Dinosaurs and their Descendents 1 - What You Need to Know FIRST

` This may surprise you, but as a small child, I was not very interested in dinosaurs, being that I didn't really think they existed. "How could those be animals?" I would think.
` True, paintings at the time of large, rubbery beasts slugging it out like Gojira and Megalon didn't help matters. If you've read other parts of this blog, what may not surprise you is that, little did I suspect, I spoke DadEnglish. In DadEnglish, life = 'miserable limbo', extinct = 'bunch of bones', and the past = 'a time that didn't exist'.
` Of course, that's a whole other DadStory...
` However, it is worth noting that one word of DadEnglish was; Bird = 'annoying, boring animal': another was; Dinosaur = 'pile of bones that was warm-blooded, dammit!' I largely ignored his rantings about dinosaurs and continued to not really think they existed. I forget why.

` After being able to study the whole matter for several years, my perceptions are now; Bird = 'short-tailed dinosaur'; and Dinosaur = 'a group of archosaurian reptiles existing from the late Triassic to right now!'

` Or, as Ascitu-saurus sums it up:

... ,--=@ + ..............< "Hooray! We're not dead!"...................
..."'`**") # ............................................................................
.............` &. "..------====_-_-_ - ------==<,=<:<:<:<+=~...
............... zz . >>>? 7) 5 ...................................``````` ``` ``...
.................~$j> ^^/%y ..........................................................
................../# ........:4 .............................................................
.................^R..........9 ...........................................................
........................~^JfZ .............................................................

` I am sure this is not surprising to some, but I can understand why others would be confused and even outraged over the matter. For anyone who is interested, I have now made the original text more suitable for laymen so that non-experts (like Phil!) can follow along without getting brain cramps. I am confident that I will be able to explain exactly why mainstream scientists classify birds as theropod dinosaurs (and why... um... others... do not).

` Too see my point, all you have to do is ask: 'No, really, what is a bird?' Considering all the birdlike fossils that exist, this is a much more complicated question than most people would expect, as you will see!
` A different way one could word this question is: "In a family tree of animals, how could birds fit in?" I will explain this thoroughly in time, hopefully without being too overwhelming.
` For visual reference I have posted a cladogram - which makes a good family tree, since it works by sorting out the anatomical similarities and differences of any number of life-forms. The names of the animals that are most similar have the least amount of line between them.
` Mine here is actually based on one made by Richard O. Prum that appeared in the January 2002 issue of The Auk (journal of the American Ornithologists' Union).

` By the way, I figured out that I need to put periods in the blank spaces to hold this together - so ignoring those, you can see that all of these dinosaur groups on the right are part of a larger group called the coelurosaurs (see-LOO-roe-sores), as that name appears at the base. It means 'hollow reptiles', in reference to their very birdlike, air-filled bones.

(From other.........................................../....Compsognathids
theropods)...........,---------------------|.like *Sinosauropteryx
|...........................|....................................................................
|...........................|............................_______|.Alvarezaurids,
|...........................|............................|.............|..like *Shuvuuia
|...........................|......___________|.......................................
`-Coelurosaurs......../.......................|.....,-----|Ornithomimids
|........................./.........................|__|..................................
|......................../................................|_|..Therizinosaurids,
|...................../....................................|.like *Beipiaosaurus
Maniraptors'.......................................................................
|..........._______________________|Tyrannosaurids,
|..........|.......................................................like *Dilong
|..........|..........................................................................
|..........|........___________________|.....Oviraptorids,
`-------|.......|....................................|.like #Caudipteryx
|........|.................................................................
|.........|..........,----------------------|Troodontids
`-----|...........|......................................................
|.........|.................../...Dromaeosaurs, like
|.........|..................|......*Sinornithosaurus,
|........,`-----------|.......*Microraptor, and
`-------|...................|____.......*(Unnamed)
|.......................................................
|................,--------#Archaeopteryx
|________|......................................
|......,--#Confuciusornis
|__|...............................
|......#Enantiornithines
`--|..............................
`------#Euornithes
like modern birds

` (Note: The groups I am focusing on the most here are: Theropods > Coelurosaurs > Maniraptors > Birds and Dromaeosaurs.)

` As you can see, the coelurosaurs evolved in many directions: Sinosauropteryx (SYNE-oh-sawr-OP-ter-icks) evolved off in one direction, as indicated by the dashes. The near-complete specimens of this small animal tell us that it looked much like modern poultry - except its tail was ridiculously long, and it had a massive, long-clawed thumb.
` The asterick (*) by its name indicates that clear fossil imprints show Sinosauropteryx had primitively-structured feathers. I'll get to those later.
` All the other coelurosaurs shown here are on a completely different 'branch' of the tree, belonging to a sub-group called the maniraptors (MAN-i-rap-tors). It means 'prey-grabbing hands' because many of these animals had long arms with flexible wrists, and even opposable 'thumbs' (except for certain ones like Tyrannosaurus).
` These are the most birdlike dinosaurs, and though modern birds are understandably not usually known for having grasping hands, they used to be the norm for tens of millions of years.
` Note that by the individual animals' names are more astericks and also pound signs (#), which indicate that those species were found with more complex feathers just like those of modern birds!

` So, how did they figure this cladogram out in the first place?

` It's been so far about a hundred and fifty years since Thomas Henry Huxley noticed that birds have much in common with reptiles - especially coelurosaurs! - though most features are not necessarily obvious.
` For example, birds have fused, Velociraptor-like fingers, though in most species, they are not visible from the outside. Archaeopteryx (ar-kee-OP-ter-icks), a flying, 'feather-bearing animal' found in the 1800s looked similar to modern birds, yet its 'primitive' characteristics were much more exaggerated - most noted are the teeth, the clawed 'dinosaur' hands, and the long tail. In fact, one Archaeopteryx specimen with very poorly-preserved feathers had been - for a century! - thought to be a tiny coelurosaur called Compsognathus! (It wasn't looked at very often.)

` It is no wonder that for decades, scientists would ask: 'Was Huxley really onto something?'

` Now that paleontologists understand the fossil record in much better detail, it has been becoming increasingly clear that one can find consistently in just one group of animals over 100 anatomical features that otherwise only birds are known to have. (Other reptiles don't come close!)
` These animals are called theropods (THER-o-pods), which means 'beast feet' - though a more accurate name would be 'bird feet'. This group includes all your two-legged, meat-eating dinosaurs, such as coelurosaurs, as well as others people may generally be familiar with, such as Coelophysis, Dilophosaurus, Allosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Spinosaurus, and Carnotaurus (which can be found elsewhere on the theropod 'family tree').

` So, yes, to make things most abundantly clear, maniraptors are a group of coelurosaur dinosaurs, and coelurosaurs are in turn a group of theropod dinosaurs. (See cladogram.)

` Now, some maniraptors are probably more familar than others - for example, tyrannosaurids include the most famous species of dinosaur, Tyrannosaurus rex, hence the name. They are known for their unusually short arms and distinctive, muscular heads.
` Like other maniraptors, tyrannosaurs' eyes face forwards, and the snout has a distinct shape, starting off narrower than the rest of the head. (Other large predators like Allosaurus and Megalosaurus, which are not even coelurosaurs - much less maniraptors - can be distinguished at a glance by their wedge-shaped heads and sideways-facing eyes.)

