Dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor. -

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 03:54 PM

:

You can see from the chart above that birds did not evolve from archaeopterygids. They both share a common ancestor.
Similarly with every point earlier than that.

For example birds did not evolve from coelurosaurians. Coelurosaurians and birds share a common ancestor.

I expect that shortly people will start swearing. That will be a good indication that people recognize what I am saying, but do not want to admit it.
We shall see.

The mainstream idea is not that birds evolved from dinosaurs but that they share a common ancestor.
By the way it changes nothing to say that birds are dinosaurs.

Here is a reference to what I am saying (but put in a very confusing way):
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

:

This might sound odd, but paraphyletic groups are still used as they have a practical value for describing some groups. The most obvious ones to readers here are the dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an [common] ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs, yet palaeontologists typically refer to dinosaurs while explicitly not referring to birds. Thus one should formally call them non-avian dinosaurs (basically all dinosaurs except birds) and this does happen quite regularly, thought not always, and certainly not in the press.

Note that I have added the word "common" to make this more precise.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

A lot of what I do is analyze ideas that people accept but that embed problems that people have not analyzed down far enough to see.
We saw that earlier with my pointing out the problem with flight evolving multiple times.
I am doing it here in regards to the idea of "common ancestor".

Do people understand that birds and coelurosaur dinosaurs share a common ancestor?

DaveGodfrey · 07-28-2015, 03:57 PM

They don't sucky. Birds are coelurosaurs. There is no ancestor for all the coelurosaurian dinosaurs that was not also an ancestor of birds. And more importantly some coelurosaurians are more closely related to birds than others are.

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 04:01 PM

:

You can see from the chart above that birds did not evolve from archaeopterygids. They both share a common ancestor.
Similarly with every point earlier than that.

For example birds did not evolve from coelurosaurians. Coelurosaurians and birds share a common ancestor.

I expect that shortly people will start swearing. That will be a good indication that people recognize what I am saying, but do not want to admit it.
We shall see.

The mainstream idea is not that birds evolved from dinosaurs but that they share a common ancestor.
By the way it changes nothing to say that birds are dinosaurs.

Here is a reference to what I am saying (but put in a very confusing way):
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

:

This might sound odd, but paraphyletic groups are still used as they have a practical value for describing some groups. The most obvious ones to readers here are the dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an [common] ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs, yet palaeontologists typically refer to dinosaurs while explicitly not referring to birds. Thus one should formally call them non-avian dinosaurs (basically all dinosaurs except birds) and this does happen quite regularly, thought not always, and certainly not in the press.

Note that I have added the word "common" to make this more precise.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

A lot of what I do is analyze ideas that people accept but that embed problems that people have not analyzed down far enough to see.
We saw that earlier with my pointing out the problem with flight evolving multiple times.
I am doing it here in regards to the idea of "common ancestor".

Do people understand that birds and coelurosaur dinosaurs share a common ancestor?

Just look at any cladogram.

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 04:03 PM

:

The mainstream idea is not that birds evolved from dinosaurs but that they share a common ancestor.
By the way it changes nothing to say that birds are dinosaurs.

Here is a reference to what I am saying (but put in a very confusing way):
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

:

This might sound odd, but paraphyletic groups are still used as they have a practical value for describing some groups. The most obvious ones to readers here are the dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an [common] ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs, yet palaeontologists typically refer to dinosaurs while explicitly not referring to birds. Thus one should formally call them non-avian dinosaurs (basically all dinosaurs except birds) and this does happen quite regularly, thought not always, and certainly not in the press.

Note that I have added the word "common" to make this more precise.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

A lot of what I do is analyze ideas that people accept but that embed problems that people have not analyzed down far enough to see.
We saw that earlier with my pointing out the problem with flight evolving multiple times.
I am doing it here in regards to the idea of "common ancestor".

Do people understand that birds and coelurosaur dinosaurs share a common ancestor?

Just look at any cladogram.

Do people remember when we were looking at the multiple origins of flight, that each preceding node was deemed to be flightless. Those nodes were deemed to be common ancestors.
The same applies to what we are talking about here now.

