"Shared behavioural, morphological and physiological characteristics are indicative of the evolution of extant birds from nonavian maniraptoran dinosaurs. One such shared character is the presence of uncinate processes and respiratory structures in extant birds. Recent research has suggested a respiratory role for these processes found in oviraptorid and dromaeosaurid dinosaurs. By measuring the geometry of fossil rib cage morphology, we demonstrate that the mechanical advantage, conferred by uncinate processes, for movements of the ribs in the oviraptorid theropod dinosaur, Citipati osmolskae, basal avialan species Zhongjianornis yangi, Confuciusornis sanctus and the more derived ornithurine Yixianornis grabaui, is of the same magnitude as found in extant birds. These skeletal characteristics provide further evidence of a flow-through respiratory system in nonavian theropod [maniraptors] dinosaurs and basal avialans, and indicate that uncinate processes are a key adaptation facilitating the ventilation of a lung air sac system that diverged earlier than extant birds."
Great evidence that birds developed from Paraves. No evidence that Paraves developed from dinosaurs.
See this earlier post concerning pterosaurs and uncinate processes:
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2010/05/uncinate-processes.html
Citipati osmolskae, Zhongjianornis yangi, Confuciusornis sanctus and Yixianornis grabaui are all members of Aviremigia. They are not dinosaurs.
What do you mean by "development?"
ReplyDeleteThe word "development" is a more neutral word than "evolution". It allows for the possibility of a "neo-Darwinian explanation OR a process involving the intentional control of a higher intelligence.
ReplyDeleteI you look to the right side of each page you see:
"This site presents the idea that pterosaurs (rather than dinosaurs) developed into modern birds. This is not an "evolutionism" vs. "creationism" issue.
An "evolutionist" can say that the pterosaur to bird developments are due to neo-Darwinian means (random mutation and natural selection).
On the other hand, a "creationist" can say that those developments are the acts of a higher intelligence.
This site does not take a position on the "evolutionism" vs. "creationism" question."
What do YOU mean when you use the word "develope"?
DeleteI have already answered that.
DeleteAlso the word development allows for the possibility that the process of change that evolutionists call "evolution" may be more akin to the process of "development" which we see in the development of an embryo/fetus.
ReplyDelete"Great evidence that birds developed from maniraptors. No evidence that maniraptors developed from dinosaurs".
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
For the conventional model, there is evidence for both maniraptors being dinosaurs and for birds being maniraptors.
Apparently, you think there IS evidence for the latter, but not the former.
Can you present this kind of evidence, that does not also apply to concluding that maniraptors are dinosaurs?
For example: You do not accept as evidence all the morphological similarity that places maniraptors as theropod dinosaurs. When one points that out to you, you immediately provide the pre-cut response that "the lineage is imaginary" and that "no taxa are identified" on the "direct lineage".
But that seems not to be a problem when claiming that maniraptors are "primitive birds".
Therefore, either your demands and criteria are selectively applied, or you can provide EVIDENCE for a direct lineage that shows maniraptors are primitive birds.
Which is it?
Hello Anonymous. Could you re-post and include a made-up name please. Thanks.
ReplyDelete"Great evidence that birds developed from maniraptors. No evidence that maniraptors developed from dinosaurs".
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
For the conventional model, there is evidence for both maniraptors being dinosaurs and for birds being maniraptors.
Apparently, you think there IS evidence for the latter, but not the former.
Can you present this kind of evidence, that does not also apply to concluding that maniraptors are dinosaurs?
For example: You do not accept as evidence all the morphological similarity that places maniraptors as theropod dinosaurs. When one points that out to you, you immediately provide the pre-cut response that "the lineage is imaginary" and that "no taxa are identified" on the "direct lineage".
But that seems not to be a problem when claiming that maniraptors are "primitive birds".
Therefore, either your demands and criteria are selectively applied, or you can provide EVIDENCE for a direct lineage that shows maniraptors are primitive birds.
Which is it?
Ford Fairlane posted:
ReplyDelete"You do not accept as evidence all the morphological similarity that places maniraptors as theropod dinosaurs. When one points that out to you, you immediately provide the pre-cut response that "the lineage is imaginary" and that "no taxa are identified" on the "direct lineage".
See
http://pterosaurnet.blogspot.com/2012/02/dinosaurs-did-not-have-wing-like-arms.html
Could you please copy and paste the relevant parts?
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/birds_come_first_no_they_dont.php
ReplyDeleteQuote:
"The fact that long remiges have now been documented in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans shows that feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade, and there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs".
Even though the dino to bird folks do not identify the lineage, there is some belief that coelurosaur dinosaurs evolved into maniraptors and those maniraptors evolved into modern birds. It leaves very open when in that lineage "wing-like arms" appeared.
Naish asserts that "feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade".
And that "there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs."
In other words, concerning wing arms, there is no connection whatsoever between dinos and paraves/oviraptors.
I would appreciate if you answered my actual question, instead of directing me to a post documenting the appearance of long remiges within maniraptora, something the conventional dino-to-bird theory supports and endorses.
ReplyDeleteFord
My response does answer your question.
ReplyDeleteYou had posted that there is:
"morphological similarity that places maniraptors as theropod dinosaurs".
The article I quote in my post contradicts that assertion. Think about it.
