Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: All are welcome, but not all will be welcomed!

Topic: No value for lack of feathers (Read 21032 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6050

Quote
Can anyone state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a ground-based creature like oviraptorosaurs rather than a flying/volant creature?
Does anyone understand this question? If so, would someone care to try and answer it?
So far nobody seems to understand this question. Anyone?
  • Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 11:10:30 AM by socrates1

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6051
So far two people seem to have understood and answered that question.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6052

Quote
Can anyone state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a ground-based creature like oviraptorosaurs rather than a flying/volant creature?
Does anyone understand this question? If so, would someone care to try and answer it?
So far nobody seems to understand this question. Anyone?
It looks like you folks need help again. The fact that oviraptorosaurs were ground based does not mean that basal pennaraptora was ground based. If oviraptorosaurs were secondarily flightless then pennaraptora would have been flying/volant.
Can anyone state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a ground-based creature like oviraptorosaurs rather than a flying/volant creature?

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6053
Does Sucky understand that birds are pennaraptorans?

And to answer his question, because things that aren't pennaraptorans, but are very closely related  are terrestrial and show no adaptations for flight. As do many paravians. 
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6054

Quote
Can anyone state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a ground-based creature like oviraptorosaurs rather than a flying/volant creature?
Does anyone understand this question? If so, would someone care to try and answer it?
So far nobody seems to understand this question. Anyone?
It looks like you folks need help again. The fact that oviraptorosaurs were ground based does not mean that basal pennaraptora was ground based. If oviraptorosaurs were secondarily flightless then pennaraptora would have been flying/volant.
Can anyone state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a ground-based creature like oviraptorosaurs rather than a flying/volant creature?
I should know by now that you folks cannot answer basic questions like this one.
So be it.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6055

Quote
Can anyone state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a ground-based creature like oviraptorosaurs rather than a flying/volant creature?
Does anyone understand this question? If so, would someone care to try and answer it?
So far nobody seems to understand this question. Anyone?
It looks like you folks need help again. The fact that oviraptorosaurs were ground based does not mean that basal pennaraptora was ground based. If oviraptorosaurs were secondarily flightless then pennaraptora would have been flying/volant.
Can anyone state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a ground-based creature like oviraptorosaurs rather than a flying/volant creature?
Can you state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a flying/volant creature?
Things like wing area, flight muscle attachment points and sizes of those attachment points indicating the size and strength of the muscles, lung capacity, heart capacity, etc.?
If so, please do. And be sure to include references with links and copy-pasta of relevant text.
Are we there yet?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6056

Quote
Since you folks need help consider this:
Notice the characteristics that appear at Pennaraptora and Paraves. This is the saltation required.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269715801_An_integrative_approach_to_understanding_bird_origins


Notice that the characteristics listed for pennaraptora and paraves are not present earlier. This is the saltation I am referring to. The saltation from ground-based dinosaurs to the flying/volant creatures of pennaraptora/paraves.
Note that as usual I am presenting published material. The saltation is huge.
So be it. You cannot acknowledge the facts when they are staring you in the face. I understand. You do not want to let down the team.
Even this chart under-represents the amount of the saltation because it takes basal pennaraptora to be a ground-based, flightless creature, rather than a flying/volant creature. When oviraptorosaurs are taken as secondarily flightless, then all the characteristics attributed to pennaraptora AND paraves are together in one gigantic saltation.
To get a better idea of it, take oviraptorosaurs as being secondarily flightless WITHIN paraves.