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 04:09 PM

:

Here is a reference to what I am saying (but put in a very confusing way):
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

Note that I have added the word "common" to make this more precise.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

A lot of what I do is analyze ideas that people accept but that embed problems that people have not analyzed down far enough to see.
We saw that earlier with my pointing out the problem with flight evolving multiple times.
I am doing it here in regards to the idea of "common ancestor".

Do people understand that birds and coelurosaur dinosaurs share a common ancestor?

Just look at any cladogram.

Do people remember when we were looking at the multiple origins of flight, that each preceding node was deemed to be flightless. Those nodes were deemed to be common ancestors.
The same applies to what we are talking about here now.

For example take coelurosaur dinosaurs. They branch off a line that is purported to lead to birds.
So birds are not coleurosaur dinosaurs. They both share a common ancestor.

We will likely have a bit more swearing.

DaveGodfrey · 07-28-2015, 04:10 PM

No, it doesn't, because "Coelurosauria" is a taxonomic group, not a character state, you stupid fuck.

DaveGodfrey · 07-28-2015, 04:13 PM

:

For example take coelurosaur dinosaurs. They branch off a line that is purported to lead to birds.
So birds are not coleurosaur dinosaurs. They both share a common ancestor.

No, they don't. They're the clade that contains everything more closely related to living birds than to Allosaurus. They do not branch off the line that is "purported to lead to birds", they branch off the line that leads to Allosaurus.

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 04:16 PM

:

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

A lot of what I do is analyze ideas that people accept but that embed problems that people have not analyzed down far enough to see.
We saw that earlier with my pointing out the problem with flight evolving multiple times.
I am doing it here in regards to the idea of "common ancestor".

Do people understand that birds and coelurosaur dinosaurs share a common ancestor?

Just look at any cladogram.

Do people remember when we were looking at the multiple origins of flight, that each preceding node was deemed to be flightless. Those nodes were deemed to be common ancestors.
The same applies to what we are talking about here now.

For example take coelurosaur dinosaurs. They branch off a line that is purported to lead to birds.
So birds are not coleurosaur dinosaurs. They both share a common ancestor.

We will likely have a bit more swearing.

It does not help to give the "common ancestor" a name. It is still a common ancestor. It is not an ancestor.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 04:21 PM

:

A lot of what I do is analyze ideas that people accept but that embed problems that people have not analyzed down far enough to see.
We saw that earlier with my pointing out the problem with flight evolving multiple times.
I am doing it here in regards to the idea of "common ancestor".

Do people understand that birds and coelurosaur dinosaurs share a common ancestor?

Just look at any cladogram.

Do people remember when we were looking at the multiple origins of flight, that each preceding node was deemed to be flightless. Those nodes were deemed to be common ancestors.
The same applies to what we are talking about here now.

For example take coelurosaur dinosaurs. They branch off a line that is purported to lead to birds.
So birds are not coleurosaur dinosaurs. They both share a common ancestor.

We will likely have a bit more swearing.

It does not help to give the "common ancestor" a name. It is still a common ancestor. It is not an ancestor.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

Take the coelurosaur dinosaurs and the common ancestor they share with birds. Now let's look at that "common ancestor". It itself is just a branch leading off a line from an earlier common ancestor with some other group.

All we have is a line of "common ancestors" leading further back into the misty past.

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 04:26 PM

:

Do people understand that birds and coelurosaur dinosaurs share a common ancestor?

Just look at any cladogram.

Do people remember when we were looking at the multiple origins of flight, that each preceding node was deemed to be flightless. Those nodes were deemed to be common ancestors.
The same applies to what we are talking about here now.

For example take coelurosaur dinosaurs. They branch off a line that is purported to lead to birds.
So birds are not coleurosaur dinosaurs. They both share a common ancestor.

We will likely have a bit more swearing.

It does not help to give the "common ancestor" a name. It is still a common ancestor. It is not an ancestor.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

Take the coelurosaur dinosaurs and the common ancestor they share with birds. Now let's look at that "common ancestor". It itself is just a branch leading off a line from an earlier common ancestor with some other group.

All we have is a line of "common ancestors" leading further back into the misty past.

