tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25206912957404307152024-03-05T20:40:05.630-08:00Birds To DinosaurThere is strong and sufficient evidence that birds evolved separately and independently apart from theropod dinosaurs of the Cretaceous.Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-77430498507240305332016-08-14T18:21:00.003-07:002016-08-14T19:22:53.887-07:00The Religious-like Dogma of Dinosaur to Bird Evolution<p>Harkening back to <a href="http://birds-to-dinosaur.blogspot.com/2015/01/feathered-dinosaurs-drive-creationists.html">a post during January 2015</a>, in an article titled <em>“Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy”</em> on Slate, the assertion is made, <em>“…The mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs, and that many ‘bird’…”</em></p>
<blockquote><p>…”Most scientists…”</p></blockquote>
<p>'zat so? “Most…Scientists…”</p>
<p>Today, whilst reading an article by a progressive Agnostic, I came across the following statement aimed at “religious-minded” folks. How poignantly stated too!</p>
<p>Comments such as “all” or even “‘most’ scientists believe birds evolved from dinosaurs.…” is an absurd assertion. How they conducted their poll and statistics on “most scientists” is a mystery in itself however,</p>
<p>Even if it were so, what does that prove?</p>
<p>Nothing. Let's take it straight from the mouth of the most vehement anti-religious among Darwinists:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>“I noticed your reliance upon phrases such as, “modern scholarship is virtually unanimous,” “on this score scholarship is united,” “almost all scholars are agreed,“ and finally, “this seems to be the conclusion of most modern scholars, even critical ones.” <u>I take exception to such a method of argument. A man's opinions are not logically strengthened by the number of men who agree with him (unless his logic functions like that of an evangelist)</u>.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>*Ouch.*</p>
<p>Personally, I could care no less about “opinions” so much as I care about fossils and actual geological dating methods.</p>
<p>The “empirical evidence” stands on the side of the minority of scientists who actually adhere to valid time-tested scientific principals and their counterparts who have enough knowledge to actually know to avoid “pop science” which is virtually the same as mainstream pseudo-scientific garbage. Were these elusive statistics culled from a peer reviewed journal, or perhaps like the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis, plucked from thin air? Legitimacy of theories comes solely by being based upon the “clear fossil evidence” that birds existed before cretaceous theropod dinosaurs, whether the conclusions are the ones desired or not. Whimsical myths and fantasies cooked up by some renegade scientist seeking to stir up controversy of “70 million year old cretaceous theropod dinosaurs evolving into 160 million year old birds that lived 25 million to 80 million years <u><em>BEFORE</em></u> said theropod dinosaurs…” get some controversies started … sell some books. Naturally, some scientists who are actual bird experts reject this silly hypothetical nonsense.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>If your hypothesis contradicts the fossil record, above, your hypothesis is wrong and your hypothesis needs tweaking.</p>
<p>As one Google hit of Wikipedia so eloquently puts it: “Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”</p>
<p>Oh those darn <em>evangelical</em> dinosaur-to-bird hypothesizers! What shall modern science do with them?</p>
<h3>Punchline</h3>
<blockquote><em>“…creationists deny the clear fossil record…”</em></blockquote>
<p>and what do these fools do, every time they suggest that a <u>70 million year old</u> velociraptor evolved into a <u>160 million year old</u> Archaeopteryx?</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-20826231661438980862016-04-22T15:17:00.000-07:002016-04-22T17:32:09.088-07:00"Common Ancestry" is not the same as a "Direct Ancestor"<blockquote>
<p>A quick <em>Google</em> and <em>Wikipedia</em> definition: <b>an·ces·tor</b>:<br />
“ancestor; plural noun: ancestors:<br />
Google: <em>a person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, <u>from whom one is descended</u>.</em><br />
<em>an early type of animal or plant <u>from which others have evolved</u>.<br />
synonyms: forerunner, precursor, predecessor</em>”.</p>
<p>Wikipedia: “<em>An ancestor or forebear is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth)</em>”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is very disheartening that people, who erroneously believe . . . erroneously claim to be self-declared, “Darwinist” fail to comprehend the fundamentals of what “Common Ancestry” entails.</p>
<blockquote><blockquote>
<p>“‘But the question itself reveals a couple of fundamental misunderstandings about evolution and how it operates’, he says. Firstly, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Instead, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor from which both evolved around 25 million years ago.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Leave it to the pseudo-Scientific ‘Dinosaur-to-Bird Myth Crowd’:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“...monkeys and humans share a common ancestor from which both evolved around 25 million years ago.<br />
This evolutionary relationship is supported both by the fossil record and DNA analysis. A 2007 study showed that <u>humans and rhesus monkeys share about 93% of their DNA</u>. Based on the similarities and differences between the two types of DNA, scientists have estimated that <u>humans and rhesus monkeys diverged from their common ancestor 25 million years ago</u>.
Similarly, <u>the fossil record has identified ancestors common to both humans and monkeys</u>, such as an as yet unnamed primate fossil from Myanmar found in 2009 and dated as living around 37 million years ago.”<br />
From: “<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/10/04/3331957.htm" target="_blank">If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?</a>”</blockquote>
<p>. . . to deny the fossil record +PLUS+ make the outrageous claim that merely 57% DNA is “evidence” to establish a line of direct ancestry from theropod dinosaurs to chickens! We don't even do that with 98.8% DNA between Chimps and Human! Legitimate scientists know better.</p>
<p>As bad or worse than the fossil-denying and pseudo-science of creationists!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Common Ancestry = involving an ‘an Ancestor’ mutually shared by two or more species, uniting a group in a close or distant relationship. [Birds are only ‘distantly related’ to dinosaurs, through a common ancestor in the early past which emerged before the dinosaurs and birds. . . reaching back into time beyond 150 million years ago, most likely as far back as the Triassic.]</p>
<p>The following diagram, actually appears to be closer to an <u>accurate representation of the fossil record</u>. <i>How very refreshing!</i></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTrXILBqXj5AV30s6Oq5FU4lH2qBvCMNWtHVbxEpHzRjU8ZWyudtcsyxZD6Jk-dVUj0PWU9HGZys0emLTVAM9h_u9DeoD4JJ8O9YM-MbYVmBwfZU-FT6C-TyIz7hFn_pws0zZ_VJ4dWC4/s1600/ancestry-descent.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Bird Dinosaur Myth" style="width:550px; border: 1px #990000 solid" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTrXILBqXj5AV30s6Oq5FU4lH2qBvCMNWtHVbxEpHzRjU8ZWyudtcsyxZD6Jk-dVUj0PWU9HGZys0emLTVAM9h_u9DeoD4JJ8O9YM-MbYVmBwfZU-FT6C-TyIz7hFn_pws0zZ_VJ4dWC4/s640/ancestry-descent.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>A ‘common ancestor’ is not a ‘distant relative,’ that is, the dinosaurs are indeed ‘evolutionary cousins’ to birds and share a so-said ‘relationship’ but cretaceous dinosaurs are by no means, “<b>the ancestor</b>” of extinct and extant modern birds!</p>
<p>To say otherwise, and to make such an absurd claim is to <b>deny the fossil record</b> just like Creationists have done to bolster support for mythological pseudo-science.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://creation-vs-evolution.us/evolution-questions/whatever-they-were.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Bird Dinosaur Myth" style="border: 1px #990000 solid" src="http://creation-vs-evolution.us/evolution-questions/whatever-they-were.jpg" /></a><br>
“<em>The Origin and Evolution of Birds</em>,” by Alan Feduccia</div>
<p>This is fundamental, elementary Darwinism 101!</p>
<h3>Common Descent Requires a Common Ancestor</h3>
<blockquote>“Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms <u>share a most recent common ancestor</u>. There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.”<br />
Wikipedia</blockquote>
<p>To a true “Darwinist” there should be no “amazement” that superficial similarities exist between a bone here or a muscle there, similarities between dinosaurs and birds is no great ‘scientific phenomena’, --birds and dinosaurs <u>share a “common ancestor”</u> so naturally there are characteristic features in their anatomy which are shared in common... the same goes for birds and mammals, the same is true for birds and crocodiles. An understanding of <u>Darwinism demands it!</u> However, the question of “<b>Direct Ancestry</b>” from dinosaurs directly to birds, is an entirely different ball of wax.</p>
<h4>Dinosaurs and Birds share a ‘Common Ancestor’.</h4>
<h4>Dinosaurs are NOT the ‘Common Ancestor’ of modern birds!</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggOnkTYuaYF1U4OWoClw7ISm9mJ8qaQnc3hhRA4hLqu_Sks9o9JyXmtPRG6-_d5KPsobZKZeM2Uet2imhRG4lXt0U9H_63XalsiImqyt-ss_s7Ms7_6o7Opy-XKZ0gWsvEJkOKVoic8o8/s1600/age-of-birds-confusion-002.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Bird Dinosaur Myth" style="width:550px; border: 1px #990000 solid" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggOnkTYuaYF1U4OWoClw7ISm9mJ8qaQnc3hhRA4hLqu_Sks9o9JyXmtPRG6-_d5KPsobZKZeM2Uet2imhRG4lXt0U9H_63XalsiImqyt-ss_s7Ms7_6o7Opy-XKZ0gWsvEJkOKVoic8o8/s1600/age-of-birds-confusion-002.jpg" /></a></div>
<h3>Human and Chimp share 98.8% DNA. So similar--and yet so different</h3>
<p>And yet, who is going to trumpet their ignorance to claim, “Humans evolved from Chimps.”?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The chimpanzee and another ape, the bonobo, are humans' closest living relatives. These three species look alike in many ways, both in body and behavior. But for a clear understanding of how closely they are related, scientists compare their DNA, an essential molecule that's the instruction manual for building each species. Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different?”</p>
<p>(<a href="http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps/" target="_blank">Source</a>: American Museum of Natural History)</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRMkP30KDG03m8wPM_IAD-_Jf5vmVcxy71pUTY_cMQbG-dWJ_qzyCxBc1Bwj8UjZSPGDPR6ZC_zhMObAsywnFn9if34KC9NynGrLfhKHw2pwRK86XFmzFCzyVixHjBt3HFET9wkWgN43I/s1600/age-of-birds-confusion-001.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Bird Dinosaur Myth" style="width:550px; border: 1px #990000 solid" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRMkP30KDG03m8wPM_IAD-_Jf5vmVcxy71pUTY_cMQbG-dWJ_qzyCxBc1Bwj8UjZSPGDPR6ZC_zhMObAsywnFn9if34KC9NynGrLfhKHw2pwRK86XFmzFCzyVixHjBt3HFET9wkWgN43I/s1600/age-of-birds-confusion-001.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>And yet... who, but Creationists would make the absurd claim, “Charles Darwin taught, humans evolved from Chimpanzees”?</p>
<p>Human and Chimps share 98.8% DNA and yet, no person with the least fundamental knowledge and understanding of evolutionary biology would be so careless as to use 98.8% shared genetic identity to extrapolate, “Humans evolved from Chimps”.</p>
<p>Hold that thought: Leave the Creationist-Logic to work overtime for the Dinosaur-Bird Mythology crowd. If 98.8% DNA isn't reasonable enough for the legitimate mainstream scientific community to conclude, “Humans evolved from Chimps” then how can it be the Dinosaur-Bird Mythology crowd base their conclusions “Birds evolved from Dinosaurs” on a mere speculative ‘57% shared genetic identity’ between T. Rex and a Chicken? (and as Dr. Feduccia pointed out, it's merely <u>a snip of collagen and not reliable evidence</u> for anything so profound as drawing direct lines between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds.)</p>
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>
<p>Dr. Alan Feduccia:</p>
<p>“Yes, but our ‘T. rex skeptics group’ has seriously questioned that study by Schweitzer; see chapter one in my book <i>Riddle</i>. And even if true (which I seriously doubt) <u>it is just a small snippet of collagen</u>. . . .”<br />
From: <a href="http://birds-to-dinosaur.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/genetic-similarity-between-birds-and.html">Genetic Similarity Between Birds and Crocodiles</a></p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<h3>Birds are “Non-Avian”? They are ‘dinosaurs’ now?!</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWUHQTWJd8l_WWatZ5YCjgMTa2AgwENfAvL86NAcBEduet85Tm1BOYXkfVjV-4TrkSeJyk1xOaBGkR-suJvIifBXpFIYSuxVFwZ6pnJP3PePTsD59aAnEYXCDPRDXzx1yWv5u22n09Xm0/s1600/age-of-birds-confusion-004.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Bird Dinosaur Myth" style="width:500px; border: 1px #990000 solid" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWUHQTWJd8l_WWatZ5YCjgMTa2AgwENfAvL86NAcBEduet85Tm1BOYXkfVjV-4TrkSeJyk1xOaBGkR-suJvIifBXpFIYSuxVFwZ6pnJP3PePTsD59aAnEYXCDPRDXzx1yWv5u22n09Xm0/s1600/age-of-birds-confusion-004.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>The “overzealous eagerness” to put a direct line of descent between theropod dinosaurs and chickens, is self-evident, to the point that it cripples the reasoning facilities.</p>
<blockquote>
<pre style="font-size:14px"><b>Aves</b>, Taxonomic Serial No.: 174371
<b>Taxonomy and Nomenclature</b>
Kingdom: Animalia
Taxonomic Rank: Class
Synonym(s):
Common Name(s): Birds [English]
oiseaux [French]
Taxonomic Status:
Current Standing: valid
Data Quality Indicators:
Record Credibility Rating: verified - standards met
Global Species Completeness: complete
Latest Record Review: 2013</pre>
<pre style="font-size:14px">Taxonomic Hierarchy
Kingdom Animalia – Animal, animaux, animals
Subkingdom Bilateria
Infrakingdom Deuterostomia
Phylum Chordata – cordés, cordado, chordates
Subphylum Vertebrata – vertebrado, vertébrés, vertebrates
Infraphylum Gnathostomata
Superclass Tetrapoda
Class Aves – Birds, oiseaux</pre>
<p>Source: “<a href="http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=174371" target="_blank">Integrated Taxonomic Information System</a>” ITIS.gov, the home of authoritative taxonomic information on plants, animals, fungi, and microbes of North America and the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7pW0yUGPTDtuDrwAvjt-0HNypZqdA67KG0gsRTPBwb7-_3xdO7Vc6m5fnC0BF7E5WekR-b9rovIQMpFm9bwdPvlI9Ofi2QmBtK9SZX46KxAB53GB3ss-ftvFc_BN3rDK5Hni3kc50aZU/s1600/age-of-birds-confusion-003.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Bird Dinosaur Myth" style="width:500px; border: 1px #990000 solid" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7pW0yUGPTDtuDrwAvjt-0HNypZqdA67KG0gsRTPBwb7-_3xdO7Vc6m5fnC0BF7E5WekR-b9rovIQMpFm9bwdPvlI9Ofi2QmBtK9SZX46KxAB53GB3ss-ftvFc_BN3rDK5Hni3kc50aZU/s1600/age-of-birds-confusion-003.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote>
<p>“In a comparison with 400 species of modern birds, Dr. Feduccia found that the pronounced arc of curvature of the claws of Archeopteryx was similar to that of known perching birds. Terrestrial birds have very flat claws. The curved claw on the reversed first toe of the fossil, Dr. Feduccia said, ‘is strictly a perching adaptation; it would be a tremendous obstacle to running on the ground.’<br />
Writing in Science, he concluded, ‘<u>Archeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird</u>.’<br />
In an interview, Dr. Feduccia was even more emphatic, noting that the claw measurements reinforced other evidence of wing structure, feature configuration, broad tail for lift and hollow bones for lightness that suggested a flight-worthy bird. Still other signs were that Archeopteryx had a wishbone where powerful pectoral muscles needed for flapping wings could be attached.<br />
‘I can't see there's any question that this is <u>a</u> tree-dwelling <u>bird</u>, <u>far</u> <u>removed</u> <u>from</u> <u>dinosaurs</u>, and that paleontologists have simply misinterpreted it,’ said Dr. Feduccia, author of the ‘The Age of Birds’ (Harvard University Press, 1980). ‘This Is Definitive’<br />
“<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/05/us/feathered-dinosaur-or-a-real-bird.html" target="_blank">Feathered Dinosaur or a Real Bird?</a>” by John Noble Wilford, February 5, 1993, <i>New York Times</i>.</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiucwX-7x-hEwdwhZScl-QlQRowbosTfWL5nwILzAOChxpfaqWeGfxjgx_EVaPVuuTawGZhNEHOEk9xhDPtbKgQrMnkyqWbZEhREKgK-1VTkzJMWkZdXoJsIchdvAOyIP2oP7uc5w1KuyQ/s1600/fossil-fantasy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Bird Dinosaur Myth" style="border: 1px #990000 solid" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiucwX-7x-hEwdwhZScl-QlQRowbosTfWL5nwILzAOChxpfaqWeGfxjgx_EVaPVuuTawGZhNEHOEk9xhDPtbKgQrMnkyqWbZEhREKgK-1VTkzJMWkZdXoJsIchdvAOyIP2oP7uc5w1KuyQ/s1600/fossil-fantasy.jpg" /></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-36339118607755903932016-01-26T11:45:00.001-08:002016-02-04T10:27:04.138-08:00Visceral Arches (Bird Evolution) Aquatic Origins and Development of Gills during Embryonic Formation<p>There are actually people who make the argument, <i>"birds arose on land,"</i> with images of "dry, arid, terrestrial, conditions -- "coming out of nowhere," replete with tumbleweeds and blistering sun beating down on the dry desert sand" dancing through their heads and *beep beep* Roadrunner, chased by Wile E. Coyote... and then, they envision these tetrapods, returned to the water... as if water were an unfamiliar, strange, new habitat.<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk02VUnxyOUC2mh5eMZuOzBM_61Vc7hLJt5zwTdYXmjChV1V513Fusd-3fPGbkDL9P8DtLtGejuXRsaCNz5CnQBj0_5FLGtNKqSbh-f15YpHITIWbe43VQWBS0sI3Wdpr_3l7pDFhL2Ys/s1600/wile-coyote-roadrunner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk02VUnxyOUC2mh5eMZuOzBM_61Vc7hLJt5zwTdYXmjChV1V513Fusd-3fPGbkDL9P8DtLtGejuXRsaCNz5CnQBj0_5FLGtNKqSbh-f15YpHITIWbe43VQWBS0sI3Wdpr_3l7pDFhL2Ys/s400/wile-coyote-roadrunner.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>These are those persons who can not accept, water, powerfully shaped the bird's anatomy and from its aquatic origins, derives the innate, instinctive ability to fly (a question of the principals of Hydrodynamics vs. Aerodynamics).</p>
<p>After all, didn't some scientist say "Tetrapods left the water," so an amateur with book sense but lacks vision of the planet's earlier history, has images of dry, arid desert...</p>
<p>Correct? What is now, always was, and always will be.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfT2otUG7U8kl41LHd3BPD8LAbNbYYNWca_Vn95CS1K3mY7xf9JOeUUjkReN0Ucf50nSudUGuv64-Zne634I5m9GbnwysWvNreev9sCn1paAT4PLtcHtYTKiRWZmZB9qr6YRiyHKucbF0/s1600/pseudo-rex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfT2otUG7U8kl41LHd3BPD8LAbNbYYNWca_Vn95CS1K3mY7xf9JOeUUjkReN0Ucf50nSudUGuv64-Zne634I5m9GbnwysWvNreev9sCn1paAT4PLtcHtYTKiRWZmZB9qr6YRiyHKucbF0/s1600/pseudo-rex.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Dino bones are dug up in dry deserts and rocks, so therefore, that "dry, arid, desert" was the habitat the creature must have lived in, millions of years ago. Correct? Wrong. Somebody failed to realize the terrain was once like a plush tropical jungle, filled with sources of water, vegetation and diversity of predators and prey, and sometimes even, cannibalistic.</p>
<blockquote>Visceral arches:<br>
"...Columns of mesenchyme found in the neck of the developing vertebrate embryo derived from cranial neural crest. In lower vertebrates, blood vessels formed here become part of the gills; in higher vertebrates derivatives include portions of the jaw and middle ear. Also known as branchial arches, gill arches, or visceral arches."<br>
(<a href="http://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-P/pharyngeal_arches.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)
"Mesenchymal structures in the region of the embryonic pharynx and visible on the ventrolateral aspect of the head; give rise to skeletal elements, larynx and other structures of the head."<br>
(<a href="http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/visceral+arch" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFO_W5UjH_HHEIdWWeOE48UazmdHaW3PQDhsZYhLSTMQdxvshC7zS1u-Mgr7fN5luvi3GRduk5_aKalUvQLTfmSBUOJ4xSDcgW49gZgBFjtUZsro1SF0ICTUZPZ3SFg4cvSrDkts-rjvE/s1600/bird-ancestry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img width="450" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFO_W5UjH_HHEIdWWeOE48UazmdHaW3PQDhsZYhLSTMQdxvshC7zS1u-Mgr7fN5luvi3GRduk5_aKalUvQLTfmSBUOJ4xSDcgW49gZgBFjtUZsro1SF0ICTUZPZ3SFg4cvSrDkts-rjvE/s1600/bird-ancestry.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote><a href="http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/31/gill-slits-by-any-other-name/" target="_blank">“Gill slits” by any other name…</a><br>
"...the “pharyngeal apparatus” consists of a series of paired pharyngeal arches and fissures which develop on the exterior with a corresponding set of pharyngeal pouches on the inside of the throat, separated from the external fissures by a thin membrane (more on the details in a moment). And in fact the possession of these structures at some point in development, along with a hollow dorsal nerve cord, a notochord and a post anal tail, are the defining characteristics of the phylum chordata to which we and all other vertebrates belong."</blockquote>
<blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Birds" target="_blank">Origins of Birds</a><br>
<i>"...He examines in detail the expression of evolutionary stages in the development of embryos, tracing from the process of cell division to the development of specific anatomical features. He finds a striking resemblance between the embryonic development of reptiles and birds, including details of the skeletal anatomy (with special attention to the hands and feet) and various organs. <u>He notes that bird and reptile embryos develop visceral arches, hinting at their aquatic ancestry.</u> Of more interest to his goal, Heilmann writes in a similar vein that the embryos of certain birds clearly show a three-clawed finger structure, at least one of which (the hoatzin) retains actual claws after hatching. He mentions other anatomical features of bird embryos that hint at their reptilian ancestry as well, such as the embryonic splitting of the pygostyle into distinct separate vertebrae."</i></blockquote>
<hr style="height: 10px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #8c8b8b inset;">
<p>Yes, bbbbut.... according to <i>"Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds By Gregory S. Paul"</i>... this is problematic because there may have been no trees at that time in earth's history.</p>
<p>---> adjective: arboreal<br>
(chiefly of animals) living in trees.<br>
"arboreal rodents"<br>
of or relating to trees. <---</p>
<blockquote>---> "...It was observed that a number of animals with moderate flying or gliding ability, such as bats, flying lizards and flying squirrels have arboreal lifestyles. This led to the idea that the ancestors of birds <u>must have gradually acquired</u> the ability to fly from leaping among branches in the tops of trees. <---</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWsNcOV3j7AXPlhHjeYaK1CmRuehDEIy74uwOdt0c1XYNmRz-KMJhB76mZJE245pPmRORjsp7DQPbfcs-JPWHNxRG2nwsVcQeWoDlNWgRatQebPDwGoRPb0mf2-JzlpmRAzu1NWjFaMUw/s1600/archie-lagoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img width="425" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWsNcOV3j7AXPlhHjeYaK1CmRuehDEIy74uwOdt0c1XYNmRz-KMJhB76mZJE245pPmRORjsp7DQPbfcs-JPWHNxRG2nwsVcQeWoDlNWgRatQebPDwGoRPb0mf2-JzlpmRAzu1NWjFaMUw/s1600/archie-lagoon.jpg" /></a></div>
<hr style="height: 10px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #8c8b8b inset;">
<p>Yes, bbbbut Mr. Huxley... <i>"...Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old</i>".... hadn't Mr. Huxley ever heard of a thing called, "Convergent Evolution" or "Shared Ancestry" which neatly explains the problematic issue with the fossil timeline. Birds came BEFORE Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaurs, and all the obfuscating, lies, denials of the fossil record won't help their case. Repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it a fact.</p>
<p>--> "...with Thomas Huxley championing the idea that Archaeopteryx as well as modern birds had more in common with theropod dinosaurs than any other group of animals." <--</p>
<hr style="height: 10px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #8c8b8b inset;">
<p>--> Franz Nopcsa proposed an alternate hypothesis in 1907, arguing that the ancestors of birds were fast-running, bipedal animals related to theropod dinosaurs. <--</p>
<p>bbbbut... "related to" through a common archosaur ancestor is not the same thing as "descended from" the late Cretaceous T.Rex... and if running and gaining lift were the underlying "original cause" of flight, there would be a lot more animals taking flight, and besides, the genetic evidence weighs in on the side that Birds have a closer genetic relationship to mammals & crocodiles, than T. Rex and ilk.</p>
<p>Genetic similarity between human and chicken: 60-75%<br>
Genetic similarity between chicken and crocodilians 61.7%<br>
Genetic similarity between chicken and t. rex: 58%</p>
<p>Sources: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041208230523.htm" target="_blank">Mammal/Chicken DNA %</a><br>
<a href="http://birds-to-dinosaur.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/genetic-similarity-between-birds-and.html" target="_blank">Crocodile Genome & Chicken %</a></p>
<hr style="height: 10px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #8c8b8b inset;">
<p>The underlying flaw requires one logical question (which requires the ability to "think"):
<p>"Which came first, the feather or flight?"</p>
<p>There are also "flying snakes" which have neither feather, nor wings... flying squirrels (don't they also have "visceral arches"? and in their distant past, traces of their aquatic origins lay dormant.)</p>
<p>From conception to birth... they all come from an egg, enveloped in water... just like the puddle, from where their primitive aquatic ancestor arose in the primordial puddle. (Primordial puddle does denote "water" lest they deny all living creatures and life, began in the water.) </p>
<p>The earliest fliers, were insects, and science concludes, they inherited this ability from swimming..</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/05/swimming-led-flying-physicists-say" target="_blank">Fruit flies 'swim' through air, using the same physics as fish</a>, study shows Fruit flies and other flyers also use drag to "swim" through the air, the scientists say. Their discovery lends support to the evolutionary theory that flight in insects emerged from swimming.</blockquote>
<p>Even humans, seeming so far removed from their mammalian ancestry... are born with a rudimentary reflex to swim... inherited from a distant ancestor somewhere in the murky past . . .</p>
<p>Why would a human need "Visceral Arches" --<b>GILLS??</b> for God's sake! And if humans can retain their swimming reflex, -- then why wouldn't birds?</p>
<p>The physics, Hydrodynamics and Aerodynamics are practically the same.</p>
<hr style="height: 10px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #8c8b8b inset;">
<blockquote>"...When Heilmann began his research in the early 1900s, the early bird Archaeopteryx was only known from three fossils found in the limestone quarries of Solnhofen near Eichstätt, Germany. The three fossils consisted of two nearly complete skeletons found in 1861 and 1877 and a single feather from 1860. They had been discovered just a few decades after the discovery of the dinosaurs, and as some dinosaurs appeared somewhat birdlike, Archaeopteryx was regarded as a possible "missing link" between reptiles and birds by many paleontologists at the time.[5]<br>
The similarities between Archaeopteryx, known dinosaurs and extant birds were examined and emphasized, with Thomas Huxley championing the idea that Archaeopteryx as well as modern birds had more in common with theropod dinosaurs than any other group of animals. This was at the time in opposition to the view of anatomist Sir Richard Owen of the British Museum, who viewed Archaeopteryx as no different taxonomically from modern birds. Huxley's work was controversial, and this climate of uncertainty and contention about bird origins persisted well into the beginning of the 20th century.[7]<br>
While the dinosaur-bird connection (or lack thereof) was being pursued in paleontology, the problem of the evolution of flight was under scrutiny as well. It was observed that a number of animals with moderate flying or gliding ability, such as bats, flying lizards and flying squirrels have arboreal lifestyles. This led to the idea that the ancestors of birds must have gradually acquired the ability to fly from leaping among branches in the tops of trees. The Hungarian paleontologist Franz Nopcsa proposed an alternate hypothesis in 1907, arguing that the ancestors of birds were fast-running, bipedal animals related to theropod dinosaurs. When Heilmann came onto the paleontology scene, these two sets of conflicting theories provided the framework for his research and eventual conclusions.[5]"<br>(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Birds" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<hr style="height: 10px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #8c8b8b inset;">
<h3>The $100 Question</h3>
<p>"...Even humans, seeming so far removed from their ancient mammalian ancestry... are born with a <u>rudimentary reflex to swim</u>... inherited from a distant water-borne ancestor somewhere in the murky evolutionary past...<br>
Why would a human need "Visceral Arches" --<b><i>GILLS??</i></b> for God's sake!<br>
And if humans can retain their swimming reflex, -- <u><b>then why wouldn't birds?</b>"</u></p>
<p>HYDRODYNAMICS VS. AERODYNAMICS... written into the anatomy of mammals, reptiles, birds ... all creatures... with all sorts of creatures flying... but only one group possessing feathers...</p>
<p>So did the flying snake lose its feathers, or what about those "High Flying Reptiles who independently via convergent evolution, evolved the ability to fly?</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/hollow-bones-helped-highflying-reptiles-stay-aloft-26515054.html" target="_blank">Hollow bones helped high-flying reptiles stay aloft</a><br>
"...Similar design features exist in modern birds, which <u>evolved them independently</u>, say the scientists."
</blockquote>
<p>Since its imperative to distinguish birds evolved those features <i>*independently*</i> from reptiles, then let's be careful to give equally imperative emphasis on how the bird was<br>
1) a fully developed bird with feathers and all, way back to 150 million years ago.... which is long, long before<br>
2) the BLATANT LIES about cretaceous dinosaurs evolving what do they call it, "protofuzz" pawned off as "feathers"???<br>
supposedly "birthed"<br>
3) creatures which lived 70 million years apart and <i>before them</i> in the fossil record!!!!!</p>
<p>If we are going to utilize reason, the scientific method, and Darwin's theory of Evolution, that would uh, like ha, make Archaeopteryx the grandfather of T. Rex, wouldn't it?</p>
<p>Ohhhh... wait!! I get it... Archie didn't birth T. Rex instead... it's called CONVERGENT EVOLUTION. When similar features arise naturally, due to environmental influences on their anatomy... yeah, that's how real science works, not all that pseudo-babble mythology about "T. rex (80 million years ago) crawling in a time machine, going back 70 million years in the past, to give birth to Archaeopteryx" nonsense.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm_CqmGDufDmJprYVGOE6_wQcjRv639eSQDXEkGdyLFM3YqIOry47kBzjZOhTmup4PiSxdtm8dBgO46G5yEiZ_AsZezGLMXcbt7FnAoDJsOqJqHCXe6I2c0_fdnELt2zvFyffq_ehaTiU/s1600/feather-timeline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm_CqmGDufDmJprYVGOE6_wQcjRv639eSQDXEkGdyLFM3YqIOry47kBzjZOhTmup4PiSxdtm8dBgO46G5yEiZ_AsZezGLMXcbt7FnAoDJsOqJqHCXe6I2c0_fdnELt2zvFyffq_ehaTiU/s1600/feather-timeline.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>150 million years ago, Birds already had feathers, and then, much, much later some dinosaurs arose with similar characteristics who started evolving "proto" integumentary-fuzz which is <u>mistaken for feathers</u> due to its similarities, and obviously scientists aren't quite sure what it was, but if it was similar to birds' feathers, it was a result of<br>
1) convergent evolution, and nothing more...<br>
2) The only other alternative is that these creatures inherited a gene from a common Archosaur ancestor, and caused "feather" and "protofuzzies" to evolve independently at later, but separate stages in the fossil record.</p>
<p>Birds (150 million years ago) did not "evolve from" cretaceous dinosaurs who lived nearly 100 million years, later.</p>
<p>--> "Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.” <--</p>
<p>To claim otherwise, is a blatant Un-Darwinian denial of the fossil record! Only Creationists and pseudo-scientific Science-Deniers deny the fossil record and want to overturn standard scientific methodology, replacing facts with mythology.</p>
<p>Science has devolved into a source for whimsical fantasy "entertainment".</p>
<blockquote>"...The mammalian diving reflex is a reflex in mammals which optimizes respiration to allow staying underwater for extended periods of time. It is exhibited strongly in aquatic mammals (seals,[1] otters, dolphins, etc.), but exists in weaker versions in other mammals, including humans, in particular babies up to 6 months old (see Infant swimming). Diving birds, such as penguins, have a similar diving reflex. Every animal's diving reflex is triggered specifically by cold water contacting the face."<br>
(Source, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalian_diving_reflex" target="_blank">Mammalian diving reflex</a>, Wikipedia)</blockquote>
<p>Take a look at that salamander!
