|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Feb 22, 2009 21:12:21 GMT
So, you think that some other archosaur, which would breathe like a reptile (and not a bird ), evolved into birds? Well then, using that logic, theropod dinosaurs are just as likely to have given rise to birds as your little lizard longisquama.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Feb 22, 2009 22:13:20 GMT
Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by this, don't the similarities faaaaaaar outweigh the differences? Did you make the figure up? Of course this depends on your perspective: compare a velociraptor a bird and a fish and your similarities between the former are off the scale. Compare a Velociraptor a bird and a crocodile and the the similarities between the former are reduced (yet still overwhelming). From what perspective are you looking at it? In any case, it's the similarities (shared derived characters) that are important and used for determining relationships in cladistics (to get back on topic) Differences are inevitable and arise through the evolutionary process. If these differences are unique then they are not even put into the cladistic analysis - they do not provide any relationship data (they are used for diagnostic purposes). If you know of a group of organisms which shares more characters with birds than maniraptors share with birds, then we'd have something to discuss. But you don't So nah nah ;D First I like to say that "So nah nah" is not an argument for dino-bird evolution. My 10 to 1 quote goes back to when you were telling me that you believed Archaeopteryx was a bird. I read something about Microraptor which listed some of its similaritys and differences with modern birds. However I can't find the article right now. Your statement is very well written and impressive. Are we really sure what the differences and similaritys are? And can we really chart the evolutionary path effectively? nah nah isn't an argument for anything :b. I'm quite sure I didn't say that about Archaeopteryx. I don't believe Archaeopteryx is a bird, it IS a bird because thats how it is classified. That's what I probably said. Are we really sure what the differences and similaritys are?Yes, morphologically speaking. And can we really chart the evolutionary path effectively? ;D The most objective way to do it is with cladistics. How effective is it, you rightly point out that we may never know. But parsimony sure makes sense to me - more closely related taxa share more characters in common - this drowns out any signal from convergent characters, which are superficial and in the minority. Cordy makes a good point too.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 22, 2009 22:29:22 GMT
First I like to say that "So nah nah" is not an argument for dino-bird evolution. My 10 to 1 quote goes back to when you were telling me that you believed Archaeopteryx was a bird. I read something about Microraptor which listed some of its similaritys and differences with modern birds. However I can't find the article right now. Your statement is very well written and impressive. Are we really sure what the differences and similaritys are? And can we really chart the evolutionary path effectively? nah nah isn't an argument for anything :b. I'm quite sure I didn't say that about Archaeopteryx. I don't believe Archaeoptryx is a bird, it IS a bird because thats how it is classified. That's what I probably said. Are we really sure what the differences and similaritys are?Yes, morphologically speaking. And can we really chart the evolutionary path effectively? ;D The most objective way to do it is with cladistics. How effective is it, you rightly point out that we may never know. But parsimony sure makes sense to me - more closely related taxa share more characters in common - this drowns out any signal from convergent charchaters, which are superficial and in the minority. Cordy makes a good point too. ;D Yes Cordy made an excellent point . I really have to watch what I say when he is around. He is a little monster. I really need to get some sleep. Would it be to much to ask for you to name all of the similaritys and non similaritys of dinosaurs and birds as I feel the information I can find is incomplete, or else show me a site where I can find the information. And not a site with that super small print.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Feb 22, 2009 23:34:25 GMT
Exhaustive lists of characters and their scorings re: birds and dinosaur taxa, will be listed with the data matrices of the relevant cladistic analyses I don't know what they are off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Feb 23, 2009 1:27:08 GMT
nah nah isn't an argument for anything :b. I'm quite sure I didn't say that about Archaeopteryx. I don't believe Archaeoptryx is a bird, it IS a bird because thats how it is classified. That's what I probably said. Are we really sure what the differences and similaritys are?Yes, morphologically speaking. And can we really chart the evolutionary path effectively? ;D The most objective way to do it is with cladistics. How effective is it, you rightly point out that we may never know. But parsimony sure makes sense to me - more closely related taxa share more characters in common - this drowns out any signal from convergent charchaters, which are superficial and in the minority. Cordy makes a good point too. ;D Yes Cordy made an excellent point . I really have to watch what I say when he is around. He is a little monster. I really need to get some sleep. Would it be to much to ask for you to name all of the similaritys and non similaritys of dinosaurs and birds as I feel the information I can find is incomplete, or else show me a site where I can find the information. And not a site with that super small print. A little Feathery monster ;D And there really are too many similarities to list
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 23, 2009 4:47:42 GMT
Holy Cow, Cordy your points are excellent.
I need to post on this thread, but being home for this short time its hard for me to post much at all.
|
|