Step by Step (3)

Note: It is recommended to begin with the post titled "Bringing the Pieces Together" (July 28) below.

Continuing the analysis:

"By the early Cretaceous, some other pterosaurs (by the process of cladogenesis), had developed into flying enantiornithes.
And by the late Cretaceous, many of these flying enantiornithes had developed into a variety of modern flying birds (Neognaths).

Concurrently, during the Cretaceous, some of the flying enantiornithes settled on the land/water, and developed (by the process of cladogenesis), into primitive aquatic birds, such as the hesperornithes.
And by the Paleocene, these primitive aquatic birds had developed into modern aquatic birds, such as loons, grebes and penguins."

All of this follows the same types of processes analyzed earlier, related to dromaeosaurids etc.

Note, that because dromaeosaurids and troodontids developed from pterosaurs by cladogenesis, there were still pterosaurs extant, so the cladogenesis of enantionithes from pterosaurs, could also occur, during the Cretaceous.

Again this is perfectly acceptable cladistic thinking.

Step by Step (2)

Continuing the analysis.
I had presented the idea that:

"Concurrently, during the Cretaceous, some of the flying dromaeosaurids and troodontids settled on the land, developing (by the process of cladogenesis), into primitive flightless birds such as the oviraptorids, the alvarezsaurids and the flightless dromaeosaurids and flightless troodontids."

This process is a good example of cladogenesis. Some flying dromaeosaurids and troodontids settle on the land, and develop the characteristics of flightless birds. For example, their flight feathers (that are asymmetrical) are replaced with symmetrical feathers since they no longer need the aerodynamic quality of asymmetric feathers.
At this point, we recognize them as primitive flightless birds.
This is an accepted process in cladistic thinking.

Next step:

"And by the late Cretaceous, these primitive flightless birds had developed into modern flightless birds (paleognaths) such as the ostrich and emu and cassowary."

This is the same process again. Here the primitive, flightless birds lose their primitive characteristics and gain modern flightless bird characteristics. In this case they develop into a variety of paleognaths because they are flightless creatures.
Again this is perfectly acceptable cladistic thinking.

Step by Step (1)

In the earlier post I had presented the idea that:

"By the early Cretaceous, some pterosaurs (by the process of cladogenesis), had developed into flying dromaeosaurids and troodontids".

By accepted cladistic thinking this is a perfectly reasonable and common type of occurrence. A subset of creatures develops a set of changes that sets them apart from the original group. They exist in their own ecological niche. In this case, some pterosaurs develop feathers and hand bones characteristic of dromaeosaurids and troodontids (such that they are now recognized as dromaeosaurids and troodontids).
If this sounds at all unusual, just realize that this is exactly the process that evolution theory posits for all evolutionary changes. And by the process of cladogenesis the new creatures and the original creatures co-exist.

And the next step:

"By the late Cretaceous, many of these flying dromaeosaurids and troodontids had developed into a variety of modern flying birds (Neognaths)."

This is the same process again. Here the dromaeosaurids and troodontids lose their primitive bird characteristics such as teeth (if they have them) and develop other modifications, developing into modern birds. In this case they develop into a variety of neognaths (not paleognaths) because they are flying creatures.
Again this is perfectly acceptable cladistic thinking.

In the next post I will analyze the concurrent origin of flightless birds from other flying dromaeosaurids and troodontids during the Cretaceous.

Bringing the Pieces Together

Above is a time-based cladogram (Chiappe 2009) covering maniraptors. It shows accurately the actual fossil evidence but unfortunately interprets it in a dino-to-bird phylogeny.
You notice the oviraptors and the alvarezsaurids are correctly shown as living well after the origin of the flying dromaeosaurids and troodontids. (Oviraptors and the alvarezsaurids were actually secondarily flightless).

Below is an outline of the development of modern birds from pterosaurs, which is in line with the actual fossil evidence.
In order to follow this, visualize pterosaur lines preceeding and connecting to the dromaeosaurid, troodontid and enantiornithes lines and visualize placing modern birds to the right end of the dromaeosaurids, troodontids and enantiornithes lines. (For flightless birds see details below).
Consider the following concurrent paths:
One path:

By the early Cretaceous, some pterosaurs (by the process of cladogenesis), had developed into flying dromaeosaurids and troodontids (eg. Deinonychus, microraptor etc).
And by the late Cretaceous, many of these flying dromaeosaurids and troodontids had developed into a variety of modern flying birds (Neognaths).

