Bird-like dinosaur found with eggs in Patagonia

[amargasaurus cazaui]

There is no way you can state your theory in a way that makes sense. I'm sorry but it is actually quite the opposite, it is non-sense. The most frighting. part is you actually sound like you know what you're talking about. Luckily most of us know better. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh

I think when you start making a personnal attack over a scientific debate the validity of discussion becomes lost. I believe if you feel threatened enough to have to defend, you are not open to the point of a discussion forum. I am entitled to my beliefs, and understandings wether they meet yours or not. My lack of fossil evidence is no more overwhelming than yours.
If all that science did was accept status quo from a book or what someone believes there would never be advancement. Remember the flap over Archaeopteryx a few years back for example. People had stated for a hundred years....a bird with teeth, look at the tail. It is evolution frozen in time. A link between dinosaurs and bird exists. Any credible paleontologist or museum would have told me that. Anyone who would question it would be ostracized. Then someone came along and said...hey, look...its actually a dinosaur with feathers. Not a missing link afterall, merely a feathered dinosaur. When you lack fossil evidence, all else is speculation.
Paleontology is built from the Ostroms, the Bakkers, the Andrews, the names that questioned and did so with reason.

[Gwangi]

There is no way you can state your theory in a way that makes sense. I'm sorry but it is actually quite the opposite, it is non-sense. The most frighting. part is you actually sound like you know what you're talking about. Luckily most of us know better. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh

I think when you start making a personnal attack over a scientific debate the validity of discussion becomes lost. I believe if you feel threatened enough to have to defend, you are not open to the point of a discussion forum. I am entitled to my beliefs, and understandings wether they meet yours or not. My lack of fossil evidence is no more overwhelming than yours.

Okay, think what you want. That is how I honestly feel about what you're suggesting. I don't feel threatened, I feel baffled.! There is no scientific debate here if you bring no science. Now, is there anything else I touched on that you might want to respond to besides what you think was a personal attack? You're the one claiming lizards, snakes and mammals (you did say mammals right?) are dinosaur descendants remember. So personal attacks aside, where is the evidence for your argument? Science is nothing without evidence. Do you even know what makes a dinosaur a dinosaur? That last one is not an attack but an honest question.

If all that science did was accept status quo from a book or what someone believes there would never be advancement. Remember the flap over Archaeopteryx a few years back for example. People had stated for a hundred years....a bird with teeth, look at the tail. It is evolution frozen in time. A link between dinosaurs and bird exists. Any credible paleontologist or museum would have told me that. Anyone who would question it would be ostracized. Then someone came along and said...hey, look...its actually a dinosaur with feathers. Not a missing link afterall, merely a feathered dinosaur. When you lack fossil evidence, all else is speculation.
Paleontology is built from the Ostroms, the Bakkers, the Andrews, the names that questioned and did so with reason.

I'm not suggesting science accept the status quo. Far from it, that isn't science at all. What I am asking is that if you have a theory that goes against mainstream science, find the evidence needed to back it up. The reason we now think of Archeopteryx as a dinosaur rather than a bird is because someone formulated a theory and found evidence to support it. Again, without evidence science is nothing. Things change in science, we all know and accept that but that doesn't mean I have to take a claim such as yours seriously if you have nothing to support it (you don't), especially if it goes completely against everything we know about vertebrate evolution.

P.S. There is no such thing as a missing link. Archeopteryx was never a missing link, there is no such thing as a first bird.

[CityRaptor]

And it being the "missing link" has been questioned for some time. Indeed a lot people assumed it to be another branch of the tree that leads to modern birds, but not neccesarily be the one in question.

[Gryphoceratops]

My lack of fossil evidence is no more overwhelming than yours.

It really is actually.  We actually have fossil evidence.  Where is the fossil evidence that says modern mammals reptiles (excluding birds) are directly linked to dinosaurs?

