http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x/abstract
"Creationist literature claims that sufficient gaps in morphological continuity exist to classify dinosaurs into several distinct baramins (‘created kinds’). Here, I apply the baraminological method called taxon correlation to test for morphological continuity within and between dinosaurian taxa. The results show enough morphological continuity within Dinosauria to consider most dinosaurs genetically related, even by this creationist standard. A continuous morphological spectrum unites the basal members of Saurischia, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Ornithischia, Thyreophora, Marginocephalia, and Ornithopoda with Nodosauridae and Pachycephalosauria and with the basal ornithodirans Silesaurus and Marasuchus. Morphological gaps in the known fossil record separate only seven groups from the rest of Dinosauria. Those groups are Therizinosauroidea + Oviraptorosauria + Paraves [all of which are Maniraptors], Tazoudasaurus + Eusauropoda, Ankylosauridae, Stegosauria, Neoceratopsia, basal Hadrosauriformes and Hadrosauridae.
Each of these seven groups [one of which is Maniraptors] exhibits within-group morphological continuity, indicating common descent for all the group’s members, even according to this creationist standard.
Maniraptors are not related to actual dinosaurs, such as Compsognathus and Tyrannosaurus (ie. not related to "non-maniraptor coelurosaurs").
Maniraptors (ie. birds) developed from pterosaurs.
Your hypothesis is intriguing. What fossils do you propose are transitional between pterosaurs and maniraptoriformes.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I am glad you find this intriguing. Have you had a chance to read the entries I have posted?
ReplyDeleteI recommend the Dec 17, 2010 entry to you.
Perhaps we can work on this together.
I'm sorry for not being more clear. In the Dec 17, 2010 entry you focus on the transitional groups in-between Dromaeosaurids and modern birds. No disrespect, but that isn't the part of your theory I find intriguing, because it doesn't seem very different from what most scientists already think.
ReplyDeleteWhat intrigues me is the transitional fossils in-between pterosaurs and Dromaeosaurids, because that IS very different from what most scientists already think.
Anonymous has posted:
ReplyDelete"In the Dec 17, 2010 entry you focus on the transitional groups in-between Dromaeosaurids and modern birds. No disrespect, but that isn't the part of your theory I find intriguing, because it doesn't seem very different from what most scientists already think."
No disrespect, but that is not at all what most scientists already think.
Anonymous, can you present any support for your idea that that is what most scientists already think.
We can discuss the transition from pterosaur to Dromaeosaurids after that.
Dr. Pterosaur,
ReplyDeleteThis quote is from here, at Berkeley University. It is talking about Troodontidae.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/troodontidae.html
"It has been suggested that they were the ancestors of birds, but this is not accepted; a dromaeosaur is currently thought to be the ancestor of all birds."
You say birds are descended from Dromaeosaurs. Berkeley University agrees with you. If you think birds descended from Dromaeosaurs in a different way than scientists do that is not such a big thing as thinking that Dromaeosaurs are descended from pterosaurs.
That is why I'm intrigued by the fossils between pterosaurs and Dromaeosaurids and don't care about the fossils between Dromaeosaurids and birds of today.
I hope this comes out good, the preview key doesn't work for me.
I am saying a good deal more than just that birds developed from Dromaeosaurids. I am saying that there were a number of parallel lines of development and that specific kinds of birds developed on each of those specific lines. That is the opposite of current bird evolution thinking! That is detailed in the post of Dec 17, 2010.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very significant point. I hope that you can see that.
OK, you are saying that birds developed from Dromaeosaurids in a different way than current bird evolution thinking.
ReplyDeleteIn your summary section you say
"Birds developed in a lineage which extends from pterosaurs (eg. pterodactyls) through primitive flying birds (eg. enantiornithes, dromaeosaurids etc) to modern flying birds (Neognathae) and modern flightless birds (Palaeognathae"
and
"The fossil record does support the pterosaur-to-bird idea."
It is the fossils showing the pterosaur-to-dromaeosaurid part that I am interested in.
Not simply a different way - the opposite way.
