Birds from Dinosaurs

[AzurePhoenix]

I'm just wondering if there's really any large amount of science-based opposition towards the theory of birds evovling from dinosaurs. I'm a faithful supporter of the theory, and the evidence seems to be pretty conclusive, but I'd like to know how many evolutionists still disagree, and why. (I don't mind getting sidetracked if the thread logically leads to some similar or related topics, or just plain funny ones)

[ecoli]

I would shy away from stating absolutes, but I've heard enough evidence for it that makes it true, from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe someone has some sources stating otherwise?

[AzurePhoenix]

Your right about the "Absolutely", and the "certainly" too. What I meant was more along the lines of "whatever doubt there is is insignificant."

 

And the evidence I've seen seems to point only one way, especially now that all these new fossil discoveries are coming to light, on top of all the old arguments.

[Mokele]

As far as I understand, most of the opposition is based on the arguement that birds arose from another small, arboreal non-dinosaurian archosaur. Given than, AFIAK, there is no record of such an organism nor any lineage even close, and it would have to display a ridiculous number of improbable convergences, I suspect it's pretty much just arguing for the sake of arguing, with little real support.

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

See the latest in one of our News threads containing a Reuters story:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11911

[Ophiolite]

There is an interesting argument dating from 1997 that can be found here, along with a counterargument and a refutation of the counterargument: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5362/355a

 

In brief the researchers found that the theropod dinosaurs (the proposed ancestors of birds) developed their hands from digits 1, 2 and 3, losing or suffering a marked reduction in digits 4 and 5. In contrast birds develop their 'hands', i.e. wings, and feet from digits 2, 3 and 4. This was determined from embryology studies.

 

A quick scan of internet sources suggests this argument has been ignored rather than systematically dismembered.

[Hellbender]

Quick question (although slithly unrelated); Does anyone know the Latin name for the extincttoothed birds?

[Ophiolite]

avianmolarensis bellyupus?

[Mokele]

Well, pulling from one of my old textbooks, apparently birds split fairly early on into Enantiornithines and Ornithurans, based on the manner in which the metatarsals are fused, with the latter containing modern birds. From what I gather, both groups had teeth until the Eocene or later, with a few exceptions who lost teeth earlier.

 

So, tooth loss seems to have happened independently in each lineage. As such, there's no real taxonomic term for birds with teeth. Perhaps "Extinct basal birds" would cover it, but there's nothing formal from what I can tell.

 

Mokele

[Hellbender]

Thanks a lot, that was actually a better answer than I expected.

[yialanliu]

Yes, make sure you do not say absolute, science is never absolute although it may have a lot of evidence, nothing is absolute...

I agree with many people here that birds most likely came from a branch of dinosaurs and fossils have found feathered dinosaurs and this was a crucial link to help solidify the argument