It most certainly does not. The article refers to the apomorphy of long remiges and its emergence. One apomorphy does not invalidate all other similarities. If that was the case, ostriches and penguins would not be birds. Even animals such as pelicans or peacocks would be denied that status! And of course, we would also have to deny 'bird status' from most maniraptors we know of, since all of them are somewhat different from modern birds in some way or another.
ReplyDeleteIOW, morphological similarity that places maniraptors as theropod dinosaurs is not invalidated from the specific traits (like long remiges) that emerged within maniraptora.
It is not just "long remiges" - it is the whole arm. As Naish says:
ReplyDelete"there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs".
If you want to continue this discussion please include a made-up name in your comment. Thanks.
As Naish says:
ReplyDelete"THE FACT THAT LONG REMIGES HAVE NOW BEEN DOCUMENTED in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans SHOWS THAT feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade, AND there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs".
Did you not read the very part you quoted?
Also, the issue remains that one apomorphy does not negate all other similarities. Blond people can be characterized as "having no connection to other humans concerning hair color". Does that make them non-human?
F0rd.
Oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurids are after the oviraptor/paraves point.
DeleteThe issue is at the oviraptor/paraves point.
Do you not recognize the issue we are talking about?
"there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs".
While we wait for Anonymous (Ford?) let's analyze this.
ReplyDeleteNaish has said that
"feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade".
He also says that "there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs".
This means that wing-like arms (ie. wings) appeared at the ovirpator/paraves point and no earlier coelurosaur even had wing-like arms.
Most of us would think that WINGS are pretty significant when talking about birds. If someone presents a purported lineage leading to birds, we would expect to see a lineage of how WINGS evolved.
We would not be impressed if someone presented a theory that did not include ANY evidence of how they evolved. Certainly we would be very doubtful, if the purported ancestor did not even have a "wing-like arm" at all.
Naish concludes on the issue:
ReplyDelete"Fact is, recent discoveries have shown that the avian wing is really nothing special compared to the forelimb morphology present elsewhere in Maniraptora, and the 'wing problem' wrongly assumes that it is. Ergo, there is no 'wing problem'".
Pretty self-explanatory.
Not really. Please explain how that addresses the issue that:
ReplyDelete"feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade".
and
"there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs".
He says so himself in the very same sentence:
ReplyDelete"THE FACT THAT LONG REMIGES HAVE NOW BEEN DOCUMENTED in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans SHOWS THAT feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade".
When you quote the entire sentence, it becomes clear that Naish talks about the remiges. Which is naturall, since the "wing problem" refers to the supposed lack of adaptive benefits for pennacepous feathers in dinosaurs. Immediately after that sentence, he continues about the remiges:
"WHY DID LONG REMIGES EVOLVE AMONG MANIRAPTORANS? We don't know. One proposal is that enlarged remiges helped small maniraptorans to propel themselves up steep inclines and tree trunks: so called flap-running, or wing-assisted incline running, or WAIR (Bundle & Dial 2003, Dial 2003a, b, Dial et al. 2008) [adjacent image shows WAIR in action. Even 'half a wing' is indeed useful]. Fact is, recent discoveries have shown that the avian wing is really nothing special compared to the forelimb morphology present elsewhere in Maniraptora, and the 'wing problem' wrongly assumes that it is. Ergo, there is no 'wing problem'".
It's pretty clear what Naish says, if you don't snip his words in mid-sentence.
Anonymous - could you please re-post this with a made up name please . Then I will respond. (I have asked a few times for this).
ReplyDeleteFor those following this (if any) the following needs to be made clear:
ReplyDeleteNaish's article is a response to the BCF (Birds Came First) idea. The "wing problem" he refers to is the BCF "wing problem".
I am not talking about anything to do with BCF.
I am taking the FACTS from Naish's article.
Here are the facts:
"feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade".
and
"there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs".
He says so himself in the very same sentence:
ReplyDelete"THE FACT THAT LONG REMIGES HAVE NOW BEEN DOCUMENTED in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans SHOWS THAT feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade".
When you quote the entire sentence, it becomes clear that Naish talks about the remiges. Which is naturall, since the "wing problem" refers to the supposed lack of adaptive benefits for pennacepous feathers in dinosaurs. Immediately after that sentence, he continues about the remiges:
"WHY DID LONG REMIGES EVOLVE AMONG MANIRAPTORANS? We don't know. One proposal is that enlarged remiges helped small maniraptorans to propel themselves up steep inclines and tree trunks: so called flap-running, or wing-assisted incline running, or WAIR (Bundle & Dial 2003, Dial 2003a, b, Dial et al. 2008) [adjacent image shows WAIR in action. Even 'half a wing' is indeed useful]. Fact is, recent discoveries have shown that the avian wing is really nothing special compared to the forelimb morphology present elsewhere in Maniraptora, and the 'wing problem' wrongly assumes that it is. Ergo, there is no 'wing problem'".
It's pretty clear what Naish says, if you don't snip his words in mid-sentence.
~F00rd
Naish:
ReplyDelete"there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs".
He is talking about the arm.
Anonymous posted:
ReplyDelete"THE FACT THAT LONG REMIGES HAVE NOW BEEN DOCUMENTED in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans SHOWS THAT feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade".
Do people notice that he has left off the rest of the sentence? Ironic.