I expect that some bright spark will make the point that not all the characteristics attributed to pennaraptora would occur at basal paraves. Which is true. Some of them, for example their larger size, would have occurred when oviraptorosaurs became secondarily flightless, later on within paraves.
So a lot depends on how one takes the oviraptorosaurs - whether they are taken as secondarily flightless or not. This presumably is why there is so much reluctance in the mainstream to take them as secondarily flightless. The whole dino to bird theory quickly unravels.
Worth repeating.
And to get a better idea of it, take oviraptorosaurs as being secondarily flightless WITHIN paraves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptorosauria
Quote
Oviraptorosaurs ("egg thief lizards") are a group of feathered maniraptoran dinosaurs from the Cretaceous Period of what are now Asia and North America. They are distinct for their characteristically short, beaked, parrot-like skulls, with or without bony crests atop the head. They ranged in size from Caudipteryx, which was the size of a turkey, to the 8 metre long, 1.4 ton Gigantoraptor.[4] The group (along with all maniraptoran dinosaurs) is close to the ancestry of birds. Analyses like those of Maryanska et al (2002) and Osmólska et al. (2004) suggest that they may represent primitive flightless birds.[5][6] The most complete oviraptorosaur specimens have been found in Asia.[7] The North American oviraptorosaur record is sparse.

Oviraptorosaurs, like deinonychosaurs, are so bird-like that several scientists consider them to be true birds, more advanced than Archaeopteryx. Gregory S. Paul has written extensively on this possibility, and Teresa Maryańska and colleagues published a technical paper detailing this idea in 2002.[5][17][18] Michael Benton, in his widely respected text Vertebrate Paleontology, also included oviraptorosaurs as an order within the class Aves.[19] However, a number of researchers have disagreed with this classification, retaining oviraptorosaurs as non-avialan maniraptorans slightly more primitive than the deinonychosaurs.[20]/quote]
  • Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 02:49:32 PM by socrates1

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6057
No they would still be dinosaurs.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6058
I note that despite a hard press on most fronts to which sucky has ignored nearly every comment., sucky has also ignored my questions. Which were pretty direct and simple.

Perhaps he;s too ill-informed to deal with the questions?
Or he realizes attempting to do so would result in him, at best, being the butt of the ignorant joke he is.
Hard to say.
Are we there yet?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6059
Quote
Worth repeating.
And to get a better idea of it, take oviraptorosaurs as being secondarily flightless WITHIN paraves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptorosauria
Quote
Oviraptorosaurs ("egg thief lizards") are a group of feathered maniraptoran dinosaurs from the Cretaceous Period of what are now Asia and North America. They are distinct for their characteristically short, beaked, parrot-like skulls, with or without bony crests atop the head. They ranged in size from Caudipteryx, which was the size of a turkey, to the 8 metre long, 1.4 ton Gigantoraptor.[4] The group (along with all maniraptoran dinosaurs) is close to the ancestry of birds. Analyses like those of Maryanska et al (2002) and Osmólska et al. (2004) suggest that they may represent primitive flightless birds.[5][6] The most complete oviraptorosaur specimens have been found in Asia.[7] The North American oviraptorosaur record is sparse.

Oviraptorosaurs, like deinonychosaurs, are so bird-like that several scientists consider them to be true birds, more advanced than Archaeopteryx. Gregory S. Paul has written extensively on this possibility, and Teresa Maryańska and colleagues published a technical paper detailing this idea in 2002.[5][17][18] Michael Benton, in his widely respected text Vertebrate Paleontology, also included oviraptorosaurs as an order within the class Aves.[19] However, a number of researchers have disagreed with this classification, retaining oviraptorosaurs as non-avialan maniraptorans slightly more primitive than the deinonychosaurs.[20]

Quote
However, a number of researchers have disagreed with this classification, retaining oviraptorosaurs as non-avialan maniraptorans slightly more primitive than the deinonychosaurs.[20]
Reference [20] is:
Turner, Alan H.; Pol, Diego; Clarke, Julia A.; Erickson, Gregory M.; Norell, Mark (2007). "A basal dromaeosaurid and size evolution preceding avian flight" (pdf). Science. 317 (5843): 1378-1381. PMID 17823350. doi:10.1126/science.1144066.

But this reference does not seem to be saying anything about oviraptorosaurs as non-avialan maniraptorans slightly more primitive than the deinonychosaurs.


  • Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 04:16:33 PM by socrates1

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6060
Quote
And to get a better idea of it, take oviraptorosaurs as being secondarily flightless WITHIN paraves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptorosauria
Quote
Oviraptorosaurs ("egg thief lizards") are a group of feathered maniraptoran dinosaurs from the Cretaceous Period of what are now Asia and North America. They are distinct for their characteristically short, beaked, parrot-like skulls, with or without bony crests atop the head. They ranged in size from Caudipteryx, which was the size of a turkey, to the 8 metre long, 1.4 ton Gigantoraptor.[4] The group (along with all maniraptoran dinosaurs) is close to the ancestry of birds. Analyses like those of Maryanska et al (2002) and Osmólska et al. (2004) suggest that they may represent primitive flightless birds.[5][6] The most complete oviraptorosaur specimens have been found in Asia.[7] The North American oviraptorosaur record is sparse.

Oviraptorosaurs, like deinonychosaurs, are so bird-like that several scientists consider them to be true birds, more advanced than Archaeopteryx. Gregory S. Paul has written extensively on this possibility, and Teresa Maryańska and colleagues published a technical paper detailing this idea in 2002.[5][17][18] Michael Benton, in his widely respected text Vertebrate Paleontology, also included oviraptorosaurs as an order within the class Aves.[19] However, a number of researchers have disagreed with this classification, retaining oviraptorosaurs as non-avialan maniraptorans slightly more primitive than the deinonychosaurs.[20]

So a lot depends on how one takes the oviraptorosaurs - whether they are taken as secondarily flightless or not. This presumably is why there is so much reluctance in the mainstream to take them as secondarily flightless. The whole dino to bird theory quickly unravels.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6061
No, it really doesn't. If it did you'd be able to explain why without throwing out idiotic ideas about "saltations", and completely ignoring the existence of other maniraptorans, or the fact that they were recognised as dinosaurs decades before anyone realised how closely related they might be to birds.

You'd actually be able to answer the questions put to you, rather than declaring things from your comfy chair without ever once looking at a fossil.
Why do I bother?

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6062
I note that despite a hard press on most fronts to which sucky has ignored nearly every comment., sucky has also ignored my questions. Which were pretty direct and simple.

Perhaps he;s too ill-informed to deal with the questions?
Or he realizes attempting to do so would result in him, at best, being the butt of the ignorant joke he is.
Hard to say.
Ah but you forget, he is under no obligation to respond to those who've asked him questions he can't answer.

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6063
Quote
And to get a better idea of it, take oviraptorosaurs as being secondarily flightless WITHIN paraves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptorosauria
Quote
Oviraptorosaurs ("egg thief lizards") are a group of feathered maniraptoran dinosaurs from the Cretaceous Period of what are now Asia and North America. They are distinct for their characteristically short, beaked, parrot-like skulls, with or without bony crests atop the head. They ranged in size from Caudipteryx, which was the size of a turkey, to the 8 metre long, 1.4 ton Gigantoraptor.[4] The group (along with all maniraptoran dinosaurs) is close to the ancestry of birds. Analyses like those of Maryanska et al (2002) and Osmólska et al. (2004) suggest that they may represent primitive flightless birds.[5][6] The most complete oviraptorosaur specimens have been found in Asia.[7] The North American oviraptorosaur record is sparse.

Oviraptorosaurs, like deinonychosaurs, are so bird-like that several scientists consider them to be true birds, more advanced than Archaeopteryx. Gregory S. Paul has written extensively on this possibility, and Teresa Maryańska and colleagues published a technical paper detailing this idea in 2002.[5][17][18] Michael Benton, in his widely respected text Vertebrate Paleontology, also included oviraptorosaurs as an order within the class Aves.[19] However, a number of researchers have disagreed with this classification, retaining oviraptorosaurs as non-avialan maniraptorans slightly more primitive than the deinonychosaurs.[20]