` Even more birdlike maniraptors include oviraptorids (OH-vee-rap-tor-ids), named for Oviraptor, or 'egg-theif', as the first one ever found was thought to be stealing from a Protoceratops nest.
` It turns out that the 'Protoceratops' eggs had baby Oviraptors in them, but the name had already stuck and ruined it for the rest of the group. (We now know that it is common for these animals to die and be preserved on their nests. Strange, but true.)
` Oviraptorids are most recognizable for their very strange beaks - almost like a parrot's - which were very strong and probably used for crushing nuts (not eggs!).

` As you can see on the cladogram, there are two groups of dinosaurs in particular that are most closely related to birds. Troodontids (TROE-oh-don-tids) were named for what was - in the distant past - thought to be a monitor lizard-type tooth called Troodon ('wounding tooth'). Today we know that Troodon was a very slender predatory dinosaur that had a small, retractable sickle claw on its second toe, and the largest brain-to-body ratio of any dinosaur.

` However, birds are most closely linked with the more famous sickle-clawed dinosaurs known as dromaeosaurs (DROME-ee-o-saurs), or 'swiftly-running reptiles', which had fairly large brains and an even more impressive hooked claw than troodontids.
` One of these listed on the cladogram is the tiny Microraptor, which is best known for both its Archaeopteryx-type wings and its strange 'leg-wings', which apparently were used in conjunction to clumsily flutter through the treetops.
` Probably a more familiar example of a dromaeosaur would be Velociraptor - which James T. Kirkland (a paleontologist you may have heard of) once assured me was not nearly as large and panic-inducing as the ones depicted in Stephen Spielberg's blockbuster movie, Jurassic Park.
` Also, said Kirkland, Spielberg got the distinctive shape of the great claw wrong (as he handed me an example from one of the film's animatronic Velociraptors) - a real dromaeosaur claw is actually thin and flattened like a blade (not oval in cross-section), which is a shape best suited for slashing through such things as plant-eating dinosaurs.
` I should note here that primitive birds (including Archaeopteryx) are also known to have a raised second toe and foot claw similar to that of dromaeosaurs and troodontids.


` What's of interest here, though, is not the differences between the groups, but the similarities that link these animals to birds - which are numerous. In fact, since more and more dromaeosaur-like birds (and bird-like dromaeosaurs, etc) are being found, paleontologists are becoming hard-pressed to find which exact characteristics actually define a bird and which do not!
` Here, I shall go over just a few basic features in various parts of the anatomy that can be seen in both true birds and other theropods (particularly maniraptors). In other words, the following traits are definitely not defining characteristics for birds alone:

Air-filled bones: Since the beginning of dinosaurs, theropods in general (not just the coelurosaurs) have had the distinctive pneumatic (air-filled) chambers in vertebrae, leg bones, and ribs - though not all species.
` The reason for this was to add speed and agility by reducing weight and increasing strength, and as the same chambers are seen in the most birdlike of dinosaurs, this is the generally-accepted origin of these chambers in birds. (Today, many birds have also evolved away from this tendency - very tiny birds have light enough bones as it is, and diving birds could certainly do with less buoyancy, so accordingly their bones have no air sacs.)

*

Legs: A maniraptor typically has a four-toed foot, with the first digit (our 'big' toe) being the smallest and not used in supporting the animal's weight. The foot-bones (metatarsals) are elongated as well, meaning the animals has very long feet, good for leverage and speed. Same for finches and Velociraptors, the ankle is hingelike and can only move back and forth.
` And though it's a basic characteristic of all dinosaurs, it is still significant that maniraptors also walk on their toes while keeping their legs beneath them. It is hard to find a reptile that is not a dinosaur that does this, except for the ancestors of dinosaurs. Therefore, it is logical to say that birds have gotten their specific type of dinosaur-legs from maniraptorian dinosaurs.

*

Pelvis: In most maniraptors - like dromaeosaurs and primitive birds - the two bottom pelvic bones, the pubes (yes, they're really called that!), point backwards, with a little 'boot' at the end. (Most theropods have forward-pointing pubes.) This arrangement frees the tail from being joined up with the legs, causing the gait to be even more like that of birds than other theropods.
` Also, at least five vertebrae are fused into a mass above the pelvis in these animals - in today's birds, quite a good portion of the spine is fused into one bone.

*

Tail: Though the tail of many maniraptors may appear quite long, it is actually reduced, with fewer vertebrae than most other dinosaurs, and all but the first part is stiffened to some degree.
` Archaeopteryx had 22 tail vertebrae (which isn't much for a maniraptor), while modern birds (and some oviraptoroids), have a fused stump called a pygostyle. (Humans have something similar, the coccyx or 'tailbone', though of course it does not protrude from the body.)

*

Neck: Something else dinosaurs have is some degree of an S-shaped neck, and therefore, maniraptors would have to have gotten this s-shape from more primitive dinosaurs. The particular type of strongly-curved, air-sac-filled neck vertebrae that birdlike maniraptors have matches up the best to those of birds.

*

Shoulder: There is a large breastbone, the collarbones are fused to form a furcula, or 'wishbone', and the shoulder blades are 'strap-like.' This arrangement provides a lot of strength while helping the arms to move at a wide range of angles suited to grabbing prey, climbing trees, or flapping in the figure-eight pattern birds need to fly.
` This tells us that (unless all maniraptors evolved from a flying ancestor) birds evolved the range of motion needed for flight before they even got off the ground.

*

Arms: Maniraptors typically have elongated arms - especially the forelimbs - and the hands are larger than the feet. Though Tyrannosaurus' arms were tiny (to reduce weight in the front of the body), other maniraptors such as Oviraptor, Troodon, and Velociraptor had very long arms that needed to be kept folded up and out of the way - this is why they are sometimes referred to as 'knuckle-draggers.'
` Of course, birds that fly need similarly long arms to use as wings - which also fold about the same way.
` Three is the usual number of fingers for a maniraptor, and these are usually long, with opposable 'thumbs'. Tree-climbing dromaeosaurs - as well as primitive birds - used such clawed hands for holding onto tree branches.
` Also essential for grabbing prey and flying is a rather flexible wrist. Only in maniraptors and primitive birds can we find the semilunate carpal, or 'half-moon-shaped wrist bone', which allows the wrist to bend in such a way that capturing prey or flapping is possible.

*

Skull: Maniraptors - especially small ones - also have birdlike, insanely huge eye-openings (orbits) in the skull. (Comparing the bones of the eyeball themselves - the sclerotic ring - also show that the eyes were of similar sizes.)
` Also, the air-filled sinuses of birds are expanded, as well as those of other maniraptors - and in other dinosaurs and crocodiles, too. Evidently, this characteristic had originated before dinosaurs had even evolved.
` Maniraptors also have a secondary bony palate in order to breathe through the nostrils with the mouth closed, a useful feature that birds have today. (Yes, mammals do too, and our high metabolism might have something to do with it.)
` The teeth are all about the same type throughout the mouth, and are constricted or 'waisted' between the crown and the root.

*

Feathers: Impressions of honest-to-goodness (modern and primitive) feathers have been found in rocks around various kinds of dead coelurosaurs, several of which are listed on the cladogram. Some of them resemble down feathers, which consist of soft little strands called barbs extending from a single root. Others, (which may be also attached to the same dinosaur!), consist of barbs branching off a rachis (center spine), which looks exactly like a contour feather from a modern bird!
` Some nonavian ('non-bird') dinosaur feathers are also known to have barbules, which are like little branches protruding from the barbs to 'zip' them together, and birds also have these structures. Coelurosaur feathers thought not to have barbules are called 'primitive' feathers or 'protofeathers', since birds - modern or ancient! - are not known to have ever had barbule-less feathers.
` For further description of feathered dinosaur species... that's coming.

