    Such people should stay on their favorite discussion groups where that behavior is quite common.
    This is a blog for scientific discussion.

  22. Dr. Pterosaur said...

    "By the way your objections have no merit."

    Would you mind explaining why you say this?

  23. J Man, what particular problem do you see with what I have proposed. We can work from that.

  24. What I find rather disappointing is that Dave Godfrey did as requested and posted support for his statement that there are dromaeosaur remains older that those of the oldest Pteranodon.

    Then you say his objections have no merit, without explaining why you say that.

    It does rather appear, Dr Pterosaur, that you are using DG's rather mild characterisation of your behaviour - which, incidentally, is a major reason why not many people will engage in serious discussion with you - as an excuse to avoid having to admit that his objections do, in fact, have merit.

  25. I am sad to hear that you are disappointed. But I expect you will bounce back.

    It is funny that you claim that people will not engage in discussion with me because they cannot insult me and get away with it.
    Think about how odd your claim is.

  26. I think that if your case had any merit, you would rise above such things and present the reasons why you think DG's objections "have no merit"
    They seem to me to have sufficient merit to warrant discussion.
    Although you are constantly wanting people to "work with you", it appears what you want is nothing but sycophancy. Here is DG putting forward cogent points for discussion, and you have no answer. You claim to be insulted. This is but pearl-clutching. If all scientists walked away from discussion because mild, not even profane, obloquy was used, no science wold get done at all.

  27. If scientists put up with insults that is their choice. Even your cute "pearl-clutching" is your own attempt to slip in an insult. Right?
    But this is tiresome. Do you have something to contribute yourself?
    Perhaps you could contribute on how novelties spread around the world which is being discussed here:

  28. Thank you, but no. I prefer to engage in internet discussions with those who will actually respond to questions raised; furthermore, it's my opinion that anyone who tries to initiate and sustain such a discussion whilst at the same time being unduly sensitive to mild barracking is on a hiding to nothing. The internet is not a disciplined schoolroom; acting like a Victorian schoolma'am is unlikely to attract anything but ridicule.
    This is your blog, of course, for you to run as you see fit. I simply observe that your ritualistic evasions of direct questions are, as it is seen already, unlikely to lead to any interesting or informative discussion. And that same ritualism is the reason why your comments sections, almost uniquely in my experience, are largely populated by comments from yourself.

  29. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/barrack
    "to shout loudly in order to interrupt someone that you disagree with"

    Definition of BARRACK
    chiefly British
    "to shout at derisively or sarcastically"

    That about describes it alright.