Concurrently, during the Cretaceous, some of the flying dromaeosaurids and troodontids settled on the land, developing by the process of cladogenesis, into primitive flightless birds such as the oviraptorids, the alvarezsaurids, flightless troodontids (eg. troodons etc) and the flightless Ornithomimosauria.
And by the late Cretaceous, these primitive flightless birds had developed into modern flightless birds (paleognaths) such as the ostrich and emu and cassowary.

Another path:
By the early Cretaceous, some other pterosaurs (by the process of cladogenesis), had developed into flying enantiornithes.
And by the late Cretaceous, many of these flying enantiornithes had developed into a variety of modern flying birds (Neognaths).
Concurrently, during the Cretaceous, some of the flying enantiornithes settled on the land/water, and developed (by the process of cladogenesis), into primitive aquatic birds, such as the hesperornithes.
And by the Paleocene, these primitive aquatic birds had developed into a variety of modern aquatic birds, such as loons, grebes and penguins.
I will analyze these steps in the next few posts.

Note that this explanation fits exceptionally well with the fossil record.(It also fits exceptionally well with the morphological evidence as this site has shown in detail).

Stratocladistics - The breakfast of champions

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/284/5421/1816?ijkey=ae5e228a882495f5bc344f9ed7439c817a13dfe2&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Reconstructing Phylogeny with and without Temporal Data

David L. Fox, ^* Daniel C. Fisher, Lindsey R. Leighton

"Conventional cladistic methods of inferring evolutionary relationships exclude temporal data from the initial search for optimal hypotheses, but stratocladistics includes such data. A comparison of the ability of these methods to recover known, simulated evolutionary histories given the same, evolved character data shows that stratocladistics recovers the true phylogeny in over twice as many cases as cladistics (42 versus 18 percent). The comparison involved 550 unique taxon-by-character matrices, representing 15 evolutionary models and fossil records ranging from 100 to 10 percent complete."

Another time-based cladogram

Here is another time-based cladogram. This one is of maniraptors.
The predominance of the dromaeosaurids, troodontids and enantiornithes is quite striking. I have been making this point in a variety of ways throughout these posts. Each is a significant link between pterosaurs and modern birds.



http://www.springerlink.com/content/66w3755838876571/fulltext.html
"Fossils of more advanced birds are also first recorded at around 130 million years ago. Among these are the enantiornithines (Chiappe 2007; Chiappe and Witmer 2002), a group that constitutes the most important evolutionary radiation of premodern birds. Like most early birds, the majority of enantiornithines had toothed jaws and partially clawed wings (Figs. 1 and 5). Yet their skeletons show a series of key transformations that approach those of today's birds. Some of these include the shortening of the hand and fingers as well as changes in the proportions of the wing bones and the anatomy of the shoulder. Furthermore, these birds evolved important innovations in their plumage, namely, a safety device called the alula (a small tuft of feathers also known as the “bastard wing”), which assists modern birds during their take-off and landing (Sanz et al. 1996). The significant transformations of the skeleton and plumage of these birds suggest that, even at the onset of their evolutionary history, enantiornithines were able to take-off from a standstill position and maneuver in ways similar to those seen among living birds. It is most likely that the evolution of these enhanced flying capabilities played a key role in the evolutionary success of the enantiornithines, which by about 120 million years ago seem to have risen to dominance." (L. Chiappe)

* The Fossil Record

We have seen that the dino-to-bird based cladograms are not congruent with the fossil record.
The dino-to-bird enthusiasts say that is because the fossil record is incomplete.
But here is an interesting thing that comes to light in the Wills et al (2008) study:
The Modified Gap Excess Ratio (GER*) and the Stratigraphic Congruence of Dinosaur Phylogenieshttp://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/57/6/891/
The GER values for the actual dinosaur groups are "extremely high".
Check here:
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/57/6/891/TBL1
Hadrosauridae .9561
Pachycephalosauria .9468
Sauropoda .9101
Ankylosauria .8971
Ceratopsia .8963
and so on

No problem with the fossil record there.
But when it comes to Paraves the value is .5579 (which the authors call "indistinguishable from random".)
The problem is not with the fossil record. The problem is with the dino-to-bird idea.

