Protoavis (Triassic)

0

The Triassic (Protoavis) came before the Jurassic (Archeopteryx)... so if this is a true bird, then Archie is no longer the world's "oldest bird". It would also mean that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.

Protoavis: A Revolution in Bird Evolution?
"The paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee has recently described the fossil Protoavis, from Late Triassic deposits in Texas. Chatterjee claims that Protoavis is a true bird that is actually closer to modern birds than Archaeopteryx. If this is true, this would push the origin of birds back by about 80 million years. It would also show that the first birds lived at the same time as the earliest dinosaurs -- which could disprove or force modification of the standard hypothesis that birds are descended from the highly derived coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which are not known from the Triassic. This would require major rewriting of the evolutionary history of the birds and dinosaurs alike."
(Source)

Hope they discover more fossils and confirm what this creature was, but by now... these dino-bird people are so fixed on their dogma that no matter what fossil evidence is produced they will try to deny the evidence.

An article focusing on genetic research T-Rex/Birds.

"...Putting more meat on the theory that dinosaurs' closest living relatives are modern-day birds, molecular analysis of a shred of 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex protein -- along with that of 21 modern species..."

Oh... they merely wanted to estimate the "closest living relative" and were never implying that T-Rex evolved into chickens. But the dinosaur-bird crowd interpreted the data as they wanted to.

"...-- confirms that dinosaurs share common ancestry with chickens, ostriches, and to a lesser extent, alligators."

Molecular Analysis Confirms Tyrannosaurus Rex's Evolutionary Link To Birds (Source)

Nobody would deny that dinosaurs share "common ancestry" with birds, but who would presume birds, "...evolved from..." dinosaurs like T-Rex?

The kind of people who paint bright red feathers on large solitary predators.

Protoavis. One artist's depiction.

Mark Hallett (paleontological art) depiction of Protoavis.

The fossil

Theories about flight:

"Debates about the origin of bird flight are almost as old as the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, which arose soon after the discovery of Archaeopteryx in 1862. Two theories have dominated most of the discussion since then: the cursorial ("from the ground up") theory proposes that birds evolved from small, fast predators that ran on the ground; the arboreal ("from the trees down") theory proposes that powered flight evolved from unpowered gliding by arboreal (tree-climbing) animals. A more recent theory, "wing-assisted incline running" (WAIR), is a variant of the cursorial theory and proposes that wings developed their aerodynamic functions as a result of the need to run quickly up very steep slopes, for example to escape from predators."
(Source)

No matter which may be true, the underlying driving force of why they were compelled to fly, and achieved it, may be explained in this bit of research. Their ancestors from the Triassic and even earlier,

Swimming led to flying

"...Like a fish paddles its pectoral fins to swim through water, flying insects use the same physics laws to "paddle" through the air, say Cornell physicists."
(Source)

..through instinct, perhaps even epigenetics... swimming prompted birds to fly.

I found a nice upload that discusses "ProtoAvis" and two competing theories for how birds (flight) came to be. I am in the third camp with only minimal variations on the how's and why's... 3. Aquatic bird theory:

"The idea that all modern birds stem from an aquatic ancestor might come as a surprise, admits Chiappe. "If you look at the evolutionary tree of living birds, the most primitive are all land birds — ratites, ostrich, emu, pheasants," he says. "It seems that many lineages left the water and colonized the land." But although many people think of ducks, geese and other waterfowl as specialized animals, they are quite primitive in comparison to highly evolved species such as songbirds, Chiappe points out. What's more, almost every bird group alive today has representatives that live in or around water, Chiappe says, suggesting that a watery lifestyle may be an ancient tradition that has persisted in many lineages. Pelicans are not closely related to penguins; and neither bears a close kinship with herons, he adds."
(Source)

Again, it should be pointed out, that the "bright blue" feathers used to portray Protoavis, are highly unlikely to have existed during the Triassic. Our feathered friends had a very limited array of pigment,

"...The broad palette of feather colours displayed by birds serves diverse biological functions, including communication and camouflage. Fossil feathers provide evidence that some avian colours, like black and brown melanins, have existed for at least 160 million years (Myr), but no traces of bright carotenoid pigments in ancient feathers have been reported." (Source)

If Protoavis is indeed, truly a bird, and hopefully with more fossils, in time we will know. But if in the case that it is, Protoavis will push back known bird origins into the Triassic. This would be devastating to the "theropod dinosaur to bird" hypothesis, because the earliest "theropod dinosaurs" themselves, arose during the Triassic.

To provide some perspective on the time-frame I am attaching the bird graph which shows some of the birds of the fossil record in contrast to the Cretaceous dinosaurs, who arose at a much later time and yet, are mistakenly credited as being the "ancestors" of birds.

Read More »

Merely 58% Genetic Similarity between T. Rex and Chicken?

0

"The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes." (Source)

"Human and fish genes are 90% identical!" (Source)

"75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (Source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome. (Source)

"We have obtained estimates of genetic differentiation between humans and the great apes no greater than, say, those observed between morphologically indistinguishable (sibling) species of Drosophila flies (fruit flies)."
-- Elizabeth J. Bruce and Francisco J. Ayala (Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Calif.), "Humans and Apes Are Genetically Very Similar,," Nature, Nov. 16, 1978, Vol 276, p. 265.

And the "outstanding percentage of similarity" with T. Rex to chicken was merely...58% ?
Data used to determine that genetically... the genetically closest known relative on earth, is a chicken at a meager 58% similarity... that hardly constitutes an "ancestor" of birds.

Humans and fish share a 90% genetic similarity, and that's following 400 million of years of divergence between humans from fish.

From protein to DNA
So a dinosaur has a collagen protein that is very similar to a chicken's. What does this actually mean? Which proteins are made when and where is decided by our genes. Genes really are just recipes for proteins. The recipe is just instructions for putting together a string of amino acids in a certain order. What the researchers got out of their experiments were strings of amino acids. For example, they got the following from the T. rex:
GVQGPPGPQGPR
Each letter is a different amino acid. For example, G is glycine and P is proline.
They then looked at other creatures to see what string of amino acids they have. The chicken, for example, has: GVQGPPGPQGPR
As you can see, this is an exact match. The newt on the other hand, had:
GAAGPPGATGFP
This is pretty different for this piece of the protein. When they did this with many pieces of the protein, they came up with a number of 58% sequence identity (the same amino acids in the same order) for the chicken. And 51% for the frog and newt.
(Source)

T. Rex is 58% genetically similar to a chicken?
Chickens are about 60-75% genetically similar to humans.
Therefore, chickens share a closer relation to humans, than t. rex.

"About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. However, researchers uncovered more small sequence differences between corresponding pairs of chicken and human genes, which are 75 percent identical on average, than between rodent and human gene pairs, which are 88 percent identical on average. Differences between human and chicken genes were not uniform across the board, however. Chicken genes involved in the cell's basic structure and function showed more sequence similarity with human genes than did those implicated in reproduction, immune response and adaptation to the environment."
(Source)

If "58%" genetic similarity to T. Rex is all they got for deciding where chickens "evolved from" -- then the human genome is even greater similarity with chickens at a whopping 60%-75% similarity... we could say chickens evolved from humans!!! Yay!!! That's how the dino-bird folks do it.

DNA has a 521 Year Life Span
(Source)

Read More »

Feathered Feet and the Snowshoe in Birds

0

"Non Theropod".
Anchiornis huxleyi + "nontheropod sacral anatomy" explained. (Source)

I like what Feduccia says.

"... a large suite of avian characters are present, especially in Anchiornis, we must remain open to the view that they represent a primitive group of early avians."

... back to the basal archosaurs. No room for "intermediate fossils" between the basal archosaur and birds. No room for transitions. If Feduccia thinks there's any "open mindedness" among the dinosaur-to-bird crowd, he's the one who's mistaken.

Feduccia's book on the origins of the feathered feet, could not have been terrestrial as formally claimed...

