Jerry Smith

I have been aware for a long time that the therapod-bird lineage was controversial, but I never knew what the opposition was holding out on. I still don't in general terms, but I just found this 1997 article at Science Daily that knocked my socks off...

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971027064254.htm" target="_blank">Embryo Studies Show Dinosaurs Could Not Have Given Rise to Modern Birds</a>

Any thoughts, or newer/better data?

MrDarwin

I can't comment specifically on this research. I remember seeing it when it came out, but it doesn't seem to have amounted to much.

More to the point, though, is that we now have fossils of several early birds, that have feathers and wings--and thus are true birds by any definition--but also have a forelimb structure that is virtually indistinguishable from that of several small dinosaurs, with a one-for-one correpondence of digits. I don't know how the opponents of the dinosaur-to-bird theory have addressed that little problem.

Bubba

I'd be up for any good links on the subject.

Comments, Scigirl???

Bubba

MrDarwin

See:

<a href="http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/paulfed.html" target="_blank">http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/paulfed.html</a>
<a href="http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1998Mar/msg00164.html" target="_blank">http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1998Mar/msg00164.html</a>
<a href="http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1997Nov/msg00539.html" target="_blank">http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1997Nov/msg00539.html</a>

ksagnostic

I certainly do not pretend to be an expert on paleontology and bird/dinosaur physiology. However, when looking at scientific controversies, it is important IMO to "know your players". If an article is published claiming to debunk the bird-dinosaurs link , and it has the name of Chatterjee or Feduccia attached to it (I am not remembering the name of a third guy, attached to the University of Kansas), I figure it should be taken with a grain of salt. These guys seem to latch on hard to ANY find that can be interpreted as evidence against the bird-dinosaur link. It doesn't make them wrong. However, as long as the big players on either side don't change their tune, I take what these guys claim with a grain of salt (heck, according to Feduccia, the final nail has been pounded into the coffin of the dinosaur-bird link at least half a dozen times now). Feduccia figures prominently in this article, and it looks like he's latching to me.

Jerry Smith

Thank you! That answers my question nicely!! Does anyone have anything else from the opposition side that is convincing?

Bubba

THANKS!!!

Bubba

Jerry Smith

Just goes to show: I've a lot to learn. Thanks for the tips. I won't miss noticing an attribution to Chatterjee or Feduccia again! (But I will probably miss a lot of other things)...Thanks!

KC

Larry Martin is the guy from University of Kansas. However, I wouldn't dismiss his or Feduccia's objections out of hand. One can learn a lot about the subject itself by studying what they have to say, and why.

Cheers,

KC

Oolon Colluphid

I found this a while ago, and wondered when this matter would come up. Here is a rather, erm, handy article...

PNAS, Vol. 96, pp. 5111–5116, April 1999

From the Conclusion:

[quote]Given the dissociation between digit and condensation identities
in Alligator and Kiwi hands, the embryological and
paleontological data cannot truly be said to be in conflict.[quote]

The whole article is available as a pdf here:
<a href="http://www.lifesci.utexas.edu/courses/bio478L/ReadingsPDF/Gauthier.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.lifesci.utexas.edu/courses/bio478L/ReadingsPDF/Gauthier.pdf</a>

I’m not sure I follow it entirely (still working on embryology ), but this looks as if it may solve the dilemma.

Cheers, Oolon