To be more precise their claim is that birds evolved from non-maniraptoran coelurosaurs.
And yet when they compare a "dinosaur" to a bird, they do not take a drawing of a non-maniraptor coelurosaurian, (eg. tyrannosaur) but they take a drawing of a non-neornithine Aves (eg. Ichthyornithes) creature and compare it with a modern bird.
This of course is irrelevant.
The issue is NOT WITHIN AVES but between non-maniraptor coelurosaurs and maniraptors.
Here are some non-maniraptor coelurosaurs.
Tyrannosaur:
Compsognathid:
These are believed to be sister taxa to the non-maniraptor coelurosaur ancestor of birds. But as we all know, the dino to bird theory enthusiasts never present any pictorial representation of any purported non-maniraptor coelurosaur, bird ancestor.
So who knows what it looks like.
But certainly if we want to understand what the dino to bird theory is actually claiming, we need to compare the non-maniraptor coelurosaurs to modern birds and not non-neornithine Aves creatures to modern birds.
That has already been done and has been supported by cladistic anlyses for more than 20 years. About the "dino to bird people" not presenting an ancestor; serious paleontologists would not propose an ancestor, because they realize that rarely are there enough organisms fossilized to demonstrate anagenesis. It seems to me that you have entirely rejected cladistics just because it conflicts with your theory.
ReplyDeleteYou do not seem to understand the point I am making in this post.
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest you read it more carefully and think about it?
What point do you think I am making here?
Take note of this:
"But certainly if we want to understand what the dino to bird theory is actually claiming, we need to compare the non-maniraptor coelurosaurs to modern birds and not non-neornithine Aves creatures to modern birds."
I took note of that. Take note that I responded:
ReplyDelete"That has already been done and has been supported by cladistic anlyses for more than 20 years."(as well as before cladistic analyses(Huxley 1868, Heilmann 1927, Ostrom 1975, etc.))
People do not compare non-maniraptor coelurosaurs to maniraptors.
ReplyDeleteIf you think they have, please provide some references and copy and paste the material that you think is relevant, into your comment.
What!?!?! You'd better be kidding me. Why was Coelurosauria as it is currently defined ever defined if nobody compared its members? Do you understand anything about how paleontology works? http://books.google.com/books?id=h4WRTHfTzXsC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=coelurosauria+monophyly&source=bl&ots=j78VXHyADb&sig=v9d1qRZhRXA7Ws14Kp2Dquwq0XI&hl=en&ei=eHtmTb3gGcagtwfftsTmAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=coelurosauria%20monophyly&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=01oUBEC9Nn4C&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=coelurosauria+monophyly&source=bl&ots=tw1aYidcPz&sig=Y2HpE9-Db_Zva2LGa2l8vdYGF14&hl=en&ei=eHtmTb3gGcagtwfftsTmAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=coelurosauria%20monophyly&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=2MQeh1KCp7sC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=coelurosauria+monophyly&source=bl&ots=Frfl0E8dTU&sig=r2HVzajm_gdji6ruPHEKZM_hv5A&hl=en&ei=eHtmTb3gGcagtwfftsTmAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=coelurosauria%20monophyly&f=false http://www.peabody.yale.edu/scipubs/pdfs/Norell.pdf http://www.schweizerbart.de/resources/downloads/paper_previews/75465.pdf etc.
ReplyDeletePeople do not compare non-maniraptor coelurosaurs to maniraptors.
ReplyDeleteIf you think they have, please provide some references and copy and paste the material that you think is relevant, into your comment.
I just did
ReplyDeleteYou did not copy and paste what you believed was the relevant material.
ReplyDeletePlease do that, if you would like me to respond.