Feathered and webbed feet explanation.

(Source)

That... lead me to a verrrry interesting find. Why those little feathery feet. The dino-bird crowd think "terrestrial dinosaur". But that's not what the Feduccia's colleague theorizes. (See below).
Feduccia points out that "it could not have been terrestrial" -- so what was it, a snowshoeing bird in the Arctic? Those feathered feet do not equate to "terrestrial tetrapod dinosaur".

Here's three science papers on the "Ornithuromorph" birds.
"...thus expand our knowledge of Early Cretaceous specializations within the aquatic niche..."
"...As more ornithuromorph taxa are described, it is becoming increasingly clear that a majority of species have aquatic specializations..."
"...especially amphibious or aquatic habitat preferences in early ornithuromorphs."

T. REX NEED NOT APPLY.

Paleoecology
Elongate hindlimbs in birds are commonly associated with aquatic ‘shorebird’/littoral ecological niches (Zeffer et al., 2003). The presence of a dorsal supracondylar structure in Longicrusavis, together with the proportions of the legs (elongate tibiotarsus) and feet (elongate proximal phalanges, short hallux), suggests that hongshanornithids occupied such a niche. Wading ‘shorebird’ taxa are known from the Late Cretaceous; the enantiornithine Lectavis bretincola from the South American Lecho Formation is suggested to have filled this niche based on the long and gracile nature of its tarsometatarsus (Chiappe, 1993). Ostensible charadriiform taxa, such as Cimolopteryx maxima, Graculavus velox,and Telmatornis priscus,have been reported mostly from the Late Cretaceous of North America (Hope, 2002); how ever, these taxa are fragmentary and their referral to Charadriiformes is questionable. The Early Cretaceous record of aquatic taxa is limited to the exceptional Gansus yumenensis and inconclusive trackways from Asia and Europe (Lockley et al., 1992; Fuentes Vidarte, 1996; You et al., 2006). The hongshanornithids thus expand our knowledge of Early Cretaceous specializations within the aquatic niche. The Hongshanornithidae are known from lakes located relatively close to the coast, in contrast to the younger more phylogenetically derived Gansus, which is known from inland deposits in northern Gansu Province, China. As more ornithuromorph taxa are described, it is becoming increasingly clear that a majority of species have aquatic specializations such as elongate hindlimbs and pedal digits and proximally projecting cnemial crests on the tibiotarsus (Yanornis, Gansus, Hongshanornis).
Longicrusavis also possesses specializations for a littoral environment,and together with Hongshanornis,reveals an early diversification of wading birds.
(Source)

"05-CM-021 would provide additional phylogenetic and eco-morphological information regarding the early evolution and diversification of Ornithuromorpha, and potentially the origins of Ornithurae. For instance, an important aspect of the paleobiology of Gansus is its presumed aquatic or semi-aquatic lifestyle, which has been inferred from its prominent, proximally-projecting cnemial crest on the tibiotarsus, proximal position of the metatarsal II trochlea, and elongate, webbed pedal digits (You et al. 2006; Hinic-Frlog 2007). Coupled with the phylogenetic position of Gansus as an advanced non-ornithurine ornithuromorph or basal ornithurine,this was considered to support the hypothesis that Cretaceous ornithuromorphs may have been largely aquatic in habits, and that neornithines may have originated in water-based niches (You et al. 2006). Whether or not the taxon represented by FRDC-05-CM-021 possessed similar aquatic adaptations can only be determined by the discovery of more complete specimens, because no sternal or furcular characters have yet been determined to be indicative of an aquatic ecology."
(Source)

Xing Xu Ph.D.:
"...Based on these discoveries, we propose that birds were primitively four-winged, with the hind limbs contributing to aerial locomotion. The separation of the forelimbs and the hind limbs into distinct locomotor modules in later birds, which led to reduction of the leg feathers and outright loss of the pedal feathers, may have been facilitated by ground, especially amphibious or aquatic habitat preferences in early ornithuromorphs." (Source)

Archeopteryx was around during the Jurassic -- frequently lagoons and semi-aquatic, and long before, there's quite possibly "Protoavis" from the Triassic, presumed to also be of modern bird form. We won't know until more fossils are found that correlate. Meanwhile, these are all just descendents of the AQUATIC ancestor among the basal archosaur, which I say was the Patriarch/Matriarchal Bird ancestor... it may have had similarities with dinosaurs, but it was no dinosaur. It may have had descendents that branched which were "dinosaur like" and may have had feathers, but were no true dinosaur.

"...Several new specimens of the previously enigmatic bird Gansus throw light on the evolution of early ornithuromorph birds. There appear to be the following evolutionary grades and clades recognizable to different degrees of clarity amongst the Mesozoic birds. The primitive radiation of birds appear to have included the very deinonychosaur/Epidendrosaur-like forms such Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis and Jeholornis followed by the emergence of birds with shortened pygostylic tails. Interestingly a pygostyle-like structure appears to have also evolved in the Oviraptorosaur Nomingia. Subsequently the pygostylians spawned two great radiations the enantiornithines and the ornithuromorphs/euornithes which included the modern birds. The enantiornithines spanned a wide ecological niche and were dominant birds throughout the later Mesozoic, however for reasons unclear to us they all became extinct in the great K/T event.
Feduccia, proposed a model that the early ornithuromorphs were aquatic or semi-aquatic– his shore birds. The new fossils of Gansus combined with the phylogeny suggest that many of the early clades of ornithuromorphs, such as Hongshanornis, the Yanornis-Yixianornis-Songlingornis clade, the Hesperornithids, Ichthyornithids and Gansus were all aquatic, whereas only Apsaravis is convincingly terrestrial. One must also revisit the somewhat later Vegavis from Antarctica in light of the aquatic early ornithuromorph hypothesis. Examining the ornithuromorph radiation we note that the most primitive member of this clade Patagopteryx appears to be a terrestrial bird, even secondarily flightless. So together with Apsaravis we have at least 3 major ecological niches amongst the better preserved members of the early ornithuromorph radiation- a flightless land form (which might have repeatedly happened in early avian evolution), a volant desert living form and several aquatic forms with different degrees of aquatic adaptation. When we go to the neornithes, we have the basal-most branch of the ratites, which are largely flightless and clearly all terrestrial cursorial forms. The next most basal branch, which are the earliest branching, neognaths are the Galloanserae. In the latter clade we have the late Cretaceous form Vegavis an aquatic form- the authors of that bird even claim it is nested within Anseriforms or the ducks."
(Source)

More dino-bird mythology to carefully dissect and ignore. Some birds have "feathered feet".... but why?

To snowshoe, they say. But the Cretaceous, when T. Rex roamed is suspect as being very warm :

Paleoclimate

"...In general, the climate of the Cretaceous Period was much warmer than at present, perhaps the warmest on a worldwide basis than at any other time during the Phanerozoic Eon."
(Source)

Now, everyone in the dino-bird camp is trying to explain why T. Rex must have had to have feathered feet too.

Not odd. They don't understand biology, birds or dinosaurs -- and that features "evolve" with purpose. Feathered feet are associated with very cold (even non-terrestrial) -- and that doesn't describe the very warm Cretaceous... also, very terrestrial... T. Rex.

TETRAONIDAE (This natural and fairly homogeneous group belongs to the order Galliformes, and is sometimes regarded as a subfamily within the Phasianidae...toes with scales on the sides adapted to climbing branches and walking on snow, shorter tail and heavier body with duller plumage.)