So a lot depends on how one takes the oviraptorosaurs - whether they are taken as secondarily flightless or not. This presumably is why there is so much reluctance in the mainstream to take them as secondarily flightless. The whole dino to bird theory quickly unravels.
Here is something I had not noticed before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heyuannia
Quote
Heyuannia was assigned by Lü to the Oviraptoridae in 2002 . Its exact placement within this group is uncertain. Later analyses either resulted in a position in the Oviraptorinae or the Ingeniinae. According to Lü the morphology of the shoulder girdle of Heyuannia supports the hypothesis that oviraptosaurians were secondarily flightless birds.[5]
As a sidenote: People must have noticed that I support what I post with reference link and copy and paste. It is uncommon for others here to do that.
  • Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 05:47:49 PM by socrates1

  • Fenrir
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6064

As a sidenote: People must have noticed that I support what I post with reference link and copy and paste. It is uncommon for others here to do that.

As a sidesidenote: That is transparent bullshit.

You occasionally provide link and copypasta. Said links and copypasta rarely support your rectal extractions.
It's what plants crave.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6065

Quote
Can anyone state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a ground-based creature like oviraptorosaurs rather than a flying/volant creature?
Does anyone understand this question? If so, would someone care to try and answer it?
So far nobody seems to understand this question. Anyone?
It looks like you folks need help again. The fact that oviraptorosaurs were ground based does not mean that basal pennaraptora was ground based. If oviraptorosaurs were secondarily flightless then pennaraptora would have been flying/volant.
Can anyone state a few reasons for thinking that basal pennaraptora was a ground-based creature like oviraptorosaurs rather than a flying/volant creature?
Looks like "socrates" needs help understanding his own question.

He didn't ask us to prove to him logically that Pennaraptora had to be "ground-based". He asked us for reasons to think that Pennaraptora was ground based. And the non-flying state of Oviraptorosaurs certainly indicates that. Same as the state of dinosaurs preceding Pennaraptora.

does that mean that Pennaraptora could not possibly have been volant? Of course not. Nature is Amazing! However, up and until a flying basal oviraptorosaur is found(or flying 'basal Pennaraptora' are found, whatever that is supposed to be- again, clades and nodes), we have no reason to think that 'basal Pennaraptora' were "flying/volant".

Nothing other than the ramblings of an uneducated, loutish B&B owner, that is.

...And that conlcudes your lesson in inductive reasoning for today, "Dr. Pterosaur". Thank me later.
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.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6066
So a lot depends on how one takes the oviraptorosaurs - whether they are taken as secondarily flightless or not. This presumably is why there is so much reluctance in the mainstream to take them as secondarily flightless. The whole dino to bird theory quickly unravels.
:facepalm:

Nope. Nothing in your quotes makes the "dino to bird theory unravel".

And the notion of oviraptorosaurs being members of AVES (besides being discredited) is IRRELEVANT to their possible state of being "secondarily flightless". You, of all people should get that, if you had a few extra brain cells.
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.

  • Faid
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6067
As a sidenote: People must have noticed that I support what I post with reference link and copy and paste. It is uncommon for others here to do that.
:rofl: sure, "socrates". :rofl:

Why don't you tell us again, in WHAT part of your previous "reference link and copy and paste" did Xu state that the FSH was "not credible" (as you claimed)?

After all these years, haven't you learned not to bluff with us? ::)
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 #6068
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-integrated-maniraptoran-part-2-meet-the-maniraptorans/
Quote
Oviraptorosaurs appear to be especially closely related to paravians - they're very similar to them in possessing large, pennaceous feathers on the forelimbs and tail, and in fact advanced oviraptorosaurs are uncannily bird-like in various features of the braincase, quadrate and so on. Indeed it's sometimes been proposed that oviraptorosaurs are closer to birds than are groups like dromaeosaurs (Maryańska et al. 2002). While we can't rule this out entirely, it isn't a good explanation for the character distribution we see, and it ignores the fact that early members of the oviraptorosaur lineage (like Caudipteryx) are less bird-like than the advanced forms. Oviraptorosaurs and paravians together form a clade termed Pennaraptora (Foth et al. 2014).

