Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • do you have any understanding of ... anything at all?  Or do you just like to throw words together in a crude imitation of intellectual discourse?

Topic: No value for lack of feathers (Read 17771 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3950
Allow me to help you find something to say. Try to respond to this:
And just so we don't forget:


http://talkrational.org/archive/showpost.php?p=2007520&postcount=501
Quote
Ostrom recognized that Dromaeosaurus shared many features with the newly-discovered Deinonychus. But Deinonychus was a dinosaur.

Ostrom recognized that Dromaeosaurus shared many features with Velociraptor. But we have already seen that Dromaeosaurus is not particularly like Velociraptor.


The upshot is that the dinosaur Dromaeosaurus shared many features with the other dinosaur Deinonychus.
Both are dinosaurs. Neither is a bird.
http://talkrational.org/archive/showpost.php?p=2007640&postcount=532
Quote
Dromaeosaurus just does not fit in with the dromaeosaurids. And is not like the velociraptors as was mentioned earleir.
http://talkrational.org/archive/showpost.php?p=2007810&postcount=567
Quote
Quote
Deinonychus is a Velociraptorine.
It is misclassified as such. It is actually a dinosaur.
http://talkrational.org/archive/showpost.php?p=2007983&postcount=604
Quote
Lot's of evidence of feathers in actual dromaeosaurids (birds), like Velociraptor and Microraptor.
None for Deinonychus (dinosaur).
Looks like you were pretty certain back then, "socrates". No 'ifs' or 'coulds' about it.
What made you change your mind?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3951
https://bio.unc.edu/files/2011/04/FeducciaCzerkas2015.pdf
Quote
Considerable debate surrounds the numerous
avian-like traits in core maniraptorans (oviraptorosaurs,
troodontids, and dromaeosaurs
), especially in the
Chinese Early Cretaceous oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx,
which preserves modern avian pennaceous primary remiges
attached to the manus, as is the case in modern birds.
Was Caudipteryx derived from earth-bound theropod dinosaurs,
which is the predominant view among palaeontologists,
or was it secondarily flightless, with volant avians
or theropods as ancestors (the neoflightless hypothesis),
which is another popular, but minority view. The discovery
here of an aerodynamic propatagium in several specimens
provides new evidence that Caudipteryx (and hence oviraptorosaurs)
represent secondarily derived flightless
ground dwellers, whether of theropod or avian affinity, and
that their presence and radiation during the Cretaceous may
have been a factor in the apparent scarcity of many other
large flightless birds during that period.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3952
https://bio.unc.edu/files/2011/04/FeducciaCzerkas2015.pdf
Quote
Considerable debate surrounds the numerous
avian-like traits in core maniraptorans (oviraptorosaurs,
troodontids, and dromaeosaurs
), especially in the
Chinese Early Cretaceous oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx,
which preserves modern avian pennaceous primary remiges
attached to the manus, as is the case in modern birds.
Was Caudipteryx derived from earth-bound theropod dinosaurs,
which is the predominant view among palaeontologists,
or was it secondarily flightless, with volant avians
or theropods as ancestors (the neoflightless hypothesis),
which is another popular, but minority view. The discovery
here of an aerodynamic propatagium in several specimens
provides new evidence that Caudipteryx (and hence oviraptorosaurs)
represent secondarily derived flightless
ground dwellers, whether of theropod or avian affinity, and
that their presence and radiation during the Cretaceous may
have been a factor in the apparent scarcity of many other
large flightless birds during that period.
What were ground-based dinosaurs doing with feathers and "aerodynamic propatagium"?
It is obvious that they were secondarily flightless members of Euparaves. Why are the dino to bird folks so afraid to admit it?

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3953
Apparently, "socrates" does not want to tell us what made him change his mind about Deinonychus.

So be it.

But he cannot expect the guests to take him seriously.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3954
https://bio.unc.edu/files/2011/04/FeducciaCzerkas2015.pdf
Quote
Considerable debate surrounds the numerous
avian-like traits in core maniraptorans (oviraptorosaurs,
troodontids, and dromaeosaurs
), especially in the
Chinese Early Cretaceous oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx,
which preserves modern avian pennaceous primary remiges
attached to the manus, as is the case in modern birds.
Was Caudipteryx derived from earth-bound theropod dinosaurs,
which is the predominant view among palaeontologists,
or was it secondarily flightless, with volant avians
or theropods as ancestors (the neoflightless hypothesis),
which is another popular, but minority view. The discovery
here of an aerodynamic propatagium in several specimens
provides new evidence that Caudipteryx (and hence oviraptorosaurs)
represent secondarily derived flightless
ground dwellers, whether of theropod or avian affinity, and
that their presence and radiation during the Cretaceous may
have been a factor in the apparent scarcity of many other
large flightless birds during that period.
What were ground-based dinosaurs doing with feathers and "aerodynamic propatagium"?
It is obvious that they were secondarily flightless members of Euparaves. Why are the dino to bird folks so afraid to admit it?
It will be a great day when the consensus opinion shifts to accepting the large feathered flightless taxa as secondarily flightless. Then they will need a new name for the group and may find that "Euparaves" fits the bill nicely. Would I get royalties in that case?

