"Common Ancestry" is not the same as a "Direct Ancestor"

0

A quick Google and Wikipedia definition: an·ces·tor:
“ancestor; plural noun: ancestors:
Google: a person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended.
an early type of animal or plant from which others have evolved.
synonyms: forerunner, precursor, predecessor”.

Wikipedia: “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)”.

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.

“‘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.”

Leave it to the pseudo-Scientific ‘Dinosaur-to-Bird Myth Crowd’:

“...monkeys and humans share a common ancestor from which both evolved around 25 million years ago.
This evolutionary relationship is supported both by the fossil record and DNA analysis. A 2007 study showed that humans and rhesus monkeys share about 93% of their DNA. Based on the similarities and differences between the two types of DNA, scientists have estimated that humans and rhesus monkeys diverged from their common ancestor 25 million years ago. Similarly, the fossil record has identified ancestors common to both humans and monkeys, such as an as yet unnamed primate fossil from Myanmar found in 2009 and dated as living around 37 million years ago.”
From: “If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?”

. . . 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.

As bad or worse than the fossil-denying and pseudo-science of creationists!

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.]

The following diagram, actually appears to be closer to an accurate representation of the fossil record. How very refreshing!

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, “the ancestor” of extinct and extant modern birds!

To say otherwise, and to make such an absurd claim is to deny the fossil record just like Creationists have done to bolster support for mythological pseudo-science.

“The Origin and Evolution of Birds,” by Alan Feduccia

This is fundamental, elementary Darwinism 101!

Common Descent Requires a Common Ancestor

“Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.”
Wikipedia

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 share a “common ancestor” 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 Darwinism demands it! However, the question of “Direct Ancestry” from dinosaurs directly to birds, is an entirely different ball of wax.

Dinosaurs and Birds share a ‘Common Ancestor’.

Dinosaurs are NOT the ‘Common Ancestor’ of modern birds!

Human and Chimp share 98.8% DNA. So similar--and yet so different

And yet, who is going to trumpet their ignorance to claim, “Humans evolved from Chimps.”?

“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?”

(Source: American Museum of Natural History)

And yet... who, but Creationists would make the absurd claim, “Charles Darwin taught, humans evolved from Chimpanzees”?

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”.

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 a snip of collagen and not reliable evidence for anything so profound as drawing direct lines between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds.)

Dr. Alan Feduccia:

“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. . . .”
From: Genetic Similarity Between Birds and Crocodiles

Birds are “Non-Avian”? They are ‘dinosaurs’ now?!

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.

Aves, Taxonomic Serial No.: 174371

Taxonomy and Nomenclature
   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

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

Source: “Integrated Taxonomic Information System” ITIS.gov, the home of authoritative taxonomic information on plants, animals, fungi, and microbes of North America and the world.

“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.’
Writing in Science, he concluded, ‘Archeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird.’
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.
‘I can't see there's any question that this is a tree-dwelling bird, far removed from dinosaurs, and that paleontologists have simply misinterpreted it,’ said Dr. Feduccia, author of the ‘The Age of Birds’ (Harvard University Press, 1980). ‘This Is Definitive’
“Feathered Dinosaur or a Real Bird?” by John Noble Wilford, February 5, 1993, New York Times.

Read More »

Visceral Arches (Bird Evolution) Aquatic Origins and Development of Gills during Embryonic Formation

0

There are actually people who make the argument, "birds arose on land," 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.

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).

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...

Correct? What is now, always was, and always will be.

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.

Visceral arches:
"...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."
(Source) "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."
(Source)

“Gill slits” by any other name…
"...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."

Origins of Birds
"...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. He notes that bird and reptile embryos develop visceral arches, hinting at their aquatic ancestry. 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."

---

Yes, bbbbut.... according to "Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds By Gregory S. Paul"... this is problematic because there may have been no trees at that time in earth's history.

---> adjective: arboreal
(chiefly of animals) living in trees.
"arboreal rodents"
of or relating to trees. <---

---> "...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. <---

---

Yes, bbbbut Mr. Huxley... "...Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old".... 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.

--> "...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." <--

---

--> Franz Nopcsa proposed an alternate hypothesis in 1907, arguing that the ancestors of birds were fast-running, bipedal animals related to theropod dinosaurs. <--

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.