ReplyDeleteIn a way that is completely opposite to the the current thinking.
Take a look at the diagram in the post of Dec 4, 2010. Do you see that current thinking diagram is the opposite of what I am saying?
And do you see that this is also the opposite of cladistic thinking?
Advanced pterosaurs developed into primitive dromaeosaurids.
ReplyDeleteThere are only advanced pterosaur fossils and primitive dromaeosaurid fossils.
You will notice that I have posted many posts showing that advanced preosaurs are already almost the same as dromaeosaurids.
In the same way that Rhamphorhynchoidea developed directly into Pterodactyloidea. There are no transitional fossils. One developed directly into the other.
ReplyDeleteYou have said,
ReplyDelete"There are only advanced pterosaur fossils and primitive dromaeosaurid fossils." and "There are no transitional fossils. One developed directly into the other."
From here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor#cite_note-6
it says
“The genus Microraptor is one of the oldest known dromaeosaurids, and is phylogenetically more primitive than Utahraptor.”
Here is a really good fossil of Microraptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Microraptor_gui_holotype.png
It says here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterodactyloidea
""Pterodactyl" is also a common term for pterodactyloid pterosaurs, though it can also be used to refer to Pterodactylus specifically or (incorrectly) to pterosaurs in general."
You said on June 26, 2010
"Of course we know that the more advanced pterosaurs, the pterodactyls, were even more bird-like:"
If by pterodactyl you mean Pterodactylus, here is a good fossil of that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pterodactylus_kochi_1.JPG
If you mean pterodactyloid pterosaur, here is a good fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gnathosaurus_macrurus_1.jpg
Either fossil of an advanced pterosaur is so different from the primitive dromaosaurid are that it is ridiculous to say that one developed directly into the other without magic or something.
I'm sorry, but your idea is not intriguing anymore. It is kind of silly.
It is not silly actually but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I saw all this coming from your first post.
Here is a dromaeosauridae picture:
ReplyDeletehttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KdBIRjy6W-A/TbQULKSWSnI/AAAAAAAAALk/WBoMuihfQv8/s1600/Velociraptor+skeleton.jpg
Looks pretty similar to the Pterosaurs that Anonymous pointed us to. Perhaps similarity (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.
The most fascinating aspect for me is exactly what are the differences between the advanced pterosaurs and the primitive dromaeosaurs. I have a number of posts on that topic.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhamphorhynchoidea
ReplyDelete"The Rhamphorhynchoidea forms one of the two suborders of pterosaurs and represent an evolutionary grade of primitive members of this group of flying reptiles. This suborder is paraphyletic in relation to the Pterodactyloidea, which arose from within the Rhamphorhynchoidea, not from a more distant common ancestor."
Similarly the Dromaeosauridae arose from within the Pterodactyloidea.
No magic is required.
Anonymous posted:
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, about Senter. He ONLY looked at dinosaurs. So, his creationist styled "study" could, at best, only look at the relationships within dinosaurs.
Look at this this way. Suppose I think house cats are directly descended from foxes. The results of some "study" that looked at lions, tigers, and housecats indicates that lions and tigers form a natural group to the exclusion of house cats. Only you would interpret that as evidence that house cats are more closely related to foxes than they are to lions and tigers.
Anonymous, I am not pointing to the Senter study to support the idea that birds evolved from pterosaurs. Since the Senter study does not include pterosaurs (unfortunately) it does not address that issue.
ReplyDeleteWhat the Senter study does show is that there is no fossil evidence for the theory that non-maniraptor coelurosaurs evolved into maniraptors.
That is my point.
There is also something important to notice in what Anonymous just posted. He refers to a "natural group". That is a cladistic term.
ReplyDeleteSenter's study is not presenting its finding in cladistic terms, but in baraminological terms.
For those who want to understand this subject better, I refer you to Senter's studies. It is really very interesting.