*

Eggshell: There are three basic types of dinosaur eggshell, and the one called the ornithoid ('bird-type') is found only in theropods. It differs greatly from even those of other dinosaurs, since the very innermost layer, where the basic units of shell can be seen as discrete 'bumps', is much thinner. The next layer is a mass of biocrystaline material, and at the very smallest level, it is spongy and... sorry, am I losing you?
` Anyhow, this structure is basically the same as that of birds. As for other reptile eggshells - including crocodiles - they are markedly different from those of all dinosaurs, though some of this is hard to see without an electron microscope.

` The details go on, really, but I figure that's plenty. As Dr. Kevin Padian noted in Nature, most of what used to define Aves (birds) is now known to be present in theropod dinosaurs! Consequently, if you find bits of a dinosaur skeleton that has many of these characteristics, yet nothing that particularly distinguishes it as either a bird or another maniraptor, you would not be able to tell if it was a bird or not!

` I can say that this is certainly a much different picture than what scientists began speculating about soon after Huxley's musings - that the ancestors of birds were most likely close relatives of crocodiles (Walker) or so-called 'thecodonts' (Heilman).
` This view didn't really begin to change until Dr. John Ostrom described a large, powerful dromaeosaur known as Deinonychus antirrhopus and its striking resemblance to little Archaeopteryx. There was a lot of controvery about this at first, though most of it soon died down as more data surfaced.
` In the mid-eighties, Dr. Gauthier used a revolutionary type of analysis - cladistics - to produce (of course!) a cladogram showing the place of birds in the theropod family tree (linked by 130 shared characteristics). Since then, independent analyses have repeatedly shown that he is indeed correct - the more modern cladogram shown above still echoes his results.


` I will point out to you that what the cladogram demonstrates is not that birds evolved from dromaeosaurs like Velociraptor - which is a common misconception - but are a 'sister' group to them. (In fact, they probably evolved around the same time.) Luckily, it's simple enough to explain...

248---Triassic---213----------Jurassic----------144--------------Cretaceous--------------65

` This timeline-doohickey basically shows the three periods of the Mesozoic Era, also known as the 'Age of Reptiles', or sometimes 'When Dinosaurs Ruled'. (Though, as there are a lot more species of birds than mammals today, I'd say they're still doing a pretty good job!) The numbers indicate how many millions of years have passed since the beginning and end of each period.

` Dinosaurs and mammals both evolved around the end of the Triassic Period, which concluded in a global catastrophe that resulted in about 90% of all living things going extinct. With all the dominant, medium-to large-sized land animals now dead, the dinosaurs apparently managed to fill that niche the fastest.
` Small theropods, such as the long, sinuous Coelophysis (SEE-loo-FY-sis), survived the catastrophe, and probably through superior agility and speed, were finally able to evolve into something new. By 150 million years ago (in the Jurassic Period) theropods had diversified into an amazing assortment of forms, from large brutes like Allosaurus, to primitive birds like Archaeopteryx.
` After this time is actually when most other types of maniraptors have been discovered from! Not surprisingly, the more primitive species of wildly different maniraptors are more similar to primitive birds than are later forms:
` For example, early tyrannosaurs resembled other nondescript, birdlike dinosaurs with three fingers; later on, the more derived forms had large, distinct, muscular heads and tiny arms (evidently they found jaws to be more useful).
` Also, early therizinosaurs seem to have been relatively fast-moving, partially predatory dinosaurs with rather long necks; later forms used all four of their toes for supporting their weight (instead of only three), and were apparently bulky plant-eaters with small heads and very long arms.
` Similarly, the earliest-known dromaeosaurs were overall quite small and most birdlike; though in the Late Cretaceous, the 26-foot-long Megaraptor was about twice as heavy as a polar bear, using toe-claws over fifteen inches in length to slash through the hide and muscle of such prey as duckbilled dinosaurs. (Other Late Cretaceous dromaeosaurs - like Velociraptor species - were coyote- to wolf-sized.)

` The reason for this, paleontologists concur, is because all maniraptors (which of course includes birds) evolved from a small coelurosaur around the Early Jurassic. Representative of their kinds, Tyrannosaurus, Therizinosaurus, and Dromaeosaurus - which don't seem to resemble one another at first graze - actually bear the unmistakeable stamp of having descended from a small birdlike dinosaur.
` Tyrannosaurus grew into a large-headed, tiny-armed form; Therizinosaurus grew into a large-armed, tiny-headed form; and Dromaeosaurus had a special second toe for slashing; yet all three are known to have descended from earlier dinosaurs that resembled one another more closely.
` And those dinosaurs must have in turn derived from one species - hence the term 'common ancestry'. We just don't know what that species is yet.
` Dromaeosaurs, then, shared a more recent common ancestor with birds - this one being not only a coelurosaur, but one of the maniraptors - perhaps one of the first animals with such a feature as the raised second toe-claw. The early fossil record of dromaeosaurs and Jurassic-aged birds is relatively sketchy, so it's hard to say exactly when this animal could have lived.
` Basically, it is most likely that dromaeosaurs and birds are 'sister' groups - the common ancestor being the 'mother'. One is generally thought not to have descended from the other, though it's hard to say. I wonder though, if birds could have come from the first dromaeosaurs or dromaeosaurs could actually be flightess versions of very primitive, Archaeopteryx-like birds? I don't know if anyone knows enough about this to be able to say.

` Any way you slice it, though, it's evident that birds are actually but one type of maniraptor (and Oviraptor was another). And maniraptors are coelurosaurs, which means... birds are a type of coelurosaur! And coelurosaurs are theropods, which means... birds are also a type of theropod. And theropods are a type of dinosaur, which means... birds are a type of dinosaur!
` An eagle is every bit as much a dinosaur as a Tyrannosaurus! It's just that the bird lineage happened to survive past 65 million years ago, while all the other lineages currently can only help us understand the past in the form of fossils (or contribute to global warming in the form of fossil fuels).


Doubts?

` No mainstream biologist really doubts anymore that birds are a type of dinosaur - it is clear enough that it is the case - but you've probably heard some others in the media who do. Why?
` Consider... this is the media we're talking about. News stories on television or in the paper for example, in order to draw more people in, are known to create controversy. I'm sure you've at least gotten that idea by now.

` The idea of 'objective journalism' often means that two sides are presented - whether they are equal or not - and the viewer or reader is left to decide which is best. In reality, there may be more than two sides to such an issue, or there may be only one, and if there is only one, an alternate 'side' may be added for contrast - in fact, some will even go so far as to completely make up another one!
` I'm sure many of you are familiar with this - especially in politics - because if someone in the news tells you what to think without offering any other choice, some complain that this is a biased opinion.

` In the case for 'dinosaurs are not birds', the 'alternative view' itself is not objective - the scientists who advocate this, while they technically are scientists, do not seem to have studied everything relevant or considered all data.
` Most of the dinosaurologists and ornithologists who contend that birds are dinosaurs have been studying this in more detail, and that's why they don't argue about the idea in general (though they may have different opinions about precisely which maniraptors birds evolved from, as this is still up in the air).