<center><iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QW5p2G4EtP0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<blockquote><a href="http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/kinderlab/born-swim" target="_blank">Born To Swim?</a><br>
"...Try this to trigger one of the cutest reflexes around. Just blow into a baby’s face and watch him or her gulp air, close eyes, and stop whatever they’re doing. Parents have used this as a way to get their little ones to stop crying – but it’s also the path to swimming.<br>
The response is what’s known as the bradycardic reflex, which is part of the mammalian diving reflex. When the face of an infant is exposed to cold water, the heart slows down and blood is shifted away from the peripheral muscles to conserve oxygen for the brain and heart, and they typically hold their breath. The reflex is the same one that protects babies from getting milk in their lungs, says Goren Wennergren, a pediatrician and professor at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.<br>
“It’s interesting that the reflex kind of reroutes the entire circulatory system to save blood for the heart and brain, and not pump it through the rest of the body,” says Wennergren.<br>
Wennergren had heard that after 6 months of age, this reflex fades away – so he decided to look into the function of the diving response in babies of different ages. Along with a graduate student, he studied 36 infants in swimming classes at warm pool – one of the few actual studies into diving babies. They monitored the babies’ heart rates, breathing and watched their behavior during their underwater dives, which lasted a few seconds.<br>
Not only did the babies hold their breath, but they seemed to enjoy the experiment. The researchers found that the diving reflex still exists in older babies (they tested babies up to 1 year old) but that it decreased in older infants. The babies all held their breath, and it took about 10 seconds after the dive was over for their breathing to return to normal. Wennergren noted that the babies seemed eager to dive, and the ones with diving experience prepped by closing their eyes before being submerged. His study was published in 2002 in the journal <i>Acta Paediatrica</i>.<br>
<u>“In diving animals, the reflex persists for their whole life,”</u> Wennergren told KinderLab, noting that adult humans also have the same reflex – if you dunk your face in cold water, you’ll gasp and hold your breath."<br>
/EXCERPT</blockquote>
<p>The Dino-Myth crowd likes denying the obvious.</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-65921226573576927622015-12-04T23:07:00.003-08:002015-12-31T20:04:42.377-08:00Development of Bright Colors in Birds' Feathers<p>Was Archie a vegetarian who foraged for berries like cardinals or finches?</p>
<blockquote>Ancient origins and multiple appearances of carotenoid-pigmented feathers in birds<br>
"...<i>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.</i>"
(<a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1788/20140806" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<center><a href="http://birds-to-dinosaur.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-error-of-bright-red-feathers.html"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg76TjxutoBN3efCNB-vYbnkQf3svRBg0lKKqqIgKxxVk3mPAlIB6lI2lGLDPnI2naONNS5oOpMEqa99xMrCgecfb0sjYRSDhz28fnOEPmfypwlkMWZfYm0a2JaJm9BOvu7BQkIooG7pPI/s1600/busted.png" border="0" alt=""></a></center>
<blockquote>Winter cardinals don their brightest red feathers<br>
"...<i>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.</i>"
(<a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/knoxville/life/winter-cardinals-don-their-brightest-red" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Any one wonders why creationists think pseudo-darwinists are lying about evolution? If they are whisked away with one example of science-fiction lies, what's to stop them from getting whisked away with another? Credibility... is in the trash can. Dr. Alan Feduccia was warning about this. Called it the "Meltdown of Paleontology."</p>
<p>Examples from the web:</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs9Jp46iOZYZfmbSSkt4HhVeuxQGm194V1l2ID6JCJx4mLnEwjOugBPu0CTWzVm6Ub-ky9eLTm_lwKSrBSSzxSYys2ZzYadBdiWrRnfFScEPsZIu44WFL3I7fc8EWDa_nkJLi24kqQxrM/s1600/0.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs9Jp46iOZYZfmbSSkt4HhVeuxQGm194V1l2ID6JCJx4mLnEwjOugBPu0CTWzVm6Ub-ky9eLTm_lwKSrBSSzxSYys2ZzYadBdiWrRnfFScEPsZIu44WFL3I7fc8EWDa_nkJLi24kqQxrM/s320/0.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHYw_0dgbGbwXZkqH01UzeDwfBW7O-I6U_KupK5ta0QpvDlgfrPiT6L2VYr7wIsuOGsNx1FzJuIatmGJmABXnzXakWqZYhueQ5J49HOGgtgGkKtAPI2cghYJjzOMGjSuWwBz6KtmT1nOc/s1600/000000000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHYw_0dgbGbwXZkqH01UzeDwfBW7O-I6U_KupK5ta0QpvDlgfrPiT6L2VYr7wIsuOGsNx1FzJuIatmGJmABXnzXakWqZYhueQ5J49HOGgtgGkKtAPI2cghYJjzOMGjSuWwBz6KtmT1nOc/s320/000000000.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Don't expect Creationists to accept any theories. The problem of credibility and accuracy is only getting worse. Facts matter. Accuracy matters. Fossil evidence matters. But in recent years, *religion* has infiltrated paleontology/science . . . where some jokers got this strange idea, "<i>Well, as long as they reject God, who gives a damn if the feather pigments are wrong? Red is so much prettier anyway.</i>"</p>
<p>That's not Science, not even remotely. At least Science Fiction advertises itself by its right name.</p>
<p>That's Atheist religion, like a rotting ravenous cancer destroying Science with its war on God.</p>
<p>How to "Think Straight" by <a href="http://www.facebook.com/neildegrassetyson" target="_blank">Neil deGrasse Tyson</a> (and its not Atheism, that's for sure!)<br>
<blockquote>" . . . They're like in your face atheist and they want to change policies and they're having debates. I don't have the time, the interest, the energy to do any of that. I'm a scientist. I'm an educator. My goal is to get people THINKING STRAIGHT in the first place, just get you to be curious about the natural world. That's what I'm about. I'm not about any of the rest of this."</blockquote>
<p><iframe width="425" height="239" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CzSMC5rWvos?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>The "God" issue and the atheist war on God, is of zero relevance to Science.</p>
<p>If the atheists had their meddling plucked out of the science arena . . . where it belongs, dumped in the trash can of Philosophy . . . and no longer allowed by the intellectuals to latch on to science for a lifeline to ill-gotten credibility to bolster their false religion . . . you'd see Atheists lose interest in Science, and seek out some other venues to pawn their religion on the masses.<p>
<p>Further evidence in paleontology and the fossil record that the "Red Feather on Dinosaurs and Ancient Birds" myth is complete fictional nonsense, though some ancient birds might have dined on insects --but where were the berries? :</p>
<ol>
<li>"no traces of bright carotenoid pigments in ancient feathers have been reported."</li>
<li>"Cardinals, tanagers and goldfinches can't synthesize carotenoids - the pigments responsible for red, orange and yellow feathers... carotenoid-rich fruits and insects...Dogwood, rose and Japanese honeysuckle berries are locally abundant sources of carotenoid pigments." (Chances are these modern insects are getting their cartenoid-enrichment, by dining on local berries, just as the birds are.)</li>
</ol>
<p>"Fleshy fruits are likely to have evolved from dry forms."<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTuYVBTGWcxt3oR5s2a12JHxZIoOXVsKwkkS2fbKPfn4IC6fFYjJfH446NtN1ozvZwPOi49cCgmaCYj_j1F4_TVQSqOW-o4yqmLMwouOyrQgDn14nJxC9eui7F2f4aDTkG-YQAit3o1CM/s1600/fruit-evolution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTuYVBTGWcxt3oR5s2a12JHxZIoOXVsKwkkS2fbKPfn4IC6fFYjJfH446NtN1ozvZwPOi49cCgmaCYj_j1F4_TVQSqOW-o4yqmLMwouOyrQgDn14nJxC9eui7F2f4aDTkG-YQAit3o1CM/s320/fruit-evolution.jpg" /></a></div>
(<a href="http://genomics.nottingham.ac.uk/~Zoe/pslab/seymour/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<blockquote>" . . . Although animal dispersal existed in gymnosperms and angiosperms before the Tertiary, dinosaurs were not frugivores and closed forest systems were not present, therefore providing little selection pressure on earlier production of fleshy fruits (Tiffney, 2004)."<br>
(<a href="http://www.jse.ac.cn/wenzhang/jse08039.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Frugivore definition, "<i>. . .any chiefly fruit-eating organism, as certain bats.</i>"</p>
<p>Birds, co-existed with the dinosaurs. Are they saying birds didn't eat fruit back during Archie's day?</p>
<p>The timeline the information forces us to recognize as leading toward "fleshy fruit" development and birds consuming carteonoid-rich berries is all the way into the Tertiary . . .</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFBI4-y3f145ngiF2CufZQ_WCsnvMT90HdzuCa0Cqnqk6QMqXpsPvIuZ54eknc_i-VdUmHbXjqL7NenMVK5JHyjoG8_FGQaLZsOi_ghbxTal3-KpOsROATjjJRMo6AqHYcDDmW6FCqZ6k/s1600/EFGeologicP2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFBI4-y3f145ngiF2CufZQ_WCsnvMT90HdzuCa0Cqnqk6QMqXpsPvIuZ54eknc_i-VdUmHbXjqL7NenMVK5JHyjoG8_FGQaLZsOi_ghbxTal3-KpOsROATjjJRMo6AqHYcDDmW6FCqZ6k/s1600/EFGeologicP2.gif" /></a></div>
<blockquote><p>Did fleshy fruit pulp evolve as a defense against seed loss rather than as a dispersal mechanism?<br>
ANDREW L MACK Wildlife Conservation Society</p>
". . . The proposed sequence, defense before dispersal, may have occurred several times, from the early gymnosperms of the Carboniferous that had fleshy propagules (Retaltack and Dilcher 1988) through the Tertiary when the fleshy-fruited angiosperms radiated (Tiffney 1984). The fossil record cannot clearly reveal the evolutionary history of previous plant-animal interactions. However, existing fossil evidence is consistent with defense before dispersal.
Fossil evidence does indicate that early plant reproductive structures suffered insect herbivory and these instances precede records of fleshy fruits or frugivory. The earliest Devonian seeds were small, naked and possibly polyphyletic in origin (Tiffney 1986a).<br>
Limited evidence indicates that sap-feeding arthropods existed in the early Devonian (Chaloner et al I991 ) and that insects fed on plant spores (Scott 1977; Chaloner et al !991), megaspores, and seeds (Smart and Hughes 1973; Scott and Taylor 1983) during the Carboniferous. Because of the higher nutrient value of seeds compared with foliage (Janzen l978a), it is likely early herbivores and pathogens would have fed upon undefended seeds whenever possible. Thus the early record indicates naked, potentially vulnerable and probably nutritious seeds at a time when herbivores were numerous.<br>
Middle Pennsylvanian fossil seeds of many gymnosperms and seed ferns exhibit hard and thick sclerotestas (Tiffney 1986a), perhaps as defense against seed predators or desiccation. Progressing through the fossil record there are many instances of seeds being surrounded or partially enclosed in sterile tissues (Dilcher 1979) that could have served a defensive function. Some fossil genera (e.g., Carclaicarpm, Nucellcrqiwn) also exhibited a fleshy sarcotesta.<br>
Perhaps these early fleshy sarcotestas contained deterrent compounds rather than rewards for seed dispersers.
During the Permian, glossopterids dominated in Gondwana whereas Cordaitales were more numerous in Laurasia.<br>
The upland Cordaitales mostly had winged seeds whereas lowland forms had thick-walled seeds. often with fleshy sarcotestas (Tiffney 1986a).<br>
Some fossil evidence indicates herbivores consumed foliage, twigs and seeds indiscriminately and a late Permian coprolite contained seeds (Tiffney 1986a).<br>
The Triassic witnessed the arrival of gingkoes, SplzerzoDcriern, fleshy-seeded cycads and Cn),tortin, though fossil seeds are rare. Reptiles are sometimes considered dispersers of these fruits (Pijl 1966), based on the assumption that fleshy tissues were rewards.<br>
It is equally plausible that gingko pulp originated as a defense. The sole remaining gingko species (Girtkgo hilmhrr) has a foetid pulp that is unpalatable to most modern frugivores or herbivores. Gingkophytes, Coniferales, Nilssoniales. Caytoniales, Gnetales, cycads and Bennettitales radiated in the Mesozoic; many exhibit fructifications with mechanical defenses against herbivores (Weishampel 1984). In one case they have been found in coprolites (Hill 1976). Evidence suggests the prior existence of generalist herbivores consuming gymnosperm seeds with foliage (Tiffney 1986a) when the angiosperms radiated in the Cretaceous (Doyle 197X). The earliest angiosperm seeds were small and abiotically dispersed (Tiffney 1986a) shifting later to fleshy fruits. Some of the earliest fossil angiosperm fruits have glochids (Krassilov 1973), suggesting defense against seed predators. Fleshy-fruited angiosperms are rare in the Palaeocene fossil record (Collinson and Hooker 1991).<br>
The gradual development of a relationship between putative frugivores and angiosperms until the mid-Cretaceous <u>might have helped set the stage for rapid diversification of angiosperm and frugivore lineages once the interaction became mutually beneficial in the late Cretaceous and Tertiary</u>. Fleming and Lips (1991) proposed that pterosaurs were one such group of frugivores in the Cretaceous. However, this does not necessarily imply a direct causal relationship between radiating plant and disperser lineages (Herrera 19X9a; Eriksson and Bremer 1992). Wing and Tiffney (1987) documented <u>a shift from large generalist herbivores to smaller specialist herbivores,including frugivores and granivores, across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary</u>."<br>
(<a href="http://www.pngibr.org/publications/pdf/2000-mack-jbiosciences.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<hr style="height: 10px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #8c8b8b inset;">
<p>On 12/5/2015 5:30 PM, Feduccia, John A wrote:<br>
Yes, the color arguments are pure mythology. here is what Philip Manning of U. Manchester said of the dino feather studies:</p>
<blockquote>"Studies on the elucidation of colour in fossil feathers11–13 have suggested that the presence of melanosomes within fossil feathers may be used to tentatively to reconstruct feather colours by tracking variations in melanosome shape. Rod shapes were interpreted as eumelanosomes (dark black/brown) and spheroidal shapes as pheomelanosomes (reddish-brown).<br>
This structural approach has some shortcomings, primarily that there is known diversity in melanin granule morphology among different species3,14 and melanosome preservation may not be uniform. Therefore, serious questions may be raised about colour interpretation based solely on fossilised melanosome morphology and distribution.11,12,15 Additionally, these studies did not account for other known contributors to colour in feathers, such as the possible presence of other pigments (e.g. carotenoids) or other physical structures.4"<br>
Sent from my iPad</blockquote>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-8110133103153850472015-11-12T22:48:00.000-08:002015-11-18T13:50:37.673-08:00Genetic Evidence Confirms that T. Rex and Velociraptor were NOT ancestor to Modern Birds<p>Were T. Rex and Velociraptor toothless?<br>
This genetic study confirms those creatures were NOT the ancestor of modern birds.</p>
<p>Was T. Rex toothless?
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxJzazffGCUWo6D7SgczXPGGwDiz3zPT-MNs1ZKj0qYpg4sJ0tUDaLxDC5faa9RGUC7TPhn0QXjKXjUuuPUhdPCJuedcT-ZePM-0gI6iGz_jdA754hRjsXywaOJSGmnvArf9jqGB0YlgI/s1600/toothless-rex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxJzazffGCUWo6D7SgczXPGGwDiz3zPT-MNs1ZKj0qYpg4sJ0tUDaLxDC5faa9RGUC7TPhn0QXjKXjUuuPUhdPCJuedcT-ZePM-0gI6iGz_jdA754hRjsXywaOJSGmnvArf9jqGB0YlgI/s400/toothless-rex.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote><i>". . . A new study suggests that <u>the common ancestor</u> of all living birds <u>lost the ability to produce teeth</u>, and the answer to exactly how this happened can be found in modern-day birds' genes.<br>
For the study, the researchers examined the genomes of 48 living bird species, taking a close look at six genes associated with tooth formation.<br>
What did they find? It turns out that all of the bird species share genetic mutations that inactivate genes involved in the formation of both tooth enamel and the portion of the tooth called dentin.<br>
Based on the mutations, the researchers think that a <u>common ancestor of the birds lost the enamel caps on its teeth around 116 million years ago</u>. And around that same time, birds' beaks came into play.<br>
“We propose that this progression ultimately resulted in a complete horny beak that effectively replaced the teeth and may have contributed to the diversification of living birds," study co-author Dr. Mark Springer, a biology professor at the University of California, Riverside, said in a written statement.</i><br>
(Source: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/birds-teeth-lost-million-years-ago_n_6328574.html" target="_blank">Birds Lost Teeth 116 Million Years Ago</a>)</blockquote>
<p>This event took place, 116 Million Years Ago?</p>
<p>Interesting. Especially since Velociraptor and T. Rex lived long after 116 Million Years ago.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img width="420" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Perhaps Velociraptor was this toothless ancestor?!</p>
<p>Oh *Snap!* no, Velociraptor wasn't toothless either.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyChyphenhyphenwbH0D2pf1Wl9hR2M3AP3bbO99GYbjWAwQnF2cg1aertZIAfj74H0uxb6A6OD_bXSXVD_76i-CMPorOY52p7-X6vOL3nR6kGP0M4nscoUYNgogHzZ5rCzqn6mHFME3QxUPVh3eJtQ/s1600/toothless-raptor.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyChyphenhyphenwbH0D2pf1Wl9hR2M3AP3bbO99GYbjWAwQnF2cg1aertZIAfj74H0uxb6A6OD_bXSXVD_76i-CMPorOY52p7-X6vOL3nR6kGP0M4nscoUYNgogHzZ5rCzqn6mHFME3QxUPVh3eJtQ/s400/toothless-raptor.png" /></a></div>
<p>So obviously, based upon the conclusions of the study, these creatures are not the ancestor of birds. And since we know true birds existed 165 Million years ago in the Jurassic, namely Archaeopteryx who was a toothed bird followed by many other species of toothed birds, it can be concluded an actual bird gave rise to modern birds and not Cretaceous theropod dinosaurs.</p>
<p>See also, <a href="http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/09/28/brush-your-beak-10-amazing-birds-with-teeth/" target="_blank">Brush Your Beak: 10 Amazing Birds With Teeth</a>.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6DpUUEr_TreC2vCE3uvnUM2qh-EW8CH4Ops0RNqig4F6GeKUkIpPmm0e00w4irVokWZB4FM8k690iU8LLteqmpuC32_wYrOkVGtr1ONFOl0JDyLF1gAqwCQ5KBGDluISdAY0_QGQTxlo/s1600/Chicken-Dinosaur.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6DpUUEr_TreC2vCE3uvnUM2qh-EW8CH4Ops0RNqig4F6GeKUkIpPmm0e00w4irVokWZB4FM8k690iU8LLteqmpuC32_wYrOkVGtr1ONFOl0JDyLF1gAqwCQ5KBGDluISdAY0_QGQTxlo/s320/Chicken-Dinosaur.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>So like yeah . . . any way . . . that sort of closes the case of whether or not T. Rex "evolved into chickens".</p>
<hr>
<blockquote><p>Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence at last (Bird vs. Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur)<br>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:25:30 +0000<br>
From: Feduccia, John A</p>
<p><em>But---almost all the enantiornithines, dominant landbirds of the Mesozoic, were fully toothed, as well as the late Cretaceous ornithurines, the hesperornithids and ichthyornitds.</em></p></blockquote>
<hr style="height: 10px; border: 0; box-shadow: 0 10px 10px -10px #8c8b8b inset;">
<p>Great information, thanks!<br>
Do you have alternative views as to what may have caused modern beaks to evolve the loss of teeth as they have?</p>
<p>Certainly, there's no doubt that such early toothed bird species should co-exist along with birds who evolved modern (toothlessness /loss of enamel/dentin in their) beaks/bills, i.e., such as Ichthyornis (135-70 mya ... like all the many ancient relatives of birds who were not direct common ancestors they went too went extinct (from the time frame you mention, Mesozoic [252-66 million years ago]).<br>
The researchers set the approximate date for the emergence of the common ancestor who evolved genes for "toothlessness" to around 116 million years ago. That's drawing close toward the end of the Mesozoic, approximately Middle Cretaceous.<br>
Naturally, toothed birds should continue to co-exist in the same time frame but eventually became extinct. Some have suggested that this adaptation (loss of teeth, or at least the loss of dentin / enamel) better suited birds to their food supply, i.e., capturing small minnows or consumption of berries. Interestingly, many birds retain some traits which clearly indicate they still possess genes to produce "pseudo-teeth" of sorts...the loss wasn't complete. Last night I was looking at photos of birds and the Canadian Goose' "Pseudo-teeth" are intimidating and look like teeth... I've read that some of the adaptations are more effective than teeth for grasping and holding on to prey / gathering food.<br>
<a href="http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/09/28/brush-your-beak-10-amazing-birds-with-teeth/" target="_blank">Brush Your Beak: 10 Amazing Birds With Teeth</a></p>
<p>The research sets out to identify the common ancestor to all modern birds and links them via the genes that lead to loss of dentin / toothlessness.
<p>Along with what you've stated -- those species are ruled out as the common ancestor but most importantly, if what the genetic research concluded is true, it simultaneously rules out T. Rex, Velociraptor and other toothed theropod dinosaurs as potential candidates for the common ancestor to all modern birds.</p>
<hr>
<blockquote><p>Subject: RE: Genetic Evidence at last (Bird vs. Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur)<br>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:42:53 +0000<br>
From: Feduccia, John A</p>
<p><i>Hi, here is <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/108/40/16487.full" target="_blank">a paper</a> of possible interest. Best wishes, alan</i></p></blockquote>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-34421617672410734642015-02-03T17:18:00.000-08:002015-02-05T08:43:06.548-08:00Genetic Similarity Between Birds and Crocodiles<p>I found the article (<a href="http://today.ttu.edu/2014/12/biologist-leads-group-that-mapped-crocodilian-genomes/" target="_blank">click</a>) on birds and crocodiles and the 93% similarity between alligator and crocodiles. Very interesting research. What is the approximate percentage of similarity between bird and crocodile genome?</p>
<p>This burning question is answered by the persons who actually did whole genome alignments between the crocodilians and several birds. Explanations which include Benedict Paten, David Ray and Joel Armstrong, which goes a little deeper than the whole genome alignments on the alligator and crocodile.</p>
<p>On to estimating just how similar any given bird vs. a crocodilian might be... what is the average percent identity for crocs vs. birds?</p>
<blockquote>BENEDICT: <i>The math answer is to take the neutral rate tree from the ancient repeats (it's in the paper), sum the branch lengths along the path between the two genomes of interest and reverse the multiple substitutions per site correction calculation. You should get close to the genome wide % identity between your chosen pair of genomes.<br>
Alternatively, you could directly count from the genome alignment, which is available (see the supplementary materials). The alignment is in HAL format, and I believe you can calculate this using the HAL stats command</i> (see (<a href="https://github.com/glennhickey/hal/blob/master/README.md" target="_blank">click</a>)).</blockquote>
<blockquote>JOEL: <i>We did a count of the genome-wide % ID of all genomes to the crocodile genome using our alignment a while ago.<br>
The rate varies somewhat between birds, but for example, chicken has 61.7% identity with crocodile according to our alignment. This is a bit higher than what you would expect given the distance in the 4d site tree: the crocodile-chicken distance is 0.688, which if my math is right, works out to about 55% expected identity. The difference is due to the 4d rate being a neutral rate, while a significant portion of the aligned bases between chicken and crocodile are conserved.</i></blockquote>
<p>Thanks. I'm going to safely assume then, that chickens actually do bear a closer relationship with crocodiles (61.7%) than T-Rex (58%).<br>
Thank you for answering that question. There is absolutely nothing substantial on the web about the actual percentage of DNA similarity between Chickens and Crocodiles.</p>
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.genome.gov/12514316" target="_blank">click</a>) and (<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041208230523.htm" target="_blank">click</a>)</blockquote>
<p>So, in some places chickens are closer in their genetic relation with humans than either t. rex or even crocodiles.</p>
<p>Based on genetic evidence, it really is difficult to make such a drastic conclusion that "chickens definitively evolved from T. Rex".</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbkKN-9BHLwAuSYk8SoZa_JwyeOY6t1I9L_-b5jd02ogXWDQZg2lWgr5v4mpgfi3I8LWvw2DmSTpBI-SS_Lrh5u9NvAMZHfNKMVwx5H9-lkMKwnwhuibeyW5CaBJAD5iSChfl9MWDMeJk/s1600/58-percent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbkKN-9BHLwAuSYk8SoZa_JwyeOY6t1I9L_-b5jd02ogXWDQZg2lWgr5v4mpgfi3I8LWvw2DmSTpBI-SS_Lrh5u9NvAMZHfNKMVwx5H9-lkMKwnwhuibeyW5CaBJAD5iSChfl9MWDMeJk/s400/58-percent.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote>"<i>...About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.</i>"</blockquote>
<blockquote>"<i>...chicken has 61.7% identity with crocodile according to our alignment.</i>"</blockquote>
<blockquote>"<i>...many pieces of the protein (t. rex) they came up with a number of 58% sequence identity (with chicken)...</i>"</blockquote>
<p>And some conclude the chicken is more related to the T. Rex, than the crocodile or the mammal. In what alternative mathematical reality?</p>
<p>All that fuss about "life began on Mars," well that explains the dinosaur extinction too. They went home.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZPqXKrUVFxexo3UGSTSpJptsp_xSMFSNkKvaUsozBkoGOyHz9xKpfjI3Bgv82zEsEPaBrQKY0FTRA8bCVh7yQnf9jMJy8N6LiqCHQM3ljaSBaw3jbhiMSXVIgVr1OmDXbkM2dikh9wJ4/s1600/JET_PACK.GIF.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZPqXKrUVFxexo3UGSTSpJptsp_xSMFSNkKvaUsozBkoGOyHz9xKpfjI3Bgv82zEsEPaBrQKY0FTRA8bCVh7yQnf9jMJy8N6LiqCHQM3ljaSBaw3jbhiMSXVIgVr1OmDXbkM2dikh9wJ4/s400/JET_PACK.GIF.gif" /></a></div>
<p>They're barely related to anything known on this earth. The genetic evidence clinches it.</p>
<p>Not kidding.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2o17kp_NijMpFAP-eZ-O_2dijrzqZ3_bQiO8fReWwoaIln4E5RMxGjbAwQXf-FW_qijTGIIH2fvjxej0o7m8UsjsUiTjVdLhkvR9MYKw7XCvx7tB4MB8yBli9QSZTs7H_iZW-gnHa6Lo/s1600/dinosaurs_marsb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2o17kp_NijMpFAP-eZ-O_2dijrzqZ3_bQiO8fReWwoaIln4E5RMxGjbAwQXf-FW_qijTGIIH2fvjxej0o7m8UsjsUiTjVdLhkvR9MYKw7XCvx7tB4MB8yBli9QSZTs7H_iZW-gnHa6Lo/s400/dinosaurs_marsb.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Don't say I didn't tell you so.</p>
<center><iframe width="420" height="236" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IjNY0Bzm01U?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<p>Now, you know.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpI9uzNjhS4Wq5Hj_f_xq04xjbfz_t5ZuxD3kZpB5ZZ2lDN-m82New-WiA1yiSQnoEFvBo1wOB_Gk_OXCVwTjIbZgJhjj_NqNDMe59Ikax1ykWHjNtL-DsSHoZcQ97gnR8x05HkiL7Q-Y/s1600/dinosaurs-mars.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpI9uzNjhS4Wq5Hj_f_xq04xjbfz_t5ZuxD3kZpB5ZZ2lDN-m82New-WiA1yiSQnoEFvBo1wOB_Gk_OXCVwTjIbZgJhjj_NqNDMe59Ikax1ykWHjNtL-DsSHoZcQ97gnR8x05HkiL7Q-Y/s400/dinosaurs-mars.png" /></a></div>
<p>There is a lot of misleading information out there. Notice the emphasis on the word, "<i>closest living relative</i>," as if something extinct, were even closer.</p>
<p>That's why I contacted the dudes who sequenced the crocodile genomes. They had the Alligator vs. Crocodiles genome sequencing (determining 93% similarity) so what was the similarity between Crocodiles and Birds?!</p>
<blockquote>Crocodilia<br>
"They appeared 83.5 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous period (Campanian stage) and are the closest living relatives of birds..."<br>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilia" target="_blank">click</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Are they implying dinosaurs were even closer than crocodiles?</p>
<p>The crocodile is the "closest living <b>AND EXTINCT</b> relative of birds."<br>
(Considering the fact that Crocodile DNA has changed very little over the past 100 million years.)</p>
<p>EXTINCT dinosaur: 58% genetic similarity to a chicken.<br>
EXTINCT AND EXTANT crocodile : 61.7% genetic similarity to a chicken.</p>
<p>Hmmm and I bet if you compared ancient Crocodile DNA with the chicken genome that % of similarity would be quite possibly higher than that of modern crocodiles!</p>
<p>The proper wording should be "Crocodilia are the closest known relative of birds."<br>PERIOD.</p>
<p>REACTION FROM DR. ALAN FEDUCCIA:</p>
<blockquote><i>"Interesting, but we do not know anything about the T. rex genome, just size, and even that is somewhat speculative."<br>
Best, alan</i></blockquote>
<p>That isn't what the "Orthodox" crowd are saying.</p>
<p>See attachment culled from one book I came across on Google Books.<br>
They swear by the "conclusive" DNA evidence.</p>
<sup>"conclusive" (in quotes) denotes sarcasm.</sup>
<p>58%</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbkKN-9BHLwAuSYk8SoZa_JwyeOY6t1I9L_-b5jd02ogXWDQZg2lWgr5v4mpgfi3I8LWvw2DmSTpBI-SS_Lrh5u9NvAMZHfNKMVwx5H9-lkMKwnwhuibeyW5CaBJAD5iSChfl9MWDMeJk/s1600/58-percent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbkKN-9BHLwAuSYk8SoZa_JwyeOY6t1I9L_-b5jd02ogXWDQZg2lWgr5v4mpgfi3I8LWvw2DmSTpBI-SS_Lrh5u9NvAMZHfNKMVwx5H9-lkMKwnwhuibeyW5CaBJAD5iSChfl9MWDMeJk/s1600/58-percent.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Dr. Alan Feduccia:
<blockquote><i>Yes, but our "T. rex skeptics group" has seriously questioned that study by Schweitzer; see chapter one in my book Riddle. And even if true (which I seriously doubt) it is just a small snippet of collagen. . . .</i></blockquote>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-88203496707658349752015-02-01T09:42:00.000-08:002015-10-09T11:39:58.325-07:00Messy, Tangled Web of Evolution vs. Darwin's Orderly Diversifying Tree<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWXob81zVjbklvKw2bQsqcwi8so_mBcbJ_LON9CQRlmZ-B9BcRHf3PSDelhs4PzlprQBN6DqRvWjtQX-7RGa5wcK8gxhc6p-OEcSc5Scy-oE9rX14-OGl2NwzTpFXVXgs44BnhAK6YJKM/s1600/001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWXob81zVjbklvKw2bQsqcwi8so_mBcbJ_LON9CQRlmZ-B9BcRHf3PSDelhs4PzlprQBN6DqRvWjtQX-7RGa5wcK8gxhc6p-OEcSc5Scy-oE9rX14-OGl2NwzTpFXVXgs44BnhAK6YJKM/s320/001.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>With what we know now about the tangled web of life, "Paleontologist Jack Horner is hard at work trying to turn a chicken into a dinosaur".
<blockquote><i>In 2009, the world’s most famous paleontologist made a bold claim. In “How to Build a Dinosaur,” Jack Horner proposed re-creating a small dinosaur by reactivating ancient DNA found in its descendants, chickens.</i><br>
<i>Horner and his team have been working on the “chickenosaurus” and moving ahead the science of evolutionary development. The project has already resulted in some of the first research into the embryonic development of tails.</i><br>
(<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/paleontologist-jack-horner-is-hard-at-work-trying-to-turn-a-chicken-into-a-dinosaur/2014/11/10/cb35e46e-4e59-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote></p>
<p>That may be, but did Mr. Horner separate and isolate specific chromosomes belonging to a dozen or more cross-breeders from the Chicken's ancestry, first?
<blockquote><p>Q. <b>Does bird mating ever cross the species line?</b></p>
<p><i>A. “Many birds occasionally mate with members of other bird species, producing hybrid offspring,” said Irby J. Lovette, director of the Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
In fact, Dr. Lovette said, about 10 percent of the world’s 10,000 bird species are known to have bred with another species at least once, either in the wild or in captivity. For example, in the eastern United States, NATIVE BLACK DUCKS have hybridized so often with the more abundant MALLARD DUCKS that PURE BLACK DUCKS HAVE BECOME RARE.
Hybridization tends to occur between species that are closely related, Dr. Lovette said, but an individual from ONE GENUS may occasionally form a pair with a bird from an altogether DIFFERENT GENUS, separated by many millions of years of evolutionary divergence.
Some groups of birds are particularly prone to hybridization, he said, adding:
“Experienced bird watchers know to watch out for the occasional hybrid gull or duck that exhibits an odd mix of its parents’ colors and behaviors. Often, however, hybrids die young, and even when hybrid offspring survive until adulthood, they may be sterile or have trouble attracting mates.”</i></p>
(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/science/does-bird-mating-ever-cross-the-species-line.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>What kind of a Frankenstein abomination is he prepared to bring into the world? Also, exactly how many chromosomes did T. Rex have? What genetic information was lost during these crossbreeding events? Surely these answers can be provided since Horner presumes he knows more than any legitimate scientist does about the current state of knowledge about dinosaur DNA.<br>
Whatever abomination he attempts to create will NOT be "the" or even "an" ancestor of a Chicken.<br>
A chicken's DNA is a genetic mosh pit ... a "Tangled Web" of genes derived from many ancestors... many of those crossbreeding from outside their species and... in some cases... beyond the boundaries of the species.</p>
<blockquote><b>DINOSAURS: MOVIES VS. REALITY</b><br>
"<i>...We must sequence the DNA — find out what the genetic code of the animal is. That's several billion letters strung together in a chain. One gap in the chain could possibly ruin the whole thing. In the Jurassic Park stories, frog DNA is used to plug the holes in the DNA. This is really silly! As paleontological critics have remarked, "too much frog DNA and your T. rex croaks." A reasonably intact dinosaur genome is necessary to progress further — putting together DNA is a lot harder than reconstructing a dinosaur skeleton from its bones, and that's plenty hard. <u>The odds of correctly assembling a fragmentary genome are similar to putting a million-piece puzzle together with your eyes closed.</u> DNA allows some room for mistakes (not all DNA is used), but it doesn't seem likely that we could get enough for any one animal.<br>
<u>If we somehow got a whole dinosaur genome, we would somehow have to make it assemble into chromosomes, which we don't know how to do with dinosaur DNA.</u> That might be able to be accomplished with a few decades of work.
Here comes the zinger. These chromosomes now would have to be implanted into a compatible, living, intact egg. Crocodile eggs, or even eggs of the same dinosaur genus, would not work. In vertebrates, the same (or at least closely related) species' egg and cytoplasm apparently are required for the egg to develop normally. The major problem here is that we just have the DNA — we don't know what species we have (DNA doesn't come with nametags), and even if we did we don't have a living dinosaur egg of that species!</i>"<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/buzz/popular.html" target=_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<h3>The Tangled Web vs. The Tree of Life</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFv64ZbVrGtv2pZsUWj4nTjWdhyphenhyphenSeoUahCcuJ6KvzBU3iJbtQZIye50f8mNRWz11hcm73FKWomi4SbY_qizAskHsvP0nn5WJkPafYvlfm6tZDHCfiqPgm8QMvwoeJxr5ES00_SfMJd-04/s1600/001-tangled-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFv64ZbVrGtv2pZsUWj4nTjWdhyphenhyphenSeoUahCcuJ6KvzBU3iJbtQZIye50f8mNRWz11hcm73FKWomi4SbY_qizAskHsvP0nn5WJkPafYvlfm6tZDHCfiqPgm8QMvwoeJxr5ES00_SfMJd-04/s320/001-tangled-web.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote><i>The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs is no longer questioned [(<b><font color="brown">THIS CLAIM IS <u>CERTAINLY NOT</u> TRUE!</font></b>)] ... Paleontologists have long studied the changes in bone structure of dinosaurs and birds over time. Meanwhile, molecular biologists have studied the composition of modern bird genes. By merging these scientists’ work, Horner, who is curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Mont., hopes to answer questions about evolution.<br>
Horner’s premise can be viewed from the launchpad of the late Michael Crichton’s novel and film “Jurassic Park,” a story that involved obtaining dinosaur DNA from undigested blood in mosquitoes preserved in amber. The idea of finding dinosaur DNA this way was taken seriously by many people, and the possibility was explored by scientists.<br>
Jack Horner knows the “Jurassic Park” theory very well, having served not only as the inspiration for one of the main characters but also as a technical adviser for the film. But 24 years after the novel was published, we have yet to find any DNA in mosquitoes from the time of the dinosaurs.<br>
DNA degrades under even ideal storage conditions. Cool, sterile conditions can extend its useful life to as long as perhaps a few million years, and dinosaurs disappeared about 65 million years ago. No matter how perfect a mosquito we find in a blob of amber, we cannot make a dinosaur out of that mosquito’s last blood meal.</i><br>
(<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/paleontologist-jack-horner-is-hard-at-work-trying-to-turn-a-chicken-into-a-dinosaur/2014/11/10/cb35e46e-4e59-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>So, SCIENCE FICTION and Frankenstein experiments is what paleontology has been reduced to, leaving a legacy of speculation, vs. actual fossil facts.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj__1auQn-6x2-kIaZGkwSMMA_mR0NGu8AKR7emAw1xShIlU3aT3XDXrFD5C6N0D6RF7q2iS_BleHZzNzJJ1q4M89oPCQHY4fMRt_YQDNLBgS8f9gWve16Pk_hNeIFNwUNCPHH3lciISDQ/s1600/002-tangled-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj__1auQn-6x2-kIaZGkwSMMA_mR0NGu8AKR7emAw1xShIlU3aT3XDXrFD5C6N0D6RF7q2iS_BleHZzNzJJ1q4M89oPCQHY4fMRt_YQDNLBgS8f9gWve16Pk_hNeIFNwUNCPHH3lciISDQ/s320/002-tangled-web.jpg" /></a></div>
<p><b>Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life</b><br>
Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches</p>
<blockquote><em>Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists.