Genetic similarity between human and chicken: 60-75%
Genetic similarity between chicken and crocodilians 61.7%
Genetic similarity between chicken and t. rex: 58%

Sources: Mammal/Chicken DNA %
Crocodile Genome & Chicken %

---

The underlying flaw requires one logical question (which requires the ability to "think"):

"Which came first, the feather or flight?"

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.)

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.)

The earliest fliers, were insects, and science concludes, they inherited this ability from swimming..

Fruit flies 'swim' through air, using the same physics as fish, 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.

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 . . .

Why would a human need "Visceral Arches" --GILLS?? for God's sake! And if humans can retain their swimming reflex, -- then why wouldn't birds?

The physics, Hydrodynamics and Aerodynamics are practically the same.

---

"...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]
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]
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]"
(Source)

---

The $100 Question

"...Even humans, seeming so far removed from their ancient mammalian ancestry... are born with a rudimentary reflex to swim... inherited from a distant water-borne ancestor somewhere in the murky evolutionary past...
Why would a human need "Visceral Arches" --GILLS?? for God's sake!
And if humans can retain their swimming reflex, -- then why wouldn't birds?"

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...

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?

Hollow bones helped high-flying reptiles stay aloft
"...Similar design features exist in modern birds, which evolved them independently, say the scientists."

Since its imperative to distinguish birds evolved those features *independently* from reptiles, then let's be careful to give equally imperative emphasis on how the bird was
1) a fully developed bird with feathers and all, way back to 150 million years ago.... which is long, long before
2) the BLATANT LIES about cretaceous dinosaurs evolving what do they call it, "protofuzz" pawned off as "feathers"???
supposedly "birthed"
3) creatures which lived 70 million years apart and before them in the fossil record!!!!!

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?

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.

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 mistaken for feathers 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
1) convergent evolution, and nothing more...
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.

Birds (150 million years ago) did not "evolve from" cretaceous dinosaurs who lived nearly 100 million years, later.

--> "Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.” <--

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.

Science has devolved into a source for whimsical fantasy "entertainment".

"...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."
(Source, Mammalian diving reflex, Wikipedia)

Take a look at that salamander!

Born To Swim?
"...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.
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.
“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.
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.
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 Acta Paediatrica.
“In diving animals, the reflex persists for their whole life,” 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."
/EXCERPT

The Dino-Myth crowd likes denying the obvious.

Read More »

Development of Bright Colors in Birds' Feathers

0

Was Archie a vegetarian who foraged for berries like cardinals or finches?

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)

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." (Source)

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."

Examples from the web:

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, "Well, as long as they reject God, who gives a damn if the feather pigments are wrong? Red is so much prettier anyway."

That's not Science, not even remotely. At least Science Fiction advertises itself by its right name.

That's Atheist religion, like a rotting ravenous cancer destroying Science with its war on God.

How to "Think Straight" by Neil deGrasse Tyson (and its not Atheism, that's for sure!)

" . . . 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."

The "God" issue and the atheist war on God, is of zero relevance to Science.

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.

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? :

1. "no traces of bright carotenoid pigments in ancient feathers have been reported."
2. "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.)

"Fleshy fruits are likely to have evolved from dry forms."

(Source)

" . . . 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)."
(Source)

Frugivore definition, ". . .any chiefly fruit-eating organism, as certain bats."

Birds, co-existed with the dinosaurs. Are they saying birds didn't eat fruit back during Archie's day?

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 . . .

Did fleshy fruit pulp evolve as a defense against seed loss rather than as a dispersal mechanism?
ANDREW L MACK Wildlife Conservation Society

". . . 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).
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.
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.
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.
The upland Cordaitales mostly had winged seeds whereas lowland forms had thick-walled seeds. often with fleshy sarcotestas (Tiffney 1986a).
Some fossil evidence indicates herbivores consumed foliage, twigs and seeds indiscriminately and a late Permian coprolite contained seeds (Tiffney 1986a).
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.
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).
The gradual development of a relationship between putative frugivores and angiosperms until the mid-Cretaceous 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. 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 a shift from large generalist herbivores to smaller specialist herbivores,including frugivores and granivores, across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary."
(Source)

---

On 12/5/2015 5:30 PM, Feduccia, John A wrote:
Yes, the color arguments are pure mythology. here is what Philip Manning of U. Manchester said of the dino feather studies:

"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).
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"
Sent from my iPad

Read More »

Genetic Evidence Confirms that T. Rex and Velociraptor were NOT ancestor to Modern Birds

5

Were T. Rex and Velociraptor toothless?
This genetic study confirms those creatures were NOT the ancestor of modern birds.