Anonymous posted:
ReplyDelete"You have a golden opportunity here to show how much more similar advaced pterosaurs are to primitive dromaeosaurs than non-maniraptoran coelurosaurs are. Post these images sideby-side."
http://www.reptileevolution.com/images/lepidosauromorpha/diadectidae/lepidosauriformes/fenestrasauria/pterosauria/Pterodactylus_antiquus-n4.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-hvnKoPb8NyU/Ro1LPWlcS2I/AAAAAAAAACE/Ssj0ARiX2zw/Compsognathus.jpg
http://dinonews.net/wiki/images/thumb/9/9d/Microraptor_gui_skeleton.jpg/796px-Microraptor_gui_skeleton.jpg "
I invite people to open up these images.
Notice the differences right away between the microraptor and the compsognathus, including the wishbone, the scapula and the hip structure. I have covered each of these in posts in the blog.
Anonymous could you please give us the link for the actual source of the Compsognathus drawing please?
Sure thing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.skeletaldrawing.com/psgallery/gallery.htm
Since compsognathus and maniraptors are not similar, we see why the Senter study found them to be distinctly separate groups with no transitionals between them. They are not related.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous posted:
ReplyDelete"Other than being coelurosaurs of course, as every non-retarded person in the world recognizes."
Compsognathus and Maniraptors are both considered to be Coelurosaurs only on the theory that they are related.
I have shown that they are not related. And Senter supports the fact that they are not related.
Given that Maniraptors (birds) are not related to actual dinosaurs such as Compsognathus and Tyrannosaurus, we need to look for a different line of ancestry.
I have presented the case that Maniraptors (birds) developed from Pterosaurs.
If you have something constructive to contribute please do.
Anonymous posted:
ReplyDelete"Would that be the Senter creationist [baraminological] analysis, or the Senter 2007 scientific analysis?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1017/S1477201907002143
"Synopsis
The most comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the theropod clade Coelurosauria to date, is presented here, with 85 coelurosaurian ingroups and 360 characters, using Allosaurus and Sinraptoras outgroups. The strict consensus tree is highly resolved and has the following topology: Tyrannosauroidea + (Compsognathidae + (Arctometatarsalia + (Ornitholestes + (Therizinosauroidea + (Alvarezsauridae + (Oviraptorosauria + (Avialae + (Troodontidae + Dromaeosauridae)))))))). The analysis places Coelurus and Tanycolagreus at the base of Tyrannosauroidea, Deinocheirus within Arctometatarsalia, Protarchaeopteryx within Oviraptorosauria and Epidendrosaurus at the base of Avialae. The analysis results in wide phylogenetic separation between Caenagnathus (close to the base of Oviraptorosauria) and Chirostenotes (placed within a clade of crested oviraptorids), casting doubt on their synonymy. All taxa with an enlarged, trenchant ungual on the second toe are placed within Troodontidae or Dromaeosauridae; at the base of the latter is an unenlagiine clade that includes Unenlagia and Rahonavis. The hypothesis that dromaeosaurids are secondarily flightless birds is not supported."
That would be the Senter (July 2011) baraminological study.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x/abstract
Senter says: "Here, I apply the baraminological method called taxon correlation.."
Note that a baraminological analysis is a scientific mathematical analysis not limited to creationists
Anonymous posted:
ReplyDelete"You (Dr. Pterosaur) said,
'Advanced pterosaurs developed into primitive dromaeosaurids.
There are only advanced pterosaur fossils and primitive dromaeosaurid fossils.
There are no transitional fossils. One developed directly into the other.'
So why don't you post the direct pterosaur parent/dromaeosaur child relationships? You know, the parallel evolution from pterosaur to dromaeosaur that took place innumerable times.
Remember?
'I am saying that there were a number of parallel lines of development and that specific kinds of birds developed on each of those specific lines'."
I have shown the parallel PRIMITIVE BIRD lines in the post of Dec 17, 2010.
That is what I was referring to.
Would you care to work with me on relating Pterodactyloidea subgroups to Dromaeosaurid subgroups?