` But if they say that birds (like Archaeopteryx) are not dinosaurs, then what is it that they are saying that birds are? Generally, this answer is 'thecodonts.' What is a thecodont? Frankly, I thought I knew, but I'm not so sure anymore - there is more than one definition!
` It's possible that here the word may refer to various reptiles that were not dinosaurs or crocodiles or pterosaurs ('pterodactyls') but other types related to them, thrown together into one group. In any case, paleontologists generally do not use the word anymore because it isn't precisely useful in practice.

` Some of their proposed 'thecodont' species most closely linked with birds include Longisquama - a small, sprawling reptile with five digits that resembled a lizard more than it did Archaeopteryx. I should note that Archaeopteryx is much more similar to a dromaeosaur than it is to a modern bird - but people who say that 'dinosaurs are not birds' don't dispute that Archaeopteryx is also an early type of bird!
` Why would anyone pick Longisquama? These people claim that feathers most likely evolved for gliding and not insulation, and Longisquama had a few, very long structures of some sort that were much thicker than a feather and had a branched, feather-like pattern on the surface. Just what these structures actually were and what their function was is anybody's guess. (Display? Temperature regulation?)

` Another primitive form said to be related to the ancestors of birds was Megalancosaurus, an air-sac-boned, tree-climbing reptile which had a prehensile tail and long limbs with five-digit hands and feet that looked kind of like those of tree-marsupials and chameleons.
` Why? They reason; how could a bird evolve from an animal that lived on the ground? Long story short; Megalancosaurus' shoulder blades and a few other things were more birdlike than accepted bird-relatives (probably coincidentally) - but most other things about it were much less birdlike than any theropod!
` Also, it's possible that the animal used its long legs to support a gliding membrane, which means it could have evolved into a flying animal - though I would guess that if it had, it would have had membrane-wings like a bat!
` (Another animal called Sharovipteryx, for example, was a gliding reptile related to the ancestors of pterosaurs, which also had membranous wings. Sharovipteryx, however, used its hind legs instead of its front limbs for gliding, but you get the point.)

` I don't disagree that birds most likely evolved from a gliding, tree-climber. But considering that if dromaeosaurs had been discovered first and if Archaeopteryx was not known to have any feathers at all, it would have probably been thought of as a crow-sized, non-flying, distant cousin of Velociraptor that may have climbed trees.
` Something that would be fitting to name... Scuiraptor ('squirrel-raptor') or something. Their skeletons are that similar.
` But did dromaeosaurs climb trees? Well, Epidendrosaurus is a good candidate. It had a very long middle finger - perhaps for digging at grubs the way an aye-aye lemur does.
` Another dromaeosaur called Microraptor climbed trees as well, and it also had flight feathers covering its arms, legs, and tail. It could probably weakly fly or at least glide pretty well, and it would have been forgivable to confuse it with one of the first birds.
` While these animals lived alongside primitive birds, it is reasonable to suggest that these birds shared a common ancestor with them. Perhaps the ancestor resembled a tree-dromaeosaur, or perhaps it was a small, ground-living dinosaur. In the future, this picture will probably become clearer, but so far there isn't a whole lot of fossils lighting the way - very small animals only preserve well under special conditions.


` Well, I think that about does it for the introduction. I'll have more to write about birdlike dinosaurs, plus the evolution of feathers, the evolution of flight, and more of this 'controversy' found in media for the general public. That can be found in Part II.

CONTINUATION: Ever Wonder Why Creationists and Biologists don't see eye-to-eye?

` In the article 'bird evolution flies out the window' by Jonathan Sarfati, there is also a link on the word Archaeopteryx, which I'll comment on next.

` Before reading this, it is very important to know one thing - that the people at Creation (typical of creationists) seem to assume that (scientifically?) there are somehow 'classes' of organisms discrete from one another, in between which there is a barrier that would be difficult or impossible to evolve across.
` Because this is not true, terms like 'Class' can't be used much in science anymore because you can't work with them in practice.
` Science, as you should know, is not about thought experiments - which are therefore favored more by pseudoscience - as its very nature insists that you make things work in the real world.

` The seven nesting 'steps' of Linnaeus (e.g. Class, Order, Family) are not enough to contain most categories of life, as there are known to be too many (though categories still fit inside other categories just the same). In reality, there are thousands of known 'steps' all throughout various sections of 'family trees', since too many known species lie 'in between' the former seven.
` Instead of adding more and more steps with the prefixes supra-, super-, sub-, and infra-, scientists have grown weary of this and simply call them all 'taxons' or 'clades.' The only Linnaean terms that are of any great value anymore are 'Genus' and 'Species'.

` I should note that birds have (for at least a century) been considered one of many clades of reptiles, even back when they formally used 'classes'. The 'bird class' was simply integrated into the 'reptile class'. If the thought of this gives you a headache, I think I've gotten my point across.

` Anyway, the link goes to this interview article with a retired anatomist by the name of Dr Menton;

Bird evolution flies out the window, by Carl Weiland

Weiland; "Of course, evolutionists have long argued that feathers evolved from reptile scales and are thus fundamentally the same structure - very similar."

Dr Menton; "Yes - so I became interested in comparing them myself. I had a laboratory technician at the time who had a 'pet' boa constrictor, so I took a look at some of its scales from shed skin. I was amused that they were, of course, not even the slightest bit similar to feathers... The only similarity is that they are both made of the protein keratin - like hair, nails and our skin."

` Wow, what a scientific observation! For one thing, his point is rather similar to saying that a dolphin's flipper must not be a forelimb because it doesn't look like an impala's front leg, even though both are made of the same bones and muscles.
` For another thing, the kind of scales that snakes have are not thought to have evolved into feathers anyway, but he probably would have said the same thing about any old scale.

` The key to understanding almost any type of evolution lies in modification! One thing you have to study to determine that feathers and certain scales are the same thing is their development. In my DatD series, you will see that the type of scales that extinct dinosaurs had, which are found on birds' feet, can be simply and easily coaxed to develop into more or less normal feathers. It's a very strange, long story.

` Ed. note: after this Creation magazine article was written, we came across evidence that even this similarity may not be as great as supposed. Feather proteins (f-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (a-keratins). An evolutionary feather expert, Alan Brush, concludes;
` 'At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.' A.H. Brush, 'On the origin of feathers', Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9: 131-142, 1996.'

` Not only is that not a secret, but that was completely taken out of context! Another very common creationist trick!! Now, see, if you've read my DatD series, you'd already know that reptillian scales (also called reticulae), which birds have on the very bottoms of their feet, really are that different than feathers.
` However, scutes, which are scales that crocodiles and birds also have, are chemically about the same, and are known to trace their roots from the same part of the DNA as feathers.
` Developmentally, they are similar, and it is the scutes and scutellae which can develop into feathers through simple genetic manipulation.
` Of course, dinosaurs are also known for having scutes and scutellae, including the Maniraptora, which is one of the 'steps' that birds are contained in.

` Back to the article - they're mulling over whether people back at the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference thought that Archaeopteryx was a bird or a coelurosaur. I admit I know nothing about this convention itself, but I still find something wrong here - Dr Menton says that most scientists there thought it was a bird, and not many thought it was a dinosaur.
` Bird or dinosaur?
` Once, birds were only thought to be reptiles of some sort, but no one was really sure which sort. Archaeopteryx wasn't thought to be either a bird or a reptile. The question posed at the conference would have been 'Is Archaeopteryx a dinosaur that was a bird or a dinosaur that was not a bird?'
` Honestly, since Archaeopteryx actually had more in common with the dromaeosaurs than it did modern birds, this was a very tricky question.