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3955
https://bio.unc.edu/files/2011/04/FeducciaCzerkas2015.pdf
Quote
Considerable debate surrounds the numerous
avian-like traits in core maniraptorans (oviraptorosaurs,
troodontids, and dromaeosaurs
), especially in the
Chinese Early Cretaceous oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx,
which preserves modern avian pennaceous primary remiges
attached to the manus, as is the case in modern birds.
Was Caudipteryx derived from earth-bound theropod dinosaurs,
which is the predominant view among palaeontologists,
or was it secondarily flightless, with volant avians
or theropods as ancestors (the neoflightless hypothesis),
which is another popular, but minority view. The discovery
here of an aerodynamic propatagium in several specimens
provides new evidence that Caudipteryx (and hence oviraptorosaurs)
represent secondarily derived flightless
ground dwellers, whether of theropod or avian affinity, and
that their presence and radiation during the Cretaceous may
have been a factor in the apparent scarcity of many other
large flightless birds during that period.
What were ground-based dinosaurs doing with feathers and "aerodynamic propatagium"?
It is obvious that they were secondarily flightless members of Euparaves. Why are the dino to bird folks so afraid to admit it?
It will be a great day when the consensus opinion shifts to accepting the large feathered flightless taxa as secondarily flightless. Then they will need a new name for the group and may find that "Euparaves" fits the bill nicely. Would I get royalties in that case?

If wishing for something made it true maybe you wouldn't be such a scientific laughing stock and amateur provocateur.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3956
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Phylogenetic_definitions_of_clade_names
Quote
A node-based definition could read: "the last common ancestor of A and B, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B does not belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The sauropod dinosaurs consist of the last common ancestor of Vulcanodon (A) and Apatosaurus (B)[2] and all of that ancestor's descendants. This ancestor was the first sauropod. C could include other dinosaurs like Stegosaurus.

A branch-based definition, often called a stem-based definition, could read: "the first ancestor of A which is not also an ancestor of C, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B (other than the bottommost point) does belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The rodents consist of the first ancestor of the house mouse (A) that is not also an ancestor of the eastern cottontail rabbit (C) together with all descendants of that ancestor. Here, the ancestor is the very first rodent. B is some other descendant, perhaps the red squirrel.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraves
Quote
Paraves is a branch-based clade defined to include all dinosaurs which are more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs. The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs. Paravians comprises three major sub-groups: Avialae, including Archaeopteryx and modern birds, as well as the dromaeosaurids and troodontids, which may or may not form a natural group.
BRANCH BASED:
The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.

You could convert the branch based definition of "Paraves" to a node based definition as follows:
"the last common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids and all descendants of that ancestor".

This node based definition of Paraves leaves open the possibility that the large feathered flightless taxa were secondarily flightless.
But since "Paraves" has already been defined as branch based I have offered up the name "Euparaves".
  • Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 10:31:15 AM by socrates1

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3957
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Phylogenetic_definitions_of_clade_names
Quote
A node-based definition could read: "the last common ancestor of A and B, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B does not belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The sauropod dinosaurs consist of the last common ancestor of Vulcanodon (A) and Apatosaurus (B)[2] and all of that ancestor's descendants. This ancestor was the first sauropod. C could include other dinosaurs like Stegosaurus.

A branch-based definition, often called a stem-based definition, could read: "the first ancestor of A which is not also an ancestor of C, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B (other than the bottommost point) does belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The rodents consist of the first ancestor of the house mouse (A) that is not also an ancestor of the eastern cottontail rabbit (C) together with all descendants of that ancestor. Here, the ancestor is the very first rodent. B is some other descendant, perhaps the red squirrel.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraves
Quote
Paraves is a branch-based clade defined to include all dinosaurs which are more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs. The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs. Paravians comprises three major sub-groups: Avialae, including Archaeopteryx and modern birds, as well as the dromaeosaurids and troodontids, which may or may not form a natural group.
BRANCH BASED:
The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.