This is from a blog by Darren Naish and not a published article. I am intrigued by the claim that
"early members of the oviraptorosaur lineage (like Caudipteryx) are less bird-like than the advanced forms".

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6069
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviraptorosauria
Quote
Oviraptorosaurs
Temporal range: Cretaceous, 130-66 Ma

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6070
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-integrated-maniraptoran-part-2-meet-the-maniraptorans/
Quote
The oviraptorosaurs.
Let's now move outside of Paraves. Oviraptorosaurs are most famously represented by the parrot-headed, often crested, toothless oviraptorids of Late Cretaceous eastern Asia. Then there are the similar but longer-limbed, longer-skulled caenagnathids, mostly associated with Late Cretaceous North America. These animals were mostly 1.5-2 m long but a few were giants: Gigantoraptor is somewhere in the oviraptorid + caenagnathid clade and was about 7 m long. The earliest oviraptorosaurs we know of - Caudipteryx from the Early Cretaceous of China and several similar forms - were small (less than 1 m long).

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6071
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-integrated-maniraptoran-part-2-meet-the-maniraptorans/
Quote
Oviraptorosaurs appear to be especially closely related to paravians - they're very similar to them in possessing large, pennaceous feathers on the forelimbs and tail, and in fact advanced oviraptorosaurs are uncannily bird-like in various features of the braincase, quadrate and so on. Indeed it's sometimes been proposed that oviraptorosaurs are closer to birds than are groups like dromaeosaurs (Maryańska et al. 2002). While we can't rule this out entirely, it isn't a good explanation for the character distribution we see, and it ignores the fact that early members of the oviraptorosaur lineage (like Caudipteryx) are less bird-like than the advanced forms. Oviraptorosaurs and paravians together form a clade termed Pennaraptora (Foth et al. 2014).

This is from a blog by Darren Naish and not a published article. I am intrigued by the claim that
"early members of the oviraptorosaur lineage (like Caudipteryx) are less bird-like than the advanced forms".
It is unclear what this would mean if in fact the oviraptorosaurs are secondarily flightless.

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6072
That would depend in the characters they are discussing now wouldn't it? Perhaps you would like to find out? You're a big boy now, you can do it yourself.

If they're ones unrelated to flight, then it doesn't mean anything much. If they're ones associated with flight in birds, and which you think should be present in "basal Pennaraptora", then according to you they first lost these characters, and then re-evolved them. Which isn't very parsimonious now is it?
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6073
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-integrated-maniraptoran-part-2-meet-the-maniraptorans/
Quote
Oviraptorosaurs appear to be especially closely related to paravians - they're very similar to them in possessing large, pennaceous feathers on the forelimbs and tail, and in fact advanced oviraptorosaurs are uncannily bird-like in various features of the braincase, quadrate and so on. Indeed it's sometimes been proposed that oviraptorosaurs are closer to birds than are groups like dromaeosaurs (Maryańska et al. 2002). While we can't rule this out entirely, it isn't a good explanation for the character distribution we see, and it ignores the fact that early members of the oviraptorosaur lineage (like Caudipteryx) are less bird-like than the advanced forms. Oviraptorosaurs and paravians together form a clade termed Pennaraptora (Foth et al. 2014).

This is from a blog by Darren Naish and not a published article. I am intrigued by the claim that
"early members of the oviraptorosaur lineage (like Caudipteryx) are less bird-like than the advanced forms".
It is unclear what this would mean if in fact the oviraptorosaurs are secondarily flightless.
Can anyone explain the idea that "early members of the oviraptorosaur lineage (like Caudipteryx) are less bird-like than the advanced forms"?

Re: No value for lack of feathers
Reply #6074
Which of the long words are you having problems understanding?
Why do I bother?