` Today, birds are now agreed to be coelurosaurs as well as maniraptors, just as Velociraptor was. Birds have a few specialized characteristics of their own group, for example, a certain type of tooth structure the others didn't have, or a certain type of wishbone, or subtle differences in various bones. Some of these subtle differences could affect the flexibility of the skull, which is a subject Menton mentions shortly.
` If you didn't know, dinosaurs had rather flexible skulls, capable of something called metakinesis, which is where various parts of the skull can move independently of other parts. Birds (and some dinosaurs) are capable of what is called prokinesis, which is where the entire top jaw can move up and down.
` It is now thought that Archaeopteryx could move its top jaw up and down, though probably only slightly. Basically, most of the differences between primitive birds and, say, the dromaeosaurs, are actually quite subtle when you think about it.
` Anyway, it should be by clear now that birds are pretty much unanimously thought to be warm-blooded, dinosaurian reptiles of the maniraptor clade, just like Velociraptors are. So when Menton says;

` If, of course, it's a true bird, it is not the half-way, half-reptile, half-bird like we've often heard.

` ...that has nothing to do with 'what scientists think' - or even tell people. In fact, Archaeopteryx is not technically classified as a 'true bird' and is not thought to have evolved into either 'true birds' or enantiornith birds, which are now exinct.
` Anyway, so he's saying;

` The general consensus now is that the brain is essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. Also, in most vertebrates, including reptiles, the mandible (lower jaw) moves, but in birds (including Archaeopteryx) so does the maxilla (upper jaw).

` Right. Its brain - though smaller than the brains of other birds - is specialized for flying, though still, dromaeosaurs and troodontids - the most birdlike dinosaurs - had somewhat similar and relatively large brains - and similar skulls, which were capable of moving in somewhat different ways.
` Anyway, so Weiland says;

` Evolutionists point out that it does have some characteristics which are found in other classes, such as reptiles.

` Here we go again - evolutionists may point out that birds are actually reptiles, therefore they do not think that birds are a different 'class' from reptiles! 'Class' is a concept that has had its uses, but today, the work of scientists is too complex to use it.

` Menton; "This is true, but then it's true of almost any vertebrate skeleton. There are also design similarities between reptiles, mammals and living birds too. Birds have a distinctive, specialized skeleton because, as one distinguished evolutionist who is also an ornithologist once said, 'Birds are formed to fly.' So was Archaeopteryx.

` And so are bats! Not all birds can fly, anyway. Kiwis and ostriches evolved from birds that did, and one could say that these animals are 'built like animals that are descended from birds formed to fly.' (Also, many of the features that were previously thought to be essential for bird flight, such as the wide range of motion in the arms and the air-sac-filled bones, are also found in theropod dinosaurs!)
` In other words, Dr. Menton's above statement is just a bunch of fluff that explains nothing, typical of such creationists. Menton next says;

` Archaeopteryx was not the only fossil bird to have had grasping teeth. Some fossil birds had teeth, some didn't. But how can teeth prove a relationship to reptiles, when many reptiles don't have teeth? Crocodiles are really the only group of reptiles that consistently have well-developed teeth. And of course even some mammals do and some don't.

` I think I'm headed into a fluff-storm! He's acting as if scientists are trying to say that always having fully-developed teeth is a defining characteristic of reptiles. It's not - just as always having fully-developed legs is not.
` What scientists do think is that since primitive birds have teeth, then their ancestors must have been toothed reptiles. Since dromaeosaurs and troodontids have similar teeth, as well as just about everything else in common with primitive birds (except for well-developed flight), then there must be a genetic connection between them and primitive birds.
` In fact, when a bird's newer genetics are suppressed, it results in a bird with teeth or a tail similar to that of the earliest birds. This must mean that modern birds must have evolved from primitive birds. (Oh no!)

` Anyway, Menton's statement basically consists of an attempt to undermine scientific findings and steer the reader away from the point by making it sound as if scientists think Archaeopteryx descended from 'reptiles-in-general.' (I've also heard creationists outright say this!)

` Weiland; Some evolutionists have claimed that Archaeopteryx was just a dinosaur plus feathers, in effect. Others have suggested that it's just a hoax - a dinosaur fossil plus chicken feather imprints.
` Menton; Yes they have - Sir Fred Hoyle, for example.

` Yes, these people just love mentioning the names of scientists. In this case, I happen to know offhand that Fred Hoyle was more of an astronomer and sci-fi writer than anything. Though he is renowned, I'm not entirely impressed with him. I read his 1980's pseudoscience book The Intelligent Universe several years ago. Since, back then, I didn't know that science is not immune to sometimes being used as a guise for non-scientific or anti-scientific ideas, I actually took it seriously.
` He was even worse at biological hypotheses; In 1985, he said that the bones of Archaeopteryx were those of a Compsognathus, a primitive coelurosaur (which it closely resembles and has been confused for in the past), but with feathers carved on it. Funny - there are no chisel-marks, only microscopic details of bird feathers!
` Also, the specimens are lined up exactly on both slabs with minute cracks in the limestone - which is definitely something people in the 1800s didn't even know about because you need an electron microscope to see them.
` Because of these cracks, which go all the way through the feathers and bones and everything, lining up in the exact same places, forging an Archaeopteryx would be impossible to do, even today.
` On top of this, in 1988, Hoyle then decided Archaeopteryx wasn't even a dinosaur at all but a pterosaur, which is a whole 'nother ballgame, to say the least. One can conclude from even this incident alone that he clearly didn't know what he was talking about.

` ...Anyway, I was just pointing that out - Menton does not agree with Hoyle, either. I think he probably mentioned his well-respected name just to make the consideration sound reasonable, as many creationists also think it's a fake. Back to the article;

` The feathers are not just simply applied to the surface of the bird. Where they are attached to bone by ligaments, we see tiny 'bumps'. So in Archaeopteryx, the primary and secondary with feathers are attached to the 'hand' and ulna, respectively. And the feathers on the tail are actually minutely attached to each of the 20 vertebrae. There are also a lot of small feathers on the legs and body of this bird, and there is compelling evidence that the head was covered with feathers, too. However, when you see pictures of Archaeopteryx or its imaginary ancestors, it's quite common for artists to show a scaly head.

` Scaly head? I don't remember seeing any pictures like that. Then again, he's probably referring to popular artists, which creationists commonly confuse with scientific artists. Also Archaeopteryx has 22 vertebrae, not 20, and I'm not sure about some of the other stuff.

` Weiland; Do the feet of Archaeopteryx support the view that it was a dinosaur that ran along the ground?
` Menton; No. Archaeopteryx, along with all the perching birds, has what is called a grasping hallux, or hind toe, pointing backwards, Rearward-facing toes may be found in some of the dinosaurs but not a true grasping hallux with curved claws for perching.

` Yes this is true - Archaeopteryx's hallux seems to have been opposable, if a little high up to be the most suitable. And then he starts talking about how hair and feather follicles have nothing to do with scales and more to do with each other. I don't really know enough to make an intelligent-enough answer here, but I can tell you that the way he's talking about it is much too simplistic to really be saying anything important.