This is like building a house of sand on top of a house of sand on top of a house of sand .....

Alfonso Bivouac · 07-28-2015, 04:27 PM

Doug, you are a dumber than a box of twats.

Do you think dumb people realise how dumb they are? I asked you this about 5 years ago but I think you were too dumb to understand the question.

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 04:31 PM

:

Just look at any cladogram.

Do people remember when we were looking at the multiple origins of flight, that each preceding node was deemed to be flightless. Those nodes were deemed to be common ancestors.
The same applies to what we are talking about here now.

For example take coelurosaur dinosaurs. They branch off a line that is purported to lead to birds.
So birds are not coleurosaur dinosaurs. They both share a common ancestor.

We will likely have a bit more swearing.

It does not help to give the "common ancestor" a name. It is still a common ancestor. It is not an ancestor.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

Take the coelurosaur dinosaurs and the common ancestor they share with birds. Now let's look at that "common ancestor". It itself is just a branch leading off a line from an earlier common ancestor with some other group.

All we have is a line of "common ancestors" leading further back into the misty past.

This is like building a house of sand on top of a house of sand on top of a house of sand .....

Birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor.

https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

:

Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs

What was the ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs?

:

Clade: Avemetatarsalia
Benton, 1999
Subgroups
†Scleromochlidae
Ornithodira Gauthier, 1986
Dinosauromorpha
†Pterosauria

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 04:38 PM

:

Do people remember when we were looking at the multiple origins of flight, that each preceding node was deemed to be flightless. Those nodes were deemed to be common ancestors.
The same applies to what we are talking about here now.

For example take coelurosaur dinosaurs. They branch off a line that is purported to lead to birds.
So birds are not coleurosaur dinosaurs. They both share a common ancestor.

We will likely have a bit more swearing.

It does not help to give the "common ancestor" a name. It is still a common ancestor. It is not an ancestor.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

Take the coelurosaur dinosaurs and the common ancestor they share with birds. Now let's look at that "common ancestor". It itself is just a branch leading off a line from an earlier common ancestor with some other group.

All we have is a line of "common ancestors" leading further back into the misty past.

This is like building a house of sand on top of a house of sand on top of a house of sand .....

Birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor.

https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

:

Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs

What was the ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs?

:

Clade: Avemetatarsalia
Benton, 1999
Subgroups
â€*Scleromochlidae
Ornithodira Gauthier, 1986
Dinosauromorpha
â€*Pterosauria

I have no argument with the assertion that birds "are the direct descendents of an ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs".
That is Ornithodira.

madmardigan · 07-28-2015, 04:40 PM

:

You can see from the chart above that birds did not evolve from archaeopterygids. They both share a common ancestor.
Similarly with every point earlier than that.

For example birds did not evolve from coelurosaurians. Coelurosaurians and birds share a common ancestor.

I expect that shortly people will start swearing. That will be a good indication that people recognize what I am saying, but do not want to admit it.
We shall see.

The mainstream idea is not that birds evolved from dinosaurs but that they share a common ancestor.
By the way it changes nothing to say that birds are dinosaurs.

Here is a reference to what I am saying (but put in a very confusing way):
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

:

This might sound odd, but paraphyletic groups are still used as they have a practical value for describing some groups. The most obvious ones to readers here are the dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an [common] ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs, yet palaeontologists typically refer to dinosaurs while explicitly not referring to birds. Thus one should formally call them non-avian dinosaurs (basically all dinosaurs except birds) and this does happen quite regularly, thought not always, and certainly not in the press.

Note that I have added the word "common" to make this more precise.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

A lot of what I do is analyze ideas that people accept but that embed problems that people have not analyzed down far enough to see.
We saw that earlier with my pointing out the problem with flight evolving multiple times.
I am doing it here in regards to the idea of "common ancestor".

Do people understand that birds and coelurosaur dinosaurs share a common ancestor?

Yes. A coelurosaur. So altogether not very helpful. And mostly nonsensical

RAFH · 07-28-2015, 04:42 PM

:

It is said that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
But it would be more correct to say that dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor.