<p>The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolise the theory of evolution by natural selection.
<p>But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank".
<p>"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.
<p>Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled "web of life".
<p>Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species.
<p>Last year, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington found a strange chunk of DNA in the genetic make-up of eight animals, including the mouse, rat and the African clawed frog. The same chunk is missing from chickens, elephants and humans, suggesting it must have become wedged into the genomes of some animals by crossbreeding.
<p>The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."</em></blockquote>
<p>(<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p><b>Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram</b><br>
Charles Darwin's “tree of life,” which shows how species are purportedly related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists, reports <a href="http://www.i4u.com/2013/05/54160/charles-darwin-proven-wrong-regarding-tree-life" target="_blank">I4U News</a> on May 16.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>The tree of life is a metaphor used to describe the relationships between organisms, both living and extinct. Its use dates back to at least the early 1800s. It was employed by Charles Darwin to express the concept of the branching divergence of varieties and then species in a process of common descent from ancestors.
<p>The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolize the theory of evolution by natural selection.
<p>Modern scientists and geneticists are now saying that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading. A more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an “impenetrable thicket.”
<p>Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a “tangled bank.”</em></blockquote>
<p>(<a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/charles-darwin-wrong-modern-scientists-debunk-darwin-s-tree-of-life-diagram" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3RGfE-fAdwRe7mxoI-Rv08XSGwLSI0_yQnW2VL3xR4nB7r1gWNZ1nOdsG0pEWtPitxP3LJozj0tL-0oQNxjSqFfZ2aWSHJWZ-J396CQ_B3lfVmsHMMR0LiNCqmgEArXZ-t_wX1I8znN0/s1600/0001-tangled-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3RGfE-fAdwRe7mxoI-Rv08XSGwLSI0_yQnW2VL3xR4nB7r1gWNZ1nOdsG0pEWtPitxP3LJozj0tL-0oQNxjSqFfZ2aWSHJWZ-J396CQ_B3lfVmsHMMR0LiNCqmgEArXZ-t_wX1I8znN0/s320/0001-tangled-web.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>If you thought the web couldn't get any more tangled, sticky and complicated then consider the "Death and Resurrection Theory".</p>
<p>Are Butterflies Two Different Animals in One? The Death And Resurrection Theory
<blockquote><i>Here's a dangerous, crazy thought from an otherwise sober (and very eminent) biologist, Bernd Heinrich. He's thinking about moths and butterflies, and how they radically change shape as they grow, from little wormy, caterpillar critters to airborne beauties. Why, he wondered, do these flying animals begin their lives as wingless, crawling worms? Baby ducks have wings. Baby bats have wings. Why not baby butterflies?
<p>His answer — and I'm quoting him here — knocked me silly.
<p>"[T]he radical change that occurs," he says, "does indeed arguably involve death followed by reincarnation."
<p>"In effect, the animal is a chimera, an amalgam of two, where the first one lives and dies ... and then the other emerges."
<p>What he's saying is, while a moth appears to be one animal, with a wormy start and a flying finish, it's actually two animals — two in one! We start with a baby caterpillar that lives a full life and then dies, dissolves. There's a pause. Then a new animal, the moth, springs to life, from the same cells, reincarnated.
<p>According to this theory, long, long ago, two very different animals, one destined to be wormy, the other destined to take wing, accidently mated, and somehow their genes learned to live side-by-side in their descendants. But their genes never really integrated. They are sharing a DNA molecule like two folks sharing a car, except half way through the trip, one driver dissolves and up pops his totally different successor. Driver No. 2 emerges from the body of driver No. 1.
<p>When this theory was first proposed (not by Bernd, but by an English zoologist), eminent scientists scoffed.</i></blockquote>
(<a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/08/01/157718428/are-butterflies-two-different-animals-in-one-the-death-and-resurrection-theory" target="_blank">Source</a>)
<p>Crossbreeding is very common. It is Evolution.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/hybrid-animals-created-from-climate-change-2013-9" target="_blank">These Hybrid Animals Will Be Created Because Of Climate Change</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/are-hybrid-species-being-created-due-to-climate-change" target="_blank">Are hybrid species being created due to climate change?</a></li>
<li><i>"...Like mules, the male version of the hybrid is infertile, but female dzo, or dzomo, are fertile, allowing for the “back breeding” of three-quarter mixes."</i><br>
<a href="http://modernfarmer.com/2014/01/10-farm-animal-hybrids-didnt-know-existed/" target="_blank">10 Farm Animal Hybrids You Didn’t Know Existed</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hybrid_%28biology%29" target="_blank">Hybrid (biology)</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29" target="_blank">Hybrid (biology)</a></li>
<li>"<i>...But of course, stable hybrids are found in the wild, no matter how distressing that idea is to armchair theorists. For example, DNA research has proven what has always been suspected -- that the Eastern Red Wolf in the U.S. is nothing more than a stable hybrid of a Grey Wolf and a Coyote."</i><br>
"<i>...As I noted a while back in a post about species loss, a good case can be made that more species are provably being created every year than being driven to extinction. To be clear, I am not saying that species extinction is not a very, very serious problem, only that we should at least mention that useful species and subspecies are being created every day, and in every key type: fur, fin and feather. In the history of the world, I am pretty sure the creation of the leghorn chicken is more important than the loss of a subspecies of finch found only on one isolated atoll in the Pacific.<br>
Several examples of speciation (it is a process, not an event) can be found in the world of falconry, where advances in aviary management and artificial insemination have resulted in all kinds of hybrids, such as Gyr/Peregrine and Gyr/Saker crosses that are not only fertile, but which combine the useful characteristics of one species (such as the speed of the Peregrine) with the useful characteristics of another (such as the size and strength of the Gyrfalcon).<br>
The first hybrid falcons were produced in 1971 in western Ireland when falconers Ronald Stevens and John Morris put a male Saker into a moulting mew with a female peregrine. The two young falconers were quite astonished when the birds mated and produced viable hybrid chicks.<br>
Soon other hybrids were being produced, revealing both the extreme plasticity and suspect nature of raptor classification."</i><br>
(<a href="http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2010/11/golden-eagle-x-harris-hawk.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</li>
<li>Not all cross-breeding results in negative outcomes.<br>
<i>"...The fact that the hybrid origin of the mule has so long been known, together with its marked sterility, has no doubt greatly contributed to <b>the widespread, but erroneous, belief that all hybrids are sterile</b>. Early naturalists (e.g., Prichard 1836, p. 140) believed that mules foaled more frequently in warmer climes."</i><br>
<a href="http://www.macroevolution.net/mules-donkey-horse-hybrids.html" target="_blank">Mules (Donkey × Horse), Equus asinus × Equus caballus, Mammalian Hybrids</a></li>
<li><a href="https://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/cross-breeds-kenyan-ruminants-help-farmers-cope-climate-change" target="_blank">Cross-breeds of Kenyan ruminants help farmers cope with climate change</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.albawaba.com/editorchoice/agriculture-climate-change-lebanon-521660" target="_blank">Lebanese scientists are "breeding" to counteract climate change</a></li>
<p>What we see before us, is the onset of another Mass Extinction.</p>
<li><a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/brown-polar-bears-beluga-narwhals-and-other-hybrids-brought-to-you-by-climate-change-7331236/?no-ist" target="_blank">Brown Polar Bears, Beluga-Narwhals and Other Hybrids Brought to You by Climate Change</a><br>
Animals with shrinking habitats are interbreeding, temporarily boosting populations but ultimately hurting species' survival</li>
<li><a href="http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/5/750.full" target="_blank">Evolution of Polyploid Triticum Wheats under Cultivation: The Role of Domestication, Natural Hybridization and Allopolyploid Speciation in their Diversification</a></li>
<li><b>Global Warming Spawns Hybrid Species</b><br>
<i>"...the rate at which species interbreed is accelerating because of climate change, researchers say. As habitats and animal ranges change and bleed into one another, species that never before would have encountered one another are now mating.
Warmer temperatures have allowed grizzly bears and polar bears to venture to habitats they don’t usually occupy and mate to form a hybrid: the pizzly or grolar bear.<br>
Similar trends have been observed between golden-winged warblers and blue-winged warblers.<br>
“This issue is horrendously complex because of our ability to change the environment,” said Arnold.<br>
Considering that human activity has indirectly brought together species through planetary warming and increased fossil fuel emissions, the question on the minds of many biologists like Arnold is whether humans should play a role in preventing hybridization like this.
A threat to genetic diversity?<br>
Montana’s Flathead Basin has long been a spawning haven for the westslope cutthroat trout. But as waters in the region warm, rainbow trout have swum up from the western lakes where they were introduced decades ago to cutthroat native grounds."<br>
Combining the strengths of coyotes and wolves<br>
However, some biologists disagree, saying that hybridization is natural and doesn’t always produce negative results. In some cases, hybrids are better adapted to cope with changing landscapes.<br>
“Hybridization can increase genetic diversity in some cases,” said Tallmon.<br>
A coyote-wolf-dog hybrid that made its way to western New York in the 1940s has the combined features of stealthy coyote-like movements and a larger skull, making it better-adapted to hunting white-tailed deer.<br>
Members of the Heliconius butterfly genus in the Amazon breed with other species within the genus and have developed more distinctive colors in the process. Without these colors, the birds would not be aware that these butterflies contain cyanide, and the defense mechanism would be useless.<br>
Though crossbreeding between Amazonian butterflies was not triggered by climate change, it is an example of hybridization that strengthens the survival abilities of a species.</i><br>
(<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-spawns-hybrid-species/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</li>
<li><b>With climate change, species are increasingly interbreeding to survive</b><br>
<i>"...Other researchers see hybridization differently, though — as a shortcut to the kind of evolution that has benefited organisms since time immemorial. By this view, hybridization threatens some species but enables others to survive and prosper.
As scientists scrutinize genomes, the old idea of separate, radiating species — an ever-diverging tree of life — has come to be understood as more of a tangled web, says Michael L. Arnold, research professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Georgia and the author of Evolution Through Genetic Exchange. Living things evolve into new species only to cross again and again."</i><br>
(<a href="http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-02/climate-change-species-are-increasingly-hybridizing-survive" target="_blank">Source</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>Hybrids can often go on to reproduce, and introduce new genetic information into the species.</p>
<blockquote><i>"...The world's only known whale-dolphin mix has given birth to a playful female calf, officials at Sea Life Park Hawaii said Thursday.<br>
The calf was born on Dec. 23 to Kekaimalu, a mix of a false killer whale and an Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. Park officials said they waited to announce the birth until now because of recent changes in ownership and operations at the park.
Kekaimalu has given birth to two other calves. One lived for nine years and the other, born when Kekaimalu was very young, died a few days after birth.<br>
Park researchers suspect the wholphin's father is an 8-foot long Atlantic bottlenose dolphin named Mikioi."</i><br>
(<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7508288/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/whale-dolphin-hybrid-has-baby-wholphin/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote><i>"...This is one confusing animal. Related to the rhinoceros, called a mountain cow, and with a flexible nose like an elephant, Baird's tapirs have to be seen to be believed."</i><br>
(<a href=" http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/tapir_bairds" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p><b>Elephant try to cross couple with Rhino</b></p>
<iframe width="300" height="169" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a02yA1-h31E?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><b>Speciation through Hybridization</b></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5ZgpTsveeKxo-P4YgtPBbnFuOy5y7h06sSThbbbVPLFozvYGKo-pDc-h-Fa7KwSODl1Zz8TuD3Wx7QnuFVTSvVhNx2Sa7yjQFCrMmq5nyoa9cJpPjDChHGJaYJjTqfPtAEleWER1lAI4/s1600/001-speciation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5ZgpTsveeKxo-P4YgtPBbnFuOy5y7h06sSThbbbVPLFozvYGKo-pDc-h-Fa7KwSODl1Zz8TuD3Wx7QnuFVTSvVhNx2Sa7yjQFCrMmq5nyoa9cJpPjDChHGJaYJjTqfPtAEleWER1lAI4/s1600/001-speciation.jpg" width="450" /></a></div><br>
Macroevolution is defined as a major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the SPECIES and higher taxa.<br>
This event (described) could have happened just as easily through Natural Selection as Artificial Selection.<br>
New species come and go every day on the planet.<br>
(<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2458771?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" target="_blank">Source</a>): <i>New Species and Forms of Cereals Derived from Hybridization between Wheat and Couch Grass
N. V. Tsitsin and V. F. Lubimova
The American Naturalist
Vol. 93, No. 870 (May - Jun., 1959), pp. 181-191
Published by: The University of Chicago Press for The American Society of Naturalists</i>
Viewing page 181 of pages 181-191</p>
<p>Consider this too. We do not have perfectly preserved, intact dinosaur DNA... much less, a single species "Genome". DNA does not preserve over 65 million years (that is merely counting dinosaurs that died during the Cretaceous).</p>
<p>A recap of the fossil record and just how far back, to find the "Ancestor" of Birds, which Horner claims he attempts to resurrect:</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiuYxVvXZE81GrHr6BD32kK52BPnx5anJHkwpmsMZd1xV9nxh9w-AQSdwssYt9XK436TGcl2ZGhcBMUM7W2IxibOma8cidYWPScL35n4x31pUEIj9IRl3Ln9xasee68AcqHRCW5q4PkI/s1600/birds-evolution-aps.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiuYxVvXZE81GrHr6BD32kK52BPnx5anJHkwpmsMZd1xV9nxh9w-AQSdwssYt9XK436TGcl2ZGhcBMUM7W2IxibOma8cidYWPScL35n4x31pUEIj9IRl3Ln9xasee68AcqHRCW5q4PkI/s1600/birds-evolution-aps.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Here's the result of what 13 MILLION YEARS of divergence can do to chromosomes:
<blockquote><i>"....Each of the four species of ape (chimpanzee, gorilla, bonobo, and orangutan) possesses 48 chromosomes or 24 pairs, compared to the 46 chromosomes of humans...."</i></blockquote>
<p>However, Horner does not think to attempt resurrecting a "common ancestor" between birds and *whatever* archosaur, a mere 13 million years ago:</p>
<blockquote><i>Human and Chimp Genes May Have Split 13 Million Years Ago
"...The ancestors of humans and chimpanzees may have begun genetically diverging from one another 13 million years ago, more than twice as long ago as had been widely thought, shedding new light on the process of human evolution, researchers say.
Scientists also discovered that male chimps pass on far more genetic mutations to their offspring than male humans do, revealing previously unknown evolutionary differences between the species."</i>
(<a href="http://www.livescience.com/46300-chimpanzee-evolution-dna-mutations.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>"...<i>previously unknown differences</i>..."
<p>Really? But can't Horner predict the varying mutation rates of extinct 100 Million Year old Dinosaurs and primitive birds?</p>
<p>If the speculative claims and promises of this Frankenstein experiment actually held water, surely some human would've already resurrected the "Common Ancestor" of Humans and Chimps. After all, we have the extant DNA from living Humans and Chimps and other primates!<br>
Bet if they did... they'd still get an ABOMINATION that doesn't correctly represent that common ancestor at all. It would not look the same, behave the same, it would probably be sickly and missing crucial genetic information that was lost millions of years ago, and cross-breeding through the ages introducing new genetic information while old genetic information disappeared.</p>
<p>Horner's evil experiment is... folly.<br>
You would have more luck, at cloning my "Grandmother," -- using my genes, my siblings' genes, my cousins' genes, and so on... you would NOT even come close to my "grandmother". Not in likeness, appearance or temperance. You would have a human -- but you would not have succeeded to resurrect my ancestor!</p>
<p>Horner's trying to resurrect a creature that is far older than 65 MILLION years.. and sadly, never even existed. Keep in mind, birds were around during the time of the Jurassic (long before T. Rex and Velociraptor) Jurassic birds were alive and well and doing what birds do, as far back as the Jurassic ... so Horner proposes to resurrect a "dinosaur" or Archosaur ancestor that dates back beyond 150 million years in geological time?<br>
Purely speculative folly!!! This is not Science. It is simply junk science. It is a flawed attempt at playing God.</p>
<p>Jurassic period dates back to 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago... we know there's no DNA available to even test against Horner's silly hypothesis.. WHAT A HUGE WASTE OF RESEARCH GRANT MONEY THAT COULD HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PUT TO FAR BETTER USE, ELSEWHERE. :-(</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-65163037458188741522015-01-18T23:31:00.000-08:002015-01-19T00:13:04.036-08:00Protoavis (Triassic)<p>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.</p>
<blockquote>Protoavis: A Revolution in Bird Evolution?<br>
"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."<br>(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>An article focusing on genetic research T-Rex/Birds.</p>
<blockquote>"...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..."</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote>"...-- confirms that dinosaurs share common ancestry with chickens, ostriches, and to a lesser extent, alligators."</blockquote>
<p>Molecular Analysis Confirms Tyrannosaurus Rex's Evolutionary Link To Birds (<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424140418.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>Nobody would deny that dinosaurs share "common ancestry" with birds, but who would presume birds, "...evolved from..." dinosaurs like T-Rex?</p>
<p>The kind of people who paint bright red feathers on large solitary predators.</p>
<p>Protoavis. One artist's depiction.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHmbk44T5Y6vVvTVNofD1hsf6ib7S4zezh_p83TikqCaEEI4c64vyia5FGKDwOPRQylwnQF_1oMFeb2fxqawzlQv6H8krEMca24c1dLtfBNPOKc_72rJFIOWQm1aDujxAOz4c5CB1nOlA/s1600/protoavis-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHmbk44T5Y6vVvTVNofD1hsf6ib7S4zezh_p83TikqCaEEI4c64vyia5FGKDwOPRQylwnQF_1oMFeb2fxqawzlQv6H8krEMca24c1dLtfBNPOKc_72rJFIOWQm1aDujxAOz4c5CB1nOlA/s1600/protoavis-2.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Mark Hallett (paleontological art) depiction of Protoavis.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH2ZZeWzYFCNsrU-1dGvIndDhTA3qTfLdcWM9PXPwWp_0Ty4fZZagofh5EAR_NXp5rh6u0woW90EVGrcYzfKnrqaAVnwfnTyFh71XjTb-Y8uQA7C3WAbQWC1C2Mr2_lCbjHTpl-ttueLY/s1600/1062_protavis.gif.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH2ZZeWzYFCNsrU-1dGvIndDhTA3qTfLdcWM9PXPwWp_0Ty4fZZagofh5EAR_NXp5rh6u0woW90EVGrcYzfKnrqaAVnwfnTyFh71XjTb-Y8uQA7C3WAbQWC1C2Mr2_lCbjHTpl-ttueLY/s1600/1062_protavis.gif.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>The fossil
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN_Tr1vqqxUgGm4lxdHzDG_1JMSDl5QoL4ZTtHJxCMMHi3SP1tBuhlJc7J2PRT-zheYr9YXvjkJ_07aW9T-HsHYnsDgFhAx1Wt6oLxNliwrVE4lGw6qI52r1FV5XzsjojSijnJWGJa1UA/s1600/Protoavis_paratype_skeletal.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN_Tr1vqqxUgGm4lxdHzDG_1JMSDl5QoL4ZTtHJxCMMHi3SP1tBuhlJc7J2PRT-zheYr9YXvjkJ_07aW9T-HsHYnsDgFhAx1Wt6oLxNliwrVE4lGw6qI52r1FV5XzsjojSijnJWGJa1UA/s1600/Protoavis_paratype_skeletal.png" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqPhnUUzCBTaVjEGA0CBSYLXFguWrGfh4Qc854CC1bl1Nab4i01vVvRDkoV5YBCK-oMQKF71pEbWoj9Oq8Zu5MXyVxql0qCY2a5sxKWJq11lw3CiWF7VnhFG8H7P9ZcQwuJK0cdv8sSV8/s1600/lifeprotoavis_small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqPhnUUzCBTaVjEGA0CBSYLXFguWrGfh4Qc854CC1bl1Nab4i01vVvRDkoV5YBCK-oMQKF71pEbWoj9Oq8Zu5MXyVxql0qCY2a5sxKWJq11lw3CiWF7VnhFG8H7P9ZcQwuJK0cdv8sSV8/s1600/lifeprotoavis_small.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Theories about flight:
<blockquote>"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."<br>
(<a href="http://incrediblebirds.blogspot.com/2011/08/bird-flight.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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,</p>
<p>Swimming led to flying
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/05/swimming-led-flying-physicists-say" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>..through instinct, perhaps even epigenetics... swimming prompted birds to fly.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<blockquote>"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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060612/full/news060612-12.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8iOgGirFmssZlB5m_csi_11IJR2-FW663BrytjJUvlVf4Qpx8MW4X6XIOsF0RTC1Hu1fQg6pw9i0PUMxfrYoNQjWA4z5zdChhHeZQMXHU_zTgL9-IF1LVHT150YQupejRXjqdDlRRgEI/s1600/3584861032_7d92c08206_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8iOgGirFmssZlB5m_csi_11IJR2-FW663BrytjJUvlVf4Qpx8MW4X6XIOsF0RTC1Hu1fQg6pw9i0PUMxfrYoNQjWA4z5zdChhHeZQMXHU_zTgL9-IF1LVHT150YQupejRXjqdDlRRgEI/s1600/3584861032_7d92c08206_o.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>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,
<blockquote>"...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." (<a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1788/20140806" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" /></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-60601324111959664332015-01-18T23:02:00.000-08:002016-02-06T08:50:43.077-08:00Merely 58% Genetic Similarity between T. Rex and Chicken?<p>"The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes." (<a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3744-chimps-are-human-gene-study-implies/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>"Human and fish genes are 90% identical!" (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/saf/1202/features/hopkins3.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>"75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8069235.stm" target="_blank">Source</a>), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome. (<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=xvK8BKbeNWAC&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=90%25+of+the+mouse+genome+could+be+lined+up+with+a+region+on+the+human+genome&source=bl&ots=ZBV-nL5-OJ&sig=MCrSC6q5cK0i7oPrkzzShJNk-lk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCGoVChMIgpHknO7RyAIVQpQNCh1-9AyY#v=onepage&q=90%25%20of%20the%20mouse%20genome%20could%20be%20lined%20up%20with%20a%20region%20on%20the%20human%20genome&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<blockquote>"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)."<br>
-- 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.</blockquote>
<p>And the "outstanding percentage of similarity" with T. Rex to chicken was merely...58% ?<br>
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.</p>
<p>Humans and fish share a 90% genetic similarity, and that's following 400 million of years of divergence between humans from fish.</p>
<blockquote>From protein to DNA<br>
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:<br>
GVQGPPGPQGPR<br>
Each letter is a different amino acid. For example, G is glycine and P is proline.<br>
They then looked at other creatures to see what string of amino acids they have. The chicken, for example, has:
GVQGPPGPQGPR<br>
As you can see, this is an exact match. The newt on the other hand, had:<br>
GAAGPPGATGFP<br>
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.<br>
(<a href="http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news46" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiotgJCreg9xobm_riv_s2tU7eccR2K7yYk7WDC5eUD_UCr_DkHRiHNoDTqp2QgHhtp_TXcmBMAcDEpWeWhrYYgl2Ocf3eFT5aOLOtD8fWTXtGSg3wjT_mvedUK8-IpGqp3QPLI8-PzY-g/s1600/58-percent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiotgJCreg9xobm_riv_s2tU7eccR2K7yYk7WDC5eUD_UCr_DkHRiHNoDTqp2QgHhtp_TXcmBMAcDEpWeWhrYYgl2Ocf3eFT5aOLOtD8fWTXtGSg3wjT_mvedUK8-IpGqp3QPLI8-PzY-g/s1600/58-percent.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>T. Rex is 58% genetically similar to a chicken?<br>
Chickens are about 60-75% genetically similar to humans.<br>
Therefore, chickens share a closer relation to humans, than t. rex.</p>
<blockquote>"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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041208230523.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>DNA has a 521 Year Life Span<br>
(<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-34407805087245253752015-01-18T22:19:00.001-08:002015-01-18T22:52:45.372-08:00Feathered Feet and the Snowshoe in Birds<p>"Non Theropod".<br>
Anchiornis huxleyi + "nontheropod sacral anatomy" explained. (<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=SihlpQTlVdAC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=Anchiornis+huxleyi+sacral+non+theropod&source=bl&ots=jTm0WAg1ba&sig=GTbhMIFoUfjXEqy587phjctgEAY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lJGtVJbHA4HxggSEqoSQBg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Anchiornis%20huxleyi%20sacral%20non%20theropod&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6S5MjT6Bn8jC71Ul0fFSdCyTaOhPBDlDyLg00HJ4prvmlkLCQXpPIVzsSGAhkaPzVDUfhXZizqIBzsf-8DisQXZbPpVKrmtj4OW176UuLUh4mU-C43WCXQ3wjWDeuYRehcrRz76OeeiI/s1600/non-theropod.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6S5MjT6Bn8jC71Ul0fFSdCyTaOhPBDlDyLg00HJ4prvmlkLCQXpPIVzsSGAhkaPzVDUfhXZizqIBzsf-8DisQXZbPpVKrmtj4OW176UuLUh4mU-C43WCXQ3wjWDeuYRehcrRz76OeeiI/s1600/non-theropod.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIWlTDRdRAyUDvcYi7qRVKuB6GjjqJFjGlMLRirf1GFNEV8Ipn-yFS1MWdOA1FV4YJIQUaBRgcCy-AFMDw_fcrrZaVOyW_6aeesjIX2-Jzq9oMkEPEwT4Ip04T4TLh3_iQ1xk55WygEKI/s1600/non-theropod-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIWlTDRdRAyUDvcYi7qRVKuB6GjjqJFjGlMLRirf1GFNEV8Ipn-yFS1MWdOA1FV4YJIQUaBRgcCy-AFMDw_fcrrZaVOyW_6aeesjIX2-Jzq9oMkEPEwT4Ip04T4TLh3_iQ1xk55WygEKI/s1600/non-theropod-2.jpg" width="450"/></a></div>
<p>I like what Feduccia says.</p>
<blockquote>"... <i>a large suite of avian characters are present, especially in <i>Anchiornis</i>, we must remain open to the view that they represent a primitive group of early avians</i>."</blockquote>
<p>... 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.</p>
<p>Feduccia's book on the origins of the feathered feet, could not have been terrestrial as formally claimed...</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwGfzs0UQDDUBnGxUWKt7QszjErtf6Vf4Nouqif0nsCF5BY17gDsi_c2wX4-G6jG_n_QRYhRS0vmgLfWY8x1CzoCe6n4x9E53s4FIK9o1ea1pKZtAAE1Vpdv_gzUVNuT2GppfRtXpI708/s1600/anchi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwGfzs0UQDDUBnGxUWKt7QszjErtf6Vf4Nouqif0nsCF5BY17gDsi_c2wX4-G6jG_n_QRYhRS0vmgLfWY8x1CzoCe6n4x9E53s4FIK9o1ea1pKZtAAE1Vpdv_gzUVNuT2GppfRtXpI708/s1600/anchi.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Feathered and webbed feet explanation.<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjczNaokkzcr3jzxz16DFuWx0lNiqqWkvh80L1J64zYKyqwypBmSlt_lFPfUIuxE-AHehvtd_PvuR00vj_rv6eBMyY-PXXFjAVYcbM6VoJYqlCapG2Z0vhg2XvZU1frhiNOWN1vEQfSBYQ/s1600/feathered-feet-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjczNaokkzcr3jzxz16DFuWx0lNiqqWkvh80L1J64zYKyqwypBmSlt_lFPfUIuxE-AHehvtd_PvuR00vj_rv6eBMyY-PXXFjAVYcbM6VoJYqlCapG2Z0vhg2XvZU1frhiNOWN1vEQfSBYQ/s1600/feathered-feet-2.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
(<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=cMejo4P3utwC&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=%22feathered+feet%22+aquatic&source=bl&ots=UEWMqy4-eT&sig=kYkPs7wPv6MOh6E7P0Fn-ajwgH8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5putVJSdHYykgwTBk4DICA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=%22feathered%20feet%22%20aquatic&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>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).<br>
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".<br>
<p>Here's three science papers on the "Ornithuromorph" birds.<br>
"...thus expand our knowledge of Early Cretaceous specializations within the <i>aquatic niche</i>..."<br>
"...As more ornithuromorph taxa are described, it is becoming increasingly clear that<i> a majority of species have aquatic specializations</i>..."<br>
"...especially <i>amphibious or aquatic habitat preferences</i> in early ornithuromorphs."</p>
<p>T. REX NEED NOT APPLY.
<blockquote>Paleoecology<br>
Elongate hindlimbs in birds are <i>commonly associated with aquatic ‘shorebird’/littoral ecological niches</i> (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 <i>Early Cretaceous record of aquatic taxa is limited to the exceptional Gansus yumenensis</i> 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).<br>
Longicrusavis also possesses specializations for a littoral environment,and together with Hongshanornis,reveals an early diversification of wading birds.<br>
(<a href="http://earth.usc.edu/~jingmai/oconnor_etal_2010_longicrusavis.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"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 <i>Cretaceous ornithuromorphs may have been largely aquatic in habits, and that neornithines may have originated in water-based niches</i> (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."<br>
(<a href="http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/21366/1/app%252E2009%252E0095.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>Xing Xu Ph.D.:<br>
"...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, <i>especially amphibious or aquatic habitat preferences in early ornithuromorphs</i>."
(<a href="http://chinese.eurekalert.org/en/interview/?i=28" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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 <b>descendents of the AQUATIC ancestor among the basal archosaur</b>, 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.</p>
<blockquote>"...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.<br>
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."<br>
(<a href="http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2006/07/01/gansus-and-the-early-ornithuromorpheuornithan-evolution/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>More dino-bird mythology to carefully dissect and ignore. Some birds have "feathered feet".... but why?</p>
<p>To snowshoe, they say. But the Cretaceous, when T. Rex roamed is suspect as being very warm :</p>
<p>Paleoclimate
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/142729/Cretaceous-Period/69972/Paleoclimate" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Now, everyone in the dino-bird camp is trying to explain why T. Rex must have had to have feathered feet too.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p>As shown, these "feathered feet" are used to snow-shoe. (<a href="http://www.oiseaux-birds.com/page-family-tetraonidae.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<blockquote>Plio-Pleistocene climatic oscilations, Holarctic biogeography and speciation in an avian subfamily Sergei V. Drovetski*<br>
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA<br>
DISCUSSION<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
(<a href="http://hosting.uaa.alaska.edu/afsvd/SVDpublications/2003%20Drovetski.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi32NmG2l_fMla_uzo4BYCYCbdgBfzntchehA2yhFx7cP9sXews0K1-cOiv5AnXhAm-kawkV0Da8CfZ-pHAa1inbEcOB7OMGlrxZGODvXiSfRpQf47HeMTol3OMyYd_2aKR_9DmPnIrI2U/s1600/dossier-tetraonides-tet-canada-male-rl1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi32NmG2l_fMla_uzo4BYCYCbdgBfzntchehA2yhFx7cP9sXews0K1-cOiv5AnXhAm-kawkV0Da8CfZ-pHAa1inbEcOB7OMGlrxZGODvXiSfRpQf47HeMTol3OMyYd_2aKR_9DmPnIrI2U/s1600/dossier-tetraonides-tet-canada-male-rl1.jpg" width="450"/></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLPa1riWV_QeJ9-mGSH9p_SFZX9bX2FMkmpjKnHX0f2uOU13Tsion7KVrH59oOBFZnUhQRp-ZM-yPH_6miIV4fwonaz4dlVdYfX015n1ZVL9PwNyOeMpTTDdmsgkkpSWdJypBiAIbaX7Y/s1600/feathered-feet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLPa1riWV_QeJ9-mGSH9p_SFZX9bX2FMkmpjKnHX0f2uOU13Tsion7KVrH59oOBFZnUhQRp-ZM-yPH_6miIV4fwonaz4dlVdYfX015n1ZVL9PwNyOeMpTTDdmsgkkpSWdJypBiAIbaX7Y/s1600/feathered-feet.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE FEET!!!<br>
<blockquote>What Pigeons Teach Us About Convergent Evolution<br>
"...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.<br>
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.<br>
Despite their careful breeding, when pigeon populations become free-living - either in cities or in the wild - they evolve out of their original appearance."<br>
(<a href="http://io9.com/5877306/what-pigeons-teach-us-about-convergent-evolution" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>See the "Ice Age" chart from (<a href="http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe7XXpXdgCWyGX9gLwOB4eyPoxrBBWPB7NmrHtNdEx6csNlWM0eNXBUaJ_spnYzTeNtneGuEy-xn0sHVhUF1V9B9sQxvlav3-I5XK6KUdtSmIOXFEWNqeROszLN0dmw3t1_m0nmH-0PnI/s1600/ice_ages1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe7XXpXdgCWyGX9gLwOB4eyPoxrBBWPB7NmrHtNdEx6csNlWM0eNXBUaJ_spnYzTeNtneGuEy-xn0sHVhUF1V9B9sQxvlav3-I5XK6KUdtSmIOXFEWNqeROszLN0dmw3t1_m0nmH-0PnI/s1600/ice_ages1.gif" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>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:
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Therefore, the "snow shoes" described on the "<i>Anchiornis huxleyi</i>" 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.</p>
<p>It seems like "snow shoe" is the word commonly used to describe the type of foot adapted for snow and icey climates.</p>
<blockquote>Polar Bears | Discovery Kids<br>
"...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!"<br>
(<a href="http://discoverykids.com/articles/polar-bears/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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".</p>
<blockquote>"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."<br>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowshoe_hare" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>On the page, they show a pair of Ptarmigans (relative of grouse).</p>
<blockquote>Penguin Feet: Avoiding Frostbite in the Antarctic<br>
"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.<br>
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.<br>
...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."<br>
(<a href="http://blogs.britannica.com/2011/01/penguin-feet-avoiding-frostbite-in-the-antarctic/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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".<br>
"...because bright red feathered feet are "cool looking"..." isn't legitimate science.<br>
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".</p>
<p>.. not to mention the obvious:<br>
<blockquote>"...Scientists have weighed Tyrannosaurus rex, finding it may have topped 9 tons..."</blockquote>
<p>I have my doubts that a few feathers on its feet would "...prevent it from sinking into deep snow while foraging".</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-72595254800409099392015-01-18T21:10:00.001-08:002015-01-18T21:10:46.844-08:00Massive Size of Dinosaurs and Birds<blockquote>..."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."</blockquote>
<p>...and sweet little birds were warm-blooded.</p>
<blockquote>NEWS: Blue Whales Keep Getting Bigger<br>
"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."<br>
"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.<br>
Benson thinks it's unlikely that any land animals today, including humans, could ever evolve to become as large as the biggest dinosaurs were.<br>
"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."<br>
(<a href="http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/how-dinosaurs-got-so-big-120131.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.
