Duvenoy

Conspiricy theories, is it now?

Sad.

But wouldn't I love to be the lucky bastard to find the Devonian Aardvark! My name would over-shadow Darwin's and I'd earn a fortune boring audiences to distraction on the lecture circute. The Nobel folks would come to me to hand over the prize, saving me a trip to Norway.

Do you think any scientist, with this in prospect, not to mention the respect, indeed adulation, of his/her peers, would jigger the data?

doov

ps418

When you say "in addition to," one could almost get the impression that you think that the stratigraphic placement or morphological features of Confuciusornis is somehow evidence against the theropod ancestry of birds, which, like so many of your assertions, is laughably wrong. In fact, Confuciusornis is further evidence for that hypothesis, not evidence against it.

Now we can safely add stratigraphy and structural geology to the long list of subjects about which you are, but fail to realize that you are, completely ignorant. I think you meant overthrust rather than upthrust. At any rate, if you had even a small modicum of knowledge on the subject, you'd know that overthrusts are not subtle, that they only occur in areas with extensive evidence of tectonic folding or compression, and that they cannot be invoked willy-nilly to explain a biostratigraphic 'problem.'

Patrick

ps418

So, on the one side of the issue we have Martin and Feduccia, and on the other we have most of the rest of the paleontogical community. Almost no one else would agree that these animals were the flightless descendents of earlier birds. In particular, I'd recommend you read (Qiang et al., 1998, Nature 393, pp. 753-761), and tell us what you think is wrong with their phylogenetic analysis which concludes that both Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are "non-avian ceolurosaurs", or why, if these are 'just birds,' they display so many characters in common with theropods but not with modern birds. For instance, teeth in the premaxilla, zig-zag gastralia as in theropods, U-shaped furcula as in theropods, semilunate carpal as in dromaeosaurid, oviraptorid, and troodontid theropods, unfused metacarpals and digits (no carpometacarpus), as in theropods, theropod phalangeal formula 2-3-4-x-x, a manus longer than humerous and radius, as in ceolurosaur theropods, claws on manus, unfused pelvic bones, ischium dromaeosaur-like, unfused metatarsals (no tarsometatarsus) as in theropods, first toes proximally situated, not retroverted as in birds.

But let's just grant for the sake of argument that both of those are indeed 'just birds.' What then are we to make of BPM 1 3-13 (Qiang et al., 2001; Norell et al., 2002)? It is unquestionably a dromaesaurid theropod, because the features that diagnose theropoda are well preserved, yet it is very similar to the species above that you wish to classify as 'just birds.' We're reaching a point very similar to that reached in the discussion of homonid taxonomy, where animals that are morphologically nearly identical are arbitrarily and indefensibly placed into two seperate 'kinds.'

Yet:

Or, what about Sinornithosaurus millenii? Bird kind, or theropod kind?

Xu et al. write:

Other characters include a shoulder girdle and forelimb closely resemble early birds such as Archie, a boomerang-shaped furcula resembling that of Archaeopteryx, not to mention feathers or feather-like structures:

And what about Rahonavis ostromi (formerly known as Rahona)? Bird kind or dino kind?

Forster et al. write:

Other characters include a bony tail (13 caudal vertebrae), unfused metatarsals (no tarsometatarsus) as in theropods, sacral vertebrae fused into synsacrum, as in birds, pelvis very similar to theropods and other early birds - including vertical pubis, short ischium (45% of pubic length), pubic 'foot,' with all elements unfused, and a birdlike reduced fibula which does not articulate with calcanaeum.


Patrick

MrDarwin

We should also point out that Feduccia et al. do not dispute the evolution of birds from reptiles. They fully accept that many characteristics of the early birds--teeth, long bony tails, forelimbs with articulated fingers and claws--are evidence of reptilian ancestry. The dispute is over which group of reptiles were ancestral. The ideas of Feduccia et al. are relevant if one is dismissing the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, but are irrelevant if one is dismissing the evolution of birds from non-avian reptiles.

Ed

I think you are confusing what CAUSES macroevolution and what macroevolution IS. If it is not big morpho change then why is it called MACRO? No offense but I think I will stick with the definition by the Harvard paleontologist over the definition of the 20 year old computer college kid.

Ed

A theory that is not plausible is in serious trouble.

Doubting Didymus

For a start, thats an argument from authority. Secondly, the Harvard paleontologist in question would certainly agree with my definition, and explain to you why you got the wrong idea from his own writings. I suspect he would be horrified by the way you are using his favourite term. Thirdly, what on earth makes you think I attend a computer college? I study biology, thank you very much.

Seriously, you need to stop using the term to refer to morphological change. I know its a widely misused term, but no-one who knows their stuff uses it THAT way, least of all Gould. I've seen talkorigins use it to mean common descent, and even that is a bit off in my opinion.

Why is it called MACRO, you ask? That refers to the scale of the patterns it describes. The term was coined by, and then popularised by persons too short sighted to see the horde of problems that name would cause. Perhaps they thought people were going to really investigate what the term meant before they started using it themselves. Perhaps they imagined the term would not be used at all outside professional circles. In any case, what we have ended up with is a horrifically misnamed phenomenon. Goulds oversimplistic soundbite has done nothing but aggrevate this situation. Don't put too much trust in definitions that try to squeese fairly advanced concepts into a few sexy sounding words.

Doubting Didymus

Do you realise that your argument has shifted twice already?

First it was "a single gap in the fossil record puts evolution in serious trouble"

When it was pointed out to you that evolution would be a fine theory without any fossils at all, you changed that to "it would be a fine theory, just less plausible"

When I agreed, in the sense that removing some of the evidence that supports any theory makes it less plausible than it was before, you changed again, and now being less plausible somehow means not plausible.

Make up your mind already.

Duvenoy

Ed, for 37 pages (count 'em: thirty-fucking-seven), you have been given, free of charge, some of the best info on the ToE you are likely to find outside of the notes of the late Dr. Gould, et al.

Ok, 'fess up. You are really a college student, majoring in Biology, getting this board to do your studying for you, ain't that right?

Hell, I've gotta hand it to ya. Ya've done good!

doov

ps418

I agree completely. So why then are you still defending YEC? Are you a masochist who enjoys being made to look ignorant and dishonest?

Patrick