We can see this in any cladogram that purports to show the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

You can see from the chart above that birds did not evolve from archaeopterygids. They both share a common ancestor.
Similarly with every point earlier than that.

For example birds did not evolve from coelurosaurians. Coelurosaurians and birds share a common ancestor.

I expect that shortly people will start swearing. That will be a good indication that people recognize what I am saying, but do not want to admit it.
We shall see.

The mainstream idea is not that birds evolved from dinosaurs but that they share a common ancestor.
By the way it changes nothing to say that birds are dinosaurs.

Here is a reference to what I am saying (but put in a very confusing way):
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

:

This might sound odd, but paraphyletic groups are still used as they have a practical value for describing some groups. The most obvious ones to readers here are the dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an [common] ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs, yet palaeontologists typically refer to dinosaurs while explicitly not referring to birds. Thus one should formally call them non-avian dinosaurs (basically all dinosaurs except birds) and this does happen quite regularly, thought not always, and certainly not in the press.

Note that I have added the word "common" to make this more precise.

Folks should also note Armanda is here quoting a discussion of monophylia vs paraphylia. The only confusion is in Armanda's interpretation of that specific paragraph. But even then, the paragraph is quite clear that birds are dinosaurs. And, no, his insertion of [common] is not warranted. Indeed, Hone goes on, in the quoted portion, to state unequivocally that while it's not unusual for some palaeontologists to informally use the term "dinosaurs" in a manner that excludes birds, the proper formal term that should be used is "non-avian dinosaurs". He also notes the formal usage does happen quite regularly, but not always and certainly not in the [common] press.

Just Armanda fantasizing again while suffering from terminal self-deluded narcissistic DKism.

RAFH · 07-28-2015, 04:44 PM

:

Well I won that bet.

Armanda, Your Royal Princessship, there wasn't any bet.
It may be you are hallucinating, again, perhaps still.

RAFH · 07-28-2015, 04:48 PM

:

We can see this in any cladogram that purports to show the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

You can see from the chart above that birds did not evolve from archaeopterygids. They both share a common ancestor.
Similarly with every point earlier than that.

For example birds did not evolve from coelurosaurians. Coelurosaurians and birds share a common ancestor.

I expect that shortly people will start swearing. That will be a good indication that people recognize what I am saying, but do not want to admit it.
We shall see.

The mainstream idea is not that birds evolved from dinosaurs but that they share a common ancestor.
By the way it changes nothing to say that birds are dinosaurs.

Here is a reference to what I am saying (but put in a very confusing way):
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

:

This might sound odd, but paraphyletic groups are still used as they have a practical value for describing some groups. The most obvious ones to readers here are the dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an [common] ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs, yet palaeontologists typically refer to dinosaurs while explicitly not referring to birds. Thus one should formally call them non-avian dinosaurs (basically all dinosaurs except birds) and this does happen quite regularly, thought not always, and certainly not in the press.

Note that I have added the word "common" to make this more precise.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

Perhaps in Narcissuckatoidea, but not here on earth.

Really, Armanda, Your Princessship, you either need to take your medicine, take more of it, take less of it, or get some other medicine, because what was prescribed (you have been seeing a competent doctor, haven't you?) isn't working. Maybe suggest a round of electroshock on your next visit?

RAFH · 07-28-2015, 04:50 PM

:

You can see from the chart above that birds did not evolve from archaeopterygids. They both share a common ancestor.
Similarly with every point earlier than that.

For example birds did not evolve from coelurosaurians. Coelurosaurians and birds share a common ancestor.

I expect that shortly people will start swearing. That will be a good indication that people recognize what I am saying, but do not want to admit it.
We shall see.

The mainstream idea is not that birds evolved from dinosaurs but that they share a common ancestor.
By the way it changes nothing to say that birds are dinosaurs.

Here is a reference to what I am saying (but put in a very confusing way):
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.c...-polyphyletic/

:

This might sound odd, but paraphyletic groups are still used as they have a practical value for describing some groups. The most obvious ones to readers here are the dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs, that is, they are the direct descendents of an [common] ancestor that spawned the dinosaurs, yet palaeontologists typically refer to dinosaurs while explicitly not referring to birds. Thus one should formally call them non-avian dinosaurs (basically all dinosaurs except birds) and this does happen quite regularly, thought not always, and certainly not in the press.