As shown, these "feathered feet" are used to snow-shoe. (Source)

Plio-Pleistocene climatic oscilations, Holarctic biogeography and speciation in an avian subfamily Sergei V. Drovetski*
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA
DISCUSSION
Although the estimated dates of Tetraoninae divergences have wide margins (Table 1) they show that the entire proliferation of grouse coincided with the global cooling and climatic oscillations of the Pliocene and Pleistocene. Tetraoninae represent an extraordinary example of rapid response to an environmental change that opened a new niche induced by global climate change. This niche was for large birds capable of wintering on woody foods through the long cold winters.
Paleontological data for the six modern Palearctic Tetraonins (Tyrberg, 1998) and the phylogeny of the entire subfamily (Drovetski, 2002) allowed me to calibrate a molecular clock for the CR sequences of four grouse genera. The mean estimate (SD) is 0.0723 0.0158 substitutions/site/Myr. Dates estimated with this rate should be interpreted cautiously because ML ratio test rejected a uniform evolutionary rate for the grouse CR tree. This rate is slightly higher than the rate calculated for mitochondrial Cytochrome-B gene of Galliforms (5.04%) and Hominids (5.56%) using HKY85 ML divergences (Arbogast & Slowinski, 1998), and the rate calculated for mitochondrial ND2 gene of Galapagos mockingbirds (5.52%) using GRT þ G model (B.S. Arbogast et al., unpublished data). An application of this rate to the grouse phylogeny showed that they arose in the Pliocene, approximately 6.3 Ma, and their proliferation began c. 3.2 Ma, with the divergence of ancestral Bonasa from the common ancestor of other grouse. These dates are much younger than the 48–28 and 22–17 Ma, respectively, estimated from a single external fossil date calibration that used the divergence between Galliforms and Anseriforms (Dimcheff et al. , 2002). Multiple internal calibration points used in this paper should produce more reliable time estimates than a single point which is twice the age of grouse proliferation.
(Source)

Darwin also bred pigeons which developed feathered feet. It's true, that domestication and cultivation can manipulate genes to change the appearance of the species, in captivity, but once released into the wild -- the species reverts back to its original appearance in the wild.

TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE FEET!!!

What Pigeons Teach Us About Convergent Evolution
"...So why do the same traits keep cropping up in distantly related breeds? The answer lies in human hands. According to the researchers, "In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin repeatedly calls attention to the striking variation among domestic pigeon breeds - generated by thousands of years of artificial selection on a single species by human breeders.
Because some human breeders thought that feathered pigeon feet were the hottest thing since curly dog fur, they bred selectively for that trait in both the Pomeranian pouter pigeon, whose feet are pictured in the top image, and the distantly related ice pigeon below. And although this form of trait selection is artificial, it's a good example of how evolution works. For example, this independent development of the same trait in multiple different genetic lines, known as convergent evolution, can also occur without human interference. In fact, Charles Darwin used pigeons to describe how selection influences the traits of a species, and as a model for how natural selection can lead to different traits in wild populations.
Despite their careful breeding, when pigeon populations become free-living - either in cities or in the wild - they evolve out of their original appearance."
(Source)

So, if these "feathered feet" are to tell us anything, its that the common ancestor of grouse and pigeon who developed this "feather feet" trait arose in a region where extreme cold prevailed, and this trait has been passed down through time.

If such a bird (with feathered feet) existed during the Cretaceous, and they say it did, then its suspect that it inherited it from a species that came before it, and had survived through an even earlier ice age.

See the "Ice Age" chart from (Source)

Notice on the chart of "Ice Ages" that there is an extreme drop in temperature around 200 Million years ago. Wikipedia has a quick explanation that sounds about right:

"...There is also a "cooler" interval during the Jurassic and early Cretaceous, with evidence of increased sea ice, but the lack of continents at either pole during this interval prevented the formation of continental ice sheets and consequently this is usually not regarded as a full-fledged ice age. In between these cold period, warmer conditions were present and often referred to as climate optima. However, it has been difficult to determine whether these warmer intervals were actually hotter or colder than occurred during the Cretaceous optima."
(Source)

Therefore, the "snow shoes" described on the "Anchiornis huxleyi" creature in the Cretaceous which is described to live around 160-155 million years ago... which had feathered feet ...inherited that trait from an ancestor who evolved during that cold time frame, 200 million years ago.

It seems like "snow shoe" is the word commonly used to describe the type of foot adapted for snow and icey climates.

Polar Bears | Discovery Kids
"...A thick layer of blubber ranging from one or two inches to four and a half inches sits just ... As you can see, a polar bear's paws are essentially snow shoes!"
(Source)

So these birds are not "terrestrial" and though snow is frozen water (aquatic) and they're walking on it... its still not aquatic either. It is "snow shoeing".

"The snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), also called the varying hare, or snowshoe rabbit, is a species of hare found in North America. It has the name "snowshoe" because of the large size of its hind feet and the marks its tail leaves. The animal's feet prevent it from sinking into the snow when it hops and walks. Its feet also have fur on the soles to protect it from freezing temperatures."
(Source)

On the page, they show a pair of Ptarmigans (relative of grouse).

Penguin Feet: Avoiding Frostbite in the Antarctic
"Penguins of the cold Antarctic and sub-Antarctic also have feathered legs, which are believed to play an important role in conserving heat. In fact, black-footed penguins (Spheniscus demersus) and Humboldt’s penguins (Spheniscus humboldti), which live in warmer areas (Africa’s southwest coast and South America, respectively) have featherless legs.
In addition, the blood vessels running to and from the feet of penguins are organized to facilitate countercurrent heat exchange. Arteries carrying warm blood toward the feet run alongside veins carrying cool blood up from the feet. Some of the heat from the blood in the arteries is transferred to the blood in the veins. Thus, cool blood moving toward the heart is warmed, which is important for maintaining core body temperature. Warm blood moving toward the feet is cooled, which helps penguins keep their feet at temperatures just above freezing. This strategy minimizes the amount of energy needed for keeping their feet warm while also preventing frostbite.
...Other birds have similarly mastered the art of heat conservation and frostbite prevention through countercurrent circulation in their legs and other unique adaptations. Sea gulls and ducks, for example, can stand in icy water with relatively no effect on core body temperature or their feet. The ptarmigan (Lagopus), a year-round resident of the Arctic, has feathers that completely cover its legs and toes. The ptarmigan’s distinct toe feathers are thought to provide some warmth, but perhaps more importantly they provide a snowshoe effect, preventing the bird from sinking into deep snow when foraging."
(Source)

So there is an empirical explanation why "feathered feet" are necessary for survival and serve a biological function... in animals (mammals and birds) in cold regions. WHY the "snowshoe" exists in some creatures, and not merely a random arrangement of anatomical characteristics. There was no need for a T-Rex to have this adaptation, nor his immediate relatives. If they say T. Rex had feathered feet? I'd like them to point out "why." Show me some fossils. Show me some reason. Not just because it "looks cool".
"...because bright red feathered feet are "cool looking"..." isn't legitimate science.
Paleontology today has became a failing religion, all the more I want to pull far away from the bogus madness they're now calling "paleontology".

.. not to mention the obvious:

"...Scientists have weighed Tyrannosaurus rex, finding it may have topped 9 tons..."

I have my doubts that a few feathers on its feet would "...prevent it from sinking into deep snow while foraging".

Read More »

Massive Size of Dinosaurs and Birds

0

..."Mammals, including humans, are warm-blooded and generate a lot of heat internally," he explained. "This becomes a problem at large body sizes as there is a danger of overheating. It's possible that many extinct archosaurs, including dinosaurs, were intermediate between cold-blooded and warm-blooded physiologies."

...and sweet little birds were warm-blooded.

NEWS: Blue Whales Keep Getting Bigger
"The large herbivorous dinosaurs undoubtedly spent much of their day feeding," McNab told Discovery News. "One should notice that the heads of dinosaurs related to the size of the bodies were very small, which means that the dinosaurs spent little time chewing the food, so most processing occurred in the gut, therefore the process of eating was probably inexpensive."
"This is very different from the behavior of most herbivorous mammals, which have large heads that house many teeth and spend much time chewing," McNab explained.
Benson thinks it's unlikely that any land animals today, including humans, could ever evolve to become as large as the biggest dinosaurs were.
"Mammals, including humans, are warm-blooded and generate a lot of heat internally," he explained. "This becomes a problem at large body sizes as there is a danger of overheating. It's possible that many extinct archosaurs, including dinosaurs, were intermediate between cold-blooded and warm-blooded physiologies." "If so, then temperature physiology would not have imposed limits on their body size," he added. "But it would certainly limit that of giant humans."
(Source)

Maybe birds would've became (large as) dinosaurs.. but couldn't. The dinosaurs kept eating them if they wandered out in open terrain. They could never diversify until the dinosaurs went extinct.