` For now I can say that, since feathers are apparently common in smaller theropods, it would make sense that the simplest type of feathers - down-like structures - were the first to evolve, and later feathers with rachides evolved as 'guard hairs' perhaps. From all the evidence that exists, this makes sense.
` As far as why they evolved, it seems to be because dinosaurs had a body temperature to maintain, so to prevent themselves from having to stay in warmer areas, and to conserve energy and therefore fuel intake, they could retain heat with their feathers. The creationists will tell you that the evolutionists think differently, though:

` Weiland; How do evolutionists believe birds evolved flight?
` Menton; There are really two theories - you can't test either, of course.

` Typical downplay, 'you can't test'... which specifically means you can test everything relevant, but you can't watch it actually happen because that is the normal nature of history. That's what you get when you're faced with the task of reconstructing history of any type, though, not just biological.
` The current theory is that small maniraptors similar to dromaeosaurs and Archaeopteryx most likely used their feathers to glide through the trees. But what does Menton say?

` The arboreal theory says that they started up in the trees, and flew down, and so scales are viewed as having grown longer and longer somehow to promote gliding.

` Uh... like I said... no. He's just making it sound silly. Allow me;

` When animals fall from trees, they instinctively spread out. Feathers which stick out even a little would have been a boon for a small dinosaur trying not to fall on the ground. Ones without sufficient control in falling would probably be killed if not careful - so the individuals with the best brains, reflexes, and 'parachuting' ability would survive.
` Also important is the fact that a tree-dwelling animal uses up a lot of energy running down one tree and scrambling up the next. Such animals would risk dying, so individuals who could avoid that the most often would be more likely to survive.
` Probably these reasons are enough to explain why so many gliding species exists all around the world today - including such animals as snakes, frogs, and ants!
` Evidently, it is an easy thing for a lineage to evolve. Some gliding species known have used the hind legs only, or even the toes and fingers only; ribby extensions of some type are common in lizards and similar reptiles; and mammals such as sugar gliders, feather-tailed gliders, scaly-tailed squirrels, flying squirrels, and flying lemurs use webs of skin and a tail with long fur extending out to either side.

` Now, small, birdlike dinosaurs had flat feathers, right? Those would most likely have an influence on the air if one fell, especially if the animal had long feathers on the arms, as some ground-dinosaurs did. Fast-forwarding: If a small maniraptor at some point had evolved long feathers on the arms for display or gliding and flapped them, the animal could have increased thrust while decreasing drag, though it probably still could not have produced lift. Gliding farther is still a definite advantage.
` Some dromaeosaurs lived in trees, and Microraptor is most notable in that it had also evolved proper wings and flight feathers on the tail, similar to Archaeopteryx's, as well as long flight feathers on the legs. This is probably the result of convergent evolution, as Microraptor probably did not evolve from primitive birds. It seems to have had very weak flight, or at least a very strong gliding ability, but a form of aerial maneuverability nonetheless, so we know that such an animal can evolve at least once.

` Anyway, Menton continues:

` The cursorial theory postulates that the birds really started on the ground and after vigorous hopping and what-have-you managed to eventually fly up.

` In light of new evidence, not as many scientists are much in favor of the ground-up idea, though that sentance is more of a snide remark than a description of what any professionals have thought.

` Each side is quite certain the other side is dead wrong, of course. Evolutionist John Ostrom speculates that feathers evolved from large scales on the forelimbs of dinosaurs and that these long feathers, as they developed, were used to catch insects! Now, while feathers are remarkably strong for their weight, I can't think of any worse treatment than to bang them together to catch insects. Also, they're an incredibly complex structure to use just for this purpose. And they would blow the insect out of the way. Birds couldn't clap their limbs together in front anyway - they just don't have that kind of a shoulder.

` Ooohhh, kay... I'm pretty sure that Ostrom, in the past, actually said something more along the lines of feathered dinosaurs having long arm-feathers to swat down insects as they leaped into the air. (We know that some did have such feathers, though nobody knows why.)
` Of course, if Menton had been critiquing this idea the way serious biologists do, he would have said something more like; 'When the hypothetical creature leapt off the ground, its source of thrust would have also been terminated.' But, no, he simply resorts to ridicule because this is a political stance (as if this is not obvious enough!), not a scientific assessment.

` Weiland; Is there any evidence for either theory?
` Menton; Not the slightest - and the people who take each view make that point.

` Generally the way the real point is made is like this; 'There is evidence for the other side, but it's not good enough' or something like that.
` Also, I wonder what he supposes paleontologists are talking about when they say that there is evidence for their own theories? Does he think they are just pulling it out of their rectums? The truth about it is; not all theories and hypotheses are equal, and one seems to be prevailing.

` There are no examples of living or fossil scales that even remotely resemble a feather. Archaeopteryx has complete feathers like modern birds.

` I should point out that protofeathers look almost just like modern bird feathers, though they are simpler in their fine details.

` Weiland; So how would you sum up your opinion?
` Menton; The theory of the evolution of flight is not about the birds, so much as it's a theory 'for the birds'.

` Ha. Cute. Into the fluff again. While Menton actually said very little in the scientific area of Archaeopteryx, he did say plenty of things that were non-scientific and even anti-scientific.


` Science aside, since these men are obviously Christian, you may ask if I have anything to say from that perspective? Not being Christian myself, however, I would suggest; why don't we just ask Jesus himself?
` Of course! Ha.

` Well, we can't do that directly, but I can infer this message from the bible: 'Genesis was not meant to be taken literally: Its meaning goes far deeper than the bare words!'
` Certain Christian friends of mine have pointed out that in the gospel as accounted by Matthew, Jesus himself was asked why he gives his stories in parables. His answer was that telling crowds of people 'the truth' straight up might be too freaky, outrageous, or mentally overwhelming.
` A parable is something anyone can grasp that gives the person a general idea of what's being said without telling them exactly what is meant. Symbolic stories are also very common in all religions, and I can see why; among other things, something this abstract can actually be considered a higher form of communication.
` It would therefore not be surprising if much older stories like Genesis were actually meant to be the same way - though keep in mind, they have doubtless been garbled through the ages and also translated many times before ending up in English. (You'd have to go back to the original texts to get a better idea.)

` Even so, as my Christian friends have again pointed out, the Judeo-Christian creation story does somewhat resemble what you might see in a science book - Long ago, the earth took shape and the clouds and ocean were separated by the sky. Depending on which translation you go by, the general idea is that plants, sea creatures and birds then had their start, and afterward came a day/era of mammals.
` Humans are one of the later species in the history of the earth, and they are mentioned in Genesis as being the last created. The first humans began to understand things that the other animals do not, winding up clothed in animal skins and separated from the rest of nature.

` If such creationists as Sarfati saw a parallel between this simple, easy-to-tell story, and the general pattern of the way things have been found to develop on earth, then he would probably say that scientific findings in general agree with the symbology of the Bible, and therefore stop trying to ruin the image of scientists.

` But that's just my two cents.

Ever Wonder Why Creationists and Biologists don't see eye-to-eye?

` This is kind of an unexpected entry - I was writing one about birdlike dinosaurs, but it went bye-byes because I did something especially stupid to my browser in a period of boredom. In re-doing everything, I came across a rather typical creationist website - which is one where such people seem to be writing about a completely different universe than the one scientists study. It had an article about feathered dinosaurs - from another dimension, apparently - which I had plenty to say about.
` After working for two days on the dinosaur entry (starting tomorrow), I figured I'd take a break and tell you what I said.