Frances James Study

For those who wish to learn more about the dinosaur to bird hypothesis, and other archosaur (but not pterosaur) candidates, I heartily recommend:

Cladistics and the Origin of Birds: A Review and Two New Analyses
Frances C. James and John A. Pourtless IV
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf

The only caveat I have is that the study does not consider pterosaurs and does not include time based cladograms.

* Analyzing the Studies

In the previous post, I mentioned that the Wills et al (2008) analysis did not include any cladogram that included both dinosaurs and birds.
But the Pol and Norell (2006) study did:
Uncertainty in the Age of Fossils and the Stratigraphic Fit to Phylogenies
It included the theropod taxa. That study found that the theropod option produced an MSM* of 0.31 to 0.40.

This appears to be the best, most objective info we have about a theropod to bird cladogram being compared to the fossil record. The fit is exceptionally low.
It shows that the dinosaur-to-bird theory is not congruent with the actual fossil record.

Digging into the GER details

MSM and GER calculations are a powerful and objective way to determine the level of fit between any proposed cladogram and the fossil record.
We saw earlier the GER values obtained by Wills et al (2008) for 19 dinosaur groups. You will recall that the Paraves values were the lowest on the list.
To understand the deep significance of the Wills et al study we need to look at the 19 groups (taxa) that were included.
The 19 number is made up of 17 dinosaur groups such as Sauropoda, Hadrosauridae etc. These have high GER scores.
The other two are bird related groups - the Turner et al (2007) Paraves study and the Senter et al (2007) Paraves + Oviraptorosauria study.
The GER for the Turner et al (2007) Paraves was .5579. The GER for the Senter et al (2007) Paraves + Oviraptorosauria was .6780.
These are exceptionally low values indicating low congruence.

Three things to note:
1. When analyzing a strictly dinosaur group (such as Hadrosauridae, Sauropoda etc) the GER value is "extremely high" according to the authors. This is not surprising. In those cases we are not even analyzing the dino-to-bird theory.
2. However when we analyze a bird group (such as Paraves) the congruence is "indistinguishable from random".
3. The best way to analyze the dino-to-bird theory would be to calculate the congruence for coelurosaurs or theropoda. In other words a grouping that includes dinosaurs and birds. Unfortunately the Wills et al study does not include any study like that. But the Pol and Norell (2006) study does. (I will elaborate on that in the next post).

More on Incongruence

Let's look at other studies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox_(paleontology)
"Third, if the temporal paradox would indicate that birds should not have evolved from dinosaurs, then what animals are more likely ancestors considering their age? Brochu and Norell (2001) analyzed this question using six of the other archosaurs that have been proposed as bird ancestors, and found that all of them create temporal paradoxes — long stretches between the ancestor and Archaeopteryx where there are no intermediate fossils — that are actually worse. Thus, even if one used the logic of the temporal paradox, one should still prefer dinosaurs as the ancestors to birds.[8] Pol and Norell (2006) calculated MSM* values for the same six proposed bird ancestors and obtained the same relative results."

The studies by Brochu and Norell (2001) and Pol and Norell (2006) indicate that theropods were more likely to be the ancestors of birds than the other six archosaurs they compared them to. (It is noteworthy that they did not compare them to pterosaurs, which is a pity).
But I want to point out something.

Here is the table of values from Pol and Norell (2006)
https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/55/3/512/1672644/Uncertainty-in-the-Age-of-Fossils-and-the?ijkey=dcca75e6314d22c6b58ec4e234c2c2d79014cba5&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Note the MSM* values:
Theropods: 0.31 - 0.40
Others (avg): 0.26 - 0.32

The dinosaur (theropod) value is indeed higher (a higher level of congruence) than the others. But does an MSM value of 0.31 - 0.40 actually indicate a high level of congruence? No. It is hardly better than the worst possible value. According to Wills et al "the lowest possible MSM* value is 0.25."
It is again a situation like the calculated GER value we saw for Paraves (by Turner et al). Not congruent.
The dinosaur-to-bird theory is not congruent (not in synch) with the actual fossil record.