You could convert the branch based definition of "Paraves" to a node based definition as follows:
"the last common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids and all descendants of that ancestor".

This node based definition of Paraves leaves open the possibility that the large feathered flightless taxa were secondarily flightless.
But since "Paraves" has already been defined as branch based I have offered up the name "Euparaves".
As things stand the (branch based) definition of "Paraves" builds into the definition that oviraptorosaurs came before basalmost "Paraves".
  • Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 10:58:38 AM by socrates1

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3958
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Phylogenetic_definitions_of_clade_names
Quote
A node-based definition could read: "the last common ancestor of A and B, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B does not belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The sauropod dinosaurs consist of the last common ancestor of Vulcanodon (A) and Apatosaurus (B)[2] and all of that ancestor's descendants. This ancestor was the first sauropod. C could include other dinosaurs like Stegosaurus.

A branch-based definition, often called a stem-based definition, could read: "the first ancestor of A which is not also an ancestor of C, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B (other than the bottommost point) does belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The rodents consist of the first ancestor of the house mouse (A) that is not also an ancestor of the eastern cottontail rabbit (C) together with all descendants of that ancestor. Here, the ancestor is the very first rodent. B is some other descendant, perhaps the red squirrel.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraves
Quote
Paraves is a branch-based clade defined to include all dinosaurs which are more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs. The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs. Paravians comprises three major sub-groups: Avialae, including Archaeopteryx and modern birds, as well as the dromaeosaurids and troodontids, which may or may not form a natural group.
BRANCH BASED:
The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.

You could convert the branch based definition of "Paraves" to a node based definition as follows:
"the last common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids and all descendants of that ancestor".

This node based definition of Paraves leaves open the possibility that the large feathered flightless taxa were secondarily flightless.
But since "Paraves" has already been defined as branch based I have offered up the name "Euparaves".
As things stand the (branch based) definition of "Paraves" builds into the definition that oviraptorosaurs came before basalmost "Paraves".
One thing I have wondered is whether the common ancestor (Pennaraptora) could fly or was flightless. How can they tell?

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3959
Why should anyone care what you "wonder"? You have zero credibility. Your theories and positions change with no justification or explanation.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3960
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Phylogenetic_definitions_of_clade_names
Quote
A node-based definition could read: "the last common ancestor of A and B, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B does not belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The sauropod dinosaurs consist of the last common ancestor of Vulcanodon (A) and Apatosaurus (B)[2] and all of that ancestor's descendants. This ancestor was the first sauropod. C could include other dinosaurs like Stegosaurus.

A branch-based definition, often called a stem-based definition, could read: "the first ancestor of A which is not also an ancestor of C, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B (other than the bottommost point) does belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The rodents consist of the first ancestor of the house mouse (A) that is not also an ancestor of the eastern cottontail rabbit (C) together with all descendants of that ancestor. Here, the ancestor is the very first rodent. B is some other descendant, perhaps the red squirrel.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraves
Quote
Paraves is a branch-based clade defined to include all dinosaurs which are more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs. The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs. Paravians comprises three major sub-groups: Avialae, including Archaeopteryx and modern birds, as well as the dromaeosaurids and troodontids, which may or may not form a natural group.
BRANCH BASED:
The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.

You could convert the branch based definition of "Paraves" to a node based definition as follows:
"the last common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids and all descendants of that ancestor".

This node based definition of Paraves leaves open the possibility that the large feathered flightless taxa were secondarily flightless.
But since "Paraves" has already been defined as branch based I have offered up the name "Euparaves".
As things stand the (branch based) definition of "Paraves" builds into the definition that oviraptorosaurs came before basalmost "Paraves".
One thing I have wondered is whether the common ancestor (Pennaraptora) could fly or was flightless. How can they tell?
I wonder how you made it through the Ontario education system. Did you attend? How can we tell?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3961
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Phylogenetic_definitions_of_clade_names
Quote
A node-based definition could read: "the last common ancestor of A and B, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B does not belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The sauropod dinosaurs consist of the last common ancestor of Vulcanodon (A) and Apatosaurus (B)[2] and all of that ancestor's descendants. This ancestor was the first sauropod. C could include other dinosaurs like Stegosaurus.