` In this entry, I simply wish to share with anyone who comes here an overly-obvious example of what is probably the most popular ploy these anti-evolutionists use in order to make scientists look stupid - talking on another plane of existence, as it were, as mainstream science.

` The first example I use is about a fossil with a fuzzy little head...


` The argument goes like this:

` A creationist (or other anti-evolution proponent) will often say that most scientists who deal with evolution actually believe some ridiculous statement, though the scientists in question actually do not! Because of this, the scientists in question look very stupid unless you already know it isn't true.

` This is called 'character assassination!'

` Similarly, such creationists have been known to garble and misrepresent valid scientific data and theories - including the very nature of science! - so that these look just as silly as the fake allegations!
` And why do all that? The creationists - as well as the main Intelligent Design proponents - complain that scientists are threatening their faith by claiming that God did not create life on earth. (If that is their interpretation of the Bible, then fine, but scientists are not interested in disproving religions!)
` Erroneously, they go even further by saying that scientists actually claim that God does not exist! That seems to be the main motivation for attempting to ruin the reputations of many important scientific minds.
` By doing this, such anti-evolutionists insult botanists, zoologists, paleontologists, paleo-anthropologists, bio-geographers, developmental biologists, cosmologists, geologists, social biologists, bio-physicists, bio-chemists, geneticists, and in fact, all honest scientists by lying about not only findings and scientists' interpretations of those findings, but the scientific way itself!

` In this article, I have a cluster of similar examples I have randomly come across - I run into them all the time, actually - showing precisely what I've just described.

` The material is from the website of a magazine called Creation. This first part is from a very brief article by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati entitled; 'BPM 1 3-13' - have they finally found a true feathered dinosaur?
` These images are closeups of the specimen in question. This one shows branched structures radiating perpendicularly to the forearm.
` Typical of creationist propaganda, it is full of lots of this false 'what scientists think' gibberish.

` In order to get my point across, it is best that you know what is going on in the heads of scientists, which most people don't actually. If you have already read my Dinosaurs and their Descendents entries, you'd be sure to see that the people at Creation clearly don't seem to be familiar with the work of dinosaurologists and such at all!

` If you have not read my Dinosaurs and their Descendents (DatD) entries (on Saturdays, starting here), or do not know much about the relevant topics of Sarfati's article and the others, yet insist on reading this one anyway, then this article will probably not make a lot of sense. Just to warn you.

` Now, this article is about BPM 1 3-13, a tiny dromaeosaur, which if you have read the DatD, articles, you'd definitely know something about it by now. The fossil itself is comprised of two slabs, mirror images of a tiny dinosaur which has clear impressions of fibers - there appears to be down as well as long feathers protruding from the arms. You can click on and view more images here.

` Other coelurosaur theropods are also known for different forms of feathers similar to or identical to those found on modern birds, including members of the compsognathid, tyrannosaur, oviraptorosaur, therizinosaur, and especially dromaeosaur (a.k.a. 'raptor') clades.

` If you've read my DatD entries, you'd definitely know that one reason that why scientists would really think that small, birdlike dinosaurs had these insulating feathers is because they were endothermic, or 'warm-blooded.'
` As you may know, there is every reason - microscopic and macroscopic - to think that their metabolisms were high enough to need them.
` Also, every feature of birds places them in the maniraptor clade - with BPM 1 3-13 - and now it is becoming clear that feathers are normal for the smaller coelurosaurs.

` Now, for some reason, John Sarfati doesn't think that these dinosaurs had feathers at all, despite the fact that it is extremely well-documented by now. Of course, there is no reason a creationist shouldn't accept that any animal has feathers, which even he points out.
` Neither should they have any reason to doubt that the features of birds place them in the maniraptor clade with similar species, just as housecats are placed in the carnivore clade with lions and tigers.
` Unless, of course, these people actually view it as threatening to be some sort of real evidence that (gasp!) birds are maniraptors because they evolved from other maniraptors!

` Perish the thought!

` Sarfati here, though, seems to be for some reason terrified at this idea... Just like a typical creationist; his faith hangs on the threat of evolution and he doesn't seem to understand the complex relationships between these animals, nor many scientific concepts relevant to them.
` For example, the articles here that I've read use words like 'class', which are terms that have been discarded by biologists because they can no longer be used in practice. Then again, perhaps he does know more than he lets on, but chooses to tell lies in an attempt to make scientists look stupid and dogmatic.

` I can't say which is more likely, only that it is typical behavior of his lot.

` Anyhow, here's my running commentary on the actual article: After assuring people that feathered dinosaur fossils do not really exist for real Sarfati writes:

Many of the same things are apparent with BPM as with many of the other now-discredited claims, e.g.:

~ This specimen is 'dated' (by evolutionary/uniformitarian methods) as >20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, a true bird with flight feathers and an avian lung system. Therefore this can provide no proof that birds evolved from such creatures in the first place.

` Very good, Binky! Scientists do not think that this dromaeosaur evolved into birds, and they are well aware that the idea of any fossil animal evolving into animals which lived beforehand makes no sense. Implying that they do, or that bird-dino evolution somehow rests on this... well, that's a straw man right there.

~ Dr Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural Histoy of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, has previously been scathing about overzealous bird-dino claims in both Nature and National Geographic... Similarly, he says he cannot discern feathers or feathery structures in this latest discovery, and advises caution against the possibilities that the feathers come from a different source...

` So, Olson can't make out any feathers? I could be wrong, but II think that at this time Olson hadn't even gotten a chance to look at the specimen - he was just making inferences from photographs.

This caution is reasonable - he was one of the first to smell a rat about the Archaeoraptor fraud... Another prominent sceptic of the dino-to-bird dogma, Dr. Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, also warns about the possibility of a fake...

` Okay, one thing... maybe National Geographic was a bit too premature with their Archaeoraptor article, but it wasn't exactly a fraud! (At least not a scientific one!)
` It was an incident involving a poor layman trying to make two similar-looking broken fossils more presentable with glue, and his intention was not to give it to a paleontologist, but to make money, at the risk of his own life. Luckily, it was found by paleontologists anyway, and they discovered two new species from it after they had studied it more thoroughly.
` Also, notice how eager creationists like this one are to put the titles and universities of scientists in their material, whether reputable or not. In fact, anti-evolutionists will sometimes use mainstream and/or reputable scientists' quotes on something they know a lot about, and use them out of context - understandably, this annoys such scientists greatly.

` Honestly, if you read my dino posts, you'd see that this anti-dino-bird business is made of arguments that seriously do not make a lot of sense.

~ We have previously pointed out that feathers on a dinosaur are not ruled out by creationist theory, and would not prove that dinosaurs could overcome the huge hurdles of actually evolving into a bird.

` Huge hurdles? There is are many more similarities between an and a dromaeosaur than an Archaeopteryx and any modern bird! If you don't believe me, check out a skeleton of an Archaeopteryx and then a small dromaeosaur.

Similarly, there's no creationist reason why the pterodactyls shouldn't have a fur-like covering - yet no evolutionist believes that pterodactyls evolved into mammals.