Largest Flying Bird Could Barely Get Off the Ground
"Lived in the Andes mountains and the pampas of Argentina about six million years ago.
"Takeoff capability is the limiting factor for the size of flying birds, and Argentavis almost reached the upper limit," Chatterjee said.
"Heavier birds such as the ostrich had to give up flight."
(Source)

Terror Birds: Predators with a Kung Fu Kick
South America 65-2.5 million years ago... These monstrosities arose AFTER dinosaurs died out enabling birds to exploit niches that they had not before.. which includes growing to heights that they had not in the past. Birds this size... had they evolved during the Cretaceous or Jurassic... would have ran into a dinosaur who was larger and made for a delicious Bucket o' Bird.
"The largest terror bird was the gargantuan Brontornis burmeisteri, which stood nearly 10 feet (3 meters) tall and weighed a whopping 1,100 pounds (500 kilograms)."
(Source)

Did these bird monstrosities give rise to modern birds like the hummingbirds... the geese, the parrot? Does it sound like they did?
They went extinct.
And note: National Geographic is guilty of reprinting the lie:

"Researchers still do not know if terror birds hunted in groups—as velociraptors..."

Fossil evidence shows Velociraptors were most likely solitary predators.
And THIS is probably why:

"...If relative brain size is any measure of intelligence, dromaeosaurs were just a little smarter than typical dinosaurs. Not geniuses by mammalian standards."
(Source)

No bucket o' brains.

Biggest Dinosaurs Had Brains the Size of Tennis Balls
"An advanced member of the largest group of dinosaurs ever to walk the Earth still had a relatively puny brain, researchers say."
(Source)

Now birds (in proportion to body mass) are complex and intelligent creatures.

Bird Brains (Source)

Read More »

Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy

1

"...Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy - Slate"

No, it doesn't. But it does overwhelm the reasoning faculties of anyone who actually stops to think critically about the unscientific claims.

slate com/.../creationists_and_dinosaurs_answers_in_genesis_t...
"...Sep 19, 2012 - Creationists are on a campaign to “take dinosaurs back. ... that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—"

Many creationists deny dinosaurs, fossil layers, evolution... so this is really not about taking "dinosaurs back".

It is about many scientists and science enthusiasts like myself, who are NOT "creationists" and have became disillusioned with the "meltdown of paleontology".

That dino-bird crowd claims any scientist who refuses to toe the line of erroneous Orthodoxy, is not a "real scientist" or "not legitimate". Or, the Ad Hominems such as "Alan Feduccia is part of the _older_ scientists.." as if he is simply "senile."

Only an illogical freshmen graduate would say a 70 million year old Velociraptor could birth a 165 million year old Archeopteryx.

"Most scientists.."

Intimidation. Bandwagon fallacy. A list please....

"...creationists deny the clear fossil record."

Yes they do. But MANY CREATIONISTS in the process have also studied and fully understand what is actually taught about the fossil record and Darwin's theory of natural selection, and realize... "these hacks aren't even following their own teachings about fossil layers. This is comic relief."

" ... The mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs, and that many “bird” ."

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. But there is mounting evidence of fossil fakery. (Source) And in no small number. Some estimates are as high as 80%.

There is only a theory (based on FOSSIL EVIDENCE... GENETIC EVIDENCE) and fits within the Charles Darwin way of science, that:

"Crocodiles are the closest living relatives of the birds, sharing a common ancestor that lived around 240 million years ago and also gave rise to the dinosaurs."

The so-called "mountain of evidence"... is stacked AGAINST the illogical dinosaur-bird hypothesis.

CHARLES DARWIN'S WAY:

"Crocodiles are the closest living relatives of the birds, sharing a common ancestor that lived around 240 million years ago and also gave rise to the dinosaurs."

And, as theorized, the farther back they dig into the fossil layers, the closer and closer the fossil forms will blend into "dinosaur-like birds" and "bird-like dinosaurs".

That's the complete opposite of the dino-bird theory which tries to convince the minds of otherwise intelligent, reason-minded people that a Velociraptor (70 mya) birthed an Archeopteryx (165 mya). A total disregard of the fossil record... this is madness and a meltdown of paleontology by the hacks, who genuinely(?) believe??

Religions hold unscientific myths dear to heart, don't they?

Yes... I need an anxiety pill because the lack of reason and logic in the dino-bird hypothesis is driving me mad... insane!! My reasoning faculties have reached a state of meltdown. A huge bruise to my brain.

I can feel the level of arrogance in a statement like

"...creationists deny the clear fossil record."

It is oh so "clear" that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Sounds much like the religious who swear how "clear" it is, that Allah or Jesus created the world in 6 days.

Anyone who is opposed to creationism, irregardless whether their baseless hypothesis makes rational sense -- mystically -- miraculously -- is of "greater intellect" "an all encompassing knowingness" and can never make any human error... all patent truths... how dare anyone question their arrogance!

Tho true, many YEC deny fossil evidence, period... so that makes their critics hypocrites... because the fanatic themselves deny "fossil evidence" every time they claim modern birds evolved from Cretaceous dinosaurs... utterly failing to follow the "clear fossil evidence" by proposing "Velociraptor" and ilk (70 mya) "evolved into birds," -- what was Archeopteryx (165 mya) -- predating the cretaceous dinosaurs, all the way back into the Jurassic?

Archaeopteryx was merely a figment of the imagination? We are expected... to deny... the fossil record... to accomodate such a grandiose hypothesis. When we refuse to... we are subjected to endure vitriol from people who believe in fairy tales and big red feathered dinosaurian predators.

Which by the way, has been debunked, but the dinosaur-bird hypothesizers will continue to paint bright red imaginary feathers on T. Rex and Velociraptor. By no means should we ever intrude on anyone's whimsical fantasies of science-fiction.

Ancient origins and multiple appearances of carotenoid-pigmented feathers in birds
"...The broad palette of feather colours displayed by birds serves diverse biological functions, including communication and camouflage. Fossil feathers provide evidence that some avian colours, like black and brown melanins, have existed for at least 160 million years (Myr), but no traces of bright carotenoid pigments in ancient feathers have been reported."

Winter cardinals don their brightest red feathers
"...Cardinals get the pigments responsible for red feathers from their food. Cardinals, tanagers and goldfinches can't synthesize carotenoids - the pigments responsible for red, orange and yellow feathers. If the birds don't eat enough carotenoid-rich fruits and insects, feathers that grow in during the next molt will be less colorful. Dogwood, rose and Japanese honeysuckle berries are locally abundant sources of carotenoid pigments."

Molecular evidence for the origin of birds (backup)

Science speculation, like a powerful wind has taken hold of them by the seat of their pants and.. wherever the winds of fantasy, may blow them... there they are! And they call it "indisputable fact".

If creation-science were ever a threat to scientific progress because it expects people to "deny fossil evidence"... well then what are the dinosaur to bird crowd but fossil-record deniers?

Paleontology has been hijacked by something worse than creationism. The dinosaur to bird hypothesis is the wolf in sheep's clothing. At least Creationists are honest enough to confess they deny Evolution and Science. The Dinosaur to Bird Crowd merely pretend to adhere to scientific principals... but only when it is expedient to their hypothesis.

As I've already explained, (Source) "bright red feathers" are in blatant contradiction -- a mocking insult to legitimate science, all that is known about wild animals? They evolve camouflage adapting them to their environment, either to hide from predators, or to be an effective predator, one must blend into their environment and take prey unaware. From a natural selection standpoint, bright feathers are a liability. However, perhaps the dinosaur-bird hypothesis crowd are trying to convince us of the cause of the dinosaur extinction, or that all T. Rexes were male.