A branch-based definition, often called a stem-based definition, could read: "the first ancestor of A which is not also an ancestor of C, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B (other than the bottommost point) does belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The rodents consist of the first ancestor of the house mouse (A) that is not also an ancestor of the eastern cottontail rabbit (C) together with all descendants of that ancestor. Here, the ancestor is the very first rodent. B is some other descendant, perhaps the red squirrel.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraves
Quote
Paraves is a branch-based clade defined to include all dinosaurs which are more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs. The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs. Paravians comprises three major sub-groups: Avialae, including Archaeopteryx and modern birds, as well as the dromaeosaurids and troodontids, which may or may not form a natural group.
BRANCH BASED:
The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.

You could convert the branch based definition of "Paraves" to a node based definition as follows:
"the last common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids and all descendants of that ancestor".

This node based definition of Paraves leaves open the possibility that the large feathered flightless taxa were secondarily flightless.
But since "Paraves" has already been defined as branch based I have offered up the name "Euparaves".
As things stand the (branch based) definition of "Paraves" builds into the definition that oviraptorosaurs came before basalmost "Paraves".
One thing I have wondered is whether the common ancestor (Pennaraptora) could fly or was flightless. How can they tell?
Anyone?

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3962
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature#Phylogenetic_definitions_of_clade_names
Quote
A node-based definition could read: "the last common ancestor of A and B, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B does not belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The sauropod dinosaurs consist of the last common ancestor of Vulcanodon (A) and Apatosaurus (B)[2] and all of that ancestor's descendants. This ancestor was the first sauropod. C could include other dinosaurs like Stegosaurus.

A branch-based definition, often called a stem-based definition, could read: "the first ancestor of A which is not also an ancestor of C, and all descendants of that ancestor". Thus, the entire line below the junction of A and B (other than the bottommost point) does belong to the clade to which the name with this definition refers.
Example: The rodents consist of the first ancestor of the house mouse (A) that is not also an ancestor of the eastern cottontail rabbit (C) together with all descendants of that ancestor. Here, the ancestor is the very first rodent. B is some other descendant, perhaps the red squirrel.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraves
Quote
Paraves is a branch-based clade defined to include all dinosaurs which are more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs. The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs. Paravians comprises three major sub-groups: Avialae, including Archaeopteryx and modern birds, as well as the dromaeosaurids and troodontids, which may or may not form a natural group.
BRANCH BASED:
The ancestral paravian is the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.

You could convert the branch based definition of "Paraves" to a node based definition as follows:
"the last common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids and all descendants of that ancestor".

This node based definition of Paraves leaves open the possibility that the large feathered flightless taxa were secondarily flightless.
But since "Paraves" has already been defined as branch based I have offered up the name "Euparaves".
As things stand the (branch based) definition of "Paraves" builds into the definition that oviraptorosaurs came before basalmost "Paraves".
One thing I have wondered is whether the common ancestor (Pennaraptora) could fly or was flightless. How can they tell?
I wonder how you made it through the Ontario education system. Did you attend? How can we tell?
Anyone?

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3963
.....
Anyone?
Since you ask.
This:
As things stand the (branch based) definition of "Paraves" builds into the definition that oviraptorosaurs came before basalmost "Paraves".

Sounds wrong. Could you explain? (Don't ask someone else to!)

The way I see it
...the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.
does not imply that the next one down, the the latest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs was an oviraptorosaur.
Oviraptorosaurs came after that ancestor (and all ancestors) of birds, dromaeosaurids, troodontids and oviraptorosaurs. With that definition of Paraves the basalmosr oviraptorosaur could have been before, after or at the same time as the basalmost Paraves.

  • Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 12:34:54 AM by Saunt Taunga

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3964
.....
Anyone?
Since you ask.
This:
As things stand the (branch based) definition of "Paraves" builds into the definition that oviraptorosaurs came before basalmost "Paraves".

Sounds wrong. Could you explain? (Don't ask someone else to!)

The way I see it
...the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.
does not imply that the next one down, the the latest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs was an oviraptorosaur.
Oviraptorosaurs came after that ancestor (and all ancestors) of birds, dromaeosaurids, troodontids and oviraptorosaurs. With that definition of Paraves the basalmosr oviraptorosaur could have been before, after or at the same time as the basalmost Paraves.
Anyone can contribute!

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3965
.....
Anyone?
Since you ask.
This:
As things stand the (branch based) definition of "Paraves" builds into the definition that oviraptorosaurs came before basalmost "Paraves".

Sounds wrong. Could you explain? (Don't ask someone else to!)