<blockquote><b>Largest Flying Bird Could Barely Get Off the Ground</b><br>
"Lived in the Andes mountains and the pampas of Argentina about six million years ago.<br>
"Takeoff capability is the limiting factor for the size of flying birds, and Argentavis almost reached the upper limit," Chatterjee said.<br>
"Heavier birds such as the ostrich had to give up flight."<br>
(<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070702-biggest-bird.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Terror Birds: Predators with a Kung Fu Kick</b><br>
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.<br>
"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)."<br>
(<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0801_050801_terrorbirds.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Did these bird monstrosities give rise to modern birds like the hummingbirds... the geese, the parrot? Does it sound like they did?<br>
They went extinct.<br>
And note: National Geographic is guilty of reprinting the lie:
<blockquote>"Researchers still do not know if terror birds hunted in groups—as velociraptors..."</blockquote>
<p>Fossil evidence shows Velociraptors were most likely solitary predators.<br>
And THIS is probably why:
<blockquote>"...If relative brain size is any measure of intelligence, dromaeosaurs were just a little smarter than typical dinosaurs. Not geniuses by mammalian standards."<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/buzz/popular.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>No bucket o' brains.<br>
<blockquote>Biggest Dinosaurs Had Brains the Size of Tennis Balls<br>
"An advanced member of the largest group of dinosaurs ever to walk the Earth still had a relatively puny brain, researchers say."<br>
(<a href="http://www.livescience.com/26539-giant-sauropods-small-brains.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Now birds (in proportion to body mass) are complex and intelligent creatures.</p>
<p>Bird Brains (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-1492068668690986032015-01-18T19:00:00.000-08:002015-01-18T20:06:55.351-08:00Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy<blockquote>"...Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy - Slate"</blockquote>
<p>No, it doesn't. But it does overwhelm the reasoning faculties of anyone who actually stops to think critically about the unscientific claims.</p>
<blockquote> slate com/.../creationists_and_dinosaurs_answers_in_genesis_t...<br>
"...Sep 19, 2012 - Creationists are on a campaign to “take dinosaurs back. ... that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—"</blockquote>
<p>Many creationists deny dinosaurs, fossil layers, evolution... so this is really not about taking "dinosaurs back".</p>
<p>It is about many scientists and science enthusiasts like myself, who are NOT "creationists" and have became disillusioned with the "meltdown of paleontology".</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>Only an illogical freshmen graduate would say a 70 million year old Velociraptor could birth a 165 million year old Archeopteryx.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote>"Most scientists.."</blockquote>
<p>Intimidation. Bandwagon fallacy. A list please....
<blockquote>"...creationists deny the clear fossil record."</blockquote>
<p>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."</p>
<blockquote>" ... The mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs, and that many “bird” ."</blockquote>
<p>THERE IS <u>NO EVIDENCE</u> OF THAT. But there is mounting evidence of fossil fakery. (<a href="http://birds-to-dinosaur.blogspot.com/2015/01/fake-fossils.html" target="_blank">Source</a>) And in no small number. Some estimates are as high as 80%.</p>
<p>There is only a theory (based on FOSSIL EVIDENCE... GENETIC EVIDENCE) and fits within the Charles Darwin way of science, that:</p>
<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>
<p>The so-called "mountain of evidence"... is stacked AGAINST the illogical dinosaur-bird hypothesis.</p>
<p>CHARLES DARWIN'S WAY:
<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>
<p>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".</p>
<p>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??</p>
<p>Religions hold unscientific myths dear to heart, don't they?</p>
<p>Yes... I need an anxiety pill because the lack of reason and logic in the dino-bird hypothesis is driving me mad... <i>insane</i>!! My reasoning faculties have reached a state of meltdown. A huge bruise to my brain.</p>
<p>I can feel the level of arrogance in a statement like
<blockquote>"...creationists deny the clear fossil record."</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkD09UgrxdN4jV_8BY5sjciTj50XOxmZ_lquBpioFDz2CP1-3gAvX9KXUJPQWFd5xaifYfJbvLe6n-R0rhzKg5ykDdrzeB3kMij7hsIy-M6zqiDZ8tEXa6uShUQCbhAdUfCSNJSNmpJYY/s1600/1.1216934460.deinonychus-antirrhopus-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkD09UgrxdN4jV_8BY5sjciTj50XOxmZ_lquBpioFDz2CP1-3gAvX9KXUJPQWFd5xaifYfJbvLe6n-R0rhzKg5ykDdrzeB3kMij7hsIy-M6zqiDZ8tEXa6uShUQCbhAdUfCSNJSNmpJYY/s1600/1.1216934460.deinonychus-antirrhopus-.jpg" width="450"/></a></div>
<li><a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1788/20140806" target="_blank">Ancient origins and multiple appearances of carotenoid-pigmented feathers in birds</a><br />
"...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 <b>black and brown melanins</b>, have existed for at least 160 million years (Myr), but <u><b>no traces of bright carotenoid pigments</b></u> in ancient feathers have been reported."</li>
<center><a href="http://birds-to-dinosaur.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-error-of-bright-red-feathers.html"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg76TjxutoBN3efCNB-vYbnkQf3svRBg0lKKqqIgKxxVk3mPAlIB6lI2lGLDPnI2naONNS5oOpMEqa99xMrCgecfb0sjYRSDhz28fnOEPmfypwlkMWZfYm0a2JaJm9BOvu7BQkIooG7pPI/s1600/busted.png" border="0" alt="Bright Red Feathered Dinosaurs" /></a></center>
<li><a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/knoxville/life/winter-cardinals-don-their-brightest-red" target="_blank">Winter cardinals don their brightest red feathers</a><br />
"...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."</li>
<li><a href="http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~larget/Genetics629/Fall2009/birds-Hedges-PNAS-1994.pdf" target="_blank">Molecular evidence for the origin of birds</a> (<a href="http://creation-vs-evolution.us/bird_evolution/birds-Hedges-PNAS-1994.pdf" target="_blank">backup</a>)</li>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigbRQVB0l8SNIHAux3pMQVnb_UPKXX29_UVhczQpZIbT6d81yhaG3LclYBO_Livfip8OQtpun3r5AuibgMUROafmSi6dCn5KsRQrmjItxnysGgU_hPdzvrX3bN4u4Ow8UF77tAS944bPs/s1600/red-rex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigbRQVB0l8SNIHAux3pMQVnb_UPKXX29_UVhczQpZIbT6d81yhaG3LclYBO_Livfip8OQtpun3r5AuibgMUROafmSi6dCn5KsRQrmjItxnysGgU_hPdzvrX3bN4u4Ow8UF77tAS944bPs/s1600/red-rex.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>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".</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>As I've already explained, (<a href="http://birds-to-dinosaur.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-error-of-bright-red-feathers.html">Source</a>) "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.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0PR8hUG7LQPdvUpdllAoAhco7HRAW0W23Vtp74P7hEIYBUgP5lE1uE55iXxNxhk67Yau4G_8pL0Dr_ymy0CRQTzZ-OZ_mkNKt6yvA-O5yXbsQOXmWZ-A99SekAd8f-gep35KrtUACkRY/s1600/creation-theme-park.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0PR8hUG7LQPdvUpdllAoAhco7HRAW0W23Vtp74P7hEIYBUgP5lE1uE55iXxNxhk67Yau4G_8pL0Dr_ymy0CRQTzZ-OZ_mkNKt6yvA-O5yXbsQOXmWZ-A99SekAd8f-gep35KrtUACkRY/s1600/creation-theme-park.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<blockquote>"...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"<br>
(<a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denialism" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>MISREPRESENTATION. Like using GREBE feathers and a long rope to extrapolate that somehow, those bird (grebe) feathers are "dinosaur" feathers.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>DATA FABRICATION (See above).</p>
<p>SMEAR CAMPAIGNS -- (See Alan Feduccia and other scientists who question the Orthodoxy).</p>
<p>JUST ONE "FACT". And there are many facts. But denialists refuse to accept... a direct result of their own cognitive dissonance.</p>
<p>Source: Oregon State University<br>
"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."<br>
(Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links, ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009).)<br>
(<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>So much for logic, reason, skepticism, questioning...</p>
<blockquote>"..."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.<br>
"A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset," Ruben said.<br>
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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>WHO are these "most scientists today" who accept that cretaceous dinosaurs evolved into birds"?</p>
<p>"GENERALIZATION." ANOTHER TACTIC OF DENIALISTS.</p>
<p>There are many legitimate scientists who refuse to blindly accept the hypothesis.<br>
<blockquote>... 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."<br>
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."<br>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>The bandwagon argument that
<blockquote><em>"Most biologists accept it as conclusive proof that dinosaurs sired birds..."</em></blockquote>
<p>Most? Is that so? Good old argument fallacy -- to intimidate other scientists to cave under the pressure. Nothing more.</p>
<p>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"...</p>
<p>ALL TO DUMB DOWN TOMORROW'S YOUTH.</p>
<center><iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FRYQrBB4yK0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<p>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.<br>
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.<br>
TO WITNESS THE ONGOING DESTRUCTION OF SCIENCE IS DEPRESSING.</p>
<h3>Headline: "<i>Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy</i>"</h3>
<p>Does it take a myth to debunk a myth? Explain how that works.</p>
<p>But... not because it's "truth".</p>
<p>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.<br>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>There's a magical fairy tale.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Paleontology loses its credibility is the only cost.</p>
<p>The dinosaur-bird hypothesist fanatics get angry... furious... attacking any scientists who dare question the baseless orthodoxy of "dinosaur to bird evolution".</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. (<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/rational-irrationality/measuring-americas-decline-in-three-charts" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>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".</p>
<p>But they deny the fossil record like Creationists.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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".</p>
<blockquote>"...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!.).."<br>
(<a href="http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurevolution/a/first-dinosaurs.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/pictures/110915-amber-dinosaur-feathers-color-science-birds-alberta/" target="_blank">sensationalist media</a> 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,
<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>
<p>GREBES... whose ancestors lived during the Cretaceous.</p>
<p>Who do they presume they are deceiving except those who lack a working knowledge of birds from the Jurassic and Cretaceous?</p>
<blockquote>"The first placental mammals appeared at the beginning of the Cretaceous. <i>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</i>.<br>
(<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/mesozoic/cretaceous/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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. :-(<br>
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?</p>
<blockquote>Grebe Left Imaginary Dinosaur Feathers in Amber<br>
“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."<br>
(<a href="http://crev.info/2011/09/110915-grebe_left_imaginary_dinosaur_feathers_in_amber/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>In other words, the press pawned a load of hype on the public and then expect the public to "respect" them.</p>
<p>This is suppose to "enlighten" the public about Science. How? With outright deception and myths?</p>
<p>Will Rogers — 'It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation, but you can lose it in a minute.'</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-63141586818880314122015-01-18T17:39:00.000-08:002015-01-18T18:22:11.631-08:00Mother Nature's Dirty Little Tricks (Triassic Avian Ancestor in Semi-Aquatic Environment)<p>Here's an interesting Retraction in <i>Nature. 2013 Sep 12;501(7466):262.</i> .. it states something of peculiar interest:</p>
<p>The first theropod dinosaurs arose during the Triassic...</p>
<blockquote>"...The hind limbs of Late Triassic epoch theropods lack osteological evidence for an avian reversed hallux and also display other functional differences from birds."</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote>Abstract<br>
"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12087401" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Take note of the last sentence. I have predicted "birds arose from aquatic environments" -- well ain't that something!
<blockquote>"...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."</blockquote>
<p>Ponds... aquatic... back to the "water's edge" from whence all life was begat.</p>
<blockquote>"...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."</blockquote>
<p>See attached pic of such an "ephemeral river".<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOHYnJnQJO7viWi4eJ5UZ0KgtxDLDpX5uIg0vAf1kLess5A_uG5EcHhsj8bTddgnFXoCuEK9joYsMlZ2ppaEKwCMOkMqwkOHs8WykS9iYkKRux2F16tpzVQCGOCNVke_SQY_y69QzNcNU/s1600/pond.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOHYnJnQJO7viWi4eJ5UZ0KgtxDLDpX5uIg0vAf1kLess5A_uG5EcHhsj8bTddgnFXoCuEK9joYsMlZ2ppaEKwCMOkMqwkOHs8WykS9iYkKRux2F16tpzVQCGOCNVke_SQY_y69QzNcNU/s1600/pond.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Swimming... enabled birds to fly.</p>
<p>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.
<blockquote>:-P from "...an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters."</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" /></a></div>
<table width="450" border="2" align="center"><tbody bgcolor="black"><tr><td>
<p>This is funny. In light of the Nature "Retraction".</p>
<p>The Major Groups of Coelurosaurs<br>
Extremely bird-like theropod dinosaurs<br>
<blockquote>"...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!"<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/coelurosauria.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Never seen a web page open with that kind of disclaimer on it. WOW!</p>
<p>Wow could that be? The dino-bird hypotheses people already know everything.</p>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<p>From what I gather from Paleontology 101 as it currently stands, and the "Retraction" by <i>Nature</i> ...</p>
<blockquote>GEOL 104: Theropoda II, Coelurosauria: Tyrant Kings and ...<br>
<blockquote>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)."
(<a href="http://geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104coelur.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>[* Tyrannosaurus rex, one of the last, and also the largest known tyrannosaur.]</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>So, the "oldest known coelurosaurs" date to the Middle Jurassic... about the time Archeopteryx was already a fully developed bird.<br>
And the "oldest known bird" date to the late Jurassic. (Archeopteryx). Right?</p>
<p>The <i>Nature</i> retraction stated:
<blockquote>"...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."</blockquote>
<p>So those are not going to be the ancestor to (perching) birds... and continues,</p>
<blockquote>"....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."</blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
[...<i>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</i>.]</p>
<p>Coelurosaurs are merely "Extremely bird-like theropod dinosaurs". But not birds and not the ancestors of birds, either.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Evidence weighs heavy for the non-relation between bird and dinosaur in the Jurassic.</p>
<p>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 :</p>
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12087401" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Again... an "unknown group" in the Triassic... in a semi-aquatic habitat.</p>
<p>It was merely a pipe dream... <b><u>for now</u></b>.</p>
<p>At least that is my understanding of the <i>Nature</i> Retraction.</p>
<p>Have it the way of <i>Nature</i>'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...)</p>
<blockquote>(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."</blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
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.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7NFsVdYEuKOqVcp5L1s_i1eKe1iE__a3ZSot6fDj8MucqxyXbI7hikTSROT5Ha2tC02X19NqdsUnqi8OPx4WE0ihe55Rk6njiKsveLfbkBAKYAimQq-BoiHmfy3-NPuvK5xkM_Hs_Izo/s1600/archaeoEW.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7NFsVdYEuKOqVcp5L1s_i1eKe1iE__a3ZSot6fDj8MucqxyXbI7hikTSROT5Ha2tC02X19NqdsUnqi8OPx4WE0ihe55Rk6njiKsveLfbkBAKYAimQq-BoiHmfy3-NPuvK5xkM_Hs_Izo/s1600/archaeoEW.png" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3BVSCqr6zNC9sAwk1QEGYe4HYD5qfjWDO-dsNE88IeG1claifA3_NRs_k3mXmIU-cGhtJFqlHirWMi7Mvmk4-dETcM1GczeZQxtoziEtT1l_PxU5qcRJ9ogo3bT-gmNWnyvv11A3i7tw/s1600/archeopteryx-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3BVSCqr6zNC9sAwk1QEGYe4HYD5qfjWDO-dsNE88IeG1claifA3_NRs_k3mXmIU-cGhtJFqlHirWMi7Mvmk4-dETcM1GczeZQxtoziEtT1l_PxU5qcRJ9ogo3bT-gmNWnyvv11A3i7tw/s1600/archeopteryx-1.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOHYnJnQJO7viWi4eJ5UZ0KgtxDLDpX5uIg0vAf1kLess5A_uG5EcHhsj8bTddgnFXoCuEK9joYsMlZ2ppaEKwCMOkMqwkOHs8WykS9iYkKRux2F16tpzVQCGOCNVke_SQY_y69QzNcNU/s1600/pond.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOHYnJnQJO7viWi4eJ5UZ0KgtxDLDpX5uIg0vAf1kLess5A_uG5EcHhsj8bTddgnFXoCuEK9joYsMlZ2ppaEKwCMOkMqwkOHs8WykS9iYkKRux2F16tpzVQCGOCNVke_SQY_y69QzNcNU/s1600/pond.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQv9bYSmpSM00C6U1aAMI5bgUEpR_T89hpH5BoreuiuBCxRCieVg606X1_H-QO1VQiD2j84uTDOQbFwQQd5mgobBd554e_LGahaUSN6qSeWdiHlNPtCAmojeRJmxWb2dLTwTAFkUJJqQU/s1600/cretaceous-collection_907_600x450.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQv9bYSmpSM00C6U1aAMI5bgUEpR_T89hpH5BoreuiuBCxRCieVg606X1_H-QO1VQiD2j84uTDOQbFwQQd5mgobBd554e_LGahaUSN6qSeWdiHlNPtCAmojeRJmxWb2dLTwTAFkUJJqQU/s1600/cretaceous-collection_907_600x450.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVdaN5HhuGC7xk470uOZo38kd93kLdelMxNs8SKZn-wB0eUBwMVeD2PWc9inKkL9TFxl4DwsiZKWUTAZopn-tpjRzEcNKpIRyVmOKdq6WzWdJC1ic1cVh_phDSN8-VALMTg-Ti-FCNUxY/s1600/WWD1x1_CoelophysisFishingForLungfish.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVdaN5HhuGC7xk470uOZo38kd93kLdelMxNs8SKZn-wB0eUBwMVeD2PWc9inKkL9TFxl4DwsiZKWUTAZopn-tpjRzEcNKpIRyVmOKdq6WzWdJC1ic1cVh_phDSN8-VALMTg-Ti-FCNUxY/s1600/WWD1x1_CoelophysisFishingForLungfish.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB73-qN3XNmnf8PpjQx1S_EDYYHXbDZd6btpIpCGygDxZqVOUEmyB7ibCNjFw3m4CddWb599W9fAaLh-cdJZek5au2wFz868xL3tr5eY-01svOXcheeO4JeZ_csogAMDoKql8G_7eLsJ0/s1600/z4tlys9lt6rdam7h69cu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB73-qN3XNmnf8PpjQx1S_EDYYHXbDZd6btpIpCGygDxZqVOUEmyB7ibCNjFw3m4CddWb599W9fAaLh-cdJZek5au2wFz868xL3tr5eY-01svOXcheeO4JeZ_csogAMDoKql8G_7eLsJ0/s1600/z4tlys9lt6rdam7h69cu.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2C1QbfVExLHL7ZJFRiDBPq3jY46Ub3AmqSSPDA-EPgq8t0KDLQFcgqgm11sGpwd5EkR3HOgqNogfooeTFwL_FWwnSINZuzc-j8yn9jdmtYwMaYugUYQj0fKBcpZJg1_BfDeXMnc1d7ek/s1600/spino.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2C1QbfVExLHL7ZJFRiDBPq3jY46Ub3AmqSSPDA-EPgq8t0KDLQFcgqgm11sGpwd5EkR3HOgqNogfooeTFwL_FWwnSINZuzc-j8yn9jdmtYwMaYugUYQj0fKBcpZJg1_BfDeXMnc1d7ek/s1600/spino.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj95L3779OvqY63sX7toVDuKyR8YkajyWC0MXmehiXHAxLgVmegStIFpXcTYBPEo4W_gdaXGZkNildorymQg5aFN0rZnpgknzAijHsFy6z9CEUVbZ74EEF6SaHxYGHPHiR7H2OhFSRWQJY/s1600/jurassic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj95L3779OvqY63sX7toVDuKyR8YkajyWC0MXmehiXHAxLgVmegStIFpXcTYBPEo4W_gdaXGZkNildorymQg5aFN0rZnpgknzAijHsFy6z9CEUVbZ74EEF6SaHxYGHPHiR7H2OhFSRWQJY/s1600/jurassic.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>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..."</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-19259884518802891672015-01-16T19:35:00.001-08:002015-01-16T19:53:41.697-08:00Tyrannosaurus Rex "Visual Acuity"<p>The sensational headline reads: "Maligned T. Rex eyesight the best in animal history?"<br>
Dino-Bird people "explain away" everything... resulting in the explanation of nothing.</p>
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/1352618/was-t-rexs-vision-really-based-on-movement/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.holdenarb.org/resources/Greathornedowl.asp" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"... 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."<br>
(<a href="http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2009/beckwith_kayl/Adaptation.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...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.<br>
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.<br>
Monocular vs. Binocular Vision<br>
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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.ducks.org/conservation/waterfowl-biology/a-birds-eye-view/page2" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpfikduOnjn28RbucUHtUvtxu5KsQ6gIp8viizmeLa1kKNtK-RRsU61epcQzozYUJjJGgaYF3w96cDUvKprjV_w-Y_t8C3X2si5UYT6hk6CXchlqNUKUAyE4KoIrLIK4ACwtweriUYjj4/s1600/creation-theme-park.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpfikduOnjn28RbucUHtUvtxu5KsQ6gIp8viizmeLa1kKNtK-RRsU61epcQzozYUJjJGgaYF3w96cDUvKprjV_w-Y_t8C3X2si5UYT6hk6CXchlqNUKUAyE4KoIrLIK4ACwtweriUYjj4/s1600/creation-theme-park.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>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 <u>all male</u> so perhaps gaydom (lack of reproduction) gives further insight into the extinction of dinosaurs.</p>
<blockquote>"<i>...Stevens was able to determine that T. Rex’s binocular range was 55 degrees, which is greater than a hawk,</i>"</blockquote>
<p>How Owls Twist Their Heads Almost 360 Degrees
<blockquote>"..The team discovered owls have backup arteries, which offer a fresh supply of nutrients when blood vessels get closed off by rapid turning.<br>
Their arteries also swell to collect any excess blood created in the process."<br>
Eerie Ability Not Unique<br>
"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."<br>
(<a href="http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/06/how-owls-twist-their-heads-almost-360-degrees/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>The dino-bird people try to say that T. Rex had better vision than owls and hawks... in which reality?</p>
<p>T. Rex was no owl or hawk.
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
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.<br>
[...]<br>
"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."<br>
(<a href="http://newscientist.com/article/dn25418-t-rex-didnt-need-proper-arms-thanks-to-its-neck.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)<br>
"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."<br>
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.<br>
"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."<br>
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."<br>
[.........] --->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. <-----<br>
(<a href="http://www.ohio.edu/compass/stories/12-13/5/allosaurus-story.cfm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Let's see a T. Rex pull this stunt:
<center><iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hoc42xegVt8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<p>Owls do not depend on their visual acuity alone.
<center><iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/w4OH6gMN6vY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<p>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".</p>
<p>The owl depends heavily upon hearing to hunt its prey. (See above video).<br>
T. Rex?
<blockquote>"...Its ears were similar to modern crocodiles, which have excellent hearing."<br>
(<a href="http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/tyrannosaurus.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)<br>
"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilia" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
T. Rex' ears were comparable to crocodiles, and so was their neck.<br>
Crocodiles and T. Rex shared common ancestry.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>CONCLUSION: <blockquote>"...These findings suggest that <u>relative eye size and brain size have coevolved in birds in response to nocturnal activity</u> and, at least partly, to capture of mobile prey."</blockquote></p>
<p>So, what bird may lack in "eyeball size" is made up for in "THINKING-BRAIN" SIZE which was a product of evolution.</p>
<p>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.)<br>
Then the eyeballs too.</p>
<p>VISION OF CROCODILES<br>
<blockquote>"...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."</blockquote>
[--- OHHHH, so modern crocodiles use OTHER SENSES for their ability to "see" the world around them. Sight is really not "the" all determining factor.]<br>
<blockquote>"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.<br>
"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.<br>
(<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17032648" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>What Causes a Crocodile's Jaw to Snap Shut?<br>
"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://animals.pawnation.com/causes-crocodiles-jaw-snap-shut-11084.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>THAT... DOES NOT SOUND THE HIGHLY EVOLVED BRAIN OF EITHER A BIRD OR MAMMAL... AND THERE'S A REASON....</p>
<p>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".</p>
<p>T. REX DIET
<blockquote>"...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."<br>(<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/supersize-crocs-crocodile-secrets-of-survival/1750/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>BINOCULAR VISION... LIKE CROCODILES
<blockquote>"...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.<br>
binocular vision.<br>
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."<br>
(<a href="http://crocodilian.com/cnhc/cbd-gb8.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/trex/Trexintell.shtml" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<h3>ON TO MODERN BIRDS LIKE HAWKS</h3>
<p>Extract from "Evolution and Prehistory: The Human Challenge"
<blockquote>"..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."<br>
(<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=9_qGhW338KQC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=reptile+visual+acuity&source=bl&ots=uwpq_9T9PK&sig=UjyMLlzCXpwobtYuiAZ7QZpwPdk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AVuoVJ6aOojlgwSX4YHICQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=reptile%20visual%20acuity&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...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..."<br>
(<a href="http://pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/husband/default.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>".........species with large eyes have evolved large brains to cope with the increased amount of visual input......."</b></blockquote>
<p>BUT THAT.. WAS NOT THE CASE WITH T. REX AND HIS TINY CROCODILIAN-BRAIN.</p>
<blockquote>BIO 554/754<br>
Ornithology<br>
Nervous System: Brain and Special Senses II<br>
"...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.<br>
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."<br>
(<a href="http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdbrain2.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8WZ2YyCe02tHMt7S942Bc7MbeMqQB1ph-V6TFF6e00Rv8D58_kZZ-rgJb6ZmuKHqGwz-HOe-cqmag63rSNNiJMk7gZyUj8wM2oHi5q5b9NwHSuG2dFa5_KLoCq5_CMjf8h_8Mke_IH7I/s1600/acuity-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8WZ2YyCe02tHMt7S942Bc7MbeMqQB1ph-V6TFF6e00Rv8D58_kZZ-rgJb6ZmuKHqGwz-HOe-cqmag63rSNNiJMk7gZyUj8wM2oHi5q5b9NwHSuG2dFa5_KLoCq5_CMjf8h_8Mke_IH7I/s1600/acuity-1.jpg" width="450"/></a></div>
<blockquote>"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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/trex/Trexintell.shtml" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>And, just how "smart" was a "smart dinosaur"?</p>
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
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."<br>
(<a href="http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/text/extvelrapt.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdbrain2.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEmSS2gOJJZc_6v0vNsKKs5CFDPeZE6dw9q4j9iKBz1PlKI2uKWPuNFii0moI1OtQOAGVlm-eRdqcb98BrtaeXvxYgwC66gglxrLkmv8nHqT-AYkvqZHreARdxe7U14ekkhadW56JFA84/s1600/jurassic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEmSS2gOJJZc_6v0vNsKKs5CFDPeZE6dw9q4j9iKBz1PlKI2uKWPuNFii0moI1OtQOAGVlm-eRdqcb98BrtaeXvxYgwC66gglxrLkmv8nHqT-AYkvqZHreARdxe7U14ekkhadW56JFA84/s1600/jurassic.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<blockquote>".........species with large eyes have EVOLVED LARGE BRAINS to cope with the increased amount of visual input......."<br>
(<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028780" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>T. Rex's ability to process visual information was extremely limited compared to the modern hawk.
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/red-tailed_hawk.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
A feat which a T. Rex with "bright red feathers" could've never performed.<br>
The T. Rex would've seen "something move" and bit... like a mechanical reaction.<br>
The hawk's eyeballs may be smaller than T. Rex, but its brain is evolved to effectively compensate.</p>
<h3>Why wouldn't a T. Rex bite a duck-billed dinosaur?</h3>
<blockquote>"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?"<br>
(<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/trex/Trexdiet.shtml" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...Crocodiles are just a killing, eating machine..."<br>
(<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22713899" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-89797764952149107022015-01-16T16:51:00.002-08:002015-01-18T22:04:59.375-08:00The Error of "Bright Red Feathers" imagined on T. Rex and Velociraptor<p>Try, if you can, picture a jurassic or cretaceous environment. Try to imagine you are a bird like Archeopteryx. You look down from the high rock you've scaled with your nifty little claws, and you scope out your environment... it's mating season. How do you send out a signal to a potential mate without going out in the open terrain, announcing your presence to every predator in the vicinity... like a modern day lion, a feat that T-Rex would have easily accomplished. But for a bird, it could be a death sentence. So you are forced to either stay in the water or stick with higher elevations -- cliffs and trees, or choose an area which you know is predator free (thanks to your highly evolved acute vision many birds are renown for), and T-Rex, incidentally is not. (I will explain this in detail in another post).<br>
As a bird you need constant vigilance against predators. In that way, the warm-blooded characteristics of birds is what gave them an advantage over dinosaurs.</p>
<p>Warm-blooded animals have faster responses than other groups...<br>
Thermoregulation<br>
Erect Gate and built for speed<br>
- Birds and mammals have fully erect posture, and are warm blooded (an erect posture, limbs directly under the body. This affects locomotion, allowing much more energy-efficient movement).<br>
- To achieve high speed, a vertebrate would need to be warm blooded.</p>
<p>Large terrestrial animals, i.e., elephants, lions, tigers, bears, t. rexes, velociraptors, anteolope, deer, including birds of prey, i.e., those who feed on prairie mice and the like... tend to be colored in a manner which does not bring attention to themselves. Their colors are dull and acts as camouflage to blend in with their environment. (so much for the theory that Velociraptor would have "brightly colored feathers". So, the likelihood that terrestrial dinosaurs ever possessed brightly colored "protofuzz" is... highly unlikely. IN fact, according to the theory of Natural Selection, and Charles Darwin, bright colors would be a liability -- attracting not a mate, but a bigger predator than one's self and you would become their next meal.</p>
<p>Bright feathers for terrestrial dinosaurs? .. ha, well, there's a theory -- maybe that explains their extinction.</p>
<p>Maybe the mammalian ancestors of the dully-colored saber-tooth tiger, which would've been superior in speed, saw those rainbow-colored dinosaurs, and ate all of them.</p>
<p>The theory for "brightly colored feathers," in Charles Darwin's reasoning would have been nothing but a huge liability.</p>
<p>FEATHERS (EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE):<br>
•Feathers are the most distinctive feature of birds<br>
•Extraordinary evolutionary invention<br>
•Feathers are fundamental to many aspects of bird existence<br>
– USES:<br>
Insulation, aerodynamics, communication, camouflage</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzAkxLwxmXDcNKOp6zFhOu2dLmCb01mcRq5a54OengqgBNnFNDeIQYqN4VOdf7LKd8zUxMZYAX6mg2FryJ-3Oz7lRKs_-cjXwROzB4g5Zk1KX58qfv-udFxSWl5W8_ZMjljimj67SUOcY/s1600/jurassic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzAkxLwxmXDcNKOp6zFhOu2dLmCb01mcRq5a54OengqgBNnFNDeIQYqN4VOdf7LKd8zUxMZYAX6mg2FryJ-3Oz7lRKs_-cjXwROzB4g5Zk1KX58qfv-udFxSWl5W8_ZMjljimj67SUOcY/s1600/jurassic.jpg" width="450" /></a><br>
Typical Jurassic Environment</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiybZGa5W-AfyVKGopC9kxdsPRvbuOUQWBqyKiXDDOISQpECiyhX0GyROh8DKv2Rd-fPxm0edBzaGPuiYdLA_t3MAYP26kVzTjfDz7EiihHHA76JqkUnkGk5jNAi1bkbqOOuJkVzNtnSLg/s1600/cretaceous-collection_907_600x450.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiybZGa5W-AfyVKGopC9kxdsPRvbuOUQWBqyKiXDDOISQpECiyhX0GyROh8DKv2Rd-fPxm0edBzaGPuiYdLA_t3MAYP26kVzTjfDz7EiihHHA76JqkUnkGk5jNAi1bkbqOOuJkVzNtnSLg/s1600/cretaceous-collection_907_600x450.jpg" width="450" /></a><br>
Hypothetical Cretaceous Environment</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm7Avz2D2H5z7ak6d_cp0JJJQuWw5MSR3LlpkK4QIfc557DytGA392dhZt6vYSXu7e5Q3DpILhFa5vz6THPgQ70UROqjfnjOizQ902nS7gusrY9GOmGlANA6aI72JuFqLgiEkOExkaMzc/s1600/camouflage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm7Avz2D2H5z7ak6d_cp0JJJQuWw5MSR3LlpkK4QIfc557DytGA392dhZt6vYSXu7e5Q3DpILhFa5vz6THPgQ70UROqjfnjOizQ902nS7gusrY9GOmGlANA6aI72JuFqLgiEkOExkaMzc/s1600/camouflage.jpg" width="450" /></a><br>
Typical example of desired camouflage in large predators and large prey.</div>
<p>And, if no mammals had reached the size of saber-tooth 70 million years ago? Great... then carnivorous and omnivorous dinosaurs ate each other. For large terrestrial creatures, bright colors would be
<ol>
<li>A liability -- because most species benefit from camouflage. Especially predators.</li>
<li>Unnecessary.</li>
</ol>
<p>What evolutionary "natural" advantage would bright colors possibly serve, for large animals?</p>
<p>Please show me where "brightly colored feathers" would offer any "evolutionary advantage" for a large predator on land or in water?</p>
<p>TWENTY FIVE (Largest animals) and observe what color nature paints them.</p>
<center><iframe width="450" height="253" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/5WX1cCw99cc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<p>The ONLY species mentioned in the list with "bright colors" was #20 a snake that reaches 5 meters.