"...Real skeptics do not cling to absurd conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence, nor do they engage in obfuscation, misrepresentation, data fabrication, smear campaigns, or intimidation tactics. These are the methods of deniers"
(Source)

MISREPRESENTATION. Like using GREBE feathers and a long rope to extrapolate that somehow, those bird (grebe) feathers are "dinosaur" feathers.

Instead of convincing the reader, they've hung themselves once anyone reads with comprehension, wakes up and realizes the press was purposely trying to obfuscate facts and deceive the public at large.

DATA FABRICATION (See above).

SMEAR CAMPAIGNS -- (See Alan Feduccia and other scientists who question the Orthodoxy).

JUST ONE "FACT". And there are many facts. But denialists refuse to accept... a direct result of their own cognitive dissonance.

Source: Oregon State University
"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories."
(Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links, ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009).)
(Source)

So much for logic, reason, skepticism, questioning...

"..."But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.
"A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset," Ruben said.
The newest findings, the researchers said, are more consistent with birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system."
(Source)

WHO are these "most scientists today" who accept that cretaceous dinosaurs evolved into birds"?

"GENERALIZATION." ANOTHER TACTIC OF DENIALISTS.

There are many legitimate scientists who refuse to blindly accept the hypothesis.

... In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea."
(Source)

The bandwagon argument that

"Most biologists accept it as conclusive proof that dinosaurs sired birds..."

Most? Is that so? Good old argument fallacy -- to intimidate other scientists to cave under the pressure. Nothing more.

The more I read of that hypothesis... and on my own, do a little "fact checking" and compare the details with actual science.. the angrier I get, that the press are fabricating "evidence" in its ongoing pursuit to miseducate the public at large and nobody corrects it... any scientist who dares to correct the misinformation will become the target of a smear campaign and it makes me even angrier at the sheep, who blindly swallow the misinformation... and the asenine disciples, on the forefront of promoting blatant lies... like this "cool toy"...

ALL TO DUMB DOWN TOMORROW'S YOUTH.

Kids will sadly, never grow up understanding something as simple as "camouflage" and "natural selection" and the "arms race" and all the cool, neat facts about real nature and WHY animals have certain peculiar adaptive traits... real biology... like spots on giraffes, and dull gray on large predators and prey alike.
The education system is on the decline, sucking down the tubes and at this point, I don't feel there's any hope of going back.
TO WITNESS THE ONGOING DESTRUCTION OF SCIENCE IS DEPRESSING.

Headline: "Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy"

Does it take a myth to debunk a myth? Explain how that works.

But... not because it's "truth".

Not because it's a matter of fact-denial. Nobody is scoring brownie points. No doubt this whole issue has drawn ire of some "creationists" -- but not for the reason pseudo-Darwinists claim.
The absurdity of the claims -- one can not help but recognize pseudo-paleontology. Who ... really believes the dino-bird hypothesis? A hypothesis which has made a mockery of paleontology... all the sensational headlines -- pawning GREBE FEATHERS in amber off, as "dinosaur". You can fool some people some of the time, perhaps most people, most of the time... but I am not deceived.

And... the thing is, creationists know it... OH NO DOUBT creationists are in fact, LEARNING all about fossil layers, extinct organisms, geological eras, even what natural selection really teaches and -- quickly come to realize, the dino-bird hypothesis is in contradiction with what Charles Darwin taught... the dino-bird hype is not truth. It isn't even scientific, or Darwinian, and the Creationists know it.

It drives any sane person completely out of their mind, starting with how the fossil record is taken completely out of order and relying on hypothetical TIME TRAVEL to give rise to birds. Velociraptor arose around 70 million years ago... and somehow he fathered a bird that lived 100 million before him?

There's a magical fairy tale.

Red feathers didn't exist 165 million years ago and yet bright red t. rex cartoons flood the internet, like the myth of santa claus in his giant red suit.

Giant predators aren't adorned in bright red feathers. Even a 3rd Grade elementary school kid knows this. (Well kids did know, until some began teaching the pseudo-science and miseducating children). The meltdown and demise of education about nature.

I suppose that if a minority of the scientific community come together to propagate a deliberate falsehood... it will drum up intense interest in the evolution debate -- because the lies are so profound and blatantly, patently false, that it is *worthy* of stern debunking.

Paleontology loses its credibility is the only cost.

The dinosaur-bird hypothesist fanatics get angry... furious... attacking any scientists who dare question the baseless orthodoxy of "dinosaur to bird evolution".

They boast to possess superior "critical thinking skills" of a "skeptic" til you dare to question what YOUR OWN POWER OF LOGIC screams is patently untrue... and to that, they ridicule you as a "creationist" and demand blind belief and faith in their dogma and orthodoxy. Nobody DARE question those bright red feathers on large predators! (Never mind that they know brightly colored feathers didn't exist in the Jurassic and Cretaceous). The dino-bird hypothesis reaks with the stinch of a religion... what it lacks in facts is made up for in arm-twisting intimidation from its devoted disciples. Intimidation and outspoken sensationalist media is about the only thing in its corner to keep it afloat because there's nothing truthful or intellectually honest about any of it.

There's more people than ever, who accept evolution and more "open minded" and liberal than ever ... but for some reason the decline continues. Maybe because some of what is being pawned off as "education" is everything but. (Source)

They have hijacked and scrambled the fossil record with their whimsical, baseless hypothesis. They don't care about adhering to the "mountain of clear evidence in the fossil record" themselves. They claim they do... an arrogant claim... their "so scientific mindedness"... their "superiority".

But they deny the fossil record like Creationists.

Why do they show T-Rex or Velociraptor -- all the way into the Cretaceous, near the extinction of dinosaurs and make all their "bird connections" to these beasts?

Why not focus on the first true theropods? In the Triassic. Somebody's gotta do it! Explaining how Archeopteryx (165 mya) supposedly "evolved from theropod dinosaurs".

"...As with all such evolutionary transitions, it's impossible to identify the exact moment when the first dinosaur walked the earth: for a few million years during the middle Triassic period, some reptile species would have evinced a CONFUSING MIXTURE of archosaur and dinosaur characteristics. For example, the two-legged archosaur Marasuchus (sometimes identified as Lagosuchus) looked remarkably like an early theropod dinosaur, and along with genera like Saltopus and Procompsognathus may well have inhabited that in-between "shadow zone" that has proven so baffling to paleontologists. (The recent discovery of a new genus of archosaur, Asilisaurus, may push back the dinosaur family tree even further, to 240 million years ago; the implications of this are still being sorted out, as are the implications of dinosaur-like footprints in Europe dating as far back as 250 million years ago!.).."
(Source)

Oh, but... those dinosaurs weren't made famous and lovable by Jurassic Park and aren't ingrained into the minds of people... nobody will take interest or care... no big stuffed Red t-rex toys and other collectibles like in John Hammond's gift shop.

These people say they hate Jurassic Park because it too is in contradiction with what is known about the true science of dinosaurs and birds, but they depend on the hollywood movies and sensationalist media to promote the drivel of fantasies of dinosaurs evolving into birds. The sensationalist headline proclaims, "Pictures: "Incredible" Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber" but the article is slow to confess,

"Tiny coiled barbs—useful for water uptake—on an ancient, amber-encased feather are much like those on feathers of modern diving birds such as grebes."

GREBES... whose ancestors lived during the Cretaceous.

Who do they presume they are deceiving except those who lack a working knowledge of birds from the Jurassic and Cretaceous?

"The first placental mammals appeared at the beginning of the Cretaceous. The Cretaceous saw the rise and extinction of the toothed birds, Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. The earliest fossils of birds resembling loons, grebes, cormorants, pelicans, flamingos, ibises, rails, and sandpipers were from the Cretaceous.
(Source)

An interesting article written by a Creationist (RIGHTFULLY SO) attacking those widespread lies in the media, about "dinosaur feathers" trapped in amber. Even the National Geographic article added (reluctantly) that it was a GREBE feather. :-(
Now WHO is it that goes about boasting of their "superior intellect" over those who refuse to blindly believe in fairy-tales... myths... and sensationalist media drivel?