Was T. Rex toothless?

". . . A new study suggests that the common ancestor of all living birds lost the ability to produce teeth, and the answer to exactly how this happened can be found in modern-day birds' genes.
For the study, the researchers examined the genomes of 48 living bird species, taking a close look at six genes associated with tooth formation.
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.
Based on the mutations, the researchers think that a common ancestor of the birds lost the enamel caps on its teeth around 116 million years ago. And around that same time, birds' beaks came into play.
“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.
(Source: Birds Lost Teeth 116 Million Years Ago)

This event took place, 116 Million Years Ago?

Interesting. Especially since Velociraptor and T. Rex lived long after 116 Million Years ago.

Perhaps Velociraptor was this toothless ancestor?!

Oh *Snap!* no, Velociraptor wasn't toothless either.

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.

See also, Brush Your Beak: 10 Amazing Birds With Teeth.

So like yeah . . . any way . . . that sort of closes the case of whether or not T. Rex "evolved into chickens".

---

Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence at last (Bird vs. Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:25:30 +0000
From: Feduccia, John A

But---almost all the enantiornithines, dominant landbirds of the Mesozoic, were fully toothed, as well as the late Cretaceous ornithurines, the hesperornithids and ichthyornitds.

---

Great information, thanks!
Do you have alternative views as to what may have caused modern beaks to evolve the loss of teeth as they have?

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]).
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.
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.
Brush Your Beak: 10 Amazing Birds With Teeth

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.

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.

---

Subject: RE: Genetic Evidence at last (Bird vs. Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:42:53 +0000
From: Feduccia, John A

Hi, here is a paper of possible interest. Best wishes, alan

Read More »

Genetic Similarity Between Birds and Crocodiles

0

I found the article (click) 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?

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.

On to estimating just how similar any given bird vs. a crocodilian might be... what is the average percent identity for crocs vs. birds?

BENEDICT: 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.
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 (see (click)).

JOEL: We did a count of the genome-wide % ID of all genomes to the crocodile genome using our alignment a while ago.
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.

Thanks. I'm going to safely assume then, that chickens actually do bear a closer relationship with crocodiles (61.7%) than T-Rex (58%).
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.

"...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."
(click) and (click)

So, in some places chickens are closer in their genetic relation with humans than either t. rex or even crocodiles.

Based on genetic evidence, it really is difficult to make such a drastic conclusion that "chickens definitively evolved from T. Rex".

"...About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene."

"...chicken has 61.7% identity with crocodile according to our alignment."

"...many pieces of the protein (t. rex) they came up with a number of 58% sequence identity (with chicken)..."

And some conclude the chicken is more related to the T. Rex, than the crocodile or the mammal. In what alternative mathematical reality?

All that fuss about "life began on Mars," well that explains the dinosaur extinction too. They went home.

They're barely related to anything known on this earth. The genetic evidence clinches it.

Not kidding.

Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Now, you know.

There is a lot of misleading information out there. Notice the emphasis on the word, "closest living relative," as if something extinct, were even closer.

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?!

Crocodilia
"They appeared 83.5 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous period (Campanian stage) and are the closest living relatives of birds..."
(click)

Are they implying dinosaurs were even closer than crocodiles?

The crocodile is the "closest living AND EXTINCT relative of birds."
(Considering the fact that Crocodile DNA has changed very little over the past 100 million years.)

EXTINCT dinosaur: 58% genetic similarity to a chicken.
EXTINCT AND EXTANT crocodile : 61.7% genetic similarity to a chicken.

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!

The proper wording should be "Crocodilia are the closest known relative of birds."
PERIOD.

REACTION FROM DR. ALAN FEDUCCIA:

"Interesting, but we do not know anything about the T. rex genome, just size, and even that is somewhat speculative."
Best, alan

That isn't what the "Orthodox" crowd are saying.

See attachment culled from one book I came across on Google Books.
They swear by the "conclusive" DNA evidence.

^{"conclusive" (in quotes) denotes sarcasm.}

58%

Dr. Alan Feduccia:

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. . . .

Read More »

Messy, Tangled Web of Evolution vs. Darwin's Orderly Diversifying Tree

0

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".

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.
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.
(Source)

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?

Q. Does bird mating ever cross the species line?

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.”

(Source)

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.
Whatever abomination he attempts to create will NOT be "the" or even "an" ancestor of a Chicken.
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.