"...Chinese Rat Snake (Ptyas korros) Chinese Rat Snake (Ptyas korros) spotted in a tree 9/9/2009 on Tiger Head Mountain, Taoyuan, Taiwan."</p>
<p>"Brightly colored feathers" would be a liability to Velociraptor ... those bright red feathers were not at all thoroughly thought out before they spread that silly theory, far and wide.</p>
<p>It is a silly fantasy... not scientific at all.</p>
<p>100% of the species in that list, are dull colored, except the green snake -- which uses its color, to blend into its surroundings. (see photo).</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqLKPr1xr9nfIG_ByRg52GB7LMprpf8xW_iGswPSOM7gIXUKsEt2OzPJcu0b-_-JWHgdsLAPQn0Dt0U-Bal4ES9y_mgsgVJ3DhSGiuewG1_Xapot78kgcdQZRPHt7gDE9o86EOLx6G5zA/s1600/0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqLKPr1xr9nfIG_ByRg52GB7LMprpf8xW_iGswPSOM7gIXUKsEt2OzPJcu0b-_-JWHgdsLAPQn0Dt0U-Bal4ES9y_mgsgVJ3DhSGiuewG1_Xapot78kgcdQZRPHt7gDE9o86EOLx6G5zA/s1600/0.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Everything from the feathers to them being "brightly colored" is an un-Darwinian fairy tale folly. It contradicts every evidence in nature, and is in contradiction with everything Natural Selection tells us about "beneficial mutations are the ones that are passed on".<br>
#1 Velociraptors would not need bright feathers to communicate to their potential mates which are in hiding, to signal their presence.<br>
#2 Liability - alerting larger predators to their presence.<br>
#3 Liability - alerting potential prey to their presence.</p>
<p>With feathers that bright, every snack in a mile wide radius would run for cover.</p>
<p>So maybe -- if dinosaurs had feathers -- this explains their extinction. They starved to death and were eaten by a predator larger than themself.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhah4zcY92E3LLoNNZyOXQZRX2IgC0Hx_XtKxNud4CV_G_jMVpjk1epJb1sEEE_CS7mSm2WLa5XbiDZCn_GmoLCo00QimHHXmjvzYrmpUqgHFQCGp4NAZvC0uyW1Y2uaAk44Xb-pcMiqMk/s1600/1.1216934460.deinonychus-antirrhopus-.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhah4zcY92E3LLoNNZyOXQZRX2IgC0Hx_XtKxNud4CV_G_jMVpjk1epJb1sEEE_CS7mSm2WLa5XbiDZCn_GmoLCo00QimHHXmjvzYrmpUqgHFQCGp4NAZvC0uyW1Y2uaAk44Xb-pcMiqMk/s1600/1.1216934460.deinonychus-antirrhopus-.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>The next closest semi-colorful (not really) is the giraffe. Giraffes, collectively, spots confuse a predator.
<blockquote>Giraffe patches and body heat control<br>
"Giraffe's patches are first and foremost for camouflage. But underneath each patch lies a very sophisticated system of blood vessels. Around each patch there is a quite a large blood vessel that then branches off into smaller vessels underneath the patch (see below)."<br>
(<a href="http://www.giraffeconservation.org/giraffe_facts.php?pgid=5" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"The spots on the bodies of giraffes offer them some protection in the wild. The camouflage from it blends in well with the African background.<br>
Those spots can also be confusing to predators."<br>
(<a href="http://www.giraffeworlds.com/facts-about-giraffes/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Giraffes are not predators. They don't need to conceal themselves in such a way to stalk out an antelope for dinner. Velociraptor was a predator. Velociraptor would have depended on his color to blend in, nearly invisibly to his environment... if, he wanted to eat.</p>
<p>Color is a heavy liability says Darwin... and the dino-bird hypothesizers, so in love with their fairy tale, paint the large carnivorous Velociraptor (a top predator) with brightly colored feathers... so that it can alert every manner of prey in the valley to its presence.</p>
<p>THIS explains the dinosaur extinction!</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8tUw280361Mb-tVxTyl9tYZ2bddfpWFpuSQsMajwe-IzaeB0VocUvBcALYsEVJNKukvDB-KjwUhwcQrKs3gshOVpr9gTyXrtpCetoX-N9PewtlSAYRHAd8hhBsjx7XU-mxyQtPS1lwqE/s1600/gir.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8tUw280361Mb-tVxTyl9tYZ2bddfpWFpuSQsMajwe-IzaeB0VocUvBcALYsEVJNKukvDB-KjwUhwcQrKs3gshOVpr9gTyXrtpCetoX-N9PewtlSAYRHAd8hhBsjx7XU-mxyQtPS1lwqE/s1600/gir.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>On the Giraffe... as the only "brightly colored" creature that stood out in the list?</p>
<p>20 Amazing Examples of Animal Camouflage (<a href="http://www.boredpanda.com/animal-camouflage/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdII3745p2xcHfAx9vI8q2f6-yLp-DsjFtyPg70RZtD9Dr7A5Kw4vLa4FH_0dUNfKMIXacFAB76aAlINzGA6EFVevOCj3psY1igVtC1H284x6AEKnSyROD8C9TVZtctz6ToJIfF6vpzfM/s1600/animal-camouflage-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdII3745p2xcHfAx9vI8q2f6-yLp-DsjFtyPg70RZtD9Dr7A5Kw4vLa4FH_0dUNfKMIXacFAB76aAlINzGA6EFVevOCj3psY1igVtC1H284x6AEKnSyROD8C9TVZtctz6ToJIfF6vpzfM/s1600/animal-camouflage-2.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Now, consider "bright red" T-Rex and its basis in science-fiction.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNLIQX1evnbgyKz6dxgOCaV1WBGOHikFrbkjj1SwIdGTsQULaeIUUlgyY49plwp1DbEmteimnG5riu7bkI5X9KAc43w8DnsKf7S1pKJeF1w3jXIDoez1bs-ZDAuOLZJaaP00exerB6hGU/s1600/T-rex-5447539.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNLIQX1evnbgyKz6dxgOCaV1WBGOHikFrbkjj1SwIdGTsQULaeIUUlgyY49plwp1DbEmteimnG5riu7bkI5X9KAc43w8DnsKf7S1pKJeF1w3jXIDoez1bs-ZDAuOLZJaaP00exerB6hGU/s1600/T-rex-5447539.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<h3>CAMOUFLAGE ON PREDATORS AND PREY</h3>
<blockquote>"...Bright coloration which seems opposite of camouflage, is it actually is used to warn animals to stay away. Brightly colored animals may be poisonous or have an unpleasant taste. Camouflage is an adaptation that is used both by predators and by prey. A predator uses it to sneak up on its victims. Stalking and sneaking up on prey is the only way some predators can get food. Prey animals have to use camouflage to hide from the predator."<br>(<a href="http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season4/prey/facts.cfm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>BRIGHT RED CAMOUFLAGE SAYS "SEE MY BIG TEETH, I WILL EAT YOU! STAY AWAY!!!"</p>
<p>Many animals accumulate toxin from their food rather than synthesizing it from scratch.<br>
For example, the larvae of Monarch butterflies accumulate toxins from the plants they inhabit. Birds that eat the Monarchs vomit and learn to avoid them in the future. Their bright coloration allows birds to remember and avoid them.<br>
1. Chemical Defense<br>
Interestingly, many organisms which are distasteful advertise this fact to predators by having bright body colors or markings, as if to say, “Notice me! I’m dangerous!”<br>
1. Chemical Defense<br>
You can see this in the bright colors of the Monarch and the poison dart frog."<br>
(<a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AKygTuFCoEtwJ%3Awww.life.umd.edu%2Fgrad%2Fmlfsc%2Fres%2FAnimalDefensevsPredators.ppt+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0-710w_zWdkkT7SOG06eIBpJ1X_EjYA1knVT-stf4QeYaHmow2TUYsftVeMgVOI4jb32OO11Wiwzcp53bt13oTqZZcoHr8Ty-UXasieUkIe_p1aSK7iMVeXdtQpggL7ItC5RRCASq7Do/s1600/animals-pterodactyl-dinosaur-fly-flying-birds-shr0119_low.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0-710w_zWdkkT7SOG06eIBpJ1X_EjYA1knVT-stf4QeYaHmow2TUYsftVeMgVOI4jb32OO11Wiwzcp53bt13oTqZZcoHr8Ty-UXasieUkIe_p1aSK7iMVeXdtQpggL7ItC5RRCASq7Do/s1600/animals-pterodactyl-dinosaur-fly-flying-birds-shr0119_low.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>More of those amazing "Camouflaged" ... true birds.</p>
<p>20 Amazing Examples of Animal Camouflage<br>
(<a href="http://www.boredpanda.com/animal-camouflage/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5LDR8gv8xbufRMrX_vc9w37B1AZlQrhMuWo5THDH9XrZR7NHmZihpmhlj4VIj-UgRIbpX12XRtR7yT_8dUAwtESY0nsiZT4WTXj0V6rfjwNoO0WHf8cPzjGr_BOHSQEHOVulG2mmSUGA/s1600/animal-camouflage-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5LDR8gv8xbufRMrX_vc9w37B1AZlQrhMuWo5THDH9XrZR7NHmZihpmhlj4VIj-UgRIbpX12XRtR7yT_8dUAwtESY0nsiZT4WTXj0V6rfjwNoO0WHf8cPzjGr_BOHSQEHOVulG2mmSUGA/s1600/animal-camouflage-1.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHm7-k8SKlp-qcvzp4eekR8rKL41i9FU-0gDksiZuhQiHR5DlyhC5e_BjjViLJ7I2_RltLi0jLjScl-aOy8d_d2_iN2ORXycwojE6e7g8IZT_cR8po79ZBAGgAleU06KKBxKdjUbGIJdE/s1600/animal-camouflage-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHm7-k8SKlp-qcvzp4eekR8rKL41i9FU-0gDksiZuhQiHR5DlyhC5e_BjjViLJ7I2_RltLi0jLjScl-aOy8d_d2_iN2ORXycwojE6e7g8IZT_cR8po79ZBAGgAleU06KKBxKdjUbGIJdE/s1600/animal-camouflage-3.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6LJHwMiBq3C-_8wSm6kKUzvJgiiwLw-NL36XM4sHweN2NhuDT1QrRZ2R6hdOTWu2DTwMGzBgcmFRPbP2utfgiJsKnu1XN4iwmYaY07mpwo-JKeXLI7gi2z1Ukn1Hk3gLb5BXxM9D-5i0/s1600/animal-camouflage-4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6LJHwMiBq3C-_8wSm6kKUzvJgiiwLw-NL36XM4sHweN2NhuDT1QrRZ2R6hdOTWu2DTwMGzBgcmFRPbP2utfgiJsKnu1XN4iwmYaY07mpwo-JKeXLI7gi2z1Ukn1Hk3gLb5BXxM9D-5i0/s1600/animal-camouflage-4.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiomgB0e7cZg8U3D8amlfPC25MCG_uhnyNz60gqtg4NfsVRoB9GuD3pGAHzN51QT1xgdRGwXt7y_4G3NFydN195e32y__JhS2ZFt6x1BtjhCh3U4PufUO8-Jjx7-OTuvRniyBTtyuff8yU/s1600/animal-camouflage-21.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiomgB0e7cZg8U3D8amlfPC25MCG_uhnyNz60gqtg4NfsVRoB9GuD3pGAHzN51QT1xgdRGwXt7y_4G3NFydN195e32y__JhS2ZFt6x1BtjhCh3U4PufUO8-Jjx7-OTuvRniyBTtyuff8yU/s1600/animal-camouflage-21.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeY9AQ9Qvr8GTYz3vk2Oy9-RgS8hIMu2059Mm3FqfL1SbXgr6ygn4zx0owYvyY7J1PCoeNF60i1NUkdrhx3M8a3nLJ8rbgs0S7-_AuwgO6XxnQyPK758okxJpXVJVmuHARWORSGJHcgos/s1600/barney-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeY9AQ9Qvr8GTYz3vk2Oy9-RgS8hIMu2059Mm3FqfL1SbXgr6ygn4zx0owYvyY7J1PCoeNF60i1NUkdrhx3M8a3nLJ8rbgs0S7-_AuwgO6XxnQyPK758okxJpXVJVmuHARWORSGJHcgos/s1600/barney-1.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl0hz1PJXxtWfWTOuTKMoZsxdzGcAsZZ-nwJX7gXRnZQo_2J8PXqklFg8ZyzMfqMa77BEHl2JSkuwws1ay91SjfIwZUWyDGrwYqkdBG51nvHmhefl6Yuk8MjYfDeaScgz5FEJwmssMVEE/s1600/lol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl0hz1PJXxtWfWTOuTKMoZsxdzGcAsZZ-nwJX7gXRnZQo_2J8PXqklFg8ZyzMfqMa77BEHl2JSkuwws1ay91SjfIwZUWyDGrwYqkdBG51nvHmhefl6Yuk8MjYfDeaScgz5FEJwmssMVEE/s320/lol.jpg" /></a><br>
Why the gharial smiles.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHLhxNHE40thVFzpX0GXaOt0w5FLkGW5-ebATvv5GjPSxcbCO_rDxbbrLRCatW9mY0QEOJatv6xI9c80Q5XnHptpxfh5HsF57MeR1jLvJ9VRG5Py3rLyJB9SYlseipxYTiIVnejH-kN_k/s1600/lol2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHLhxNHE40thVFzpX0GXaOt0w5FLkGW5-ebATvv5GjPSxcbCO_rDxbbrLRCatW9mY0QEOJatv6xI9c80Q5XnHptpxfh5HsF57MeR1jLvJ9VRG5Py3rLyJB9SYlseipxYTiIVnejH-kN_k/s320/lol2.jpg" /></a><br>
Scientific Method: Empirical science entails a systematic approach to epistemology that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves."</div>
<blockquote>Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: a viability cost for a sexually selected trait<br>
"...Although conspicuous visual sexual signals, such as bright colors, in males serve to attract females in numerous species, they may also attract the attention of potential predators and thus may be costly in terms of increasing individual risk of mortality to predation. Most models of the evolution of extravagant male sexual traits and female preferences for them assume that the sexually preferred male trait is costly to produce and maintain. However, there is surprisingly little empirical evidence for direct fitness costs associated with sexually selected visual traits that enhance male mating success. In the present study, we report a direct fitness cost for sexually selected, bright body-color patterns in males in the form of an associated greater risk of mortality to predation. By using the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) and the blue acara cichlid fish (Aequidens pulcher) as a model prey–predator system, we demonstrate experimentally that individual cichlids preferentially and consistently approached, attacked, and captured the more brightly colored of two size-matched male guppies presented simultaneously in staged encounters. This resulted in the brightly colored male incurring, on average, a significantly higher risk of mortality given an encounter with the predator than with the drabber male in matched pairs. Our results constitute strong behavioral evidence for a direct viability cost associated with bright coloration in male guppies, and they corroborate the generally accepted paradigm that directional predation by visual fish predators against brightly colored, adult male guppies underlies the evolution of the known divergent color patterns in natural guppy populations that experience different intensities of predation..."<br>
(<a href="http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/194.full" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>It also may be assumed that "...A T-Rex was the top predator of its time, therefore he had no natural enemies."</p>
<p>Crocodiles: Biology, Husbandry and Diseases<br>
By F. W. Huchzermeyer<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAepRd7tjmlY2kltvx6kkl13LZVXom_gOhZ2JBw6-mm_Umr7g_V4cpm3GTelgb4qk7zMqH3Z_ItTWWxiLEELeOhxwmnsJ8GXQ0vqFal9rfwNl8DQCOwCElp0r2NPrMDlA9_QEY5FsojSM/s1600/croc-cannibalism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAepRd7tjmlY2kltvx6kkl13LZVXom_gOhZ2JBw6-mm_Umr7g_V4cpm3GTelgb4qk7zMqH3Z_ItTWWxiLEELeOhxwmnsJ8GXQ0vqFal9rfwNl8DQCOwCElp0r2NPrMDlA9_QEY5FsojSM/s1600/croc-cannibalism.jpg" /></a></div></p>
<blockquote>IGOR has everything a self-respecting crocodile needs to be a good lover - he's big, he's strong and he's dashingly handsome.<br>
But the 4.62m saltie doesn't seem to know the difference between love-making and dinner.
He killed his last two girlfriends, according to a report in the Northern Territory News.
And that was enough for the Darwin Crocodile Farm - Igor had to go.
The 650kg saltie is being exiled to Sydney where he will be put on show for tourists at an aquarium.
Croc handler Nick Robinson said: "I don't know why he attacked the girls.
"But it does happen. It depends on the male's temperament."
Igor was put in solitary confinement after his last murder.
The saltie's history is unknown beyond that he has been at the crocodile farm for many years.<br>
(<a href="http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/monster-cannibal-crocodile-feasts-on-last-two-girlfriends/story-e6frflri-1225809072425" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Cannibal croc ... Eric the crocodile was snapped eating another reptile friend whole.
So now we know who was eating T-Rex.<br>
(<a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4843413/crocodile-devours-his-smaller-friend.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>On occasion, this behavior affects birds as well,
<blockquote>"...Feather pecking can damage plumage and injure a bird's skin, and sometimes this behavior leads to cannibalism."<br>
(<a href="http://www.extension.org/pages/66088/feather-pecking-and-cannibalism-in-small-and-backyard-poultry-flocks" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote></p>
<p>Those bright red feathers which T. Rex did NOT have, unless... it is hypothesized that T. Rex was a vegetarian. Yeah, Vegan Rex. Now I sure get that!!!</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA4ilu6N7oxJFu_cef9uNXZLFJhR70C89toJBI0YJ4w8vVrIDNSRPgOs9VAdF68-2oI2AqDbsUBZd9opRhOC2t6-N7fYT_Y0AZ62G9TUmTRqcPbdgV9bBOkycWSwNcjPCz_ihZdj__Pnw/s1600/vegan-rex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA4ilu6N7oxJFu_cef9uNXZLFJhR70C89toJBI0YJ4w8vVrIDNSRPgOs9VAdF68-2oI2AqDbsUBZd9opRhOC2t6-N7fYT_Y0AZ62G9TUmTRqcPbdgV9bBOkycWSwNcjPCz_ihZdj__Pnw/s400/vegan-rex.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>As you see, they (the dinosaur-to-bird myth people) are like creationists. For T. Rex to have bright red feathers, you've got to ask which fruits and insects he based his diet on. T. Rex was a vegetarian and needed lots of carotenoid-rich fruits and insects so that during the next molt his feathers would grow in bright red. Dogwood, rose and Japanese honeysuckle berries are excellent sources.</p>
<p>And Creationists make a similar argument, that T. Rex was a vegetarian:
<blockquote>“One thing is for sure: the theropod dinosaurs were not created to eat meat. God created all creatures to eat plants, and he gave some of them sharp teeth so that they would be able to do so. Some of those particular mechanisms of different sorts, including teeth, may have changed after Adam’s sin so that such creatures could eat meat.”<br>
(<a href="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/22/tyrannosaurus-rex-was-a-vegan-says-idiot-creationist-video/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Well, *phew* that explains why T. Rex had red feathers. We can all sleep safe at night knowing we have the "truth".</p>
<blockquote>"...<u>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.</u> 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.
I don't know of any studies that measure how the quantity of carotenoids eaten by cardinals in the wild influences the brilliance of the red feathers that grow in when they molt. Redder birds might be expected to have more pigment molecules in their feathers. Captive cardinals fed a diet of seeds lacking carotenoids become a paler and paler red with each successive molt.<br>
Tennessee's nesting cardinals usually stay in the same vicinity all year. It's possible the abundance of carotenoid-rich food in your neighborhood is related to how much red pigment is available to be deposited in new feathers when cardinals molt in late summer and fall.<br>
We do know from studies that brighter red male cardinals have better breeding territories with denser vegetation. Brighter red males are also better parents. They do a better job bringing food to babies in the nest and are more successful parents. Their superior territories probably have more of the right cardinal foods.<br>
Marcia Davis may be reached at 865-330-BIRD (2473).<br>
Harvey Doerksen/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service<br>
To maintain their red color, male and female cardinals must eat foods containing carotenoid pigments. Many fruits and insects - but few seeds - contain the carotenoids that color a cardinal feather red. Carotenoids were named after the pigment in carrot roots."<br>
(<a href="http://blog.allaboutbirds.org/2013/03/05/why-so-red-mr-cardinal-nestwatch-explains/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<center><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg76TjxutoBN3efCNB-vYbnkQf3svRBg0lKKqqIgKxxVk3mPAlIB6lI2lGLDPnI2naONNS5oOpMEqa99xMrCgecfb0sjYRSDhz28fnOEPmfypwlkMWZfYm0a2JaJm9BOvu7BQkIooG7pPI/s1600/busted.png" border="0" alt="Brightly Colored Feathered Dinosaurs"></center>
<blockquote>Ancient origins and multiple appearances of carotenoid-pigmented feathers in birds<br>
"...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."<br>
(<a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1788/20140806" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>A counter-argument to the claims of "dinosaur-feathers" which demonstrates they did not thoroughly think through their argument. They say "birds evolved from dinosaurs," right? Then why are birds the only creatures with actual feathers? If... IF... there were actual shared evolutionary feather development between birds and dinosaurs... then there <u>should be abundant evidence of TRIASSIC dinosaurs bearing protofeathers during the TRIASSIC.</u> But I've never heard that argument made. (Feathers are superimposed on dinosaurs from the Cretaceous which came <u>after Archeopteryx</u>.).</p>
<p>Archeopteryx already had feathers, yet, according to the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis, the creteaceous dinosaurs were merely in the process of evolving "protofeathers"? Their argument defeats the presumption that birds evolved from dinosaurs, even as far back as the Triassic.<br>
The best case scenerio for their argument, is possible "convergent evolution". That feathers developed on dinosaurs, separately and independently at different ages.</p>
<p>If birds shared feathers with dinosaur ancestors, it would set back that ancestor back, at least, into the Triassic (not Cretaceous T. Rex or Velociraptor) and there should be widespread and abundant evidence of feathers on dinosaurs by the time of the Cretaceous, but there are not.</p>
<p>This demonstrates these creatures were no where as closely related as the dino-bird hypothesis wishes to imply.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS1SKtt_wsmVD7tIUqivcldPY08vVms30VYvu_dn_ptUvAW8oY3r6IN-sapJznnRi0_1Zz6Ice8ek2yUhC6rOMBU2w4vLRSJ0kxar-J4ree3G5prWjv2mHC-wrMyEY2-li12iP_KqyizI/s1600/feather-timeline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS1SKtt_wsmVD7tIUqivcldPY08vVms30VYvu_dn_ptUvAW8oY3r6IN-sapJznnRi0_1Zz6Ice8ek2yUhC6rOMBU2w4vLRSJ0kxar-J4ree3G5prWjv2mHC-wrMyEY2-li12iP_KqyizI/s1600/feather-timeline.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>T. Rex was not interested in "pretty". It was attracted to the color red and would EAT it if it moved, which explains why in all likelihood the T. Rex was a dull camouflage (like 99% of other large predators) and relied on pheromones and bellowing to attract mates.</p>
<p>If T-Rex had feathers, fossils of those feathers would've been found long before now and *clearly* revealed as fully formed feathers.<br>
Feathers (fully formed existed 165 million years ago). So, why are all T. Rex and Velociraptors missing them 80-65 million years ago.<br>
Archeopteryx. It shows FULL feather impressions, claws on the wings, a long boney tail, and teeth.<br>
In other words... feathers were not "in the process of evolving" by 165 million years ago. They were <b><u>already formed</u></b>, long before T-Rex and Velociraptor.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmDJcIBTuhKXMqs56oX1rGe06m5TfoEVaIVXDMomcDFCCjHsv8oeW8v-UC55Gf7t5R_-MLo18Mfm8sQF4uvid4a2BX7tdeVedF5oVHeekTRM-mPrrRL5pCJaQ5K_wSxOrJc-oIwBmFMiw/s1600/Archa.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmDJcIBTuhKXMqs56oX1rGe06m5TfoEVaIVXDMomcDFCCjHsv8oeW8v-UC55Gf7t5R_-MLo18Mfm8sQF4uvid4a2BX7tdeVedF5oVHeekTRM-mPrrRL5pCJaQ5K_wSxOrJc-oIwBmFMiw/s1600/Archa.JPG" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFmnNtlctVelkpEeRCJquVcJ3mK8dw0YM8sU0ot-EROB5e4qgYc4LNfJ2pcMJXElqKVFai6yqZcUnxpW9_-SQ-FNkrVvSUiB0Q_kol3YKGpyXAHjaWxt5Y3acJpD1IUsifJuLhIoQPIbM/s1600/Bird_Orders_Posteri.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFmnNtlctVelkpEeRCJquVcJ3mK8dw0YM8sU0ot-EROB5e4qgYc4LNfJ2pcMJXElqKVFai6yqZcUnxpW9_-SQ-FNkrVvSUiB0Q_kol3YKGpyXAHjaWxt5Y3acJpD1IUsifJuLhIoQPIbM/s400/Bird_Orders_Posteri.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Modern Birds vs. Primitive Birds.<br>
"...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."<br>(<a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1788/20140806" target="_blank">Source</a>)"</p>
<p>Vegan-Rex?<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJLjbmnEuJBaLjEgCEAdEtVOkKpAw0CsIsET8q5Me6-WlN2yQH8jt4rHA7pQ5RW8fSuJZLefQL3m4fS1zqskqV9YHjQ2wETaGwVz4aMCmDfCH0KMjeqwsXCRE_7uqlhgMaosE3gcENJp8/s1600/RedFactorCanary.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJLjbmnEuJBaLjEgCEAdEtVOkKpAw0CsIsET8q5Me6-WlN2yQH8jt4rHA7pQ5RW8fSuJZLefQL3m4fS1zqskqV9YHjQ2wETaGwVz4aMCmDfCH0KMjeqwsXCRE_7uqlhgMaosE3gcENJp8/s1600/RedFactorCanary.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<blockquote>Special Care Requirement of the Red Factor Canary:<br>
<i>"In order to maintain their rich red plumage, red-factor canaries must be fed foods rich in beta-carotene, or a supplement of half pure beta-carotene and half pure canthaxanthin to maintain their best color. However, color feeding is really only required when new feathers are growing in, and this usually occurs when birds are molting."</i><br>
(<a href="http://beautyofbirds.com/redfactorcanaries.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>More on feather pigmentation:
<blockquote>Pigmentation<br>
"Pigments are colored substances that can be found in both plants and animals. The coloration created by pigments is independent of the structure of the feather. Pigment colorization in birds comes from three different groups: melanins, carotenoids, and porphyrines."<br>
(<a href="http://birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/studying/feathers/color/document_view" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Bright Red Feathers "needed" for mating in T. Rex or other powerful predators?</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6NnuWJZVzviIo2cjMZTW1Ct8Rqx2gD5Ou7Z9aX-hmny7wpfffqagETFIA5A3EbzxH7mPZXGAH1TXZzI6qCmnzg4HzC8Wpy9zQgBJxJygaYfl5zZKXlWuQ9zEUpkB2xmrDjPqAEVJZWHE/s1600/hatching2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6NnuWJZVzviIo2cjMZTW1Ct8Rqx2gD5Ou7Z9aX-hmny7wpfffqagETFIA5A3EbzxH7mPZXGAH1TXZzI6qCmnzg4HzC8Wpy9zQgBJxJygaYfl5zZKXlWuQ9zEUpkB2xmrDjPqAEVJZWHE/s1600/hatching2.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>If Crocodiles don't need bright colors to get it on, neither did T. Rexes. Crocodiles are quite solitary and a solitary-predator, don't care to "communicate" much (see below).</p>
<p>So much for "bright red feathers".</p>
<blockquote>"...Breeding season in saltwater crocodiles usually begins in late August in captivity and up to a month later in the wild. During this time, the crocs, male and female both, become very aggressive and territorial. Females are sexually mature once they reach 2.2-2.5 meters of length or 10-12 years old, while the males are mature at 3.2 meters at 16 years old. The females protect areas a kilometer in diameter and drive out other females trying to nest in their area. They also drive out unwanted males. Males normally defend a much larger area. Other male adults are rarely tolerated once they enter these territories. Though they are very dangerous and highly aggressive, the males will try to avoid fighting. They put on elaborate shows of intimidation. They use a combination of different visual, acoustic, chemical, and mechanical signals.This includes tail waving, jaw opening, geysering, head lifting, musk gland secretions, vocalizations, and infrasonic pulses which travel through the ground or water. The dominant male raises their whole body out of the water, whereas the submissive male will raise their head up and vocalize. Two dominant males that meet will try to out-intimidate each other, but if it doesn't work, they will fight. The males use their heads to slam down on each other. The head is mainly reinforced bone, and can do great damage to another croc. The teeth also rip through flesh, bones are shattered, and teeth go flying. After this fighting is over, the winner gets rights to the nearby area, while the loser swims away in defeat."<br>
(<a href="http://w3.shorecrest.org/~Lisa_Peck/MarineBio/syllabus/ch9vertebrates/reptilesandbirds/repbirdwp/barbara/repro.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...The mating dance involves almost all the senses. Males begin by bellowing above water, while producing low-frequency infrasound, which humans cannot hear. "You can feel the vibrations traveling through the water and you can even see pressure waves," Britton told LiveScience.</blockquote>
<p>If in fact, the T-Rex was an "ambush hunter" as some suggest, bright red feathers would have prevented it from being effective.
<blockquote>"...The Nile crocodile is an opportunistic apex predator and a very aggressive species of crocodile that is capable of taking almost any animal within its range. They are generalists, taking a variety of prey. Their diet consists mostly of different species of fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. The Nile crocodile is an ambush predator and can wait for hours, days and even weeks for the suitable moment to attack. They are quite agile predators and wait for the opportunity for the prey item to come close within the range of attack. Even swift prey are not immune to attack."<br>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_crocodile" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNt7WPGnYDqpdsRqkKwX5C4eZIHjKGLqEQTZKjBF4W8wbfNuMaS4SltmVQtB2e8bRJZtVg0C_y-ahNOAPZvD7_bkb4KTYxSp-ZMnNuiJ2_IsjUnIVns6Sp4ujcPBjXfIMAff0MC__VKDU/s1600/amnh-tyrannosaurus-480px.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNt7WPGnYDqpdsRqkKwX5C4eZIHjKGLqEQTZKjBF4W8wbfNuMaS4SltmVQtB2e8bRJZtVg0C_y-ahNOAPZvD7_bkb4KTYxSp-ZMnNuiJ2_IsjUnIVns6Sp4ujcPBjXfIMAff0MC__VKDU/s1600/amnh-tyrannosaurus-480px.jpeg" width="450" /></a></div>
<blockquote>"...It’s good to see that the biggest natural history musuem in the world is ahead of the curve, and has its T. rex mount in a pose consistent with how other land vertebrates habitually hold their necks."<br>
(<a href="http://svpow.com/2009/06/03/neck-posture-yet-again-t-rexs-neck-is-pathetic/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...Ambush predator : Ambushing prey is a tactic employed by a whole host of animals, from trapdoor spiders lurking in their burrows, to a cat stalking a mouse. If ambushers chase their prey at all, they do so for only a short time, as most of them are not capable of a prolonged pursuit. Instead they use cover so they can surprise unsuspecting prey."<br>
(<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/adaptations/Ambush_predator" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Those dino-bird hypothesizers would've made more sense had they painted T. Rex with giraffe spots or tiger stripes. Or a green like the color of the Chinese Rat Snake...<br>
Much more convincing.<br>
But they've never explained "<i>why</i>" the bright red feathers. Second, why feathers? What purpose? Flight to fly? Sea to swim?<br>
The whole thing is in contradiction to Darwin's theory. Adaptations are not added unless they are beneficial to a species, so what benefit? For insulation to overheat the T-Rex (<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/26/study-the-late-cretaceous-period-was-likely-ice-free/" target="_blank">Source</a>) in the warm Cretaceous climate?</p>
<p>(<a href="http://news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html" target="_blank">Crocodile Genome</a>) may one day be cracked and deciphered. Maybe the "basal archosaur ancestor of birds" -- were the common ancestor shared with dinosaurs, so any so-called "protofeather" (whatever that is)... never mind. There were no "feathered dinosaurs" or the evidence would have been abundant during the Cretaceous, which was the close of the dinosaur era. Feathers everywhere! But there weren't. In birds, there is abundant fossil evidence of fully formed feathers.</p>
<p>Interesting article (dated December 2014). It states:
<blockquote>"...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."<br>
They did not say, that the birds' closest relative (extinct or living) was T. Rex.<br>
T. Rexes share only 58% similarity in the genome and that's NOT very high. And as we all know, crocodiles have not changed much over the past several 100 million years, so its practically the same DNA as it was, way back when Jurassic, Cretaceous and modern birds evolved separately apart from dinosaurs, but shared a common ancestor with dinosaurs.<br>
"Their analysis indicates that the ancestor of all archosaurs probably had an extremely slow rate of molecular evolution, and that the rate of change sped up in the bird lineage. The rate of molecular evolution of crocodilians is an order of magnitude slower than that of mammals. The most likely reason for this relates to the relatively long time between generations in crocodilians, Green said."</blockquote>
<p>They don't say, "Dinosaurs evolved into birds."<br>
They say: <blockquote>"The archosaur, or so-called “ruling reptile,” roamed Earth about 250 million years ago, and “was something that was very reptilian, very early-dinosaur-ish, and then it evolved into modern-day crocodiles and birds,” said David Haussler, Scientific Director of the UC Santa Cruz<br>
Genomics Institute, a coauthor of several studies that came out of the avian genomics effort.<br>
“So it really is the proper dinosaur ancestor,” Haussler said. “And birds and crocodiles are the proper descendants of this ancestor.”<br>
(<a href="http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crocodile-bird-genome-20141212-story.html">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>The fanatics of the hypothesis-myth, interpret data however they like, irregardless if the fossil record contradicts their hypothesis.</p>
<p>It would be nice to read reports about research, based on actual facts of genomes, not on wild speculation and theories that gave us "bright red feathers" on large predators.</p>
<p>When did "true dinosaurs" ..."theropod" dinosaurs... evolve:<br>
<p>"True dinosaurs first appear in the fossil record 225 million years ago."<br>
"Theropods first appeared during the Carnian age of the late Triassic period 231.4 million years ago."<br>
"Theropod dinosaurs are a diverse group that first appeared over 230 million ..."<br>
"Dinosaurs first appeared about 230 million years ago."</p>
<p>So, birds share a common ancestor with dinosaurs, but the genetic evidence does not conclude birds "evolved from" dinosaurs.</p>
<p>Unless birds were around 250 million years ago, and birds diversified and evolved into dinosaurs around 25 million years later. That's entirely possible.. and convergent evolution explains everything else.</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-76863257024454226112015-01-16T16:32:00.000-08:002015-01-16T16:32:04.143-08:00Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?<blockquote>"...A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.<br>
A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.<br>
The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds."</blockquote>
<p>It is anticipated with Darwin's theory, that Archosaurs would evolve into "bird like dinosaurs" and "dinosaur like birds". This is what they should find: Intermediates between dinosaur and archosaur, and, intermediates between bird and archosaur.</p>
<blockquote>"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."<br>
"Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said."<br>
(<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-9652495340000461222015-01-16T15:39:00.001-08:002015-01-16T15:50:43.256-08:00Aquatic Origins for Birds - "The Duck at the Bottom of the Tree" (Nature)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqf9DgjhFWHlKE9VvtxZYmnr6BD2WQo-HCy6JKq7ay70MK1zX_wo0g_WZYCMiwxR2e5k3B7SxWGD9XATiXXxfhpZFAjClvf-F1fswExfto6q8QsG7RDsGiR9ZpkTiXXX5v1dBaVzHhkt0/s1600/gansus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqf9DgjhFWHlKE9VvtxZYmnr6BD2WQo-HCy6JKq7ay70MK1zX_wo0g_WZYCMiwxR2e5k3B7SxWGD9XATiXXxfhpZFAjClvf-F1fswExfto6q8QsG7RDsGiR9ZpkTiXXX5v1dBaVzHhkt0/s1600/gansus.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<blockquote>The duck at the bottom of the tree<br>
"...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."<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
That's not to say that all of today's aquatic birds are evolutionary throwbacks. Penguins, for example, are highly specialized for hunting in water while battling the polar cold. And Chiappe admits that the aquatic-origins theory could be cast into doubt if somebody finds a fossilized land bird of the same vintage as Gansus.<br>
For now, though, the Chinese fossils remain our best indicator of what early modern birds might have looked like. Among the dozens of fossils, some even preserve remains of soft tissues, allowing the researchers to deduce that the creature had webbed feet.<br>
Does this spectacular fossil haul indicate that the birds flew in groups? Lamanna is not sure, but says it is possible: "Many aquatic birds roam in flocks and settle down at lakes - maybe Gansus did too."<br>
(<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060612/full/news060612-12.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>China fossils fill out bird story<br>
"... The detail in their preservation, such as the bone structure and even foot webbing, indicates the animals were well adapted to an aquatic existence.<br>
Scientists say Gansus is the oldest known member of the group that includes modern birds.<br>
They believe this makes its story a critical one in understanding the evolution of avian species.<br>
"Every bird living today, from ostriches... to bald eagles, probably evolved from a Gansus-like ancestor," Matthew Lamanna, of Carnegie Natural History Museum in Pittsburgh, US, told a news conference on Thursday."<br>
(<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5085686.stm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...One of the new fossils, from northwest China, even preserves the webbing between the toes. The finding, reported today in the journal Science, supports the notion that all living birds, from ostriches to ducks to hummingbirds, descended from an ancestor that lived by the shore."