Grebe Left Imaginary Dinosaur Feathers in Amber
“Dinosaur feathers” are all over the news again, thanks to a paper in Science revealing feathers in amber found in Canada. But whose feathers are they? Inferences from other sources, not from the amber, were brought into the interpretation, even though the discoverers admitted, “There is currently no way to refer the feathers in amber with certainty to either birds or the rare small theropods from the area.” And modern-looking feathers of diving birds like grebes were also found in the same amber, leading to numerous questions about what can rightly be inferred from the fossils themselves."
(Source)

In other words, the press pawned a load of hype on the public and then expect the public to "respect" them.

This is suppose to "enlighten" the public about Science. How? With outright deception and myths?

Will Rogers — 'It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation, but you can lose it in a minute.'

Read More »

Mother Nature's Dirty Little Tricks (Triassic Avian Ancestor in Semi-Aquatic Environment)

0

Here's an interesting Retraction in Nature. 2013 Sep 12;501(7466):262. .. it states something of peculiar interest:

The first theropod dinosaurs arose during the Triassic...

"...The hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds."

We must find a theropod from the Triassic to constitute an ancestor for Archeopteryx (a true bird)... otherwise, birds did not and could not have evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

Abstract
"...The study of fossilized footprints and tracks of dinosaurs and other vertebrates has provided insight into the origin, evolution and extinction of several major groups and their behaviour; it has also been an important complement to their body fossil record. The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx, whereas the coelurosaurian ancestors of the birds date back to the Early Jurassic. The hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds. Previous references to suggested Late Triassic to Early Jurassic bird-like footprints have been reinterpreted as produced by non-avian dinosaurs having a high angle between digits II and IV and in all cases their avian affinities have been challenged. Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds. These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters."
(Source)

Take note of the last sentence. I have predicted "birds arose from aquatic environments" -- well ain't that something!

"...These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters."

Ponds... aquatic... back to the "water's edge" from whence all life was begat.

"...Ephemeral rivers are rivers that do not always flow, that is, they dry up. How often, and for how long they dry up varies. It depends on the river."

See attached pic of such an "ephemeral river".

Swimming... enabled birds to fly.

I have DELIVERED TO YOU what the proto-ancestor of modern birds... as I predict will be... aquatic... semi-aquatic from such an environment as the one shown. LOL.

:-P from "...an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters."

Now, if Protoavis (also dated to the triassic, but by all accounts is a well-formed bird), then we'll just have to push that time-frame in the Triassic, back a bit more. But for now.. this evidence suffices.

This is funny. In light of the Nature "Retraction". The Major Groups of Coelurosaurs Extremely bird-like theropod dinosaurs "...Warning: You are entering an area of taxonomic research that is constantly changing. The phylogeny of this group of theropods is debated by paleontologists involved in its study, and new classifications are proposed several times a year! We will attempt to keep this site updated, but for now, as you warily maneuver through the shadowy byways of this theropod exhibit, remember that the relationships of this diverse group are not yet understood fully. It is both a frustrating and exciting area of research. So tread carefully from here on…and watch the shadows! Hungry beasts lurk ahead!" (Source) Never seen a web page open with that kind of disclaimer on it. WOW! Wow could that be? The dino-bird hypotheses people already know everything.

From what I gather from Paleontology 101 as it currently stands, and the "Retraction" by Nature ...

GEOL 104: Theropoda II, Coelurosauria: Tyrant Kings and ...

Oct 14, 2014 -"Among the most primitive and oldest known coelurosaurs are the basal *tyrannosauroids Proceratosaurus of the Middle Jurassic of England and Kileskus of Russia. Only the skull of the former, and skull, hand, and foot bones of the latter, are known at present. However, the most primitive known coelurosaur is actual a relatively late one: Bicentenaria of the mid-Cretaceous of Argentina. It shares with basal tyrannosauroids and basal maniraptoriforms the same general body plan: relatively small (2-4 m) slender animals with skulls full of small ziphodont teeth. Their narrow grasping hands suggest they adapted to catching small prey; their light build, slender limbs, and narrow dynamic stabilizing tail suggests relatively agile animals (useful both in chasing prey and in avoiding predators)." (Source)

[* Tyrannosaurus rex, one of the last, and also the largest known tyrannosaur.]

But they're oh so positive, "birds evolved from" these beasts... 100 million years after birds were already alive & well and long since proliferating across the planet.

So, the "oldest known coelurosaurs" date to the Middle Jurassic... about the time Archeopteryx was already a fully developed bird.
And the "oldest known bird" date to the late Jurassic. (Archeopteryx). Right?

The Nature retraction stated:

"...The known history of birds starts in the Late Jurassic epoch (around 150 Myr ago) with the record of Archaeopteryx, whereas the coelurosaurian ancestors of the birds date back to the Early Jurassic. The hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological [note: bone/skeletal] evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds."

So those are not going to be the ancestor to (perching) birds... and continues,

"....Previous references to suggested Late Triassic to Early Jurassic bird-like footprints have been reinterpreted as produced by non-avian dinosaurs having a high angle between digits II and IV and in all cases their avian affinities have been challenged."

So they too, could not be the ancestors of birds. And this is back in the LATE TRIASSIC... long before T-Rex and Velociraptor evolved.
[...BTW they do indeed have the fossil skeletons of T-Rex to rebuild upon and create more "3D Imaging" footprints if necessary, so they should know if they are actually "ancestors to birds". But since T- Rex lived 70 million years AFTER archeopteryx, such a demonstration would be pointless, anyway... but nobody is following the fossil record these days anyway... so to do so would be right up the dino-bird hypothesist' alley.]

Coelurosaurs are merely "Extremely bird-like theropod dinosaurs". But not birds and not the ancestors of birds, either.

With Common Ancestry... it is EXPECTED... PREDICTED... to have "bird like dinosaurs" and "dinosaur-like birds". That's Evolution (Charles Darwin style). But with the dino-bird crowd -- there are no "gray areas" as there are suppose to be. There are NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS between archosaur and bird... they are all "dinosaur" including birds. The whole idea of Evolution and diversification from "basal archosaurs into birds and dinosaurs and crocodiles" was flushed down the tubes with a fanatic hypothesis that birds arose from cretaceous dinosaurs.

Evidence weighs heavy for the non-relation between bird and dinosaur in the Jurassic.

So when pushing back the geological time-clock, into the Triassic... before the first documented (known) true bird -- after they retract the dubious misinformation about "...hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological [edit: bone/skeletal] evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds."... and then proceed to explain a potential candidate that might be, a potential ancestor to birds :

"...Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds. These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters."
(Source)

Again... an "unknown group" in the Triassic... in a semi-aquatic habitat.

It was merely a pipe dream... for now.

At least that is my understanding of the Nature Retraction.

Have it the way of Nature's retraction (placed in the Triassic)... or Dr. Alan Feduccia's way, placed in the Tertiary: (The Eocene is the second of five epochs in the Tertiary Period — the second of three epochs in the Paleogene — and lasted from about 55.8 to 33.9 million years ago...)

(1/8/2015) "...These tracks never were considered dinosaurian, but look identical to those of small shorebirds, now called stints. The hundreds of tracks even show behavior virtually identical to modern shorebirds. The deposits were not properly assigned and are Eocene. Finally, the reason they lack a hallux is that they, like modern shorebirds that also lack the hallux, are not perching birds. The hallux is "exclusively" an adaptation for perching in trees."

Oh well either way... I WIN because I already know how the Jurassic-Triassic world looked. Lots of beds of water abroad and the ancestors of birds were taking a dip and swimming. The earliest birds were swimmers -- etched in their anatomy like no other species.
The oldest amniotes date from Upper Carboniferous (310 My) when animals came out on land, and the rise of birds was somewhere around the Triassic 250-200 Mya.