DINOSAURS: MOVIES VS. REALITY
"...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. The odds of correctly assembling a fragmentary genome are similar to putting a million-piece puzzle together with your eyes closed. 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.
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. 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!"
(Source)

The Tangled Web vs. The Tree of Life

The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs is no longer questioned [(THIS CLAIM IS CERTAINLY NOT TRUE!)] ... 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.
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.
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.
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.
(Source)

So, SCIENCE FICTION and Frankenstein experiments is what paleontology has been reduced to, leaving a legacy of speculation, vs. actual fossil facts.

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches

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.

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.

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".

"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.

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".

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.

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.

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."

(Source)

Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram
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 I4U News on May 16.

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.

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.

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.”

Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a “tangled bank.”

(Source)

If you thought the web couldn't get any more tangled, sticky and complicated then consider the "Death and Resurrection Theory".

Are Butterflies Two Different Animals in One? The Death And Resurrection Theory

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?

His answer — and I'm quoting him here — knocked me silly.

"[T]he radical change that occurs," he says, "does indeed arguably involve death followed by reincarnation."

"In effect, the animal is a chimera, an amalgam of two, where the first one lives and dies ... and then the other emerges."

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.

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.

When this theory was first proposed (not by Bernd, but by an English zoologist), eminent scientists scoffed.

(Source)

Crossbreeding is very common. It is Evolution.

• These Hybrid Animals Will Be Created Because Of Climate Change
• Are hybrid species being created due to climate change?
• "...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."
  10 Farm Animal Hybrids You Didn’t Know Existed
• Hybrid (biology) and Hybrid (biology)
• "...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."
  "...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.
  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).
  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.
  Soon other hybrids were being produced, revealing both the extreme plasticity and suspect nature of raptor classification."
  (Source)
• Not all cross-breeding results in negative outcomes.
  "...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 the widespread, but erroneous, belief that all hybrids are sterile. Early naturalists (e.g., Prichard 1836, p. 140) believed that mules foaled more frequently in warmer climes."
  Mules (Donkey × Horse), Equus asinus × Equus caballus, Mammalian Hybrids
• Cross-breeds of Kenyan ruminants help farmers cope with climate change
• Lebanese scientists are "breeding" to counteract climate change

What we see before us, is the onset of another Mass Extinction.

• Brown Polar Bears, Beluga-Narwhals and Other Hybrids Brought to You by Climate Change
  Animals with shrinking habitats are interbreeding, temporarily boosting populations but ultimately hurting species' survival
• Evolution of Polyploid Triticum Wheats under Cultivation: The Role of Domestication, Natural Hybridization and Allopolyploid Speciation in their Diversification
• Global Warming Spawns Hybrid Species
  "...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.
  Similar trends have been observed between golden-winged warblers and blue-winged warblers.
  “This issue is horrendously complex because of our ability to change the environment,” said Arnold.
  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?
  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."
  Combining the strengths of coyotes and wolves
  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.
  “Hybridization can increase genetic diversity in some cases,” said Tallmon.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  (Source)
• With climate change, species are increasingly interbreeding to survive
  "...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."
  (Source)

Hybrids can often go on to reproduce, and introduce new genetic information into the species.

"...The world's only known whale-dolphin mix has given birth to a playful female calf, officials at Sea Life Park Hawaii said Thursday.
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.
Park researchers suspect the wholphin's father is an 8-foot long Atlantic bottlenose dolphin named Mikioi."
(Source)

"...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."
(Source)

Elephant try to cross couple with Rhino

Speciation through Hybridization

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.
This event (described) could have happened just as easily through Natural Selection as Artificial Selection.
New species come and go every day on the planet.
(Source): 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 Viewing page 181 of pages 181-191

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).

A recap of the fossil record and just how far back, to find the "Ancestor" of Birds, which Horner claims he attempts to resurrect:

Here's the result of what 13 MILLION YEARS of divergence can do to chromosomes:

"....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...."

However, Horner does not think to attempt resurrecting a "common ancestor" between birds and *whatever* archosaur, a mere 13 million years ago:

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." (Source)

"...previously unknown differences..."

Really? But can't Horner predict the varying mutation rates of extinct 100 Million Year old Dinosaurs and primitive birds?

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!
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.

Horner's evil experiment is... folly.
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!

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?
Purely speculative folly!!! This is not Science. It is simply junk science. It is a flawed attempt at playing God.

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. :-(

Read More »