The way I see it
...the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.
does not imply that the next one down, the the latest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs was an oviraptorosaur.
Oviraptorosaurs came after that ancestor (and all ancestors) of birds, dromaeosaurids, troodontids and oviraptorosaurs. With that definition of Paraves the basalmosr oviraptorosaur could have been before, after or at the same time as the basalmost Paraves.
Anyone can contribute!
Although it would be best if socrates himself contributes socrates' explanation.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3966
.....
Anyone?
Since you ask.
This:
As things stand the (branch based) definition of "Paraves" builds into the definition that oviraptorosaurs came before basalmost "Paraves".

Sounds wrong. Could you explain? (Don't ask someone else to!)

The way I see it
...the earliest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was not also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs.
does not imply that the next one down, the the latest common ancestor of birds, dromaeosaurids, and troodontids which was also ancestral to oviraptorosaurs was an oviraptorosaur.
Oviraptorosaurs came after that ancestor (and all ancestors) of birds, dromaeosaurids, troodontids and oviraptorosaurs. With that definition of Paraves the basalmosr oviraptorosaur could have been before, after or at the same time as the basalmost Paraves.
Anyone can contribute!
Yes. I believe you are correct.
Quote
Although it would be best if socrates himself contributes socrates' explanation.
:sadcheer:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3967
From the posts here, we can see that cladistic analysis gives you free rein to conclude anything you like.
Right?

  • MikeS
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3968
From the posts here, we can see that cladistic analysis gives you free rein to conclude anything you like.
Right?
Well, that's the only way your Pterosaur to Bird theory can work ... so ... yeah.  Right.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3969
From the posts here, we can see that cladistic analysis gives you free rein to conclude anything you like.
Right?
That is perhaps why people cannot answer this very common-sense, reasonable question:
Quote
One thing I have wondered is whether the common ancestor (Pennaraptora) could fly or was flightless. How can they tell?
Anyone?
  • Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 07:10:53 AM by socrates1

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3970
Here is Naish:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/10/birds-come-first-no-they-dont/
Quote
The fact that long remiges have now been documented in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans shows that feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade, and there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3971
Here is Naish:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/10/birds-come-first-no-they-dont/
Quote
The fact that long remiges have now been documented in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans shows that feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade, and there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs.
It is really refreshing to see an honest statement like that.
"feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds" appeared out of the blue.
With "no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs*".

* he is overlooking pterosaurs (which of course are also archosaurs)

Note: "the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade" is called "Pennaraptora"
  • Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 07:37:10 AM by socrates1

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3972
From the posts here, we can see that cladistic analysis gives you free rein to conclude anything you like.
Right?
That is perhaps why people cannot answer this very common-sense, reasonable question:
Quote
One thing I have wondered is whether the common ancestor (Pennaraptora) could fly or was flightless. How can they tell?
Well, to be fair, what you consider common-sense or reasonable, does not count for much outside your own mind. Also the pretend teacher shtick, complete with repeated
Quote
Anyone?
is quite tedious. People might just not want to encourage you.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3973
Here is Naish:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/10/birds-come-first-no-they-dont/
Quote
The fact that long remiges have now been documented in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans shows that feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade, and there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs.
It is really refreshing to see an honest statement like that.
"feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds" appeared out of the blue.
With "no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs*".

* he is overlooking pterosaurs (which of course are also archosaurs)

Note: "the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade" is called "Pennaraptora"
There are two absurdities here:
One is the appearance of "feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds" out of the blue with "no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs".
The other is that these "feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds" were not used for flying (nor evidence of secondarily flightlessness).

These are nonsense conclusions that are required with a dino to bird interpretation of the evidence.
  • Last Edit: August 18, 2017, 08:49:29 AM by socrates1

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #3974
Here is Naish:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/10/birds-come-first-no-they-dont/
Quote
The fact that long remiges have now been documented in oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and other maniraptorans shows that feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds evolved somewhere round about the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade, and there is no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs.
It is really refreshing to see an honest statement like that.
"feathered arms essentially the same as those present in basal birds" appeared out of the blue.
With "no evidence that wing-like arms were present in more basal coelurosaurs, nor in other theropods, or other dinosaurs, or other archosaurs*".

* he is overlooking pterosaurs (which of course are also archosaurs)

Note: "the base of the oviraptorosaur + paravian clade" is called "Pennaraptora"
Oh My!

Naish is "overlooking" all the "feathered arms" with "long remiges" found in pterosaurs?

Say it ain't so!

Oh well, I suppose you will correct him. With references, links and copy and paste.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.