Another time-based cladogram

Here is another time-based cladogram (Hu et al 2009) that was done after the Wills et al study of 2008, that I presented in the previous post. It would be interesting to see what the GER (Gap Excess Ratio) would be for this:
http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/anchiornis-and-the-temporal-paradox/

* Comparing dinosaur cladograms to the fossil record

Here is a totally fascinating report on how the published dinosaur cladograms compare to the stratigraphic (time) record.
It is significant that there is very high congruence (being in synch) when a cladogram covers an actual dinosaur group (eg. Hadrosauridae, Sauropoda etc) but a total lack of congruence when it covers Paraves.

Wills et al (2008):
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/57/6/891
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/57/6/891/TBL1

Evidence for the evolutionary history of most groups derives from two independent sources. The first is the distribution of phylogenetically informative characters or markers in extant and extinct taxa. The second is the stratigraphic or temporal sequence in which taxa occur as fossils. Neither source of data can be read uncritically, and both require interpretation. Phylogenies incorporate assumptions concerning rooting and models of evolution. The resulting trees are therefore inferences rather than data. Fossils require varying degrees of interpretation depending upon the nature of the material, and dates may be subject to large margins of error. For these reasons, it is often desirable to compare inferences by mapping cladograms onto stratigraphic range charts 

"Over all 19 data sets, congruence was extremely high (Table 1). The average GER (Wills, 1999) for static first occurrence dates was 0.767, with the best data set being the Hadrosauridae (Horner et al., 2004; 0.956) and the worst being the Paraves (Turner et al., 2007; 0.558)."
AND
" The least congruent data sets were the Paraves (Turner et al., 2007; GERt = 0.571), Stegosauria (Galton and Upchurch, 2004b; GERt = 0.611), Prosauropoda (Galton and Upchurch, 2004a; GERt = 0.720), and Ceratopsia (Xu et al., 2002; GERt = 0.755)."

Paraves is objectively calculated as the worst in terms of congruence. In fact, the article says that it is "indistinguishable from random". And that is because it is based on the incorrect dino-to-bird idea.
It would be very interesting to see the level of congruence if someone were to create a cladogram based on the ideas I have been presenting.

Note: Here is the Turner et al cladogram (2007):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5843/1378/FIG3

Stratocladistics

A way to incorporate time into the calculations, is through the technique of "stratocladistics" (rather than "cladistics").

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5421/1816?ijkey=fcce8a6262f562f8476b52d04b8fa06ca9d8135e 
"Stratocladistic hypotheses attempt to explain both the distribution of characters among taxa and the distribution of taxa through time. By doing this, stratocladistic hypotheses explain more features of the natural world and hence have greater explanatory power than purely cladistic hypotheses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocladistics
"Stratocladistics is a method of making phylogenetic inferences using both geological and morphobiological data. It follows many of the same rules as cladistics, using Bayesian logic to quantify how good a phylogenetic hypothesis is in terms of debt and parsimony. However, in addition to the morphological debt that is used to determine phylogenetic dissimilarities in cladistics, there is also stratigraphic debt which adds the dimension of time to the equation."

-->http://www.citeulike.org/user/irishoconnor/article/7413162
"Debate has long simmered over whether data on the order of appearance of taxa in the stratigraphic record should play any role in analyses of phylogenetic relationships among those taxa. Critics argue that temporal data are in principle inapplicable to questions of cladistic relationship, but specific versions of this claim all seem flawed. Stratocladistics offers a methodological context (patterned after that of cladistics itself) within which temporal data participate along with conventional character data in selecting most-parsimonious hypotheses. Stratocladistics outperforms cladistics in tests based on simulated histories, and additional testing will be facilitated by new software automating stratocladistic searches. As with any body of data, we may decide to include or exclude temporal data for specific reasons, but the explanatory power of hypotheses that use both temporal and conventional character data exceeds that of hypotheses based on character data alone." (Daniel Fisher)

Cladistics and Time (2)

In the previous post I quoted an article that made the point:
"The cladistic analysis of the Boreaspidids may simply not be as accurate as the Kiaeraspidid analysis. The j/k/l/m cluster, rather than being a basal group, may actually be an advanced one, like the s/t grouping, and it only appears primitive (perhaps through degeneration or loss of characteristics)."

This is an uncanny parallel to exactly the point that I have been making about birds.
I have been pointing out that the flightless birds (Alvarezsauridae etc) which had lost their flying-bird characteristics, developed from the flying birds, and that the fossil record indicates that the flying birds came before the flightless birds.
The standard dino-to-bird cladograms have it backwards.

