Massive Size of Dinosaurs and Birds

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No bucket o' brains.

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

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

Bird Brains (Source)

Read More »

Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Most scientists.."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHARLES DARWIN'S WAY:

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

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

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

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

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

I can feel the level of arrogance in a statement like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Molecular evidence for the origin of birds (backup)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATA FABRICATION (See above).

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

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

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

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

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

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

"GENERALIZATION." ANOTHER TACTIC OF DENIALISTS.

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

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

The bandwagon argument that

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

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

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

ALL TO DUMB DOWN TOMORROW'S YOUTH.

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

Headline: "Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy"

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

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

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

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

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

There's a magical fairy tale.

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

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

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

Paleontology loses its credibility is the only cost.

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

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

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

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

But they deny the fossil record like Creationists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GREBES... whose ancestors lived during the Cretaceous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More »

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

0

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

The first theropod dinosaurs arose during the Triassic...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attached pic of such an "ephemeral river".

Swimming... enabled birds to fly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature retraction stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least that is my understanding of the Nature Retraction.

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

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

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

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

Read More »

Tyrannosaurus Rex "Visual Acuity"

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Owls Twist Their Heads Almost 360 Degrees

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

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

T. Rex was no owl or hawk.

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

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

Owls do not depend on their visual acuity alone.

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION:

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

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

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

VISION OF CROCODILES

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

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

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

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

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

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

T. REX DIET

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

BINOCULAR VISION... LIKE CROCODILES

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

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

ON TO MODERN BIRDS LIKE HAWKS

Extract from "Evolution and Prehistory: The Human Challenge"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More »

The Error of "Bright Red Feathers" imagined on T. Rex and Velociraptor

0

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).
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.

Warm-blooded animals have faster responses than other groups...
Thermoregulation
Erect Gate and built for speed
- 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).
- To achieve high speed, a vertebrate would need to be warm blooded.

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.

Bright feathers for terrestrial dinosaurs? .. ha, well, there's a theory -- maybe that explains their extinction.

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.

The theory for "brightly colored feathers," in Charles Darwin's reasoning would have been nothing but a huge liability.

FEATHERS (EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE):
•Feathers are the most distinctive feature of birds
•Extraordinary evolutionary invention
•Feathers are fundamental to many aspects of bird existence
– USES:
Insulation, aerodynamics, communication, camouflage

Typical Jurassic Environment

Hypothetical Cretaceous Environment

Typical example of desired camouflage in large predators and large prey.

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

1. A liability -- because most species benefit from camouflage. Especially predators.
2. Unnecessary.

What evolutionary "natural" advantage would bright colors possibly serve, for large animals?

Please show me where "brightly colored feathers" would offer any "evolutionary advantage" for a large predator on land or in water?

TWENTY FIVE (Largest animals) and observe what color nature paints them.

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."

"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.

It is a silly fantasy... not scientific at all.

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).

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".
#1 Velociraptors would not need bright feathers to communicate to their potential mates which are in hiding, to signal their presence.
#2 Liability - alerting larger predators to their presence.
#3 Liability - alerting potential prey to their presence.

With feathers that bright, every snack in a mile wide radius would run for cover.

So maybe -- if dinosaurs had feathers -- this explains their extinction. They starved to death and were eaten by a predator larger than themself.

The next closest semi-colorful (not really) is the giraffe. Giraffes, collectively, spots confuse a predator.

Giraffe patches and body heat control
"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)."
(Source)

"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.
Those spots can also be confusing to predators."
(Source)

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.

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.

THIS explains the dinosaur extinction!

On the Giraffe... as the only "brightly colored" creature that stood out in the list?

20 Amazing Examples of Animal Camouflage (Source)

Now, consider "bright red" T-Rex and its basis in science-fiction.

CAMOUFLAGE ON PREDATORS AND PREY

"...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."
(Source)

BRIGHT RED CAMOUFLAGE SAYS "SEE MY BIG TEETH, I WILL EAT YOU! STAY AWAY!!!"

Many animals accumulate toxin from their food rather than synthesizing it from scratch.
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.
1. Chemical Defense
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!”
1. Chemical Defense
You can see this in the bright colors of the Monarch and the poison dart frog."
(Source)

More of those amazing "Camouflaged" ... true birds.