For starters, Pterodactyloidea consists of:
ReplyDeleteAzhdarchoidea
Ctenochasmatoidea
Dsungaripteroidea
Ornithocheiroidea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterodactyloidea
Anonymous posted:
ReplyDeleteYou know, it occurs to me that your theory requires a TON more convergence than standard darwinian theory.
In your theory, multiple (8+) independent lines of unidentified dromaeosaur subgroups INDEPENDENTLY evolved ALL the differences between dromaeosaurs and modern birds. That isn't parsimonious at all.
Wouldn't it be far more reasonable that a single dromaeosaur begat ALL modern birds? That way, the differences need only have arisen once.
Please elaborate.
ReplyDeletePlease refer to my post of Dec 17, 2010 and give details about what you see as the problem.
General comments are of no value.
In your post of Dec. 17, at least 8 independent lines of unidentified dromaeosaur subgroups independently acquired ALL of the differences between dromaoeosaurs and modern birds.
ReplyDeleteThis is much more change than evolution theory postulates. Please explain how your theory is more parsimonious.
Anonymous you have posted:
ReplyDelete"This is much more change than evolution theory postulates."
What changes does evolution theory postulate? What creatures are on the lineage leading to modern birds? What changes were there? Please indicate in sufficient detail so we can compare.
You are the one that has said that what I have presented is "much more".
Anonymous posted:
ReplyDelete"Eight unidentified dromaeosaur subgroups vs. one unidentified coelurosaur. No difference. Get it?
Now, EIGHT different times EIGHT differemnt unidentified dromaeosaur subgroups independently acquired ALL the SAME differences between dromaeosaurs and modern birds vs. ONE time an unidentified coelurosaur ancestor acquired those same differences and passed it opn to its descendants."
Anonymous, I have detailed out the lineage from dromaeosaurid all the way to specific modern bird groups. (See Dec 17 post.)
Please lay out in similar detail the lineage you are proposing.
Then we can do a comparison.
This is where the conversation often stops. I ask for a lineage with some detail and the other person (like anonymous) just stops.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is that I would really like to know what the current evolution thinking is about the claimed lineage leading to birds. But mainstream evolutionists do not have such a model.
Anonymous posted:
ReplyDelete"I don't really care about your obvious attempt at distraction, i.e., your dromaeosaur to bird bull."
Anonymous, you are the one that posted about how foolish (in your opinion) it is to think dromaeosaur subgroups evolved into modern birds.
ReplyDeleteNow you call that a "distraction".
My point for you is:
Anonymous, I have detailed out the lineage from dromaeosaurid all the way to specific modern bird groups. (See Dec 17 post.)
Please lay out in similar detail the lineage you are proposing.
Then we can do a comparison.
Anonymous posted:
ReplyDelete"The dromaeosaurid body plan includes a relatively large skull, serrated teeth"
In each of your 8 "lines" of
Dec 17, a mysterious and unidentified, yet distinct subgroup of dromaeosaurs INDEPENDENTLY lost their teeth to become modern birds. And that's just ONE of the many charateristics distinguishing ALL dromaeosaurs from ALL modern birds."
Note that in the lines I am suggesting, most show Dromaeosaurid subgroups developing into Enantiornithes subgroups.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiornithes
"Enantiornithes is an extinct group of primitive birds. They were the most abundant and diverse avialans of the Mesozoic. Almost all retained teeth"
AND
"it is possible that enantiornithines may actually represent successive outgroups [ancestors] on the lineage leading to modern birds"
Teeth were lost in the development of the enantiornithes subgroups to modern bird subgroups.
In my proposal (outlined in the Dec 17 post) I show modern ratites developing from Ornithomimosaurids. The development from toothed to toothless took place within the Ornithomimosauria.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithomimosauria
The skulls of ornithomimosaurs were small, with large eyes, above relatively long and slender necks. Some primitive species (such as Pelecanimimus and Harpymimus) had teeth, but most had toothless beaks.
"What the Senter study does show is that there is no fossil evidence for the theory that non-maniraptor coelurosaurs evolved into maniraptors".
ReplyDeleteWhere does his 2011 say that?