(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/science/16fossil.html?_r=0" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p style="color: gold"><em>"...But early bird fossils are of birds not yet fully adapted to long or powerful flight."</em></p>
<p>I am focusing on the evolution of flight, pre-flight -- how birds came to be "birds" -- not extinct by-product species which were failed evolutionary experiments, or even modern birds. I'm am only concerned with the actual ancestors, of living birds. The environmental dynamics which lead to the evolution of their anatomy, which gave rise to flight. The same physics (aerodynamics) involved with flight are found in hydrodynamics... I think birds anatomy is covered in clues that speak to their early aquatic origins.</p>
<p style="color: gold"><em>"...Their skeletons are still reptilian in many respects, their keel bones in their body are not very long and could not have supported thick broad wing flapping muscles. Sure, they could glide and climb trees."</em></p>
<p>That is not in question, <blockquote>"... "If you took most of the bones in its body, including famous pieces like the breastbone and the wishbone, and put them next to those of a modern bird, you'd have a lot of difficulty telling them apart," he told the BBC Radio 4's Leading Edge programme.<br>
"Gansus would probably have looked very much like a grebe or a diver, or certain kinds of ducks. It had webbed feet and it had fairly powerful legs. We can tell that from looking at the bones in the knee area. This tells us it was a very well-adapted diving or swimming-type bird."<br>
According to Harris, these adaptations all demonstrate how the Gansus branch of the family tree, the structurally modern birds called ornithuromorphs, split from the enantiornitheans (or "opposite birds").<br>
Enantiornitheans were among the famous feathered fossils found in northeastern China during the 1990s.<br>
The analysis implies that the line that would become modern birds left the land and became adapted to life on the water and then, at a later date, came back onto land."</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" /></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-19251663434288273182015-01-16T14:38:00.001-08:002015-01-16T15:32:16.782-08:00Theropod Dinosaurs, Hollow Bones and Archeopteryx<p>Snagged from the web:
<blockquote>"..Several characters that typify a theropod: hollow, thin-walled bones are diagnostic of theropod dinosaurs."</blockquote>
<p>Well, since Archeopteryx (the earliest known reptilian-like bird) had SOLID bones... seems they're on the wrong evolutionary branch.</p>
<blockquote>"...Archeopteryx is connecting link between reptiles & birds. 53. Reptilian characters of archeopteryx are- teeth in jaw, thecodant dentition, [my note: described as AQUATIC IN NATURE, almost as if its ancestor came from a marine environment] long tail [like most archosaurs], solid bones [my note: typical of bird groups who are grounded and/or swimmers]."<br>
Objective Zoology By S. K. Sharma</blockquote>
<p>Solid bones? Then its not a theropod dinosaur.</p>
<p>CONVERGENT EVOLUTION EXPLAINS THIS:
<blockquote>"...The bones of ceratosaurians, like those of all known theropods, are hollow. Known specimens of ceratosaurians show that the group began to exhibit "bird-like" features (more appropriately, birds show ceratosaurian-like ones) early on. The bones of ceratosaurians, like those of all known theropods, are HOLLOW. [...] Birds have taken this step even further, having large air-filled spaces in their bones. Ceratosaurians also had strongly curved S-shaped necks like birds do; this is a trait inherited from a distant archosaurian ancestor."<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/ceratosauria.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>ARCHEOPTERYX HAD... SOLID BONES... Theropod dinosaurs have hollow bones.</p>
<p>Will the real ancestor of Archeopteryx, please, stand , up?</p>
<p>Feels like we're all being made to play a sorry rendition of the game show "To Tell The Truth".</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu4H742oO5gKBpo9iuQt93zBRp5paTQnQO4-hrluYg6FLdgaxrevwsDVqv0hxVeZcZzOSx7XFXTJKn6_laWpF_5Y7Pgb4e6Ccq2U9gxhJYF0TmkWY3Ulh_RWPkNSkFOyvMxJZTQbebbEQ/s1600/archaez.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu4H742oO5gKBpo9iuQt93zBRp5paTQnQO4-hrluYg6FLdgaxrevwsDVqv0hxVeZcZzOSx7XFXTJKn6_laWpF_5Y7Pgb4e6Ccq2U9gxhJYF0TmkWY3Ulh_RWPkNSkFOyvMxJZTQbebbEQ/s1600/archaez.gif" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Archeopteryx had SOLID BONES:
<blockquote>"Compsognathus is believed by many scientists to be an early elative of Archaeopteryx, often considered to be the first bird. Supporting this belief is the fact that the bone structure of Compsognathus is quite similar to that of Archaeopteryx, and the two dinosaurs were about the same size. They also lived at the same time in history, which would have made it difficult for Compsognathus to be an ancestor. It is still possible, though, that Compsognathus lived earlier than Archaeopteryx. On the other side of the argument, Compsognathus had hollow bones, like modern birds, but Archaeopteryx had solid bones."<br>
Source: dinosaur-world (Dot) com</blockquote>
<p>And other sources claim that Archeopteryx has hollow bones.</p>
<p>Seems that some want force the facts and Archie into the theropod dinosaur clan.</p>
<p>HOLLOW BONES are one of the main arguments for "similarity" between birds and dinosaurs, so they use "hollow bones" to say birds "evolved from" dinosaurs, and attempt to deny the stronger link to reptiles and...even mammals.</p>
<p>--> "...The bird's bones are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile's solid ones." <--</p>
<p>Which proves??</p>
<p>Nothing.</p>
<p>The following birds do not have hollow bones... so that makes birds closer relatives to reptiles and even mammals?</p>
<blockquote>"...Cornell researchers first reported in 2005 on the ability of these birds to rub specialized wing feathers together to produce a high hum. Now they report in the June 13 edition of the Royal Society journal Biology Letters that these are the first flying birds known to have solid wing-bones. This is what allows these birds to produce their courtship sounds."<br>
(<a href="http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2012/06/birds-rare-solid-wing-bone-developed-wooing" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyxEqY0cj8sydcIQcG-M3UIZiejFSAG4z_WcO_VfPPFMsLSftEdv7rpWLYHgpXpxCsnwy6gcDUr7HhfrmfmzNqVtQ88qkG-ymFnayEwO-c-FoYdv2oLn3pNV1CTgKwzQ2EzB-BnJcbBO4/s1600/Manakin_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyxEqY0cj8sydcIQcG-M3UIZiejFSAG4z_WcO_VfPPFMsLSftEdv7rpWLYHgpXpxCsnwy6gcDUr7HhfrmfmzNqVtQ88qkG-ymFnayEwO-c-FoYdv2oLn3pNV1CTgKwzQ2EzB-BnJcbBO4/s1600/Manakin_0.jpg" width="450" /></a><br>
Manakin</div>
<blockquote>Adaptations for Flight<br>
"...The pneumatization of bird bones led to the belief that birds had skeletons that weighed proportionately less than those of mammals. Careful studies by H. D. Prange and his colleagues have shown this not to be the case. More demands are placed on a bird's skeleton than on that of a terrestrial mammal. The bird must be able to support itself either entirely by its forelimbs or entirely by its hindlimbs. It also requires a deep, solid breastbone (sternum) to which the wing muscles can be anchored. Thus, while some bones are much lighter than their mammalian counterparts, others, especially the leg bones, are heavier. Evolution has created in the avian skeleton a model of parsimony, lightening where possible, adding weight and strength where required. The results can be quite spectacular: the skeleton of a frigatebird with a seven-foot wingspan weighs less than the feathers covering it!
Not all birds have the same degree of skeletal pneumatization. To decrease their buoyancy and make diving easier, some diving birds, such as loons and auklets, have relatively solid bones. Those birds are generally less skillful fliers than ones with lighter skeletons."<br>
(<a href="https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Adaptations.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...Grebes are ancient, highly specialized diving birds with no obvious close relatives, living or fossil. The earliest fossil is possibly Neogaeornis wetzeli, a diving bird that dates back to the Late Cretaceous Epoch (about 80 million years ago) of Chile..."<br>
(<a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1452208/Neogaeornis-wetzeli" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>[And, from what I can find on the web of those scientists who examined the fossils, concluded they were similar to the modern species [with solid bones], making no comment (that I could find) in regard to a transition between hollow bone in the fossil to solid in the modern bird.]</p>
<blockquote>Pied-billed Grebe, Podilymbus podiceps<br>
"...The pied-billed grebe is a small, brown, duck-like diving bird with a stocky body, thin neck, and relatively large head. The undertail coverts are white and the tail feathers are short and brown, making the grebe appear stubby and tail-less. The legs and lobed toes, which are situated far back on the body, are gray. The bill is thick and stout, enabling the grebe to crack open hard shells of mollusks and crustaceans. As denizens of aquatic habitats, pied-billed grebes spend nearly all their time on water. Leaping forward during headfirst dives, the grebe has been nicknamed “hell diver.” If threatened, a grebe may quickly dive or sink slowly into the water, emerging with only its head visible. Pied-billed grebes are well adapted for swimming underwater. Grebes are able to waterproof their feathers by preening them with secretions from the oil gland located at the base of the tail. Their eyes possess cone-dense retinas, an adaptation for locating prey underwater. Relatively solid bones and the ability to compress their feathers, releasing trapped air to reduce buoyancy, enables grebes to remain underwater longer. Their short, narrow wings aid in maneuverability when swimming and the location of the legs far back on the body facilitates underwater propulsion. Although the location of their legs makes them strong swimmers, it also renders grebes awkward on land."<br>
(<a href="http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/pbgrebe.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...Unlike most birds that have hollow bones, common loons have solid bones which reduce their buoyancy. When they compress their feathers, and force the air from their lungs, loons are able to move through the water with only their heads showing above the surface. Dense bones, however, do not keep loons from moving quickly through the air. As they fly, their wings beat 250 times per minute, propelling them to speeds greater than 80 miles per hour."<br>
(<a href="http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12145_12202-32587--,00.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>Wikipedia says: ---> "...Birds have many bones that are hollow (pneumatized) with criss-crossing struts or trusses for structural strength. The number of hollow bones varies among species, though large gliding and soaring birds tend to have the most. Respiratory air sacs often form air pockets within the semi-hollow bones of the bird's skeleton.[1] Notably, the bones of diving birds are often less hollow than those of non-diving species. Loons[2] and puffins, are without pneumatized bones entirely.[3] Somewhat surprisingly, flightless birds such as ostriches and emus demonstrate osseous pneumaticity, possessing pneumatized femurs[4] and, in the case of the emu, pneumatized cervical vertebrae.[5]"
(Wikipedia): "Polarornis was in all likelihood aquatic and fed on fish and large invertebrates, probably being an ecological equivalent of loons, grebes, or the Cretaceous Hesperornithes of the Northern Hemisphere. One analysis of the structure of the femur (TTU P 9265) showed that the bones were dense, rather than hollow and lightweight as in flying birds, suggesting that Polarornis was a flightless or near-flightless diving bird similar to hesperornithines and penguins.[8]" <---</blockquote>
<p>The dino-bird hypothesis crowd may argue that this species of bird "evolved" genes to grow solid bone through "convergent evolution" to attempt denying that birds already have a strong genetic link to reptiles and mammals, and that birds are a group that evolved independently from dinosaurs. See attached pic:<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFtnM4HXfY3sqSJcRPCs4qmq-PS9L1ETQM80dSQNPhLuRcJrgxGyZ8oyaOjH6BhyphenhyphennJerIqa_WqixB8fQO6BKZD2fIzuseqmJKhGjcJZcjdDVnwj-Mtce7JnmkmcPK3KfDliZHOm_nBLhk/s1600/manakin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFtnM4HXfY3sqSJcRPCs4qmq-PS9L1ETQM80dSQNPhLuRcJrgxGyZ8oyaOjH6BhyphenhyphennJerIqa_WqixB8fQO6BKZD2fIzuseqmJKhGjcJZcjdDVnwj-Mtce7JnmkmcPK3KfDliZHOm_nBLhk/s1600/manakin.jpg" width="450" /></a><br>
Manakin</div>
"the ulna (analogous to a human bone in the forearm) male club-winged manakin."<br>
(<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/what-males-will-do-photo-gallery-manakin-anatomy/955/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>So, I have just provided many links demonstrating "true birds" have both solid and hollow bones. Hollow bone proves nothing. However, there is one dinosaur with "solid bones" like the most early reptilian protobirds -- before Archeopteryx, may have had.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOYyoZno6uVrh6-eqbtHx9DpYz4pMWqKiwB3Jr2jM8gJLDj6obf4pLlz4r8xCooDzlEfBJ7nwWha46-feUe9aokq7iRhtrDeyvpmeATCJ1tOFB1rnQTD3Di-l7MkQe4qxb-IiP9KM-UxM/s1600/spino.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOYyoZno6uVrh6-eqbtHx9DpYz4pMWqKiwB3Jr2jM8gJLDj6obf4pLlz4r8xCooDzlEfBJ7nwWha46-feUe9aokq7iRhtrDeyvpmeATCJ1tOFB1rnQTD3Di-l7MkQe4qxb-IiP9KM-UxM/s1600/spino.jpg" width="450"/></a></div>
<p>The only dinosaur who was AQUATIC... had SOLID bones.</p>
<blockquote> "...--> On land, spinosaurus probably shuffled on all fours — a lousy walker, but a great swimmer. Plus its bones are solid, not hollow like most dinosaurs'. That suggests that, as in whales and penguins, the bones of spinosaurus acted as ballast. And its feet are wide, like a wading bird's. <--</blockquote>
<p>The _ONLY KNOWN_ Aquatic Dinosaur. So they say.</p>
<p>Aquatic or semi-aquatic dinosaurs. I'm willing to look at those for a bird ancestor, but the candidates are very few. Also, I don't think this beast laid eggs and "out popped" an Archeopteryx. Plus, birds were already around on the timeline 65 million years before this aquatic or semi-aquatic "Spinosaurus".</p>
<blockquote>"The ONLY KNOWN dinosaur adapted to life in water, Spinosaurus swam the rivers of North Africa a hundred million years ago. (Art: Davide Bonadonna, and Oct. edition of National Geographic magazine)" the fossils were identified as those of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.<br>
(<a href="http://m.learningenglish.voanews.com/a/2460553.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>(September 11, 2014)<br>
Crocodile Meets Godzilla — A Swimming Dino Bigger Than T. Rex</p>
<p>"...There once was a place on Earth so overrun with giant, meat-eating predators that even a Tyrannosaurus rex would have been nervous. One predator there was even bigger than T. rex, and scientists now say it's apparently the only aquatic dinosaur ever found. [...] He collected the bones and, along with Chicago paleontologist Paul Sereno, determined that it was indeed a swimmer.<br>
Ibrahim describes the place in North Africa where this spinosaurus lived 97 million years ago as a "river of giants."<br>
"Big predatory dinosaurs, giant fish, crocodile-like predators. In fact, the place was really pretty predator-heavy, so I call it the most dangerous place in the history of our planet," Sereno says.
It was swampy, with many rivers. Now it's a desert, where Ibrahim looks for dinosaur bones. But he didn't find spinosaurus's bones, exactly. They found him.</p>
<p>--> On land, spinosaurus probably shuffled on all fours — a lousy walker, but a great swimmer. Plus <u><b>its bones are solid, not hollow</b></u> like most dinosaurs'. That suggests that, as in whales and penguins, the bones of spinosaurus acted as ballast. And its feet are wide, like a wading bird's. <--</p>
<p>--> Now, it was well-known that big swimming reptiles existed in prehistoric times. But dinosaurs are a very different order of animal than reptiles, and nobody had an inkling that dinosaurs could swim until this one turned up. <--</p>
<p>--> Until recently, paleontologists figured the creature must have lived on land and snagged fish out of rivers — like a giant heron with teeth. Being a bit coldblooded has its charms, scientists say. A mammal the size of a T. rex, for example, would have to eat constantly to feed its supercharged metabolism — and would probably starve. "But we were wrong," Holtz says. "It just goes to show, you know, that evolution is pretty tricky and it does all sorts of weird and wonderful things. <--<br>
(<a href="http://www.npr.org/2014/09/11/347488364/crocodile-meets-godzilla-a-swimming-dino-bigger-than-t-rex" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Scientists unveil first semi-aquatic dinosaur, (<a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/scientists-reveal-planets-first-semiaquatic-dinosaur/2447740.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</li>
<li>Scientists announce first known semi-aquatic dinosaur (<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/09/11/spinosaurus-is-first-known-semi-aquatic-dinosaur/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</li>
<li>Largest predatory dinosaur ever was 'half-duck, half-crocodile' (<a href="http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/11/6136443/the-largest-predatory-dinosaur-ever-was-half-duck-half-crocodile" target="_blank">Source</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>REPTILES also had hollow bones.
<p>Conclusion: Development of both solid and hollow bones can occur in many of groups within diapsids.</p>
<blockquote>"...pterosaurs are not closely related to either birds or bats, and thus provide a classic example of convergent evolution....based on analyses of pterosaur skeletal features (including work done by Berkeley's own Kevin Padian), it is now thought that all but the largest pterosaurs could sustain powered flight. Pterosaurs had hollow bones, large brains with well-developed optic lobes, and several crests on their bones to which flight muscles attached"...<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/pterosauria.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Will they argue reptiles developed hollow bones through "Convergent Evolution"... speculative bologna. However, the physical ability for flight -- perhaps THAT is convergent evolution -- separately and independently.</p>
<p>Reptiles, Birds and Dinosaurs obviously share genes that enable development of both solid and hollow bones. As seen with the little songbird growing a solid bone on its arm.<br>
To this day, as shown, birds have solid as well as hollow bones, as did the dinosaurs... and reptiles too.</p>
<p>An absence of a keel on some forms? Well, there's a lot of modern birds that don't have a keel, either.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicPwkYPC16VAWiKtd9M94TAoFkewGRU10kzS8bl7xzjD36ZrUXtji3ZQBMm2UD0cnZ2FCRAX2TK_2tdSNuSU0zm27X-v2ShR8NXdSiDTVNXUkL8pGvooWPEaQHW8IH2NWNiUCk_WnVH3g/s1600/pteroheads.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicPwkYPC16VAWiKtd9M94TAoFkewGRU10kzS8bl7xzjD36ZrUXtji3ZQBMm2UD0cnZ2FCRAX2TK_2tdSNuSU0zm27X-v2ShR8NXdSiDTVNXUkL8pGvooWPEaQHW8IH2NWNiUCk_WnVH3g/s1600/pteroheads.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>A common argument in defense of the "Dinosaur to Bird" hypothesis may go something like this:
<blockquote>"...All the early bird fossils are of birds not yet fully adapted to long or powerful flight. Their skeletons are still reptilian in many respects, their keel bones in their body are not very long and could not have supported thick broad wing flapping muscles..."</blockquote>
<p>I'm really not certain how the existence of a "keel bone" necessarily ties dinosaurs to modern birds. This "Keel" bone is mentioned as being absent in this group:</p>
<blockquote>Ratite (Merriam Webster Dictionary) "a bird with a flat breastbone; especially : any of various mostly flightless birds (as an ostrich, rhea, emu, moa, or kiwi) with small or rudimentary wings and no keel..."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...Ratites are flightless birds that lack the keel (high ridge) on the breastbone to which the flight muscles of flying birds are attached. Instead, the entire breastbone looks rather like a turtle's shell. It has also been described as a raft, which gives this group of flightless birds its name, Ratitae (Ratis means raft in Latin). Ratites have heavy, solid bones, while flying birds have lightweight, hollow ones. Several ratites, such as ostriches, rheas, emus, and cassowaries, are the largest living birds."<br>
(<a href="http://science.jrank.org/pages/2750/Flightless-Birds.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Just some additional documentation which is supported by recent genetic evidence (2014) with birds radically diversifying at the close of the Cretaceous.</p>
<p>Excerpt from : Antarctica and the Arctic Circle: A Geographic Encyclopedia of the Earth's Polar Regions [2 volumes]Andrew Hund, ABC-CLIO, Oct 14, 2014 - Nature - 848 pages</p>
<p>Birds did not "evolve along with" dinosaurs in a co-existence sense of living as tetrapods in the "open terrain" on dry land -- because as you might now agree ------- birds, primarily confined themselves to aquatic or semi-aquatic environments, like the lagoons which Archeopteryx fossils are described being discovered in.</p>
<blockquote>"...T. rex was one of the largest terrestrial carnivores of all time."</blockquote>
<p>Tyrannosaurus ventured near ponds if he was thirsty and then left (because all the birds were smart enough to disappear) so he left and resumed his activities on dry land.<br>
Terrestrial, land-roaming T-Rex ... as an ancestor of creatures who's aquatic origins are so profound, that they are written into their anatomy - - so, I have a real problem with reconciling bird origins with dry, terrestrial beasts.</p>
<blockquote>"...animals like Velociraptor- and Deinonychus-sized dromaeosaurids were obviously predominantly terrestrial."</blockquote>
<p>They've already told me, which creatures were definitely NOT the ancestors of birds. If you find a "true dinosaur" from the Triassic (that predates Archeopteryx) or any other early birds found in the Jurassic, that was aquatic or semi-aquatic... well, I will contemplate on the creature for a long time, study all that is known about the creature, and I might give it the benefit of the doubt as a potential ancestor. Otherwise, not at all.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8cZS6MuzWteWtGye17m5ISvSXKlkvFoaSSGK7NDZebigXevSM3gbCv9yumhPv2f2mFq32YxTwtIdQol-vq35twi7GpzNzJgYqXsm6fFVNLfwuz9Q0Gl8qnsaP4DoOLs24jzFuu3Serh4/s1600/radiation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8cZS6MuzWteWtGye17m5ISvSXKlkvFoaSSGK7NDZebigXevSM3gbCv9yumhPv2f2mFq32YxTwtIdQol-vq35twi7GpzNzJgYqXsm6fFVNLfwuz9Q0Gl8qnsaP4DoOLs24jzFuu3Serh4/s1600/radiation.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-5743737863903432582015-01-15T23:36:00.003-08:002016-01-26T19:01:15.119-08:00Archosaurs, Birds and Mammals<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAYgdbM-t2Ag9c0OE9h8BSAJ9eDxd1DsOnwjOYQem85k9dhhDKgR8Kfa-b7WUYVXFNstNxgcJECR8IJi7su5essPioasYWgh_c757wFR23JkuVy48CMdscVeImtme2xCBZ6ML0dEuTD_0/s1600/aves-timeline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAYgdbM-t2Ag9c0OE9h8BSAJ9eDxd1DsOnwjOYQem85k9dhhDKgR8Kfa-b7WUYVXFNstNxgcJECR8IJi7su5essPioasYWgh_c757wFR23JkuVy48CMdscVeImtme2xCBZ6ML0dEuTD_0/s1600/aves-timeline.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote>"...Platypus (Omithorhynchus anatinus), showing the poisonous spur on the inside of the hind leg on an adult male."<br>
"...The male platypus has “a sturdy erectile keratin spur on each hind leg (Fig. 2) just above the webbed foot, which is connected via a venom duct to a venom (crural) gland lying under the dorsal thigh muscles.” The male platypus aggressively injects venom into his opposition by "erecting the spur, grasping and squeezing the victim between his hind legs, and driving the spurs and venom into the victim’s tissues" (Fenner et al., 1992)."<br>
(<a href="http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/seminar/2001/Home/lae/platy%20habitat.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPxqUpp3Mw-zwa71DrjVqpVc2IJ68rWCshIVmevkpIWEsKkumIxlIPf3rcnXPwFoTD6lNJJoCIE99aSPC34WhruvbTqtqeLYhTR_Om9tUzopFvI2QffmETX8FgOEPZ4MUFwkiPzwN_UN4/s1600/platypus-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPxqUpp3Mw-zwa71DrjVqpVc2IJ68rWCshIVmevkpIWEsKkumIxlIPf3rcnXPwFoTD6lNJJoCIE99aSPC34WhruvbTqtqeLYhTR_Om9tUzopFvI2QffmETX8FgOEPZ4MUFwkiPzwN_UN4/s1600/platypus-1.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLb5WQw1EUYYGQq5-EDftu4PgGwkE5Ljpju7XvnRK6L1EauFta4Q0Zd2NigGIVhfbYFi5h5JBveAPSP3aPklykSTTcBB_lwTMKVpAAaTgrdESmG0oh2LMkk_S8UCpDprQSPu8U577Ff6M/s1600/platypus-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLb5WQw1EUYYGQq5-EDftu4PgGwkE5Ljpju7XvnRK6L1EauFta4Q0Zd2NigGIVhfbYFi5h5JBveAPSP3aPklykSTTcBB_lwTMKVpAAaTgrdESmG0oh2LMkk_S8UCpDprQSPu8U577Ff6M/s1600/platypus-2.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4dTuNpw0XDn7GXTdsAphFTVT3SIN522GHQuVeDLWOl2sDWxiJpTrvOdEm_8q_tjXhq9BcDArM1oxd6TpBpRuc-tIfNylSPSMOyKpO4oZrSHDn1olThbJNJeCJCPKl8JX5dDpy4gHEmyM/s1600/platypus-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4dTuNpw0XDn7GXTdsAphFTVT3SIN522GHQuVeDLWOl2sDWxiJpTrvOdEm_8q_tjXhq9BcDArM1oxd6TpBpRuc-tIfNylSPSMOyKpO4oZrSHDn1olThbJNJeCJCPKl8JX5dDpy4gHEmyM/s1600/platypus-3.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<blockquote>"...The beak, nails, and spurs of the chicken are highly keratinized structures..."<br>
(<a href="http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/phi/PHI/Care%20of%20Beak,%20Nails,%20Spurs.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Sidney Hugh Reynolds writes in his 1897 “book “The Vertebrate Skeleton” Google throws up:
<blockquote><p>“Claws should not be confounded with spurs, which are conical horny structures developed on bony outgrowths of the radial side of the carpus, metacarpus, or metatarsus. They occur in a number of birds, but are most commonly developed in gallinaceous birds, by which they are used for fighting. A single spur occurs on the metacarpus in Megapodius[that mound brooder], in Palamedea[a screamer], in Parra jacana and in Hoplopterus spinosus, the Spur-winged plover. The Derbian Screamer, Chauna derbiana, has two metacarpal spurs, borne on the first and second metacarpals. The Spur-winged goose, Plectropterus gambensis, has a carpal spur borne on the radial carpal. Metatarsal spurs are quite common.<br>
The male Solitaire (Pezophaps) has large bony excrescences on the wrist which may, like spurs, have been sheathed in horn and used for fighting.”</p>
<p>"...Sometimes the male and female birds of a species are similar in overall size, but show distinct differences in the size, development and/or length of a particular body structural feature. There might be differences in the size or length or development of the bill (beak length), the legs, the neck, the tail feathers, the comb or crest, the flight feathers, the leg spurs, the claws or some other component of the bird's body."<br>
(<a href="http://www.pet-informed-veterinary-advice-online.com/bird-sexing.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAKfMdwzLWtBS8xkvQ_vpiE6RbliB2UX-y57sb0tH2Tkhko8fZHxq6cfttDnl6gkIj7OfGq88QcrXBkx_R0FdTRx-gdTpf0yed13k-XXcHCcB4RxdBfwGfwyhLbTkEUZx7doS5WcRzH5g/s1600/pitohui-horizontal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAKfMdwzLWtBS8xkvQ_vpiE6RbliB2UX-y57sb0tH2Tkhko8fZHxq6cfttDnl6gkIj7OfGq88QcrXBkx_R0FdTRx-gdTpf0yed13k-XXcHCcB4RxdBfwGfwyhLbTkEUZx7doS5WcRzH5g/s1600/pitohui-horizontal.jpg" width="450" /></a><br>
The "Trash Bird"</div>
<blockquote>"The native people of Papua New Guinea call the hooded pitohuis "trash birds" and refuse to eat them. Scientists now know why: These songbirds are among the first birds documented to be venomous.