` Ooo-kay... For one thing, what is the purpose of this article? If God can create dinosaurs any way He wants, then why bother denying them feathers and other avian characteristics - most of which are shared by dromaeosaurs?
` Why deny what scientists report about the structures of any fossil, for that matter? If God can create dinosaurs that are part-way to true birds on a whim (= they really could have existed), then why bother to refute their existence? In other words, this comment of Dr. Sarfati's seems to say; "What I said earlier means nothing."

` The logical conclusion? This whole article must have been written out of Sarfati's fear of science ruining his religion. And the thing about pterodactyls, which are called pterosaurs by anyone who knows the first thing about them, was merely misdirection: If they had projectile skin filaments (similar to hair), that probably means they were endothermic (warm-blooded), not that they evolved into mammals.

` Anyhow, I'm reading another piece of material from the site - The 'Feathered Dinosaur' Find... by Carl Weiland. He paints the picture of dino-bird biologists as being fanatical, hardcore, dogmatic idiots. Basically, he's like; 'feather impressions are either not from feathers, or they are feathers but the animals were true birds.'
` Yeah... Alan Feduccia, who is one of those really annoying scientists who shirks their objectivity by not considering everything that's relevant, says that some of the feathered dinosaurs were flightless birds. That just goes to show you how birdlike these animals were - not much different than prehistoric birds in most ways! (But there are small features that distinguish them.)

` Also, he acts like 'Ha! They admit their arms were too short to be wings, and Mark Norell says they're 'nonavian dinosaurs', so according to him, they're not partway to birds!' That's not what 'nonavian dinosaur' means! A nonavian dinosaur could be any dinosaur that is not a true bird, but the dinosaur in question may have been anywhere from something resembling an Archaeopteryx to the other end of the spectrum where you have species like Triceratops and Stegosaurus.
` He writes; 'Even the deepest enthusiasts are forced to acknlowedge that these are not actually feathers.' Well, while the oviraptor-like Caudipteryx (one of Feduccia's 'birds') has true feathers, the others had 'protofeathers', which appear to be the same thing, but without the microscopic hooklets and barbules. Clearly, they are related structures.
` But then he goes on to say that if this is true, then so what? It's still consistent with their creation story - the only reason they reject the idea is because they were conditioned to think dinosaurs looked one way, but preconceived ideas (of scaly, lizardy things) have been changing... bla bla bla...
` So is the reason they are really rejecting this because they like pseudoscience so much? Or is it because they like to make decent scientists look stupid?

` Another article is; Which came first, the dino or the bird? by Jonathan Sarfati. He says:

According to the Word of One who was there, the bird came first - air and sea creatures were created on Day 5 while land creatures (which must logically include dinosaurs) were created on Day 6.

` According to his version of Genesis anyway - not all of them are the same!

However, evolutionists, who weren't there, believe that birds evolved from land creatures, and therefore must have come after them.

` Like any skeptic, if I was 'there', watching God creating life in whatever vague way he's talking about it that was not evolution, I'd be quick to agree. But from the vast records of the rocks, embryos, and DNA strands, we can infer only what happened by what the earth and its life forms tell us - and it's a lot different.
` It is probably not worth noting, however, that Sarfati was 'not there' as well. So I'll pretend I didn't say so. Instead, I will wonder what day he believes that ostriches were created on - they are not 'fowls of the air'. (However, I think this term also has to do with which translation you are looking at.)

One group of evolutionists believes that birds evolved from small tree-dwelling reptiles (not dinosaurs), hence it's called the arboreal theory. Its intellectual leader is probably Dr Alan Feduccia, University of North Carolina ornithologist and author of the encyclopedic book The Origin and Evolution of Birds.

` Feduccia, as well as a few others, are 'leaders' that stand alone in their ideas. It is almost unanimous that birds evolved from small, probably tree-dwelling dinosaurs, which is a hypothesis that does not involve those lizard-looking things. (To learn more about tree-dwelling dinosaurs - and the 'lizard-looking things' - that have been found, consult my DatD blog.)
` And why do creationists side with such evolutionists? Because they inhabit the weird world of fringe science and pseudoscience and things like that. Basically, what happens with Feduccia is that all he does is argue with the other scientists and they have no choice but to tell him to consider all the other evidence, which he won't. This gives the false impression that there is some kind of controversy, and this is the kind of thing anti-evolutionists pick and choose from to further their ideas.

The other, more vocal group believes that birds evolved from running dinosaurs, so it's called the cursorial theory. The dinosaurs concerned are types of theropod (carnivorous dinosaur) called the Dromaeosaurs, the group to which Velociraptor of Jurassic Park fame belongs.

` These scientists do not think that birds evolved from dromaeosaurs. Generally, it is thought that birds and dromaeosaurs shared a common ancestor, which may have climbed trees. Also, I believe Feduccia himself was the one who said that they were more vocal, though he is the one who has to resort to screaming hatefully at those who ignore him. Really though, there's not much controversy except what you find in the mass-media.

Bird evolution is one of the most controversial areas in evolutionary paleontology, and leaders of both groups have made extremely powerful (and sometimes acrimonious) criticisms of the other.

` As I said, this is not true.

I think they are both right in their criticisms - birds evolved from neither!

` Oh, how clever.

One of the most scathing critiques was by Dr. Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, in an open letter:

` Him again...

'The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualities in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age - the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.'

` Aw, he's just jealous. As Olson warned in this letter - which was about 'Archaeoraptor' - people should not be taking fossils from the black market, because they are often more than one fossil glued together by Chinese villagers who evidently think they look better that way. At least they discovered from the Archaeoraptor mishap two new species - Microraptor, the tree-dwelling, winged dromaeosaur, and Yanornis, a bird.

In early December, papers published by different groups of Chinese students within a day of each other in the two top secular science journals were used to support both camps.

` Secular science? As if there's more than one type! The truth is, science can only falsify corporeal claims, not supernatural thought-experiments.
` Anyway, yeah, so Microraptor was discovered and so was an enantiornith bird. At first they looked like they really did fit together, though...

` And then the end of the article reminds the reader that carbon dating cannot actually determine anything for real, and that the only reason why animals seem to be buried at different points in time has to do with The Great Flood burying them in a particular order.
' How enlightening.

` Then there's another article that was linked to in 'have they finally found a true feathered dinosaur' about the misidentification of Archaeoraptor. They found that it wasn't one animal but the flying/gliding dromaeosaur and a bird. As I've said before.

` He says that because this mistaken identification occurred, this somehow means that it is 'proof' that feathered dinosaurs did not exist. That was a human error, though, and after the truth was revealed, they found more bits of Microraptor: It had flight feathers on its arms, legs, and tail! How this logic goes, I can't tell you.
` Considering that there have been multiple and double-sided specimens of other feathered dinosaurs found (which are impossible to fake) that have been better studied, there is no reason to say that these others are hoaxes or mistaken identities or what-have-you. But no, they would rather focus on Archaeoraptor.

` On top of this, there is a tirade of acidic and extreme criticism by Doc Olson over which I roll my eyes. I'm writing about it in my future DatD entries.

` This article ends with Sarfati advising people to consult the Bible before they think about the origins of anything and that; 'Facts never speak for themselves.'
` I'd write more about this in detail, but the fact is, it is so riddled with waffle that in my current state of sleep deprivation, it would take weeks to pick apart. Also, I don't think many people would have the attention span. Besides, I should get some sleep.

` (However, I do have something I've already written from a much larger article I've excavated about Archaeopteryx. It's full of even more obvious, and therefore laughable trickery!)