I said it "shows" that.
ReplyDeleteHis research shows that there are no transitional fossils between the maniraptors and the dinosaurs. That is what he found.
May I suggest that you are wasting your time and mine on these niggly kind of questions?
Have you read the site? There are dozens of posts analyzing substantial issues.
It's hardly niggly - you have based several posts on your unique interpretation of this study so it is clearly important to you that it "shows that there are no transitional fossils between the maniraptors and the dinosaurs". However if you read the study it does not show that at all - quite the contrary.
ReplyDeleteThe issue isn't niggly.
ReplyDeleteYour parsing the words is niggly.
Senter has shown in both his "baraminological" studies that maniraptors are not connected to dinosaurs.
That is probably enough on this.
That is a false claim. Anyone who has read his studies can tell you that is not what they show. Where is your evidence that this is what he shows?
ReplyDeleteThis is enough on this.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous posted;
ReplyDeleteI thought you might find this response from Dr. Senter interesting vis a vis your interpretation of his study on your pterosaur blog
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Senter, Phil
Date: Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:56 AM
Subject: RE: Question regarding interpretation of your Baraminological study
To: Donnie Brook
Hi there
The author of the blog misinterprets nearly every article he blogs about, including this one. His interpretations are so outlandish that half of me thinks he's just having fun posting deliberate nonsense for personal entertainment. There is no one in the evolutionist community or the creationist community who takes his blog seriously, which also makes me wonder whether it is meant to be taken seriously. It it so ridiculous that I would not be surprised if the entire blog is meant as a joke.
--Phil
Phil Senter, Professor and Graduate Coordinator
Department of Biological Sciences
Fayetteville State University
1200 Murchison Road
Fayetteville, NC 28301
(910) 672-1304
psenter@uncfsu.edu
________________________________
From: Donnie Brook [donniebrook4@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 5:50 PM
To: Senter, Phil
Subject: Question regarding interpretation of your Baraminological study
I have been following this blog rather closely (http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2011/07/senter-strikes-again.html) and am curious about the author's interpretation of your study.
He claims that, "Senter shows that Maniraptors are not related to dinosaurs:" Is this an accurate interpetation? I feel based on your previous work, that it is not, but I would love to hear it settled by the author of the study himself.
Thank you for your time.
"There is no one in the evolutionist community or the creationist community who takes his blog seriously,"
ReplyDeleteSenter speaks ex cathedra on behalf of the evolutionist community and the creationist community.
I am content with the large number of daily visits from acroos the globe, the fact that the site has passed 18,000 visits and that it appears high up on a number of google searches.
Senter could do us an inestimable service and run a baraminological analysis including pterosaurs.
The response from Senter says a number of things but does not deny the fundamental point I am making:
ReplyDeleteManiraptors (the "bird-like cluster") are not related to dinosaurs (the "tyrannosaur cluster").
But I am content to let the Senter analysis speak for itself.
And since I know that people strain to find something to criticize note:
ReplyDeletehttp://www2.clustrmaps.com/counter/maps.php?url=http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com
"The map shows individual visits to the web site shown at the top of the page, clustered within a given distance.
The location of each visit is based on the IP address of the computer used, one IP address per visitor per 24-hour period.
No personally identifiable information is ever obtained or stored in order to place a 'dot on the map'"
It may be that Senter still does not realize what he has done inadvertently.
ReplyDeleteHe set out to make fun of "creationists" but he has highlighted the Achilles heel of the dino to bird theory.
Generally articles on the dino to bird theory focus on how maniraptors are birds. And because the writers call maniraptors "dinosaurs", readers are left with the impression that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
But using baraminology, Senter brings to light the separation between dinosaurs (non-maniraptor coelurosaurs) and maniraptors. He calls them the "tyrannosaur cluster" and the "bird-like cluster".
No evidence has EVER been produced for a connection between dinosaurs (non-maniraptor coelurosaurs) and manirpators.
And now Senter documents that they are not connected.
It is too late for Senter to now deny what his data and analysis have shown.