And, the oldest known bird.. indeed: "Archaeopteryx lived near a large shallow, coastal lagoon. Archaeopteryx fossils have been found only in the Atlmuhl valley in Bavaria, Germany..."

Read More »

Tyrannosaurus Rex "Visual Acuity"

0

The sensational headline reads: "Maligned T. Rex eyesight the best in animal history?"
Dino-Bird people "explain away" everything... resulting in the explanation of nothing.

"...Stevens was able to determine that T. Rex’s binocular range was 55 degrees, which is greater than a hawk, which is known for its high visual acuity. T. Rex had front-facing eyes, set into the sides of a narrow skull, which allowed for an overlap in its visual field, leading to the conclusion that T. Rex had definite depth perception."
(Source)

"...Great horned owls, like other owls, have eyes that are fixed in their socket. They cannot move their eyes up and down or side to side like humans. To compensate for lack of eye movement they can rotate their heads 270 degrees. This rotation enables the owl to see in many different directions. In addition to having an extra vertebrate to help with the neck movement, great horned owls have large yellow eyes that allow them to gather sufficient light to see well in low light conditions. They have an incredible sense of hearing, a trait which allows them to hunt at night. Their ears are located on the sides of the head. One opening of the ears is tilted upwards while the other is tilted downwards. The right ear is set higher up on the skull. This allows the owl to pinpoint exactly where the prey is located."
(Source)

"... Canadian geese also have very good eyesight and hearing. Sight is the bird's dominant sense. Compared to a mammal's eyes, they are comparatively immobile; however, birds are able to rotate their heads greater distances. Birds are also able to focus their eyes very quickly which is essential during flying. They have a large field of sharp vision."
(Source)

"...But birds have several visual adaptations that help compensate for the limitations of monocular vision. The first is an increased panoramic view. For example, mallards possess a 360-degree lateral viewing window where they can see in a complete circle at all times. People have a much narrower range of vision, which forces us to look around in several directions to piece together all of our surroundings. Bird eyes are also often set higher on the head, which increases the vertical sight plane. An extreme example is the American woodcock, which can observe not only 360 degrees laterally but also 180 degrees vertically. The benefit for birds is an increased awareness of their surroundings and a subsequent decrease in exposure to predation.
Another way birds compensate for monocular vision is rapid head movement. By moving their head rapidly from side to side, birds can observe an object with one eye from two different angles in quick succession. This creates a three-dimensional picture and greatly improves depth perception. Although difficult to see in ducks, this behavior can easily be observed in a backpedaling goose as the bird swivels its head from side to side judging the distance, location, and timing of its landing.
Monocular vs. Binocular Vision
With eyes set on the sides of their head, most waterfowl view the world with monocular vision (each eye is used separately) rather than binocular vision (both eyes view the same object at once). With the notable exception of owls, binocular vision is rare in birds. Among waterfowl, only the blue duck of New Zealand can look straight ahead. Bitterns can also do the same, but only by pointing their bill skyward."
(Source)

Not only were all T. Rex "bright red" to scare off all potential prey leading to extinction by starvation... but the bright red also tells me they were all male so perhaps gaydom (lack of reproduction) gives further insight into the extinction of dinosaurs.

"...Stevens was able to determine that T. Rex’s binocular range was 55 degrees, which is greater than a hawk,"

How Owls Twist Their Heads Almost 360 Degrees

"..The team discovered owls have backup arteries, which offer a fresh supply of nutrients when blood vessels get closed off by rapid turning.
Their arteries also swell to collect any excess blood created in the process."
Eerie Ability Not Unique
"It’s a powerful adaptive trait, Forsman said, but it’s not unique. Plenty of birds have a similar ability to look behind them. Red-tailed hawks, for example, are almost as flexible as their nocturnal cousins."
(Source)

The dino-bird people try to say that T. Rex had better vision than owls and hawks... in which reality?

T. Rex was no owl or hawk.

"...The results are promising, says David Hone of Queen Mary University of London. "We need to be careful not to overly rely on these as analogies, but in at least some ways, some animals like tyrannosaurs that are relatively distant from birds are still very bird-like."
Tyrannosaurs, the family of big predatory dinosaurs that includes T. rex, had necks that were similar to those of modern birds. So by studying how birds feed, Eric Snively of the University of Wisconsin–La Crosse and his colleagues were able to reconstruct how T. rex went about making a kill.
[...]
"Tyrannosaur necks are also similar to crocodile necks. "We can think of them as striking like a bird, and shake-feeding like a crocodile," says Snively."
(Source)
"Many people think of Allosaurus as a smaller and earlier version of T. rex, but our engineering analyses show that they were very different predators."
A key finding was an unusually placed neck muscle called longissimus capitis superficialis. In most predatory dinosaurs, such as T. rex, which Snively studied previously, this muscle passed from the side of the neck to a bony wing on the outer back corners of the skull.
"This neck muscle acts like a rider pulling on the reins of a horse's bridle," explained Snively. "If the muscle on one side contracts, it would turn the head in that direction, but if the muscles on both sides pull, it pulls the head straight back."
Tyrannosaurs like T. rex, on the other hand, were engineered to use a grab-and-shake technique to tear off hunks of flesh, more like a crocodile."
[.........] --->But the team's engineering analyses revealed a cost to T. rex's feeding style: high rotational inertia. That large bony and toothy skull perched at the end of the neck made it hard for T. rex to speed up or slow down its head or to change its course as it swung its head around. <-----
(Source)

Let's see a T. Rex pull this stunt:

Owls do not depend on their visual acuity alone.

So, Jurassic Park and the dino-bird religionists went way off course, when "explaining away" reality, and trying to make T. Rex out to be superman with "the best vision in history".

The owl depends heavily upon hearing to hunt its prey. (See above video).
T. Rex?

"...Its ears were similar to modern crocodiles, which have excellent hearing."
(Source)
"...The ears are adapted for hearing both in air and underwater.[20] Crocodilians have a wide hearing range, with sensitivity comparable to most birds and many mammals."
(Source)

In other words, T. Rex was merely average. T. Rex was just as susceptible to extinction as 99.9% of the other species that have came and went on the planet over the past 3.5 billion years.
T. Rex' ears were comparable to crocodiles, and so was their neck.
Crocodiles and T. Rex shared common ancestry.

Here's another bit, apparently the study concluding "T. Rex had the best visual acuity in animal history" -- even better than modern hawks? Implying T. Rexes were better hunters than hawks?

CONCLUSION:

"...These findings suggest that relative eye size and brain size have coevolved in birds in response to nocturnal activity and, at least partly, to capture of mobile prey."

So, what bird may lack in "eyeball size" is made up for in "THINKING-BRAIN" SIZE which was a product of evolution.

That study concluding T. Rex could "see" better than modern birds, really left out some IMPORTANT variables. How is it known (since T. Rex neck was similar to crocodile, and T. Rex hearing was similar to crocodile, it did not also have crocodile's visual acuity as well?) Do they have a fossilized eyeball? Nope. But comparative anatomy leads them to the realization T. Rex have many similarities to crocodiles.)
Then the eyeballs too.

VISION OF CROCODILES

"...It's likely that crocodiles are using some of these areas to listen, taste and watch for signs of activity (from prey, and from other crocs) before moving out to investigate."

[--- OHHHH, so modern crocodiles use OTHER SENSES for their ability to "see" the world around them. Sight is really not "the" all determining factor.]

