--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
, "gluadys" <g_turner@...> wrote:
> --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Truman" <seekeththee@> wrote:
> > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Truman: "That birds did not evolve from dinosaurs is still a
Darwinian view too. So?"
> > >
> > > Evidently you've missed the point of this thread. Stewart described
birds as living dinosaurs (which necessitates that they evolved from
dinosaurs) and asked if there were any evidence casting doubt on that
description. And so I provided him with some.
> > >
> > > Jim in Missouri
> > >
> > If birds are living dinosaurs, then they are living dinosaurs, not
evolved from them. They are part of the clade Dinosauria, so he is right,
they are dinosaurs.
> > It is pretty clear if you actually read the literature that the quotes
are cherry picked from by the EN&V staff.
> > Ruben is saying that he thinks birds should not be in the clade
Therapoda, but should have a separate clade that includes Maniraptora. So
right now there is the Sauriscian and Theropod clade He suggests that the
Maniraptorans (which includes Aves) have their own clade separate from
Theropods. The "problem" with his research is that his area of expertise
is comparative anatomy, not systematics. The scientists that have a problem
with his conclusions are systematists, and they say he is not using the
same, or incorrect assumptions, and that his data set is too small.
> > The point is not missed by me. That point is irrelevant to your
> IOW whether or not birds are within the Therapod clade or have their own
> within the Maniraptora, they are still within the Saurischian clade
> both Therapods and Maniraptora) and which itself is a sub-clade of
> So while Ruben wants to rearrange some of the branches within Dinosauria,
> agreeing that birds are living dinosaurs. He is just disagreeing as to
> dinosaurs they are most closely related to.
He and Feduccia are in agreement that flight in birds may have evolved from
tree dwelling archosaurs, not ground dwelling theropods. Ruben was looking
at the flight anatomy and concluding that birds could not have evolved from
"ground dwelling theropod" dinosaurs. He is concluding that some theropod
dinosaurs such as velociraptors are actually descendants of the first
birds. He is not really trying to construct a phylogeny.
It is Feduccia who is arguing that Aves and Maniraptora should have their
own clade, which branches earlier in the Triassic at the base of, or even
outside of the Dinosauria clade. So he is not really agreeing that they are
living dinosaurs. But then what is a dinosaur? I am sure Jim would look at
the fossils of something like Deinonychus and say that is a dinosaur, but
in Feduccia's classification scheme, like birds, it would not be in the
Dinosauria clade. In fact Ruben is saying that Deinonychus is a descendant
of early birds.
Just wait. It wont be long before the folks at Evolution News and Views
start cherry picking quotes against Feduccia trying to claim that what was
once thought a dinosaur is not a dinosaur. It will be the same type of
pooh pooh they (Jim by proxy) use against whale and corbiculate bee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]