20 Amazing Examples of Animal Camouflage
(Source)

Why the gharial smiles.

Scientific Method: Empirical science entails a systematic approach to epistemology that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves."

Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: a viability cost for a sexually selected trait
"...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..."
(Source)

It also may be assumed that "...A T-Rex was the top predator of its time, therefore he had no natural enemies."

Crocodiles: Biology, Husbandry and Diseases
By F. W. Huchzermeyer

IGOR has everything a self-respecting crocodile needs to be a good lover - he's big, he's strong and he's dashingly handsome.
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.
(Source)

Cannibal croc ... Eric the crocodile was snapped eating another reptile friend whole. So now we know who was eating T-Rex.
(Source)

On occasion, this behavior affects birds as well,

"...Feather pecking can damage plumage and injure a bird's skin, and sometimes this behavior leads to cannibalism."
(Source)

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!!!

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.

And Creationists make a similar argument, that T. Rex was a vegetarian:

“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.”
(Source)

Well, *phew* that explains why T. Rex had red feathers. We can all sleep safe at night knowing we have the "truth".

"...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 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.
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.
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.
Marcia Davis may be reached at 865-330-BIRD (2473).
Harvey Doerksen/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
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."
(Source)

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

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 should be abundant evidence of TRIASSIC dinosaurs bearing protofeathers during the TRIASSIC. But I've never heard that argument made. (Feathers are superimposed on dinosaurs from the Cretaceous which came after Archeopteryx.).

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.
The best case scenerio for their argument, is possible "convergent evolution". That feathers developed on dinosaurs, separately and independently at different ages.

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.

This demonstrates these creatures were no where as closely related as the dino-bird hypothesis wishes to imply.

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.

If T-Rex had feathers, fossils of those feathers would've been found long before now and *clearly* revealed as fully formed feathers.
Feathers (fully formed existed 165 million years ago). So, why are all T. Rex and Velociraptors missing them 80-65 million years ago.
Archeopteryx. It shows FULL feather impressions, claws on the wings, a long boney tail, and teeth.
In other words... feathers were not "in the process of evolving" by 165 million years ago. They were already formed, long before T-Rex and Velociraptor.

Modern Birds vs. Primitive Birds.
"...Fossil feathers provide evidence that some avian colours, like black and brown melanins, have existed for at least 160 million years (Myr), but no traces of bright carotenoid pigments in ancient feathers have been reported."
(Source)"

Vegan-Rex?

Special Care Requirement of the Red Factor Canary:
"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."
(Source)

More on feather pigmentation:

Pigmentation
"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."
(Source)

Bright Red Feathers "needed" for mating in T. Rex or other powerful predators?

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).

So much for "bright red feathers".

"...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."
(Source)

"...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.

If in fact, the T-Rex was an "ambush hunter" as some suggest, bright red feathers would have prevented it from being effective.

"...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."
(Source)

"...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."
(Source)

"...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."
(Source)

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...
Much more convincing.
But they've never explained "why" the bright red feathers. Second, why feathers? What purpose? Flight to fly? Sea to swim?
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 (Source) in the warm Cretaceous climate?

(Crocodile Genome) 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.

Interesting article (dated December 2014). It states:

"...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."
They did not say, that the birds' closest relative (extinct or living) was T. Rex.
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.
"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."

They don't say, "Dinosaurs evolved into birds."
They say:

"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
Genomics Institute, a coauthor of several studies that came out of the avian genomics effort.
“So it really is the proper dinosaur ancestor,” Haussler said. “And birds and crocodiles are the proper descendants of this ancestor.”
(Source)

The fanatics of the hypothesis-myth, interpret data however they like, irregardless if the fossil record contradicts their hypothesis.

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.

When did "true dinosaurs" ..."theropod" dinosaurs... evolve:

"True dinosaurs first appear in the fossil record 225 million years ago."
"Theropods first appeared during the Carnian age of the late Triassic period 231.4 million years ago."
"Theropod dinosaurs are a diverse group that first appeared over 230 million ..."
"Dinosaurs first appeared about 230 million years ago."

So, birds share a common ancestor with dinosaurs, but the genetic evidence does not conclude birds "evolved from" dinosaurs.

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.

Read More »