"We tested the croc's vision by using a light-coloured object (a polystyrene ball) and it reacted as soon as it got to within a metre of its head," he says.
"We have shown quite plainly that crocodiles have reasonable vision underwater, enough to detect relatively small objects underwater within striking range of their head, and enough to detect larger objects underwater outside of striking range.
(Source)

What Causes a Crocodile's Jaw to Snap Shut?
"...Super Sensitive Skin and Teeth : The skin around the crocodile’s jaw is covered in microscopic bumps. These bumps are filled with highly sensitive nerve endings enabling the croc to detect movement, touch and vibrations. Once the nerve endings are stimulated, the crocodiles bite reflex is activated, causing the jaws to snap shut. The teeth also contain highly sensitive nerve endings. When something enters the croc’s mouth, the nerve endings in the teeth are stimulated, causing a snap reflex. Since the mouth needs to be open for anything to enter, the reaction speed here is quicker, as the croc doesn’t first need to open his jaws before snapping them shut."
(Source)

THAT... DOES NOT SOUND THE HIGHLY EVOLVED BRAIN OF EITHER A BIRD OR MAMMAL... AND THERE'S A REASON....

The rate of energy that a warm-blooded predator would need to burn to survive... compared to the brain-power of the T. Rex to be an "effective predator"... ?? Obviously the T. Rex was condemned to a diet similar to a crocodile (inability to become warm-blooded due to the near-absence of a "thinking brain")... a complete and thorough lack of ability to formulate a "planned attack".

T. REX DIET

"...larger crocodiles can go for over a year without eating a meal. In extreme situations, crocodiles appear to be able to shut down and live off their own tissue for a long period of time....the average croc eats about 50 full meals a year. When they feast, crocodiles are certainly not picky eaters. It’s said that a croc will feed on anything it can outswim or ambush and overpower. These reptiles have extraordinarily adaptable diets. Larger crocodiles will eat larger mammals and birds, but they’ll also eat fish and mollusks like snails. During difficult times, they will even scavenge for carrion. In fact, crocs will consume almost everything they encounter."
(Source)

BINOCULAR VISION... LIKE CROCODILES

"...crocodiles start the leap while stationary at the water's surface - they need to be able to see their target before they start to leap, and if the target is above them they'll tip their head upwards to get a better view.
binocular vision.
Crocodiles can judge the distance to their target very accurately - they have binocular vision in front of their heads (i.e. the visual fields of left and right eyes overlap - see right), so they can use parallax to estimate distance. Once ready, the crocodile immediately starts to use powerful sinusoidal undulations of its tail to literally push itself upwards out of the water."
(Source)

"T. rex's brain... the cerebrum (the part of the brain that we use to think) was tiny. T. rex's brain was long and almost cylindrical in shape. Only very advanced theropods, like the dromaeosaurid dinosaurs (for example, Deinonychus and Velociraptor), were probably smarter than T. rex."
(Source)

ON TO MODERN BIRDS LIKE HAWKS

Extract from "Evolution and Prehistory: The Human Challenge"

"..Unlike reptiles, who process visual information with neurons in the retina, mammals process visual information IN THE BRAIN, permitting integration with information with other senses such as taste, touch, taste and smell."
(Source)

"...Evidence from several sources indicates the avian visual system was driven by alterations of the basic reptilian plan, primarily in support of flight behaviors. Birds are highly visually dependent organisms, possessing visual capabilities comparable (and in some cases, superior) to those of another visually-dependent vertebrate, the primates. There are many basic similarities in the visual pathways of birds and mammals. These commonalities in visual systems are rooted both in distant ancestral phylogenetic relationships..."
(Source)

".........species with large eyes have evolved large brains to cope with the increased amount of visual input......."

BUT THAT.. WAS NOT THE CASE WITH T. REX AND HIS TINY CROCODILIAN-BRAIN.

BIO 554/754
Ornithology
Nervous System: Brain and Special Senses II
"...The avian eye is large relative to the size of the head & brain. For example, human eyes make up about 1% of the total mass of the head; European Starlings eyes make up about 15% of the mass of their head. The advantage: large eyes provide larger & sharper images. Birds also have 3 eyelids; one upper and one lower eyelid plus a nictitating membrane. This nictitating membrane is between the other two eyelids and the cornea and has its own lubricating duct equivalent to our tear duct.
Eye size, brain size, prey capture and nocturnality -- Behavioral adaptation to ecological conditions can lead to brain size evolution. Structures involved in behavioural visual information processing are expected to coevolve with enlargement of the brain. Because birds are mainly vision-oriented animals, Garamszegi et al. (2002) tested the predictions that adaptation to different foraging constraints can result in eye size evolution, and that species with large eyes have evolved large brains to cope with the increased amount of visual input. Using a comparative approach, Garamszegi et al. (2002) investigated the relationship between eye size and brain size, and the effect of prey capture technique and nocturnality on these traits. After controlling for allometric effects, they found a significant, positive correlation between relative brain size and relative eye size. Variation in relative eye and brain size were significantly and positively related to prey capture technique and nocturnality. These findings suggest that relative eye size and brain size have coevolved in birds in response to nocturnal activity and, at least partly, to capture of mobile prey."
(Source)

"T. rex's brain... the cerebrum (the part of the brain that we use to think) was tiny. T. rex's brain was long and almost cylindrical in shape. Only very advanced theropods, like the dromaeosaurid dinosaurs (for example, Deinonychus and Velociraptor), were probably smarter than T. rex."
(Source)

And, just how "smart" was a "smart dinosaur"?

"...Velociraptors were Dromaeosaurids, among the dinosaurs with the very highest level, so they were truly smart among dinosaurs. On this ranking, they were probably a bit smarter than rabbits and not quite as smart as cats and dogs."
However, this comparison is made more complicated by the fact that the velociraptor's brains appear to be relatively primitive, despite their large size, and they may have instead had highly developed senses with not much thinking power. That is, their brains suggest they "bit first and asked questions later" and had little capability to evolve hunting strategies."
(Source)

So in other words, without a highly-evolved brain like in mammals and modern birds, an eyeball the size of a basketball won't help you become one bit a better predator... T. Rex lacked the brain to process the visual information.

"...Using a comparative approach, Garamszegi et al. (2002) investigated the relationship between eye size and brain size, and the effect of prey capture technique and nocturnality on these traits. After controlling for allometric effects, they found a significant, positive correlation between relative brain size and relative eye size. Variation in relative eye and brain size were significantly and positively related to prey capture technique and nocturnality. These findings suggest that relative eye size and brain size have coevolved in birds in response to nocturnal activity and, at least partly, to capture of mobile prey."
(Source)

".........species with large eyes have EVOLVED LARGE BRAINS to cope with the increased amount of visual input......."
(Source)

T. Rex's ability to process visual information was extremely limited compared to the modern hawk.

"...A Red-tailed Hawk... [has] excellent eyesight which is much sharper than a human's. A Red-tailed Hawk can spot a mouse from a height of 100 feet."
(Source)

In the same scenerio, T. Rex would not know if the moving object was edible or not -- it just bit at what moved. Hawks knows what "a mouse" is and formulates a plan of attack on its prey. The hawk... sees a mouse...and knows it eats mouse. "Mice are delicious" thinks the hawk as it swoops in for the kill.
A feat which a T. Rex with "bright red feathers" could've never performed.
The T. Rex would've seen "something move" and bit... like a mechanical reaction.
The hawk's eyeballs may be smaller than T. Rex, but its brain is evolved to effectively compensate.

Why wouldn't a T. Rex bite a duck-billed dinosaur?

"Some paleontologists (notably Jack Horner) have recently begun to question whether T. rex could have been an effective hunter, given its small eyes, puny arms, and relatively slow gait (Note: many other paleontologists think that T. rex had good eyesight and was a relatively fast dinosaur.) Horner's alternative theory is that T. rex scavenged its food from other animals' kills. ...There are arguments against this scavenger hypothesis. Dr. Kenneth Carpenter (then at the Denver Museum of Natural History) found a healed T. rex tooth mark on the tail of a hadrosaur (a duck-billed dinosaur). This is evidence that T. rex was an active predator, and not simply a scavenger. Why else would T. rex bite a duck-billed dinosaur?"
(Source)

"...Crocodiles are just a killing, eating machine..."
(Source)

Read More »