Note that I have added the word "common" to make this more precise.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

A lot of what I do is analyze ideas that people accept but that embed problems that people have not analyzed down far enough to see.
We saw that earlier with my pointing out the problem with flight evolving multiple times.
I am doing it here in regards to the idea of "common ancestor".

Well, Armanda, that may be what you believe you are doing (and what you did previously) but the reality is you are doing the toaster and it's not even plugged in.

buttershug · 07-28-2015, 04:56 PM

:

[It does not help to give the "common ancestor" a name. It is still a common ancestor. It is not an ancestor.

.

Common ancestors are ancestors.
Are blue cars not cars?

I think I'm going to try and start saying "shared ancestor" until he learns what the phrase means.

RAFH · 07-28-2015, 04:56 PM

:

It does not help to give the "common ancestor" a name. It is still a common ancestor. It is not an ancestor.

A perfect example of Armanda's "not-think" or "double think".

RAFH · 07-28-2015, 04:58 PM

:

Doug, you are a dumber than a box of twats.

Do you think dumb people realise how dumb they are? I asked you this about 5 years ago but I think you were too dumb to understand the question.

Fortunately for the comedic value of Narcissuckatea, Armanda still is.

DaveGodfrey · 07-28-2015, 05:19 PM

:

Take the coelurosaur dinosaurs and the common ancestor they share with birds. Now let's look at that "common ancestor". It itself is just a branch leading off a line from an earlier common ancestor with some other group.

Yes! Exactly! All life on Earth is related!

:

All we have is a line of "common ancestors" leading further back into the misty past.

By George! I think he's got it!

:

This is like building a house of sand on top of a house of sand on top of a house of sand .....

Nope, obviously not.

It was clearly too much to hope for.

Mike PSS · 07-28-2015, 06:23 PM

:

I expect that shortly people will start swearing.

:

Well you shouldn't have. The common ancestor of what and what? Hone doesn't say. Because he used the words he intended and "common" wasn't one of them. Its not in the least bit confusing to people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about. You're clearly confused because, despite the free education you've had here, you don't understand the subject.

Birds are the direct descendants of the ancestor of all the dinosaurs. Because they're more closely related to some dinosaurs than they are to others. Which is why Dave Hone is talking about "non-avian dinosaurs" as being a paraphyletic group that is sometimes useful to talk about.

:

Well I won that bet.

Well, Socrates certainly won a bet with himself here.

:

Well I won that bet.

To win a bet, you have to first make a bet.

Yet another concept you don't understand.

:

Well I won that bet.

Armanda, Your Royal Princessship, there wasn't any bet.
It may be you are hallucinating, again, perhaps still.

Beg to differ, Socrates clearly bet himself that swearing would occur. And sure enough it did.

He can trill along about WHY swearing occurs all he wants, and he'll be wrong. But he certainly won a bet with himself that swearing did occur.

buttershug · 07-28-2015, 06:51 PM

:

[It does not help to give the "common ancestor" a name. It is still a common ancestor. It is not an ancestor.

.

Common ancestors are ancestors.
Are blue cars not cars?

I think I'm going to try and start saying "shared ancestor" until he learns what the phrase means.

He actually put the word "share" in the thread title.
For most people that would be an indication of understanding that common ancestor means a shared ancestor.

But he is going to have to claim that that is what science claims and he does not believe it.
If there was something that was an ancestor of both dinos and birds then either birds have ancestors that did not fly or dinos had ancestors that did fly.

And that would destroy his core belief that flying lineages and land creature lineages are separate.
As soon as there is something that is an ancetor for both dinos and birds his entire reason for believing that birds descended from peteros goes out the window.

Socrates · 07-28-2015, 06:54 PM

:

Do people understand that birds and coelurosaur dinosaurs share a common ancestor?

Just look at any cladogram.

Do people remember when we were looking at the multiple origins of flight, that each preceding node was deemed to be flightless. Those nodes were deemed to be common ancestors.
The same applies to what we are talking about here now.

