RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Birds, Dinos Thecodonts?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,21:19   

Icthyic said;

Quote
perhaps it would be a better idea to categorize the several INTERESTING topics that have spawned from the blasting of AFD's drivel?

then pick a topic and run with it.


Well it hasn't come up in Daves Drivel thread yet (if it ever does, he's too dim to do anything but march in lockstep with the rest of that crowd) but it's a topic that interests me and the AIG likes to claim it as proof of YEC.

Someone asked me for some juicy gossip from my time at the NMNH and I sort of blew it off and don't have the time to find who it was that asked me (I doubt it can be done, but the search function should zero in on the page, not the thread a term is found in, teehee) but at the time Protoavis was the rage and Greg Paul was visiting regularly to check on the Coelophysis block from Ghost Ranch.

Protoavis was pretty much dead from the start because honest preparers told the truth. Archaeoraptor was a mess from the git go.

What's the state of bird/dino evolution right now.

I'd like to spend more time researching it but my career went from technician doing research to technician running the day to day affairs (BIG difference).

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,21:42   

AFAIK, Archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of modern birds either.
Recent researches in China have provided fossils that are closer to transitional forms between dinos and birds (in early cretaceous I think).

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:24   

Quote
Someone asked me for some juicy gossip from my time at the NMNH and I sort of blew it off and don't have the time to find who it was that asked me ...


That was me, and thanks, that was exactly the kind of gossip I was hoping for ;)

Quote
honest preparers told the truth


could you refresh my memory here?

as to archaeopteryx, I seem to recall some discussion on current bird/dino status on PT a few months back; related to a new fossil find IIRC.

sorry I can't be more specific; I'll try to find it and post the link here.

In the meantime, I think this is the find Jean was referring to:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news....no.html

cheers

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,10:51   

There've been a bunch of papers in Nature and Science since 2004 (or something) relating the recent discoveries in China. I haven't read them.

You can also google 'microraptor'

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:15   

...and yet the controversy remains.

here is the post on PT I was thinking of:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/new_archaeopter.html

Quote
Thus, Archaeopteryx turns out to be even more of a mosaic of bird and dino features than previously thought. You might even call it a transitional fossil.


seems like a good place to start your investigations, Crabby.

Ironically, the very post was spawned out of discussion we had with yet another ridiculous creobot by the name of "blastfromthepast".

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,11:23   

note this reply, as it cites some studies on point:

Quote
Posted by GFA on December 2, 2005 11:58 AM (e)


Regardless of your preference for Aves or Gauthier’s Avialae, I think everyone would agree that “birds” are those members of the clade formed by Archaeopteryx, extant birds and their most recent common ancestor. This doesnt imply that there is a huge morphological gap, only that some clade has to be birds, and historically, its been that one.

As far as the evidence for Archaeopteryx being closer to birds than traditionally non-avian maniraptorans, thats almost always the result of phylogenetic analysis. Two recent papers (Makovicky et al. 2005 and this here paper) have birds that fall out as deinonychosaurians, but really only one (Maryanska et al. 2002) has found some tradtionally non-avian dinosaurs are birds. In each of these instances, there are very good reasons to be cautious of the results, but particularly the last two.

But who knows. More taxa and/or more characters could change that. At least, lets wait until those studies are in before shaking up the maniraptoran tree.



..and this was also a thread that had a few experts on the subject drop by to comment like Holtz, check Comment #61149.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,19:26   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2006,15:24)
Quote
honest preparers told the truth


could you refresh my memory here?

Sure, one the preparers at the VP Lab had a close friend at TTU who told him the Protoavis material was from 2 different sites and different levels of the Dockum. The consensus was pretty much that it was a mess that shouldn't have been written up.

Thanks for the links guys.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2006,19:35   

I'm not a paleontologist, but the subject of course interests me.

If you discover anything new in your investigations, share!

cheers

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
  7 replies since June 13 2006,21:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]