Cladistics and Time (1)

http://www.kheper.net/evolution/systematics/cladistics.htm "One of the big weaknesses of the cladistic system is it's disregard of the sequence of fossils in the stratigraphic record. This is based on the fact that cladists seem to assume it is enough simply to know all the characteristics of the representative members of a group in order to work out their precise phylogentic relationships. If the resulting cladogram agrees with the fossil record for the group, the "basal" (= primitive) taxa appearing first, the most "derived" (=advanced) taxa last, well and good. If it doesn't the fossil sequence is rejected. The reasoning seems to be that since the fossil record is so incomplete in any case the missing taxa simply weren't preserved, but lived elsewhere. The result is a series of hidden or "ghost" lineages that are based on absolutely no evidence other than assumptions drawn from (possibly unreliable) cladograms. A good illustration of the vagaries of (either one or both) the cladistic method and the fossil record is shown in the diagrams below, from Philippe Janvier's book Early Vertebrates. At the top are cladograms of two families of closely related early Devonian Ostracoderms (armoured jawless fish - in this case Osteostraci), the Kiaeraspididae (A) and the the Boreaspididae (B). Both groups of organisms are found in the same locality (the Wood Bay Formation of Spitzberg) and the animals when alive presumably lived in a very similiar environment and had similiar habits (lagoonal bottom-dwelling filter-feeders). At the bottom is shown the stratigraphic range of each of these taxa. These creatures were geographically localised (endemic) and lived in conditions that favoured preservation. In addition their hard exoskeletons (head shields) were easily preserved. So we have pretty optimal conditions here. Now, here is something interesting. The Kiaeraspidid (A1) cladistic analysis matches their stratigraphic occurances (A2). The most basal or primitive species (a) also appears earliest (at the bottom of the stratigraphic chart). And the most advanced or specialised ("derived") species (g) and (h) occur last (top of time range diagram). But the exact same cladistic analysis applied to the Boreaspidids (B1) does not match their stratigraphic occurances (B2). Although the basal taxon (i) is also among the earliest, some of the most advanced types (r) are equally ancient. illustration from Philippe Janvier Early Vertebrates (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996), p.286

So we have a situation where apparent "ancestors" (well, the grand-uncles rather than the grand-fathers, because cladistics is all about the descendents of the common ancestor, never the common ancestor at the base of the node) appear after their "descendents"

The cladistic assumption is simply that the fossil record is incomplete. These creatures evolved elsewhere, or if they evolved in that locality they were not preserved. However, it is possible to reconstruct the "ghost lineages" - e.g. the dotted line in the Sigurdfjellet formation leading to the j/k/l/m cluster that appears on the next formation up (more recent).

I would offer an alternative and I believe much simpler (though obviously equally one-sided) explanation. The cladistic analysis of the Boreaspidids may simply not be as accurate as the Kiaeraspidid analysis. The j/k/l/m cluster, rather than being a basal group, may actually be an advanced one, like the s/t grouping, and it only appears primitive (perhaps through degeneration or loss of characteristics).

It is of course impossible to tell which of these two alternatives is the correct one. Lacking a functioning time machine, one cannot travel back and actually observe these creatures evolving, making stopover observations at, say, 50,000 year intervals, while hopefully avoiding the grandfather paradox! ;-) In that way phylogenetics is not and cannot be a hard science in the way chemistry, physics, or even neontological (study of extant species) biology is. Between science and metaphysics there is not such a gap after all, a sobering realisation that nevertheless gives a perceptive insight into the way our understanding of the world works."

I WILL ANALYZE THIS IN THE NEXT POST.

* Mahakala

Here is the typical, up-side-down, thinking of the dino-to-bird enthusiasts, using cladistic analysis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahakala_%28dinosaur%29
"Mahakala is a genus of basal dromaeosaurid dinosaur from the Campanian-age (about 80 million years ago) Upper Cretaceous Djadokhta Formation of Ömnögov, Mongolia. It is based on a partial skeleton found in the Gobi Desert. Mahakala was a small dromaeosaurid (approximately 70 centimeters long (28 in)), and its skeleton shows features that are also found in early troodontids and avialans. Despite its late appearance, it is among the most basal dromaeosaurids. Its small size, and the small size of other basal deinonychosaurians, suggests that small size appeared before flight capability in birds."
AND
"A phylogenetic analysis performed by Turner and colleagues, who described the specimen, found Mahakala to be the most basal known dromaeosaurid. "

They consider Mahakala (80 mya) to be a basal dromaeosaurid, even though it came millions of years after (closer to today than) the earlier flying dromaeosaurids (167 mya).
Mahakala is actually a secondarily flightless dromaeosaurid.