"John Dumbacher, an ornithologist (a scientist who studies birds) at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, discovered why in 2009. Holding the birds made him sneeze and itch; it also made his eyes water. Predators foolish enough to eat a hooded pitohui suffer worse consequences. High levels of batrachotoxin, the same toxin used by poison dart frogs, are found in pitohui muscle, heart and liver. If eaten, the toxin interrupts the normal function of a predator’s nerve cells, eventually causing the diner’s heart to stop beating."<br>
(<a href="https://student.societyforscience.org/article/cant-touch-unusual-venomous-creatures" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>A SIDE NOTE:</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKRFazVATXrL3j_5gKTUa5gemDrDMS0-A9LlpVEoZEHugnKdmoVpDo5W4j3SYleiBSn56JoDhsWHkxc1jBx1T6SHqQUDtI6EDbTvcKctsAto6b2A954nUwlO83j82vKyttbJtA04pDUbg/s1600/toxic-goose.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKRFazVATXrL3j_5gKTUa5gemDrDMS0-A9LlpVEoZEHugnKdmoVpDo5W4j3SYleiBSn56JoDhsWHkxc1jBx1T6SHqQUDtI6EDbTvcKctsAto6b2A954nUwlO83j82vKyttbJtA04pDUbg/s1600/toxic-goose.jpg" width="450"/></a></div>
<p>Death by toxic goose. Amazing waterfowl facts<blockquote>"...Weighing as much as 7 kg, this formidable bird (not a goose in the strict sense, but a member of the shelduck/sheldgoose clade Tadorninae*) bears sharp spurs on its wrists. The birds use these in attacking both other spur-winged geese, and other waterfowl (at least in captivity: a captive individual kept at Slimbridge maintained a territory on top of a small hill. Waterfowl of other species would sometimes climb the hill, get attacked, and die from their injuries).<br>
Anyway… as if this isn’t bad enough, members of this species can sometimes be poisonous. But I don’t mean that they can inject venom with their wing-spurs, or anything like that. Rather, some populations (those in the Gambia) feed on a poisonous beetle (specifically, a member of the blister beetle group (Meloidae)), and then sequester the beetle’s poison into their own tissues (Bartram & Boland 2001). Blister beetles are well known for producing the toxin cantharidin, small amounts of which (as little as 10 milligrams) cause death in humans. The effect of cantharidin on the urinary tract (it results in swelling of the genitalia) means that people have been using it as an aphrodisiac for centuries; the Spanish fly Lytta vesicatori is a blister beetle. So the result of blister beetle ingestion by spur-winged geese is that their flesh is toxic. Eating one can – apparently – result in death (Wanless 2001) [Plectropterus in flight shown below].<br>
While the poisonous tissues of several passerines – notably the various pitohuis, the Ifrita Ifrita coronata and the Rufous shrike-thrush Colluricincla megarhyncha of New Guinea – is now quite well known (this was covered on Tet Zoo back in 2008), they aren’t alone and several other birds are also known to sequester toxins from various animal and/or plant prey. Quail Coturnix coturnix are known to be toxic when on migration, but only certain populations are, and only on part of their migratory journey (e.g., those flying from west Africa to Europe are toxic; those going from eastern Africa to Europe aren’t toxic, but are when they return to Africa in the Autumn). Being poisoned by quail even has a name (coturnism): there are accounts of it in the Bible, and it was so common in the Roman Empire that the eating of quails was banned in the 1st century (Bartram & Boland 2001).<br>
(<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/06/19/death-by-toxic-goose/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>BACK ON TOPIC:</p>
<p>There's no denying that dinosaurs and birds share common ancestry which links them, but no matter how hard they may try to place dinosaurs and birds on the same evolutionary branch with birds arising after Cretaceous theropod dinosaurs. No, actually its worse than simply that. Some misinformed people say that birds which existed 125 million years ago "evolved from" dinosaurs which existed 50 millions later.</p>
<p>Such a hypothesis is only with a time machine... its absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt, impossible and very un-Darwinian of anyone who suggests so.</p>
<p>The Time Machine Hypothesis.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwBjaWMd4rcWS_n3xj_LggkT4FiRNJfG10bvooA1jKS4lqqSkfagxd7ADVTbLHZLBPeYuyItLNTFfxcw1BoG_fTuGr2XTtXj72Rawph5j4DcNjm45FsrgV6b3XhcSL1TJlaWaJNwq2nT0/s1600/time-machine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwBjaWMd4rcWS_n3xj_LggkT4FiRNJfG10bvooA1jKS4lqqSkfagxd7ADVTbLHZLBPeYuyItLNTFfxcw1BoG_fTuGr2XTtXj72Rawph5j4DcNjm45FsrgV6b3XhcSL1TJlaWaJNwq2nT0/s1600/time-machine.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Velociraptor was not <font style="color: brown">bright red</font> enough, so I amped him up a bit.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig9A-oEVyqGQSsq4UHgX40P2xw_2QE1wbxz7V5qjDJFBsFwQsXBcoeAb-uyURPsN0Hf1_9nvkwhYIGkdHRTYOdujqC0gzZZw9HBqG4hc2JHR4ADbbawPwVWehh4y8DoHa6F0eHcvPdGX4/s1600/time-machine-raptor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig9A-oEVyqGQSsq4UHgX40P2xw_2QE1wbxz7V5qjDJFBsFwQsXBcoeAb-uyURPsN0Hf1_9nvkwhYIGkdHRTYOdujqC0gzZZw9HBqG4hc2JHR4ADbbawPwVWehh4y8DoHa6F0eHcvPdGX4/s1600/time-machine-raptor.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Doubtlessly, birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, and there's no doubt some other similarities may well have evolved through convergent evolution, just like flying reptiles evolved the ability to fly independently and separately apart from birds. Just as insects, flying squirrels, bats... even some species of snakes, etc. developed the ability to glide and fly.<br>
Hollow bones helped high-flying reptiles stay aloft<br>
(<a href="http://www.independent.ie/world-news/hollow-bones-helped-highflying-reptiles-stay-aloft-1645013.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>More on "Convergent Evolution" (<a href="http://theroamingnaturalist.com/2010/08/07/evolution-awesomeness-series-3-convergent-evolution/" target="_blank">Source</a>).</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhByrJKs3dV2B4Xpeto-SFaQRcAb1tgoiDqgZp-3o5On-LO96u84M393ctt_FuOnaOmQ-eD8sl8QFoRC0vEotkgPd1MhyphenhyphenxSMWz5-_FBYX2ocfSLoRR3IkM0lgDr5p5JRJ22GpEZSaOPtAw/s1600/converge361.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhByrJKs3dV2B4Xpeto-SFaQRcAb1tgoiDqgZp-3o5On-LO96u84M393ctt_FuOnaOmQ-eD8sl8QFoRC0vEotkgPd1MhyphenhyphenxSMWz5-_FBYX2ocfSLoRR3IkM0lgDr5p5JRJ22GpEZSaOPtAw/s1600/converge361.gif" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Actually though, dinosaurs and birds really don't look THAT similar.</p>
<p>Another cross between mammal, bird and reptile...</p>
<blockquote>Fossil indicates hairy, squirrel-sized creature was not quite a mammal<br>
"...Preserved in the fossil is a clear halo of guard hairs and underfur residue, making Megaconus only the second known pre-mammalian fossil with fur. It was found with sparse hairs around its abdomen, leading the team to hypothesize that it had a naked abdomen. On its heels, Megaconus possessed a long keratinous spur, which was possibly poisonous. Similar to spurs found on modern egg-laying mammals, such as male platypuses, the spur is evidence that this fossil was most likely a male member of its species."<br>
(<a href="http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/08/07/fossil-indicates-hairy-squirrel-sized-creature-was-not-quite-mammal" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>7 Poison Animals (Birds, Mammals, Reptiles including "Slow Loris" which is a primate).<br>
(Contains poison on brachial gland on arm while grooming.)<br>
Venomous vs. Poisonous<br>
Although the words “venomous” and “poisonous” are used interchangeably in everyday speech, they are actually fundamentally different. By definition, venom has to be injected into the body, introduced by a bite or a sting. Poison, on the other hand, is ingested or inhaled into the body by the victim. Thus, venomous and poisonous animals are altogether different.<br>
(<a href="http://scribol.com/environment/7-animals-youll-never-believe-are-venomous" target="_blank">Source</a>), (<a href="http://primatology.net/2010/10/19/are-slow-lorises-really-venomous/" target="_blank">Source</a>), (<a href="https://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2013/gustafso_alli/venom.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>Phylogenetic Relationship: Monotremes, Marsupials and Placental Mammals.</p>
<p>Perhaps the (marsupial) kangaroo's behavior of kicking as a defense, was genetically inherited from their distant (not so distant) common ancestors, and distant (not so distant) relatives like the rooster who will spur a challenger with his nasty ... spurs.<br>
Perhaps to propose this is mere speculation, but only time, and further fossil evidence can tell.</p>
<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eEWryUjStAs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/khahLAZHBjE" width="480"></iframe></center>
<!-- BEGIN CAUTION -->
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpUDxBiZ7280x_B7QOIYjxooy7ZaZeIbTooTYLzWeHiRK0ggu_Eq72ZMznrgciTfIhKj5rjihDTK9IdVOZvwV9U_ruUY6EBCwBbZM6agXnOLXClZ31hNT8fAevwv4JczxEcOq-GKP1-fs/s1600/begin-caution.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpUDxBiZ7280x_B7QOIYjxooy7ZaZeIbTooTYLzWeHiRK0ggu_Eq72ZMznrgciTfIhKj5rjihDTK9IdVOZvwV9U_ruUY6EBCwBbZM6agXnOLXClZ31hNT8fAevwv4JczxEcOq-GKP1-fs/s1600/begin-caution.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxFQqnejEIWZz5giEXg20sUryAEzB6uU2IgQisnM_AAVslXmFJVr0fQUe33UUJOyTeiBl69Gd65x0PGg6veXDLXHwkuUeN0bpNU_zQ69aSoALWgRN9xb-xizn8SRexcGPzy0SVbDa_TDw/s1600/ball-python-spurs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxFQqnejEIWZz5giEXg20sUryAEzB6uU2IgQisnM_AAVslXmFJVr0fQUe33UUJOyTeiBl69Gd65x0PGg6veXDLXHwkuUeN0bpNU_zQ69aSoALWgRN9xb-xizn8SRexcGPzy0SVbDa_TDw/s1600/ball-python-spurs.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Questions such as this raised further questions that only professional herpetologists, geneticists and the like could perhaps ever answer. The "spurs" that we have seen on the Boa/Python, are they truly "vestigial limbs"? --or, perhaps they are genuinely "spurs" like those found in the males of birds and monotremes (aka platypus). For now, as far as I am concerned, the jury is out. The "expert" conclusions differ,</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOEk7SvqhmYbkK8E6mXXWCfCz6DOdPhmHSZw51mhoQ4vG4mlWfbqKUvrivqTTU6d2KpWf4BItOKcNqn8HCv8wVZ7snXhlrJro8eNEu831iTcMo-V7Q3zjzYQ3WnEMGhXp1mqsCtzmL5ek/s1600/spurs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOEk7SvqhmYbkK8E6mXXWCfCz6DOdPhmHSZw51mhoQ4vG4mlWfbqKUvrivqTTU6d2KpWf4BItOKcNqn8HCv8wVZ7snXhlrJro8eNEu831iTcMo-V7Q3zjzYQ3WnEMGhXp1mqsCtzmL5ek/s1600/spurs.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>The notes on that subject "<a href="http://birds-to-dinosaur.blogspot.com/p/python-vestigial-pelvis-femur-and-spur.html" target="_top">Python Vestigial Pelvis, Femur and Spur</a>" became so extensive, that I moved all content to a page for discussion all its own.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw_nCLpF3hFkEZJzL2SOBjSx0rIVx_Z9b9smF-3oxH0RwGjiK947yn9YmRHxEQvTxEXlc-NewdfBy-aeDx7TRDEtOyBq4dFhPB-wufzpkLsF9VLFWQBhQ84fBONozZBBXecAxpvYmaCqk/s1600/femur-spur.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw_nCLpF3hFkEZJzL2SOBjSx0rIVx_Z9b9smF-3oxH0RwGjiK947yn9YmRHxEQvTxEXlc-NewdfBy-aeDx7TRDEtOyBq4dFhPB-wufzpkLsF9VLFWQBhQ84fBONozZBBXecAxpvYmaCqk/s1600/femur-spur.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Question Mark on "Attached to Pelvis" is because the bone is free-floating.
<blockquote>"Skeleton of an Indian Python, showing the tail (left) and ribcage (right). The extra bones attached to the ribs (glued for mounting, but naturally just attached to the flesh without direct contact with any ribs) are half a pelvis and one of the back legs, which pythons and boas have not completely lost. Though they are not the only types of snakes to still have these vestigial legs (appearing as cloacal spurs on live animals), they are the ones that are best known for the feature."<br>
(<a href="http://www.cavinguk.co.uk/holidays/NearlyWildLife2012/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe_1RIKHBydZQvLw0osTGhLQFmqLtbEvtq9pRjXzMYkRjJE57cXcIj6q8JR_qN-FkvbZtyfL-SmVzy84VaGAoN1ROScEQoD51-yz9k7_SKsgBgzSJJGxOdO2AN7ejOkzCKSDYIz7BtHqo/s1600/end-caution.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe_1RIKHBydZQvLw0osTGhLQFmqLtbEvtq9pRjXzMYkRjJE57cXcIj6q8JR_qN-FkvbZtyfL-SmVzy84VaGAoN1ROScEQoD51-yz9k7_SKsgBgzSJJGxOdO2AN7ejOkzCKSDYIz7BtHqo/s1600/end-caution.png" /></a></div>
<!-- END CAUTION -->
<p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijiB_3DDYPlqpgcvdOPS9xCYB98hnbEtnJkvFVKj80ILZphyphenhyphen3RdBY5uqkHNZxtl61JjHhuU61NnFRpl292FYXy2UqQx5mZnoMYzPBRVVe5K54jtdptcjoI-Dwqe9avAla_6kPzo62ypk8/s1600/kick-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijiB_3DDYPlqpgcvdOPS9xCYB98hnbEtnJkvFVKj80ILZphyphenhyphen3RdBY5uqkHNZxtl61JjHhuU61NnFRpl292FYXy2UqQx5mZnoMYzPBRVVe5K54jtdptcjoI-Dwqe9avAla_6kPzo62ypk8/s1600/kick-2.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
Exotic Pet Behavior: Birds, Reptiles, and Small Mammals<br>
By Teresa Bradley Bays, Teresa Lightfoot, Jörg Mayer</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6-uZscwUAUk52KbtFKHXSeGJOT0GiXXiAzOWlfZnL02XaTPGwJT2ciaem6TbaP-6UKjXydmJGbjvokFgefN2cjL_nuXTNuCQ6sF0mof57Wr7C6jLsGnhd6sE4s75j-EMlRQwZaeS4cQo/s1600/kick-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6-uZscwUAUk52KbtFKHXSeGJOT0GiXXiAzOWlfZnL02XaTPGwJT2ciaem6TbaP-6UKjXydmJGbjvokFgefN2cjL_nuXTNuCQ6sF0mof57Wr7C6jLsGnhd6sE4s75j-EMlRQwZaeS4cQo/s1600/kick-1.jpg" width="450" /></a><br>
Chlamydosaurus kingii doing a foraging run.<br>
(<a href="http://reptilis.net/lacertilia/agamidae/Chlamydosaurus.php" target="_blank">Source</a>)</div>
<p>"...Spurs are most commonly found on the hindfeet, though some birds possess spurs at the leading edge of the wings." (Wikipedia)</p>
<p>MAMMALS
<blockquote>"To mark their territory, ringtailed lemurs will rub their scent glands (located on their chests and wrists) on trees. The males also have “spurs” on their wrists to make scratches in the trees before they scent mark them."<br>
(<a href="http://www.zooatlanta.org/ringtailed_lemur" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEistfhCs9b1Rl2xt3cNXvDpzQcMDOTUK3EpRTrS2CFfvymhN-1-YMS045QBno0RWe_yHd_cX1iDrqxXPU9_-DRb_VJfHHR35vy12yXnz5Dz5hPk6NpMzjTOGN6ZMcOB0JbNluhcmNRQPU8/s1600/male.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEistfhCs9b1Rl2xt3cNXvDpzQcMDOTUK3EpRTrS2CFfvymhN-1-YMS045QBno0RWe_yHd_cX1iDrqxXPU9_-DRb_VJfHHR35vy12yXnz5Dz5hPk6NpMzjTOGN6ZMcOB0JbNluhcmNRQPU8/s1600/male.gif" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>REPTILES
<blockquote>"Male chameleons have a tarsal spur from the time that they are hatched."
(See photo).
(<a href="http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/care-sheet.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>BIRDS
<blockquote>Spur-wing geese and... numerous other birds with multiple purposes on both forelimb and hindlimb. An old research paper :<br>
(<a href="http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/wilson/v066n02/p0127-p0134.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmFaJ0_1mWuG5BHUcjnvPCqBumbKQ9CHELXYx2bBFJM5BPCXWaFMw1OE5IkozlXFfIq0xC_W1gxfWIxxbPKh2OzXClf7MybEW3w1yFoXI5fBGxTSp82-UNjjWxUIiw5G13Ti16eIgm5yo/s1600/spur-wing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmFaJ0_1mWuG5BHUcjnvPCqBumbKQ9CHELXYx2bBFJM5BPCXWaFMw1OE5IkozlXFfIq0xC_W1gxfWIxxbPKh2OzXClf7MybEW3w1yFoXI5fBGxTSp82-UNjjWxUIiw5G13Ti16eIgm5yo/s1600/spur-wing.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Photo of spur-wing. (<a href="http://www.oiseaux-birds.com/card-masked-lapwing.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<h3>More...</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihClpEKB1j5RqgXjrDO04Qywnne-jK3RioCo00-zNvcWOEmXftdsBNZjIYZOLrkewnUqU_rGLAKQZltUWrF-_lQwYcz0YYM4FSgaC6VwoPn_12unjtcRw6zJU7VjjyJYlVkQK5fQtQls8/s1600/echidna.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihClpEKB1j5RqgXjrDO04Qywnne-jK3RioCo00-zNvcWOEmXftdsBNZjIYZOLrkewnUqU_rGLAKQZltUWrF-_lQwYcz0YYM4FSgaC6VwoPn_12unjtcRw6zJU7VjjyJYlVkQK5fQtQls8/s1600/echidna.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<blockquote>"Professor Belov said the echidna did have some venom genes, with low expression levels, which suggested the animal's secretions may have been toxic and used for defence millions of years ago.<br>
''It suggests they were there in the past and they're no longer important,'' she said.<br>
The gradual disappearance of the venom in the spur secretion meant a new role for the gland had evolved, she said.
Platypus venom, on the other hand, is highly toxic and can kill dogs. The small number of people who have been stung, typically fishermen or biologists, report excruciating pain that can take months to subside."<br>
(<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-discover-the-function-of-the-echidnas-spur-20131115-2xmcf.html">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"The egg-laying mammals — the monotremes, including the platypus and spiny anteaters — are eccentric relatives to the rest of mammals, which bear live young. In addition to laying eggs, other quirks make them seem more like reptiles than our kin."<br>
(<a href="http://www.livescience.com/5746-odd-egg-laying-mammals-exist.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>(Yes, and the "missing link" between mammals and birds too).</p>
<blockquote>"...The male platypus has well developed spurs on the heels of its hind feet. The spurs are hollow and connected to a venom gland, allowing the platypus to deliver a very painful kick both in mating competitions and as a defense.[22] Similar, but non-venomous spurs are found in echidnas.[23] Similar spurs have been found in the fossils of several early mammals, and is possibly the primitive condition in mammals as a whole.[24]"<br>
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_%28zoology%29" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Maybe it's a subject for another day ... lots of fun.<br>
Evolution of spurs, fangs, claws, et cetera and their relation to venom and pheromones and all that good stuff, in reptiles, mammals and birds. All the way back to synapsids and diapsids.</p>
<blockquote>(2014)<br>
"Although no fossil evidence of these structures has been found, ancestral monotremes likely had venom delivery systems very similar to that of extant monotremes (see Section 3.1), in the form of an extratarsal spur consisting of cornu calcaris (the spur, which is covered by a keratinous sheath) and os calcaris (the supporting bone). Interestingly, there are several fossils of non-monotreme mammals with evidence of a potential venom delivery system similar to that of the monotremes. These include fossils with what have been interpreted as extratarsal spurs [3,13], and fossils with an os calcaris that may have supported an extratarsal spur [14]. It is thus possible that the extant monotreme extratarsal spur is plesiomorphic, having been retained in monotremes but lost in the therians [14,15]. This implies that many early mammals may have had spurs, and possibly associated venom glands, as a defensive mechanism (Figure 1), although additional fossil evidence is required to resolve this."
(<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4014732/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>[Therian refers to a member of the Mammalia subclass Theria which consists of marsupial and placental mammals.]</p>
<p>It would make the perfect Christmas Gift. They're so cute.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPVJxxQtsI7_QdXuCqP6MC2vDbNv1YLjVCf4EkU1KKfB0LYZn4nGfa3CKuhLs7zx1Ix6Jcl2V_7nBiUhaDLAi0vU0N0hVOS3EY-PsNoD-3wFJki5P6OMSbqKmEJ49MQNKSeJT4rqUPZvM/s1600/cute-animals-pictures-baby-duck-billed-platypus-sleeping.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPVJxxQtsI7_QdXuCqP6MC2vDbNv1YLjVCf4EkU1KKfB0LYZn4nGfa3CKuhLs7zx1Ix6Jcl2V_7nBiUhaDLAi0vU0N0hVOS3EY-PsNoD-3wFJki5P6OMSbqKmEJ49MQNKSeJT4rqUPZvM/s1600/cute-animals-pictures-baby-duck-billed-platypus-sleeping.jpg" / width="450" ></a></div>
<p>Awwww, its so sweet and some said they're anti-social and solitary.</p>
<center><iframe width="450" height="253" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a6QHzIJO5a8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<blockquote>Envenomation by a platypus results in a localized, immediate, and intense pain followed by edema and hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to heat and pressure) (de Plater et al, 1995). The pain associated with a platypus strike is unlike any other in nature. It is extremely intense, and unlike most other animal envenomations, cannot be quelled by morphine. Edema can last up to a week and hyperalgesia can continue for months. The first-aid for an attack is to avoid contact with the site of the sting and restrict movement of the limb (Sutherland, 1983). As stated earlier, the pain cannot be masked by morphine. There is also no antivenin available. The only treatment that has been found to help reduce the pain is anesthetic blockade coupled with narcotic intravenous infusion (Fenner et al., 1992). This works by stopping the conduction and/or transmission of nerve signals. Only then can morphine (or another narcotic) be used to help treat the pain. Fenner et al. (1992) went on to explain that this treatment only helps alleviate some of the pain and must be administered for several days.<br>
(<a href="http://www.biology.iastate.edu/internationaltrips/1australia/04papers/girupplatyvenm.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgebJ9BDpuLKnwrEp6qKrCqCjbV5_0NFtX3Bz-OecAKP7ZNxIHxQ_07C6B9P6nBrJFVEVjk2ONbd6uBLNPovsVoP9ZEk64A0LToJhwQIc_VAZe0W-pl0xvmUMb7-4_baZTp8DKIUY2kvOE/s1600/platypus2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgebJ9BDpuLKnwrEp6qKrCqCjbV5_0NFtX3Bz-OecAKP7ZNxIHxQ_07C6B9P6nBrJFVEVjk2ONbd6uBLNPovsVoP9ZEk64A0LToJhwQIc_VAZe0W-pl0xvmUMb7-4_baZTp8DKIUY2kvOE/s1600/platypus2.jpg" width="450"/></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-50146475115372759552015-01-15T23:06:00.000-08:002015-01-15T23:13:08.294-08:00Cretaceous Birds in Australia and Antarctica<p>One other small bit that adds another nail into the coffin of the dinosaur-to-bird theory. Location.</p>
<blockquote>Timeline for some mammals,birds and dinosaurs:<br>
Tyrannosaurus Rex..... 85-65 million years ago<br>
Vegavis iaai ............... 70 million years ago (true bird)<br>
Velociraptor ............... 75 million years<br>
Confuciusornis ......... 125 million years ago (true bird)<br>
Archaeopteryx ..........165 million years ago (true bird)<br>
Mammals emerge..... 220 million years ago</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXM2t5HZTp19duMtHbWckDO-OZXFSj35RT8CUtb_wW4rc0YaiLVUV3xBHD17XABkQewBKtcDHiMF3RYHwiBWUJOwke5hDeRHiEKaF3aSwOhiFjFZbjjSRPinaA1m6vzUveeCFkCaB1puA/s1600/duck-relative.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXM2t5HZTp19duMtHbWckDO-OZXFSj35RT8CUtb_wW4rc0YaiLVUV3xBHD17XABkQewBKtcDHiMF3RYHwiBWUJOwke5hDeRHiEKaF3aSwOhiFjFZbjjSRPinaA1m6vzUveeCFkCaB1puA/s1600/duck-relative.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>The <i>Vegavis iaai</i> bird, ancestor to waterfowl (ducks, geese, etc)...
<blockquote>"New analysis of a bird fossil <i>Vegavis iaai</i> found in Antarctica in the 1990s says it is a relative of modern ducks and geese, suggesting the evolution of modern birds was well under way during the Cretaceous... Australia was connected with Antarctica at this time, the findings imply that modern bird groups were also present in Australia in the Cretaceous."<br>
(<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1284938.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>See the map I'm attaching of Australia/Antarctica during the Late Cretaceous from (<a href="http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/09/14/a-brief-geologic-history-of-arizona-chapter-6-cretaceous-time/">Source</a>).</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlX1i580sy8ab9tXJ5B7w5-uE84FJ5AwU_fr_RhH-Vk45pgFU8gSqcsPhF-zOZ_X_zEvlJyDRoMhlYnvlAjH8RG-oS7IFDUzdOXLuooCk8CnHQYzUrruiI4tSct8f8SL2Vz594XgXhAZE/s1600/cre-Paleomap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlX1i580sy8ab9tXJ5B7w5-uE84FJ5AwU_fr_RhH-Vk45pgFU8gSqcsPhF-zOZ_X_zEvlJyDRoMhlYnvlAjH8RG-oS7IFDUzdOXLuooCk8CnHQYzUrruiI4tSct8f8SL2Vz594XgXhAZE/s1600/cre-Paleomap.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>T-Rex emerges & dies 85-65 million years ago, and T. Rex is located in North America.
<blockquote>"...Tyrannosaurus rex lived in forested river valleys in North America during the late Cretaceous period. It became extinct about 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction."<br>
(<a href="http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/prehistoric/tyrannosaurus-rex/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"The Velociraptor lived in a desert-like environment that had some streams, trees, and shrubs. Velociraptor fossils have been found in what is now known as the “Gobi Desert”, which covers Southern Mongolia and parts of Northern China."<br>
Fossils have been found in Mongolia, Russia, and China. (<a href="http://www.thebigzoo.com/animals/Velociraptor.asp" target="_blank">Source</a>) and (<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Velociraptor.shtml" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>[To say otherwise, that these dinosaurs gave rise to these birds, is about as goofy, as a "worldwide flood" with Noah on a round the world cruise with a pair of Polar Bears from the arctic for what we now know was... a legendary local flood.<br>
Archaeopteryx (deemed a true bird) was discovered in southern Germany during the Jurassic, 165-150 Million years ago (long before T. Rex or Velociraptor).</p>
<p>Confuciusornis is a genus of early bird that lived in China, 125 million years ago which is = 50-55 million years *before* Velociraptor roamed parts of Asia.</p>
<p>Our waterfowl ancestor, <i>Vegavis iaai</i>, lived 70 million years ago, in the Antarctic regions and Australian regions -- at the same time Velociraptor and T. Rex were emerging up in Asia, and over in North America.</p>
<p>Therefore, Velociraptor and T-Rex did not "evolve into" ducks. At best, the archosaurian ancestors of ducks gave rise to the dinosaurs!!!</p>
<p>To reiterate: Confusciusornis lived in the same region as Velociraptor... but preceded the beast by 55 million years. So it is completely impossible for Velociraptor to evolve into birds.</p>
<p>Birds were around in full force during the time of T. Rex and Velociraptor. When the dinosaurs began the trend toward extinction it opened new niches for birds to diversify... geneticists have set the date for that radiation at 66 million years ago. One million years, at the close of the Cretaceous.. evidence, that dinosaurs were dying out, or gone altogether.</p>
<p><i>Vegavis iaai</i> in conjunction with T. Rex and Velociraptor.<br>
[True birds in red. True dinosaurs in green.]</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc_TL4VgJYquXM8Nj1dNEbXOaBMQOTYakHZhdiel4dfMb-e716mYHyWhNTKKELHlO3edalc_uLnbPULYl2wgWgfjkW-hQ4BVXcfJjOYYi0TTlCH0Eyj7tDcZt72TftrPKRoW96RE8SwMw/s1600/birds-evo-fossil-record.jpg" /></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-2867285188331571282015-01-15T21:43:00.000-08:002015-01-15T21:46:33.105-08:00Birds with Teeth<p>A couple of very early birds with teeth.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguzHSJlheAxmVC5N4373xa-XsGn-M_ThqxWQjrF4QB_gN0et-tC1xAx0iw8R8osVAz2i58fR9-MuDO1cZHdJ4z9DnYTPd35CRxsbTO6ng_hN_ez3g615GAX5mrnGHLOvotooIpuDAVVik/s1600/ichthy04.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguzHSJlheAxmVC5N4373xa-XsGn-M_ThqxWQjrF4QB_gN0et-tC1xAx0iw8R8osVAz2i58fR9-MuDO1cZHdJ4z9DnYTPd35CRxsbTO6ng_hN_ez3g615GAX5mrnGHLOvotooIpuDAVVik/s1600/ichthy04.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<ol>
<li><p>Ichthyornis (135-70 million years ago) lived 50 million years before T-Rex.<br>
Hesperornis (80-65 million years ago) arose during the time of T-Rex, but would not have "evolved from" T-Rex in any manner, because Hersperornis' "feathered body had long legs with webbed feet. It was unable to fly or walk. Its wings were small, used for steering when diving underwater." And since Velociraptor was over in Asia, we can rule that beast out too.</p>
<p>Modern bird's true ancestors in the Cretaceous: <blockquote>"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."<br>
(<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/mesozoic/cretaceous/" target="_blank">Source</a>).</blockquote></p>
<blockquote>Ichthyornis, Kansas and Texas, USA, and in Alberta, Canada, Cretaceous, 135-70 million years ago.
Arose BEFORE T-Rex and Velociraptor.<br>
Ichthyornis (meaning "fish bird") was a tern-like, extinct bird that lived alongside dinosaurs like T. rex and Triceratops. It lived in flocks, nested on shorelines, and hunted for fish in Cretaceous seas. Ichthyornis lived 135-70 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period.<br>
(<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/birds/printouts/Ichthyornisprintout.shtml" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"A true prehistoric bird of the late Cretaceous period--not a pterosaur or feathered dinosaur--Ichthyornis looked remarkably like a modern seagull, with a long beak and tapered body. However, there were some major differences: this prehistoric bird had a full set of sharp, reptilian teeth planted in a very reptile-like jaw (which is one reason why the first remains of Ichthyornis were confused with those of a marine reptile, Mosasaurus)."<br>
(<a href="http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/aviandinosaurs3/p/ichthyornis.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>In appearance, the teeth are very similar to those of the toothed bird, Ichthyornis, but are somewhat smaller.<br>
(<a href="http://oceansofkansas.com/ichthyornis.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
</li>
<li><p>Hesperornis, western United States, Late Cretaceous, 80-65 million years ago.<br>
Arose at the same time as T-Rex and before Velociraptor.<br>
Hesperornis had a sleek, feathered body and long legs with webbed feet. Unable to fly or walk. Its wings were small, used for steering when diving underwater. Its long jaws had many small sharp teeth. It was a marine predator, eating fish, ammonites and belemnites. It lived in warm seas, coming ashore only to breed. Ungainly and vulnerable on land - Hesperornis couldn't walk - they crowded together in colonies for safety and chose inaccessible rocky outcrops.<br>
(<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/seamonsters/factfiles/hesperornis.shtml" target="_blank">Source</a>) and (<a href="http://oceansofkansas.com/hesperornis.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<blockquote>"..Marsh found bones of previously unknown birds: slender, several feet in length, with powerful legs but very small, stubby wings. On a later expedition, Marsh found the skull of one of these birds, and discovered that it had teeth -- a trait missing from all modern birds, but present in the fossil Archaeopteryx, described only a few years earlier, and then as now the oldest and most primitive bird known."<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/hesper.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiuYxVvXZE81GrHr6BD32kK52BPnx5anJHkwpmsMZd1xV9nxh9w-AQSdwssYt9XK436TGcl2ZGhcBMUM7W2IxibOma8cidYWPScL35n4x31pUEIj9IRl3Ln9xasee68AcqHRCW5q4PkI/s1600/birds-evolution-aps.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiuYxVvXZE81GrHr6BD32kK52BPnx5anJHkwpmsMZd1xV9nxh9w-AQSdwssYt9XK436TGcl2ZGhcBMUM7W2IxibOma8cidYWPScL35n4x31pUEIj9IRl3Ln9xasee68AcqHRCW5q4PkI/s1600/birds-evolution-aps.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>New date for rise of mammals... 220-201 MYA...<br>
More thought really needs to be invested in monotremes and marsupials.</p>
<p>The duck-billed platypus is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal endemic to eastern Australia. Platypuses are mammals and, like all mammals, are considered warm blooded.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7THC6QLjnmVV-lZklw4vvdqaM5Ly_QMpqTPO95hceChJZZUu1WcjsI1KY-ESQwxWbm23YZbAEDNGHMPszNpQ-oRTPrb9tPcn382LL5m2nNbnwWW77LrVCfv3tGkLRPBnC2jAUJLlF3wg/s1600/platypus2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7THC6QLjnmVV-lZklw4vvdqaM5Ly_QMpqTPO95hceChJZZUu1WcjsI1KY-ESQwxWbm23YZbAEDNGHMPszNpQ-oRTPrb9tPcn382LL5m2nNbnwWW77LrVCfv3tGkLRPBnC2jAUJLlF3wg/s1600/platypus2.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-22616273506655601152015-01-15T21:16:00.000-08:002015-01-15T21:26:52.326-08:00Apsaravis ukhaana<blockquote>New Fossil Found In Mongolia Provides Insight Into The Origin Of Living Birds And The Evolution Of Flight<br>
"The discovery in Mongolia of the fossil of a new bird, Apsaravis ukhaana, that lived about 80 million years ago, sheds new light on the evolution of birds. The nearly complete specimen of the small pigeon-sized bird was found at the locality Ukhaa Tolgod in the Gobi Desert of Southern Mongolia as part of the ongoing joint expeditions of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Mongolian Academy of Sciences."<br>
(<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010111074727.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>80 Million years ago... a specimen the size of a small pigeon-sized bird, in Southern Mongolia that did not come from T-Rex in North America and although it was Asian territory, it still precedes Velociraptor.</p>
<p>Creationists make a mockery of Evolution by proclaiming "Darwin taught man came from a chimp."<br>
No Darwin did NOT teach man came from a "chimp."<br>
But now, some fanatics have taken a step of maximum-overreach and teach that somehow T-Rex got access to a time machine, went back in time, and evolved into a chicken.<br>
Creationists mock darwin by drawing a cartoon of a cow evolving into a whale.<br>
The shoe fits.<br>
That's an apt-summary of the dino-bird theory..<br>
Not only do the locations of the creatures conflict, but the dates as well.<br>
Evolution does show examples of similar species, evolving into new species, in the general environment -- unless gifted with ability of migratory flight or swimming, or a logical explanation for how they moved across large geographic locations. Also over 10's or 100's of millions of years, one group can evolve into new species which have been modified (but seldom the "drastic extreme") as would be required, in warm-blooded birds supposedly evolving "from NON-warm-blooded" dinosaurs.</p>
<p>An interesting list of ancient creatures (not all of them are birds) with the ability to fly, part of which has already been explained as convergent evolution (developing the ability to fly, independently and un-related to birds).<br>
(<a href="http://bbsi.wikidot.com/ancient-ancestors" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>I am attaching a list of birds with approximate dates they arose.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZDFmW6Nodilvtnt0PPhm5uPko3PAsXxYeaKKREh3yeJZWR2Az1YktpXoEJRrb0idhVHOZ7-wnPDVPEDLAGmOWkHF8TcK7HyDcxgZXBXZErCewrBUzb-F0leVNBOcYpDg8fayTPOUS1Ys/s1600/birds-evolution-timeline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZDFmW6Nodilvtnt0PPhm5uPko3PAsXxYeaKKREh3yeJZWR2Az1YktpXoEJRrb0idhVHOZ7-wnPDVPEDLAGmOWkHF8TcK7HyDcxgZXBXZErCewrBUzb-F0leVNBOcYpDg8fayTPOUS1Ys/s1600/birds-evolution-timeline.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
(<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=GdRnFn7I38kC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=apsaravis+ukhaana&source=bl&ots=8V611HL6Zo&sig=Ez2WN0Qs2ePugttVMJ6rio9NTgk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_pCcVPCNLc_eggTBlYCoDQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=apsaravis%20ukhaana&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>Sadly, it is almost impossible to know about the TRUE origin of birds (fossils which are known) because every time you google up the name of a primitive bird species like "<i>Apsaravis ukhaana</i>" searching for a professional recreation of what the fossil might have looked like in life... you get a flood of images where pseudo-darwinists are trying to superimpose "dinosaur" looking characteristics on the bird fossils, or dinosaurs with feathers to misleadingly appear to be bird-like, which is not only very annoying... it is outright misleading.</p>
<p>Alan Feduccia called it "the meltdown of paleontology."</p>
<p>One image of Apsavris ... "sadly... lacking a skull."<br>
(<a href="http://dinosaurs.wikia.com/wiki/Apsaravis" target="_blank">Source</a>). But they make certain to add that skull in with face that looks more like a dinosaur, than a bird.</p>
<p>There was a professor who once warned against doing that very thing.<br>
He mentioned that since fossil remains were never recovered which proved the specimen had legs, it was better to leave the specimen OUT of the list. But since some were very eager to re-draw the fossil with legs anyway.... he said, to leave it out of the list... his advice,
<blockquote><em>"...Protocetus is very poorly known, no limbs, no tail, no lower jaw, just a skull and a bunch of vertebrae. Protocetus was for years the best known cetacean (hence it was described as well known) but no limbs for it were known (and are still not known). For Protocetids, there are limbs and feet. Protocetids are a bigger group than Protocetus. Protocetids include Protocetus, but also Rodhocetus, Artiocetus, Indocetus, Georgiacetus, and some of those have better skeletons. So at this point some whales are better known."</em></blockquote>
<p>See below. True birds in red. Dinosaurs in green.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjixUBW4AgEN6EhzdPXFJb1XZO4y0cy0BN3HFz29AxD3kjYzXbMtzEGEfwyWlZiAWY0w7Qp8k6tKNSnGtv3bhXShwXeG7HAHuQ7u7RaKKjfsM_o9jrQ1C67hh0dn4R_Rhl6f__2oS176zk/s1600/scans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjixUBW4AgEN6EhzdPXFJb1XZO4y0cy0BN3HFz29AxD3kjYzXbMtzEGEfwyWlZiAWY0w7Qp8k6tKNSnGtv3bhXShwXeG7HAHuQ7u7RaKKjfsM_o9jrQ1C67hh0dn4R_Rhl6f__2oS176zk/s1600/scans.jpg" /></a></div>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-10395784144696679492015-01-14T17:06:00.002-08:002015-01-14T20:10:34.739-08:00The Bird Whisperer<blockquote>"...the emerging data suggest that certain sophisticated mental skills may be more ancient than had been assumed — or so adaptive that they evolved multiple times."<br>
(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/coldblooded-does-not-mean-stupid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Ancient... as in inherited way back when? Then what about "mental skills" that enabled the ability to speak?</p>
<p>Somebody up and said that its "ok" to give reptiles credit for solving mazes, but not for developing speech. Cherrypicking how they interpret genes, based on their own prejudices, which has been aptly demonstrated :</p>
<blockquote>REPTILE INTELLIGENCE UNDER-RATED.
