It is suggested you read the previous post before reading this one.
In the previous post we saw that there were anagenetic events/process on the pterosaur line. What prevents that line from continuing? Nothing actually. In fact it did continue. Through the processes of cladogenesis and anagenesis it continued on into the line of primitive birds, and then modern birds, just as this entire site has been presenting.
That being the case, we can correct the placement of birds on the cladograms. We remove them from where they are misplaced now and place them on the pterosaur line.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Anagenesis on the pterosaur line
Here is a standard cladogram.
http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Images/Phylogeny/ReptileCladogram1.jpg
This shows pterosaurs as a diverging line.
Let's consider that line in a bit more detail.
First let's review the general idea about what happens on a line (whether it be diverging or not).
Anagenesis is what happens on lines. (Which is perfectly reasonable).
Remember this cladogram?
Notice the short red horizontal lines. Each represents an event/process of anagenesis.
Notice that such lines appear on the diverging lines.
Putting these ideas together we can see that there were such anagenetic events/process on the pterosaur line. And we know that is the case, because there are the Rhamphorhynchoidea and the Pterodactyloidea (the pterodactyls). The pterodactyls developed as a result of anagenesis.
I will continue this in the next post.
http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Images/Phylogeny/ReptileCladogram1.jpg
This shows pterosaurs as a diverging line.
Let's consider that line in a bit more detail.
First let's review the general idea about what happens on a line (whether it be diverging or not).
Anagenesis is what happens on lines. (Which is perfectly reasonable).
Remember this cladogram?
Notice the short red horizontal lines. Each represents an event/process of anagenesis.
Notice that such lines appear on the diverging lines.
Putting these ideas together we can see that there were such anagenetic events/process on the pterosaur line. And we know that is the case, because there are the Rhamphorhynchoidea and the Pterodactyloidea (the pterodactyls). The pterodactyls developed as a result of anagenesis.
I will continue this in the next post.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Looking for an ancestor
In the earlier post I said:
"The reason this is very significant is because dino to bird enthusiasts have never offered any creatures (any taxa) as the actual ancestor of modern birds. If Senter had put modern birds on the scatterplot he would have faced that issue. But he did not face up to it.".
The idea that "dino to bird enthusiasts have never offered any creatures (any taxa) as the actual ancestor of modern birds" may have come as a surprise to some people. But that is a simple uncontested fact.
Here is a reference to that fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox_%28paleontology%29
"First, no one has proposed that maniraptoran dinosaurs of the Cretaceous are the ancestors of birds. They have merely found that dinosaurs like dromaeosaurs, troodontids and oviraptorosaurs are close relatives of birds. "
It is not my intention to enter into an analysis here about cladistic analysis.
But what is relevant is the following:
We saw how the dino to bird idea does not stand up to the fact that the line would have to wander and backtrack all over the place from one unconnected group to another.
But the situation is actually worse than that (if such a thing is conceivable).
Evolutionists are not even saying that any of those groups actually evolved into any others of those groups. They are saying that there is a separate line of unfound fossils of different creatures that winds its way from dinosaurs to birds.
Thankfully that is not a part of the thinking I am presenting.
"The reason this is very significant is because dino to bird enthusiasts have never offered any creatures (any taxa) as the actual ancestor of modern birds. If Senter had put modern birds on the scatterplot he would have faced that issue. But he did not face up to it.".
The idea that "dino to bird enthusiasts have never offered any creatures (any taxa) as the actual ancestor of modern birds" may have come as a surprise to some people. But that is a simple uncontested fact.
Here is a reference to that fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox_%28paleontology%29
"First, no one has proposed that maniraptoran dinosaurs of the Cretaceous are the ancestors of birds. They have merely found that dinosaurs like dromaeosaurs, troodontids and oviraptorosaurs are close relatives of birds. "
It is not my intention to enter into an analysis here about cladistic analysis.
But what is relevant is the following:
We saw how the dino to bird idea does not stand up to the fact that the line would have to wander and backtrack all over the place from one unconnected group to another.
But the situation is actually worse than that (if such a thing is conceivable).
Evolutionists are not even saying that any of those groups actually evolved into any others of those groups. They are saying that there is a separate line of unfound fossils of different creatures that winds its way from dinosaurs to birds.
Thankfully that is not a part of the thinking I am presenting.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Where are the modern birds?
If we look carefully at the Senter scatterplot we find an interesting thing.
Modern birds are not on the chart!
The "birdlike cluster" is just that - BIRDLIKE. But not birds in the sense of modern birds.
If modern birds were on the chart, would we see them as another cluster?
It is interesting to wonder what standard dino to bird theory would predict.
If anyone has an opinion on this I would be very interested.
There is another interesting thing about the Senter scatterplot.
To understand this we need some background. As people may know evolutionists place modern birds as a member of Aves.
But let's take a look at the scatterplot and the legend beneath it. The legend says that the violet dots are Archaeopteryx (31) and "other Aves" (32 and 33).
32 is Sapeornis. 33 is Confuciusornis.
This confirms what I had said about the missing modern birds. Even though the legend says "other Aves" the cluster does not include modern birds. It leaves out the most significant Aves creatures, the modern birds (neornithes). The group is actually "non-neornithine Aves".
The reason this is very significant is because evolutionists have never offered any creatures (any taxa) as the actual ancestor of modern birds. If Senter had put modern birds on the scatterplot he would have faced that issue. But he did not face up to it.
Modern birds are not on the chart!
The "birdlike cluster" is just that - BIRDLIKE. But not birds in the sense of modern birds.
If modern birds were on the chart, would we see them as another cluster?
It is interesting to wonder what standard dino to bird theory would predict.
If anyone has an opinion on this I would be very interested.
There is another interesting thing about the Senter scatterplot.
To understand this we need some background. As people may know evolutionists place modern birds as a member of Aves.
But let's take a look at the scatterplot and the legend beneath it. The legend says that the violet dots are Archaeopteryx (31) and "other Aves" (32 and 33).
32 is Sapeornis. 33 is Confuciusornis.
This confirms what I had said about the missing modern birds. Even though the legend says "other Aves" the cluster does not include modern birds. It leaves out the most significant Aves creatures, the modern birds (neornithes). The group is actually "non-neornithine Aves".
The reason this is very significant is because evolutionists have never offered any creatures (any taxa) as the actual ancestor of modern birds. If Senter had put modern birds on the scatterplot he would have faced that issue. But he did not face up to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)