Flying first, then secondarily flightless afterward

http://www.dinosaur-museum.org/featheredinosaurs/Are_Birds_Really_Dinosaurs.pdf

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to see that if fossils of the small flying dromaeosaurs from China had only been discovered before the larger flightless dromaeosaurs like Deinonychus or Velociraptor were found, the interpretations of the past three decades on how birds are related to dinosaurs would have been significantly different. If it had already been established that dromaeosaurs were birds that could fly, then the most logical interpretation of larger flightless dromaeosaurs found afterwards would have to be that they represented birds, basically like the prehistoric equivalent of an Ostrich, which had lost their ability to fly. 

AND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptovolans

Czerkas also believed that Cryptovolans [a dromaeosaurid] may have been able to fly better than Archaeopteryx, the animal usually referred to as the earliest known bird. He cited the fused sternum and asymmetrical feathers, and argued that Cryptovolans has modern bird features that make it more derived than Archaeopteryx. Czerkas cited the fact that this possibly volant animal is also very clearly a dromaeosaurid to suggest that the Dromaeosauridae might actually be a basal bird group, and that later, larger, species such as Deinonychus were secondarily flightless (Czerkas, 2002).

Into the Details (2)

Continuing the discussion.
Let's look more closely at the flying birds (Eumaniraptors/Paraves) and the flightless maniraptor birds (eg. Ornithomimosaurs).
We have seen that these two groups are very closely related and that the flightless maniraptoriformes birds developed from the flying birds.
As some flying birds (of different kinds, in different places) settled on the land, they lost their flying-bird characteristics and became flightless.

Into the Details (1)

In an earlier post I had said:
It is important to realize that the result of cladistic analysis (ie. the comparison of characteristics) is completely consistent with the sequence I have been presenting.
I will elaborate on that now.
Consider the following, based on cladistic analysis:



This shows that the flying birds (eg. the Eumaniraptora) are close, in terms of characteristics to Ornithomimosauria (the flightless Cretaceous maniraptor birds).

And we also know that there is a tremendous difference, in terms of characteristics, between those birds (flying and flightless) and the dinosaurs such as the Tyrannosaurs. In fact, there is actually no reason to think that those groups are even related.

Now looking deeper at the flying birds and the flightless birds, we can conclude that the flightless birds developed from the flying birds. The cladistic analysis tells us that they were similar in characteristics. It does not tell us which developed from which. But we know from the fossil record which group came first - it was the flying birds. So the logical conclusion is that the flightless Cretaceous birds developed from the flying birds.
This by the way, is the accepted thinking concerning modern flightless birds. See here:
"Flightless birds are birds which lack the ability to fly, relying instead on their ability to run or swim, and are thought to have evolved from their flying ancestors.^[1])"

So we see that cladistic analysis supports the sequence that I have been presenting.

Analyzing the "Temporal Paradox"

Alan Feduccia and others have championed the "temporal paradox".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox_%28paleontology%29
"The concept of a "temporal paradox" is based on the following facts. The consensus view is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but the most bird-like dinosaurs, including almost all of the feathered dinosaurs and those believed to be most closely related to birds (the maniraptorans), are known mostly from the Cretaceous, by which time birds had already evolved and diversified. If bird-like dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds they should be older than birds, but Archaeopteryx is 155 million years old, while the very bird-like Deinonychus is 35 million years younger. This idea is sometimes summarized as "you can't be your own grandmother". "

The problem with this criticism of the dino-to-bird idea is that the argument is misguided. It is based on the incorrect idea that the feathered creatures such as the Dromaeosaurs were dinosaurs. As this site has shown, they were not dinosaurs. They were birds.
So the "temporal paradox" argument is neither correct nor incorrect. It is just misguided.


Note: For those interested in an additional supporting reference, see page 6 of  this article from Stephen Czerkas:
http://www.dinosaur-museum.org/featheredinosaurs/Are_Birds_Really_Dinosaurs.pdf
"Decades of scientific debates were based on the mistaken identity of regarding dromaeosaurs as dinosaurs instead of the birds that they really are."