dinosaur to bird evolution evidence

[Jorge]

Based on what? The one thing that's clearly full of holes is the link you've provided in the attempt to complain about bird-to-dinosaur evolution. Which is the point.

I also stated that there are HUNDREDS of sources - including many secular ones published in Science and Nature - that do not support the D-B Myth. Many of these sources flat-out ridicule the D-B link. You did tell me (elsewhere) that you knew how to read, right? Go find these sources and R-E-A-D if you really want to know. Of course, I know that you'll never do it - it would pop your fantasy and we can't have that now, can we.

Many years ago when I spent serious time looking into the D-B claim, I recall reading countless papers, debates and so on. The conclusion was abundantly clear: one must first assume Evolution if one is to buy the narrative. I do neither.

I see people like yourself gloss over or ignore the tons of contrary D-B Evolution evidence because it's the only way to swallow that silly story. Kind'a like holding your nose while trying to swallow castor oil.

Anyway, I've had enough on this stupid subject - it's a non-starter.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Another recent paper looking at the diversification of the earliest birds from the maniraptorans

Rates of dinosaur limb evolution provide evidence for exceptional radiation in Mesozoic birds
Benson, Choiniere
Proc Roy Soc B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1780, 14 August 2013.

Abstract: Birds are the most diverse living tetrapod group and are a model of large-scale adaptive radiation. Neontological studies suggest a radiation within the avian crown group, long after the origin of flight. However, deep time patterns of bird evolution remain obscure because only limited fossil data have been considered. We analyse cladogenesis and limb evolution on the entire tree of Mesozoic theropods, documenting the dinosaur–bird transition and immediate origins of powered flight. Mesozoic birds inherited constraints on forelimb evolution from non-flying ancestors, and species diversification rates did not accelerate in the earliest flying taxa. However, Early Cretaceous short-tailed birds exhibit both phenotypic release of the hindlimb and increased diversification rates, unparalleled in magnitude at any other time in the first 155 Myr of theropod evolution. Thus, a Cretaceous adaptive radiation of stem-group birds was enabled by restructuring of the terrestrial locomotor module, which represents a key innovation. Our results suggest two phases of radiation in Avialae: with the Cretaceous diversification overwritten by extinctions of stem-group birds at the Cretaceous–Palaeogene boundary, and subsequent diversification of the crown group. Our findings illustrate the importance of fossil data for understanding the macroevolutionary processes generating modern biodiversity.

F3.large.jpg

[HMS_Beagle]

I also stated that there are HUNDREDS of sources - including many secular ones published in Science and Nature - that do not support the D-B Myth.

You say lots of things that aren't true Clucky. Why don't you try addressing the data in the papers presented here for once in your cowardly pooping life?

[TheLurch]

I also stated that there are HUNDREDS of sources - including many secular ones published in Science and Nature - that do not support the D-B Myth. Many of these sources flat-out ridicule the D-B link. You did tell me (elsewhere) that you knew how to read, right? Go find these sources and R-E-A-D if you really want to know. Of course, I know that you'll never do it - it would pop your fantasy and we can't have that now, can we.

I've already read a number of them. There are about two research groups that are active in the field and currently question the dinosaur-bird link (one's already come up here, the second was at Oregon State - not sure if they're still there). As mentioned above, the degree to which the field takes their arguments seriously is in evidence by the fact that pretty much everyone else publishing in it refers to "non-avian dinosaurs". In any case, both still place birds within reptiles, and simply disagree about where the lineage branched off within reptilia.

Many years ago when I spent serious time looking into the D-B claim, I recall reading countless papers, debates and so on. The conclusion was abundantly clear: one must first assume Evolution if one is to buy the narrative. I do neither.

So, you're trying to pretend a disagreement about the precise location of a branch in the phylogenetic tree somehow supports your contention that the tree itself doesn't exist? That's, uh, interesting.

In any case, saying people accept certain evidence only because they assume evolution is like saying that people accept that the earth orbits the sun because they assume gravity. Successful theories shape the interpretation of further data - we don't have to re-prove the existence of atoms every time we study a chemical reaction.

I see people like yourself gloss over or ignore the tons of contrary D-B Evolution evidence because it's the only way to swallow that silly story.

All that contrary evidence, which you bothered to produce two items from, one of which was blatantly wrong, and the second doesn't actually include any sort of link that would let me read the paper and analyze its relevance.


EDIT:
Never mind, found it:
http://bio.unc.edu/files/2011/04/Science-1997.pdf

Basic argument is that we can identify the remaining digits (which have less than five) of theropods based on early examples of the group, which have five, but two are reduced. It argues that we can identify which digits birds have based on the order in which the cells that go on to form the bones of the digits first condense. The authors do so, and assign identities to the avian digits that aren't the same as the ones assigned to theropods.

That paper, however, dates from 1997, and comes from the time before we had the ability to identify digits based on the sets of genes they expressed. Not surprisingly, things have changed since then. A 2011 review on the topic notes "The derivation of birds from theropod dinosaurs and the positional identities of the avian wing digits as 2, 3, and 4 are no longer in question. Additionally, increasing evidence indicates that the developmental programs for identity of the wing digits are of digits I, II, and III."
(from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...vdy.22595/full)

In other words, where they develop makes them look like they have one identity, but the genes expressed there makes it look like they have a second. Which would nicely explain why the first group got a seemingly contradictory result.


The TL;DR for the addendum: your argument's out of date, and biology's moved on in the last 20 years.

[oxmixmudd]

To both you and Roy, how is it that you people strain on gnats yet somehow
manage to swallow the entire herd of camels? I mean, that is one helluva feat!

GET THE POINT: DINO-TO-BIRD Evolution is chock full of holes - period!

ONLY the Evo-Faithful deny that fact.

Oops, my very bad - you guys DO belong to the Evo-Faithful flock. Sorry ... carry on.

Jorge

No - actually it is quite solid. But I'm sure there will be many examples forthcoming.


See, this kind of comment coming from a fellow that makes up facts to suit his fancy (see below) is never going to be particularly convincing.

.
.
.

[rogue06]

To both you and Roy, how is it that you people strain on gnats yet somehow
manage to swallow the entire herd of camels? I mean, that is one helluva feat!

GET THE POINT: DINO-TO-BIRD Evolution is chock full of holes - period!

ONLY the Evo-Faithful deny that fact.

Oops, my very bad - you guys DO belong to the Evo-Faithful flock. Sorry ... carry on.

Jorge

The point that flies well over your head is that these out-dated objections have been answered in recent years as new information continues to come in. Citing them as being still legitimate problems is like still citing all the folks who were still insisting that heavier-than-air powered flight was impossible even weeks (and possibly days) prior to December 17, 1903 when Orville and Wilbur Wright demonstrated that they were in error.

[Roy]

To both you and Roy, how is it that you people strain on gnats yet somehow
manage to swallow the entire herd of camels? I mean, that is one helluva feat!

GET THE POINT: DINO-TO-BIRD Evolution is chock full of holes - period!

Then it should be easy to describe one of those holes. Otherwise the above is just "elephant-hurling".

ONLY the Evo-Faithful deny that fact.

There's nothing to indicate that it is a fact. Certainly the resources linked to so far - and not defended - aren't sufficient justification, since they are full of misrepresentations and falsehoods.