For example take coelurosaur dinosaurs. They branch off a line that is purported to lead to birds.
So birds are not coleurosaur dinosaurs. They both share a common ancestor.

We will likely have a bit more swearing.

It does not help to give the "common ancestor" a name. It is still a common ancestor. It is not an ancestor.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

Take the coelurosaur dinosaurs and the common ancestor they share with birds. Now let's look at that "common ancestor". It itself is just a branch leading off a line from an earlier common ancestor with some other group.

All we have is a line of "common ancestors" leading further back into the misty past.

People think there is no down side to the idea of "common ancestor". I am showing the downside.
If everything is based on common ancestors then birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. And it is no help to say that birds are dinosaurs. That changes nothing. The underlying problem is still there.

07-28-2015, 03:57 PM	#2535282 / #27
DaveGodfrey Demoderated : Jan 2010 : 10,613	They don't sucky. Birds are coelurosaurs. There is no ancestor for all the coelurosaurian dinosaurs that was not also an ancestor of birds. And more importantly some coelurosaurians are more closely related to birds than others are. __________________ Why do I bother?

07-28-2015, 04:10 PM	#2535294 / #31
DaveGodfrey Demoderated : Jan 2010 : 10,613	No, it doesn't, because "Coelurosauria" is a taxonomic group, not a character state, you stupid fuck. __________________ Why do I bother?

X vBulletin 3.8.6 Debug Information
Page Generation 0.40914 seconds Memory Usage 4,624KB Queries Executed 69 (?)
More Information
Template Usage: (1)SHOWTHREAD (1)ad_footer_end (1)ad_footer_start (1)ad_header_end (1)ad_header_logo (1)ad_navbar_below (1)ad_showthread_beforeqr (1)ad_showthread_firstpost (1)ad_showthread_firstpost_sig (1)ad_showthread_firstpost_start (25)add_ignore_user_to_postbit (112)bbcode_quote (1)footer (1)forumjump (1)forumrules (1)gobutton (1)header (1)headinclude (11)mysmilies_imagebit (1)navbar (3)navbar_link (1)navbar_mini (1)navbar_noticebit (55)option (1)pagenav (1)pagenav_curpage (3)pagenav_pagelink (1)pagenav_pagelinkrel (25)postbit_legacy (25)postbit_onlinestatus (25)postbit_reputation (25)postbit_wrapper (1)spacer_close (1)spacer_open (1)tagbit_wrapper (12)v3arcade_award_bit (2)v3arcade_postbit_userid_popup_menu (2)v3arcade_postbit_userid_trophy Phrase Groups Available: global inlinemod postbit posting reputationlevel showthread	Included Files: ./showthread.php ./global.php ./includes/init.php ./includes/class_core.php ./includes/config.php ./includes/functions.php ./includes/class_hook.php ./includes/functions_notice.php ./mobiquo/smartbanner.php ./mobiquo/smartbanner/head.inc.php ./includes/functions_bigthree.php ./includes/class_postbit.php ./includes/class_bbcode.php ./includes/functions_reputation.php Hooks Called: init_startup cache_permissions fetch_threadinfo_query fetch_threadinfo fetch_foruminfo style_fetch cache_templates global_start parse_templates fetch_musername notices_check_start notices_noticebit global_setup_complete showthread_start showthread_getinfo forumjump showthread_post_start showthread_query_postids showthread_query bbcode_fetch_tags bbcode_create showthread_postbit_create postbit_factory postbit_display_start reputation_image bbcode_parse_start postbit_imicons fetch_userinfo_query fetch_userinfo bbcode_parse_complete_precache bbcode_parse_complete postbit_display_complete pagenav_page pagenav_complete tag_fetchbit_complete forumrules navbits navbits_complete showthread_complete
Messages:

07-28-2015, 04:27 PM	#2535313 / #36
Alfonso Bivouac Senior Member : Dec 2009 : UK : 1,612	Doug, you are a dumber than a box of twats. Do you think dumb people realise how dumb they are? I asked you this about 5 years ago but I think you were too dumb to understand the question.