“Reptiles don’t really have great press,” said Gordon M. Burghardt, a comparative psychologist at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. “Certainly in the past, people didn’t really think too much of their intelligence. They were thought of as instinct machines.” But now that is beginning to change, thanks to a growing interest in “coldblooded cognition” and recent studies revealing that reptile brains are not as primitive as we imagined. The research could not only redeem reptiles but also shed new light on cognitive evolution.<br>
Because reptiles, birds and mammals diverged so long ago, with a common ancestor that lived 280 million years ago, the emerging data suggest that certain sophisticated mental skills may be more ancient than had been assumed — or so adaptive that they evolved multiple times."<br>
(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/coldblooded-does-not-mean-stupid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&" target="_blank">Source</a>), "Coldblooded Does Not Mean Stupid"</blockquote>
<p>Which brings research that concludes *all intelligence* in birds and mammals, are necessarily, by some unknown law -- by default, all the result of "convergent evolution," and no benefit of the doubt, these genes, in some form were not derived from an ancient archosaurian common ancestor :</p>
<blockquote>"More than 50 genes contributed to their convergent specialization and were enriched in motor control and neural connectivity functions. These patterns were not found in vocal nonlearners, but songbird RA was similar to layer 5 of primate motor cortex for another set of genes, supporting previous hypotheses about the similarity of these cell types between bird and mammal brains."<br>
(Pfenning et al., "Convergent transcriptional specializations in the brains of humans and song-learning birds," Science, Vol. 346: 1256846-1 - 1256846-13 (December 12, 2014). )</blockquote>
<p>Counter-argument by an I.D. proponent:</p><blockquote>"So certain birds and humans use the same genes for vocalization -- but those genetic abilities are absent in non-human primates and birds without vocal learning? If not derived from a common ancestor, as they clearly were not,"</blockquote>
<p style="color: brown">REALLY?! IS THAT SO?</p>
<blockquote>"...how did the genes get there? This kind of extreme convergent genetic evolution points strongly to intelligent design. The authors of the paper are, to be sure, not ID advocates. Yet they acknowledge how big the problem of convergent genetic evolution is becoming for evolutionary biology".</blockquote>
<p>Not omitting how many species can vocalize (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_animal" target="_blank">Source</a>) and "speak".</p>
<blockquote><em>"...the emerging data suggest that certain sophisticated mental skills may be more ancient than had been assumed — or so adaptive that they evolved multiple times."</em></blockquote>
<p>Don't knock our feathered friends. They have an innate intelligence. Some birds are better friends than even dogs or cats.</p>
<p>LOL. Perhaps mammal brains evolved the way they did because they heard the beautiful birds sing, and wanted to sing along.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqRC-lfz4YBr3kQqkBFX01scZidTezhSKYIikun8ojZIE5SJvDt73oNDV2FE9fcbYgFJWqyxgukNjFtDVxUwd8uyn5avz8i1Qlp4ujZ0LyNxMdzlpEH-SCirmqYH51c7s6er28rjbh0w4/s1600/bird-whisperer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqRC-lfz4YBr3kQqkBFX01scZidTezhSKYIikun8ojZIE5SJvDt73oNDV2FE9fcbYgFJWqyxgukNjFtDVxUwd8uyn5avz8i1Qlp4ujZ0LyNxMdzlpEH-SCirmqYH51c7s6er28rjbh0w4/s1600/bird-whisperer.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote><b>NJIT professor finds nothing cuckoo in serenading our feathered friends</b><br>
"...Neon green, yellow and blue budgies circle around David Rothenberg’s head. He plays a few jazz licks on his clarinet. If the birds are paying attention to him, they may join in, riffing on his patterns, he says.
Rothenberg, 48, has devoted much of his professional life to finding out just which creatures are willing to sing with him and what it might mean for music and science. In addition to playing in aviaries and to birds outside his home in Cold Spring, N.Y. — where, he says, feathered friends perch on the bushes near his garage to listen and sometimes join in — Rothenberg has also transmitted his music to whales, via underwater speakers. His next book, due out next year, focuses on insect sounds.<br>
"You can actually understand nature through music," he says.<br>
[...]<br>
"It makes nature seem more frivolous, but, in fact, I think that’s evolution — survival of the interesting, not really the fittest."<br>
(<a href="http://www.nj.com/entertainment/music/index.ssf/2010/10/njit_professor_finds_nothing_c.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>I like his summary. That ... so called "convergent" evolution for why birds and mammals.... so "Blah." Nope. He sums up my sentiments:
<blockquote>"...People from the science world tend to think of animal communication as a simplified version of human interaction, like talking with a 3-year-old or a 1-year-old," says Sebastian.
Rothenberg has come at a different perspective, he says, by using his musical ear to pick up patterns that may later evoke specific responses.<br>
"We shouldn’t be looking for words — ‘chirp chirp’ doesn’t mean ‘there’s a worm over there.’ It’s more of an emotional communication.<br>
"There’s a certain universality in music. Whether it’s a tear that comes to your eye in an Italian opera aria or a riff in a James Brown song that gets you off your seat, you don’t need to understand the words."
Rothenberg is used to reactions of disbelief — and he himself wasn’t always sure the animal kingdom would respond to his art.<br>
"I thought, ‘They don’t care about us,’ " he says.<br>
Then one morning, while he enjoyed a little outdoor music-making, a white-crested laughing thrush started playing along. If people of different musical traditions can improvise together, he thought, why not go one step further?"</blockquote>
<p>I think the "mutuality" -- the kindredness -- is innate -- shared between mammals, birds, and many species that have been noted with communication skills to some degree or another (Koko the ape -- Mishka the dog -- and many others)... and not merely "convergent evolution" to explain away everything that doesn't fit the neat little row of status quo's boring explanation.</p>
<p>Communication is much more than simply "55 genes". (<a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/did-neanderthals-speak-60000-year-old-hyoid-bone-virtually-indistinguishable-our-own-1559113" target="_blank">Source</a>) There was actually a debate whether or not Neanderthal could speak?</p>
<p>Mishka the dog speaks... and some people may try to deny this. As the Bird Whisperer above explained, language / communication, "We shouldn’t be looking for words — ‘chirp chirp’ doesn’t mean ‘there’s a worm over there.’ It’s more of an emotional communication."</p>
<p>Language... intelligence... is much more complex... if not arrogant, to presume human communication is "the end of all things". What about whales?</p>
<p>Speech production.<blockquote>"...Most people believe that a human’s ability to communicate is far more complex and evolved than that of other animals, but cetaceans may have us beat."<br>
(<a href="http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/human-intelligence-versus-whales-and-dolphins/">Source</a>)</blockquote>
Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-32185174428799724362015-01-13T21:13:00.000-08:002015-01-14T16:12:53.346-08:00Flaws of the Dinosaur-Bird Hypothesis<p>I've never agreed with dinosaur to bird theory. Not since I began reading about it more indepth, realizing the serious discrepancies associated with the fossil timeline.</p>
<p>Fossils of birds in red. Fossils of dinosaurs in green.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiuYxVvXZE81GrHr6BD32kK52BPnx5anJHkwpmsMZd1xV9nxh9w-AQSdwssYt9XK436TGcl2ZGhcBMUM7W2IxibOma8cidYWPScL35n4x31pUEIj9IRl3Ln9xasee68AcqHRCW5q4PkI/s1600/birds-evolution-aps.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpiuYxVvXZE81GrHr6BD32kK52BPnx5anJHkwpmsMZd1xV9nxh9w-AQSdwssYt9XK436TGcl2ZGhcBMUM7W2IxibOma8cidYWPScL35n4x31pUEIj9IRl3Ln9xasee68AcqHRCW5q4PkI/s1600/birds-evolution-aps.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Some scientists were and still are, so fixated on their high hopes they began claiming that "dinosaurs were probably warm blooded" because they were convinced, in their own mind, that birds and dinosaurs shared similar physiology.</p>
<p>There weren't any actual facts to support that supposition, "warm-blooded dinosaurs" but they presumed since birds are...</p>
<p>Since they "like" the dinosaur-bird theory (somewhat similar to YEC who "like" the idea of a magic god hand-designing all life (as it is, as it always will be) in 24 hours), well, they claimed dinosaurs had "warm blood" like birds.</p>
<p>YEC have an excuse. Scientists do not.<br>
Now science has some research which suggests that dinosaurs were not warm blooded.</p>
<p>Dinosaurs were a failed evolutionary experiment, and they went extinct. Birds survived and diversified. It's just the Darwin way of things. Just the blood type alone tells me that birds and dinosaurs are only (very) distant cousins on the evolutionary tree of common ancestry of Archosaurs; between birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs.</p>
<p>Dinosaurs were not "warm blooded" like birds.<br>
Birds are not descended from dinosaurs. It's difficult to know blood-type from mere fossil evidence.</p>
<p>That's a whole lot of supposing...</p>
<p><i>"...Dinosaurs have long been thought of as slow, lumbering, cold-blooded animals, akin to reptiles like the crocodile and the lizard – but there's been increasing signs in recent years that they may have been warm-blooded, as mammals and birds are..."</i><br>
- An Old L.A. Times Article</p>
<p>Based on nothing more than the fact that birds, were warm-blooded.</p>
<p>Dinosaurs were not Warm Blooded.<br>
(<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/dinosaurs-neither-warm-blooded-nor-cold-blooded-1.15399" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<blockquote><em>"...Dinosaurs are generally thought of as cold-blooded animals like reptiles. However, a new study from Australia provides evidence that dinosaurs were warm blood animals just like mammals and birds."
The idea that dinosaurs could have been warm-blooded was proposed by Robert Bakker and John Ostrom in 1960s. A study supporting this hypothesis was published last year, where a team of researchers had studied growth lines on the dinosaurs' bones and found that dinosaurs had high metabolism rates and high growth rates, which meant they were warm-blooded."</em><br>
(<a href="http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3029/20130718/dinosaurs-warm-blooded-study.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27794723" target="_blank">BBC News - Dinosaurs 'neither warm nor cold blooded'</a><br>
Jun 12, 2014 - Warm blooded animals, like mammals and birds, need a lot of fuel and use .... has argued since the 1970s that dinosaurs were warm-blooded."</p>
<p>Alan Feduccia was one of the scientists suggesting the need for exercising caution in drawing premature conclusions. But the dinosaur-hypothesis crowd wanted to force the facts to fit the desired conclusion and Feduccia compared some of these darwinists(?) with creationists???<br>
"With the advent of ‘feathered dinosaurs,’ we are truly witnessing the <u>beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology</u>,"<br>
(<a href="http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/feducci100705.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>Amen on that.</p>
<p><a href="http://usgs.gov/faq/categories/9784/2880" target="_blank">USGS FAQs - Paleontology - Were dinosaurs warm-blooded?</a><br>
United States Geological Survey Scientists have conflicting opinions on this subject. Some paleontologists think that all dinosaurs were 'warm-blooded' in the same sense that modern birds and ...</p>
<p>
Links
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/266432/scientists_say_no_evidence_exists_that_therapod_dinosaurs_evolved_into/" target="_blank">Scientists Say No Evidence Exists that Theropod Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds</a></li>
<em>"...scientists say examples of flying reptiles remains a case of convergent evolution. "Similar design features exist in modern birds, which evolved them independently, say the scientists."</em>
<li><a href="http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/hollow-bones-helped-highflying-reptiles-stay-aloft-26515054.html" target="_blank">Hollow bones helped high-flying reptiles stay aloft</a></li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXbXWBmaDD5TXxa5pGDk47_V5A9W8m1k8uo0n35VqS63s3bkExRjEaIQzIW8fN_VPdbfsrgthExE0zDPT6zKS1xwiRgId58SbYy1nxB12tLRADiRf6s7X2BWfBHxae3VndOJh-R1tnpG0/s1600/whatever-they-were.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXbXWBmaDD5TXxa5pGDk47_V5A9W8m1k8uo0n35VqS63s3bkExRjEaIQzIW8fN_VPdbfsrgthExE0zDPT6zKS1xwiRgId58SbYy1nxB12tLRADiRf6s7X2BWfBHxae3VndOJh-R1tnpG0/s1600/whatever-they-were.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Forget dinosaurs. All tetrapods go back to the amniotes (310 million years ago), and birds and mammals share a common ancestor, which mutually endowed birds and mammals with genes that enabled the development into warm-blooded species. THAT is my conclusion based on the evidence.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUrojJqqB6TY47d7PWTFQiNFDkeX4imwFEe9eH3ui6mJGpyWL2YJlQjoZ26xmqjbeT7soDlLHyHk0NOQfeGgT6k5Ne7q4ouIF0J93e-45Uf397AL1LeyvJXkAxGe7WWxIVN9onY7oG-jM/s1600/synapsids_not_reptiles.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUrojJqqB6TY47d7PWTFQiNFDkeX4imwFEe9eH3ui6mJGpyWL2YJlQjoZ26xmqjbeT7soDlLHyHk0NOQfeGgT6k5Ne7q4ouIF0J93e-45Uf397AL1LeyvJXkAxGe7WWxIVN9onY7oG-jM/s1600/synapsids_not_reptiles.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>The rise of the ancestors of birds, crocodiles, mammals, turtles, dinosaurs, and many, many extinct groups, etc etc etc...<br>
(<a href="http://www.ucumberlands.edu/academics/biology/faculty/kuss/courses/skeletal%20system/temporalfossaeOverview.htm" target="_blank">Source</a>), The Skeleton: Part 1, The Skull, ANAPSIDS, DIAPSIDS, SYNAPSIDS AND OTHERS)</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTL4zmiD1Ao6g8X4o12uLa4HbSEkE801gAxo8qx_HgHDw7CJ_Zsnm0u8QtUFIgCAZbJrZ1DAxHpUAXBJDDVwVH-tr9YR3qUv6XkXWDMd00y0k3BcBfc955bjBCynY35ocPH03amtZzv2Y/s1600/skulls.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTL4zmiD1Ao6g8X4o12uLa4HbSEkE801gAxo8qx_HgHDw7CJ_Zsnm0u8QtUFIgCAZbJrZ1DAxHpUAXBJDDVwVH-tr9YR3qUv6XkXWDMd00y0k3BcBfc955bjBCynY35ocPH03amtZzv2Y/s1600/skulls.jpg" width="450"/></a></div>
<blockquote><p><em>"Do birds and mammals share a common endothermic reptile ancestor or did they develop their endothermies convergently?"</em></p>
<p>A REDDIT RESPONSE OF INTEREST: (<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1zk24s/do_birds_and_mammals_share_a_common_endothermic/" target="_blank">Source</a>) "There is a hypothesis that crocodilians actually descend from endothermic ancestors that became ectotherm secondarily. It is not very popular though. Even then, birds+crocs are more related to ectotherms like lizards, snakes and turtles than they are to mammals, so the common ancestors of all them had to be ectotherm."<br>
(Ectotherm. Any so-called cold-blooded animal; that is, any animal whose regulation of body temperature depends on external sources, such as sunlight or a heated rock surface.)</p></blockquote>
<p>HAIR ENABLES WARM-BLOODED PHYSIOLOGY</p>
<p>"...The origins of hair date back 310 million to 330 million years ago to the last common ancestor of mammals, birds and lizards, according to a new study that discovered genes associated with hair production in living green anole lizards and chickens."<br>
(<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27663717/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/human-hair-linked-dinosaur-claws/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<p>Feathers, are modified scales, enabling birds to be warm-blooded.<br>
"...A genetic explanation for the evolution of the feather; the modification of the reptilian scale.<br>
Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation By Günter P. Wagner<br>
Princeton University Press, Apr 13, 2014 - Science - 496 pages<br>
(<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=g7vzAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=gene+alligator+scale+feather&source=bl&ots=1O_9g_gZX3&sig=nVX8ptQ09sILJLnuXMBSQDrhY0s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hTSyVJ7UCIe0ggT0rISQCg&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=gene%20alligator%20scale%20feather&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz5x0Ej3AuunvKhhkkWyjpHLXuBQVE9B94bCgLKHvPySfNEIxU5yA3s5f1Knq5nMdXEUGHfODh5QRBiWHfSc5CMJyUpYwY_KNt4uzjW0dZhY_ZKEk6a-blDnDSejqU_szjgjT2VFclbuA/s1600/pangolin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz5x0Ej3AuunvKhhkkWyjpHLXuBQVE9B94bCgLKHvPySfNEIxU5yA3s5f1Knq5nMdXEUGHfODh5QRBiWHfSc5CMJyUpYwY_KNt4uzjW0dZhY_ZKEk6a-blDnDSejqU_szjgjT2VFclbuA/s1600/pangolin.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>In spite of the fact that when we look at birds and see those scales on their feet and the modified scales that are feathers, the almost reptilian looking eyes of birds, the bird's egg-laying vs. mammalian livebirth (some snakes, who are undeniably close relatives, vary between egg-laying and live-birth (oviparous; egg-laying and viviparous; live birth) -- that's not leaving much of an argument) and all the primitive superficial appearances... it seems easy to say: "Birds have little in common with mammals and clearly, by appearances, seem to be closer related to the reptile" -- well done, for the oversimplified version, and what about the Pangolin? Do the scales its covered in differ so much from the scaley feet on chickens? Or its modified scale that became a soft down-like feather? The pangolin shares traits that make it look almost reptilian, covered in "scales."</p>
<p>So I say... mammals and birds are closer related by a common ancestor, than given credit.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEX2wB_nGSpj0CqdCU-kvaEWnQ33hifo58_my7zdC_ZpRu8UbcczigSd5jk9VqlljOneBP_D8GgQ4Sv5BO64DNYmqSyX35qHEMRt17HN8LZ0ImMBXI37NohlhkHBmvF5TKwlYSbHb0nEE/s1600/chicken-scales.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEX2wB_nGSpj0CqdCU-kvaEWnQ33hifo58_my7zdC_ZpRu8UbcczigSd5jk9VqlljOneBP_D8GgQ4Sv5BO64DNYmqSyX35qHEMRt17HN8LZ0ImMBXI37NohlhkHBmvF5TKwlYSbHb0nEE/s1600/chicken-scales.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>"Like hair...Feathers (modified scales) enables birds to be warm-blooded. Therefore, the answer is "yes." -- a common ancestor endowed them with the genes, but convergent evolution lead to development of separate integumentary system that enable warm blooded physiology. Inherited genetic traits 310 mya -- though hair and feather for warm-bloodedness, was a result of convergent evolution.<br>
-- Birds and mammals, are not a million miles apart on the evolutionary tree as some tend to think. No more than the Alligator is so drastically different from its ancestors who roamed 100+ million years ago.</p>
<blockquote><em>“Reptiles don’t really have great press,” said Gordon M. Burghardt, a comparative psychologist at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. “Certainly in the past, people didn’t really think too much of their intelligence. They were thought of as instinct machines.” But now that is beginning to change, thanks to a growing interest in “coldblooded cognition” and recent studies revealing that reptile brains are not as primitive as we imagined. The research could not only redeem reptiles but also shed new light on cognitive evolution.<br>
Because <u>reptiles, birds and mammals diverged so long ago, with a common ancestor that lived 280 million years</u> ago, the emerging data suggest that <u>certain sophisticated mental skills may be more ancient than had been assumed</u> — or so adaptive that they evolved multiple times."</em><br>
(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/coldblooded-does-not-mean-stupid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_blank">Source</a>, "Coldblooded Does Not Mean Stupid")</blockquote>
<p>Birds and mammals have an innate intelligence. Mammals were never true reptiles, and there are many "gray areas" in evolution, including the diapsids. There is no "law" that says all diapsids were all "dumb reptiles". :-(</p>
<p>Which brings research that concludes *all intelligence* in birds and mammals, are necessarily, by some unknown law -- by default, all the result of "convergent evolution," and no benefit of the doubt, these genes, in some form were not derived from an ancient archosaurian common ancestor.<br>
<blockquote>"More than 50 genes contributed to their convergent specialization and were enriched in motor control and neural connectivity functions. These patterns were not found in vocal nonlearners, but songbird RA was similar to layer 5 of primate motor cortex for another set of genes, supporting previous hypotheses about the similarity of these cell types between bird and mammal brains."<br>
(Pfenning et al., "Convergent transcriptional specializations in the brains of humans and song-learning birds," Science, Vol. 346: 1256846-1 - 1256846-13 (December 12, 2014). )</blockquote>
<p>Counter-argument by an I.D. proponent: <blockquote>"So certain birds and humans use the same genes for vocalization -- but those genetic abilities are absent in non-human primates and birds without vocal learning? If not derived from a common ancestor, as they clearly were not,</blockquote>
<p style="color: brown"><em>REALLY?! IS THAT SO?</em></p>
<blockquote>how did the genes get there? This kind of extreme convergent genetic evolution points strongly to intelligent design. The authors of the paper are, to be sure, not ID advocates. Yet they acknowledge how big the problem of convergent genetic evolution is becoming for evolutionary biology".<br>
(<a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/newly_discovere092041.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</p></blockquote>
<p>As the article concluded about Reptile intelligence: <blockquote>"<em>...the emerging data suggest that certain sophisticated mental skills may be more ancient than had been assumed — or so adaptive that they evolved multiple times.</em>"<br>
(<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/coldblooded-does-not-mean-stupid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Not omitting how many species can vocalize (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_animal" target="_blank">Source</a>) and "speak".
<p>On the evolution of feathers and hair.</p>
<p>It's quite possible that since genes to grow hair were inherited from a common ancestor 310 million years ago -- and without hair, insulation, the warm-blooded can not survive in cold temperatures. Hair and feathers are necessary for the warm-blooded. There was a great ice age around 320-260 mya. And another cold season around 200 mya. It's quite possible the climate drove these changes.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfgS2qIORdCp84zq4lN8ddrVcthFlMrm2n6p-OqC4To_TAzWf5oedwQgzlm9QoM8Esq6b8mRhnwqt145yK0a4CzwFGu4KfKevCKYWelP9k8u54yyjRYMXn7W4k2UxcTyW-zAhpyynOVE0/s1600/ice_ages1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfgS2qIORdCp84zq4lN8ddrVcthFlMrm2n6p-OqC4To_TAzWf5oedwQgzlm9QoM8Esq6b8mRhnwqt145yK0a4CzwFGu4KfKevCKYWelP9k8u54yyjRYMXn7W4k2UxcTyW-zAhpyynOVE0/s1600/ice_ages1.gif" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Climate would provide a possible explanation behind the development of fur and feathers.<br>
The new date some scientists have given for the rise of mammals is 220-201 mya.</p>
<blockquote>"...We know that fur has to be ancient. The evolutionary tree of modern mammals is a very furry one, and the last time the three major lineages of today’s beasts – the monotremes, marsupials, and placentals – shared a common ancestor was in the Triassic, over 220 million years ago. There’s no indication that hair evolved more than once, so fur has to be at least that old."<br>
(<a href="http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/10/getting-to-the-root-of-fur/" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Dr. John A. Ruben offers a counter-argument to the suggestion that climate change, weather, and warm-blooded physiology lead to the development of fur and feathers (<a href="http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/4/585.full" target="_blank">Source</a>) <em>Selective Factors Associated with the Origin of Fur and Feathers</em>)</p>
<p>However, this is in contradiction to the conclusion arrived at elsewhere by his colleagues, in regard to <i>Anchiornis huxleyi</i>, a creature described by Dr. Feduccia as possessing "non-theropod sacral anatomy" and having "feathered feet" namely,"...illustrating also that it <u>could not have been a terrestrial</u> animal..." (<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=SihlpQTlVdAC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=illustrating+also+that+it+could+not+have+been+a+terrestrial+animal&source=bl&ots=jTm1Swl58b&sig=vvJSCEjxyit03sisygss_ndaIpw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DzK2VI3CA8GZNrvyg_AC&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=illustrating%20also%20that%20it%20could%20not%20have%20been%20a%20terrestrial%20animal&f=false" target="_blank">Source</a>) See the following excerpt.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUvK6H7e0x4hMMdXnd1qYTi-6CFVE8oIf9dfJAxvUTUHJ2GjMmotC-Qw2ig-M1ZT65DumGvYGtu29ZfpKBpOy7iFj4JX9T96DYLCnvRyCdby-ShkxZC9PYMejHmCmoIyToJaSofymERqg/s1600/snowshoe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUvK6H7e0x4hMMdXnd1qYTi-6CFVE8oIf9dfJAxvUTUHJ2GjMmotC-Qw2ig-M1ZT65DumGvYGtu29ZfpKBpOy7iFj4JX9T96DYLCnvRyCdby-ShkxZC9PYMejHmCmoIyToJaSofymERqg/s1600/snowshoe.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Feathered feet, or the "snowshoe" in nature:</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCEZ6ru43UTBMLpjDmbe6ZtZRVRbtxKMhsk2SIyaHCXi5h3kaNsRLnMcbEvsTjrKZdcGa7JB9o43m-Jgbdy5ANGfQxQiQwAnNuynz_JVvlu4wO7MnjWjtMIpElag5ZK7eQzL0Hur_TAx4/s1600/feathered-feet-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCEZ6ru43UTBMLpjDmbe6ZtZRVRbtxKMhsk2SIyaHCXi5h3kaNsRLnMcbEvsTjrKZdcGa7JB9o43m-Jgbdy5ANGfQxQiQwAnNuynz_JVvlu4wO7MnjWjtMIpElag5ZK7eQzL0Hur_TAx4/s1600/feathered-feet-2.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<blockquote><b>THE “SNOWSHOE EFFECT” OF THE FEATHERING ON PTARMIGAN FEET</b><br>
<em>"...Foot feathering clearly increases the bearing surface of the foot by about four times and reduces sinking of the foot in snow by about half. The demonstrated snowshoe function of the foot feathering surely is adaptive, for it must inevitably reduce the energy required for all leg movements on snow."<br>
Department of Physiology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H7. Accepted for publication 5 July 1976.</em><br>
(<a href="https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v079n03/p0380-p0382.pdf" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>Therefore it can be safely deduced that climate, snow, temperature does in fact have an impact on the development of fur and feathers.</p>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2520691295740430715.post-36233720800750233822015-01-13T20:39:00.001-08:002015-01-13T20:55:10.231-08:00"Bird Big Bang"<blockquote>Birds Evolved in 'Big Bang,' New Family Tree Reveals (December 11, 2014)<br>
Bird family secrets<br>
In the new project, the researchers analyzed the genomes of 48 bird species (including 45 that had not been sequenced before), representing all major branches of birds, including the crow, duck, falcon, parakeet, crane, ibis, woodpecker and eagle. About 95 percent of today's birds belong to a group called Neoaves, and most of the species the researchers analyzed belong to this group.The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago.<br>
Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group.<br>
[...] Other findings based on the new research offer clues to how birds' sex chromosomes evolved, how birds came to lose their teeth, how birdsong regulates genes in the brain, as well as details about the common ancestor of birds and crocodiles."</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.livescience.com/49098-new-bird-family-tree.html" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQdOn0YADPxvKflUnlQf8OYAd-n-TLldCK8NIlLLvhGZDqbXOm50twDXKs3sBJo4F_sl7K8Zz9C2hnjLBSWXuQmnxC0G_dj-vjl7uqXyE4t9WqqKMZmX_M5QhudNhA5b3orGOt-S-jnFk/s1600/bird-big-bang.jpg" width="450" /></a></div>
<p>Speaking of Archeopteryx,
<blockquote><i>"...These traits by themselves do little to help place the fossil in the dinosaur–bird transition, but Xu reports that it also has extremely long middle and last finger bones and a wishbone with an L-shaped cross-section at one end."</i></blockquote>
<p>They've found some creatures who were birds distant cousins, and they went extinct... while the ancestors of bird led straight to a lineage that spawned birds.<br>
That is, when the dinosaurs DIED OUT (see new genetic findings) birds suddenly diversified -- probably like an earlier article I posted about all modern cows descend from a small group of 80 (EIGHTY) aurochs which were domesticated some 10,000 years ago.<br>
Hard to believe such a small population could populate the whole planet, isn't it?<br>
Crocodiles and birds share a common ancestor and birds did not evolve from Cretaceous dinosaurs. They probably evolved in this "big bang" because the dinosaurs which were eating their buddies, went extinct when the Cretaceous came to an end.</p>
<blockquote>Archaeopteryx no longer first bird<br>
<i>Archaeopteryx has long been placed at the base of the bird evolutionary tree. It has traits that have helped to define what it is to be a bird, such as long and robust forelimbs. Yet in recent years, the discoveries of numerous small, feathery dinosaurs have created a conundrum for palaeontologists, raising questions about which animals are the ancestors of modern birds and which are just closely related cousins.<br>
The fossil that is driving the latest Archaeopteryx rethink is called Xiaotingia zhengi, and is described in Nature today1 by Xing Xu, a palaeontologist at the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology in Beijing, and his colleagues. It was found in western Liaoning, China, in rocks dating to the Late Jurassic epoch, 161 million–145 million years ago. Like many similar fossils, it is surrounded by feather impressions in the rock, but has claws on the ends of its forelimbs and sharp teeth.<br>
These traits by themselves do little to help place the fossil in the dinosaur–bird transition, but Xu reports that it also has extremely long middle and last finger bones and a wishbone with an L-shaped cross-section at one end. These characteristics, Xu argues, identify Xiaotingia as very closely related to Archaeopteryx and another feathery relative, Anchiornis.<br>
After analysing the traits present in Xiaotingia and its relations, Xu and his colleagues are suggesting that the creatures bear more resemblance to the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Microraptor than to early birds, and so belong in the dinosaur group Deinonychosauria rather than in the bird group, Avialae. Many features led the team to this decision, but the most immediately noticeable are that Xiaotingia, Archaeopteryx and Anchiornis have shallow snouts and expanded regions behind their eye sockets. Microraptor has similar traits, but the early birds in Avialae have very different skulls..."</i><br>
(<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/news.2011.443.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<p>The conclusions drawn from DNA, are profound.</p>
<p>Instead of T. Rex evolving into a chicken, or, Velociraptor evolving into a canary, Brontosaurus into a duck...</p>
<p>The immediate ancestors of birds were present.<br>
The "common ancestor" (the archosaurian ancestor) of nearly all modern birds, was no longer around... and birds could not diversify until the dinosaurs -- were DYING OUT... 66 million years ago. When the dinosaurs were out of the picture, and stopped eating our sweet little feathered friends... Birds had their first chance to diversify and thrive, exploiting niches they had previously been forbidden access to. Birds diversified worldwide, when the dinosaurs disappeared. Which makes total sense.</p>
<blockquote>"...researchers analyzed the genomes of 48 bird species (including 45 that had not been sequenced before), representing all major branches of birds, including the crow, duck, falcon, parakeet, crane, ibis, woodpecker and eagle.<br>
About 95 percent of today's birds belong to a group called Neoaves, and most of the species the researchers analyzed belong to this group.The new findings show that Neoaves underwent a "Big Bang" of evolution, with many new species appearing within just a few million years of the time that most dinosaurs went extinct about 66 million years ago.<br>
Previous work had suggested a more gradual evolution of this group."<br>
(<a href="http://www.livescience.com/49098-new-bird-family-tree.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>"...previous work suggested a more gradual evolution..."</blockquote>
<p>The hypothesis, dreaming of T. Rexes transforming into a Chicken... and all sorts of dinosaurs transforming into birds, popping up here and there, into birds... all over the place at different phases anywhere from 100 million years ago to the last 65 million years ago and earlier! With all certainty that birds were pretty much diversified from Cretaceous dinosaurs all over the planet, and... many dinosaur ancestors.</p>
<p>The hypothesis is flawed. A slim, small... very narrow bird lineage, that spans back through bird ancestry, and this "Bird big bang" -- is marked when dinosaurs go extinct... around 66 million years ago. Competition for space was no longer a problem. No predators to consume those sweet birds. That is where the majority of "modern birds" come from, sharing a common ancestor in that time frame.<br>
"Evolved from dinosaurs" explains absolutely nothing, because currently, they don't even know enough about dinosaurs to draw all the hopeful conclusions they have.</p>
<p>But we know birds are not cold-blooded reptiles -- nor "intermediate", and the modern varieties arose AFTER the dinosaurs, not along side them, not because of them... but because the dinosaurs went extinct.</p>
<p>During the age of the dinosaurs, when Archeaopteryx hatched its eggs, or a near cousin of Archeopteryx hatched an egg... and those primitive bird ancestors grew big enough to get into the air... dinosaurs snatched them up like a snack. T. Rex liked eating chicken. That's why birds did not evolve "from" the dinosaurs.<br>
Birds evolved (and branched out and diversified) around 66 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were nearly extinct. Or so the genetic research seems to conclude.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWUaiecacPjSSj512DnuiWFmoMsFV6Ywyav1mSoUYzOx2HLNItTWZTRUhRFgvnMSIEccrkv9y91ncG4hoocNpgCSQg3byXCuCweQ6_DmZ-laWkyCsntfpNeQs0navNAZ8ieDQzyDk4fPc/s1600/birds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWUaiecacPjSSj512DnuiWFmoMsFV6Ywyav1mSoUYzOx2HLNItTWZTRUhRFgvnMSIEccrkv9y91ncG4hoocNpgCSQg3byXCuCweQ6_DmZ-laWkyCsntfpNeQs0navNAZ8ieDQzyDk4fPc/s1600/birds.jpg" width="420" /></a></div>
<p>Here's one clear advantage birds had over dinosaurs, which by itself is evidence that birds and dinosaur physiology was only distant in its relation.</p>
<blockquote>Dinosaurs neither warm-blooded nor cold-blooded<br>
Metabolic analysis suggests they could regulate body temperature, but only to a point.<br>
Alexandra Witze, 12 June 2014<br>
Dinosaurs were neither sluggish like lizards nor high-energy like mammals, but something in between, a study suggests.<br>
The work stakes out a rare middle ground in the long-running debate over whether dinosaurs were ‘cold-blooded’ ectotherms, which use the environment to adjust their internal temperature, or ‘warm-blooded’ endotherms, which regulate their body temperature from within. “There’s a third way,” says John Grady, a biologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.<br>
Today, that middle ground is occupied by animals including tuna, lamnid sharks and leatherback turtles. Studying how those creatures control their body heat might help to reveal how dinosaurs did it millions of years ago, Grady says. Mesotherms burn energy from within to regulate their body heat, but not to a constant temperature as a mammal or bird would do. Tuna, for instance, stay up to 20 °C warmer than the surrounding water, except when they dive deep into colder waters, when their metabolic rate can also plunge."<br>
/EXCERPT/<br>
(<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/dinosaurs-neither-warm-blooded-nor-cold-blooded-1.15399" target="_blank">Source</a>)</blockquote>Bird To Dinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04191218315241141677noreply@blogger.com0