If all that science did was accept status quo from a book or what someone believes there would never be advancement. Remember the flap over Archaeopteryx a few years back for example. People had stated for a hundred years....a bird with teeth, look at the tail. It is evolution frozen in time. A link between dinosaurs and bird exists. Any credible paleontologist or museum would have told me that. Anyone who would question it would be ostracized. Then someone came along and said...hey, look...its actually a dinosaur with feathers. Not a missing link afterall, merely a feathered dinosaur. When you lack fossil evidence, all else is speculation.
Paleontology is built from the Ostroms, the Bakkers, the Andrews, the names that questioned and did so with reason.

Yeah but the people who challenged and changed the status quo had evidence to back it up.  All the scientists you mentioned...they discovered something or found something that proved what they said.  Where is your proof? 

I don't mean this in a mean way I mean it in an honest questioning way; Where did you get this belief from?  Did you read something?  See something on TV?  What makes you believe so strongly that dinosaurs evolved into modern non-avian reptiles?  Because there is literally nothing that supports that idea and a whole lot of factual evidence that says its false.  I don't know maybe you are just trolling to see what kind of a reaction you can get?

[Seijun]

I've never done any research into evolutionary trees before, so lets see if I have this strait, between reading here and reading good ol' wikipedia.
The group Amniotes contains Synapsids (mammals) and Sauropsids (reptiles). Early Sauropsids evolved in different directions giving us, among other things, Lepidosauromorpha (lizards and snakes), Testudines (turtles and tortoises), and Archosauromorpha (crocodiles and dinosaurs). Some of the dinosaurs eventually evolved into modern day birds. This would make all birds dinosaurs, and all dinosaurs reptiles, while still separating them from the animals most people think of as modern day reptiles.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I've never done any research into evolutionary trees before, so lets see if I have this strait, between reading here and reading good ol' wikipedia.
The group Amniotes contains Synapsids (mammals) and Sauropsids (reptiles). Early Sauropsids evolved in different directions giving us, among other things, Lepidosauromorpha (lizards and snakes), Testudines (turtles and tortoises), and Archosauromorpha (crocodiles and dinosaurs). Some of the dinosaurs eventually evolved into modern day birds. This would make all birds dinosaurs, and all dinosaurs reptiles, while still separating them from the animals most people think of as modern day reptiles.

Yes. ...precisely. A common ancestral family that became all birds and reptiles...one step removed from Amniotes. 250 million years later, these animals are all grandkids of the orginal (per his example) sauropsids, the common ancestor . What they have become and we call them today DOES not make alot of difference, they all share a common ancestor, and therefore many of the same traits. Seiijum worded it far better than I, but yes this is my point. So why is it surprising in the modern world so many people have trouble accepting birds are evolved from dinosaurs? That was where I was trying to go with my point . He said it far better than I did

[Gwangi]

Yes. ...precisely. A common ancestral family that became all birds and reptiles...one step removed from Amniotes. 250 million years later, these animals are all grandkids of the orginal (per his example) sauropsids, the common ancestor . What they have become and we call them today DOES not make alot of difference, they all share a common ancestor, and therefore many of the same traits. Seiijum worded it far better than I, but yes this is my point. So why is it surprising in the modern world so many people have trouble accepting birds are evolved from dinosaurs? That was where I was trying to go with my point . He said it far better than I did

Well, they aren't removed from amniotes, they are still amniotes but I digress. Few people today dismiss the dinosaur/bird connection. A few scientists and an uninformed public perhaps. That birds evolved from dinosaurs is about as close to a fact as you can get in this field. No one is arguing against you where that is concerned. What we are concerned about is your statement on the last page...
"I do not believe dinosaurs became birds ONLY. I believe they were the forerunners of of reptiles, and birds. Or more simply put I believe most animals to a degree are dinosaurs now. Dinosaurs possesed most of the ancestral traits for them. The things we label as birds now and reptiles now, are derived terms."

I'm still not sure about what you're saying here but is doesn't sound like it matches up with what Seijun is saying. It sounds like you're saying many of today's living animals are in fact dinosaurs when this is not true, the only living descendents of dinosaurs are the birds. If your issue is with how we label things than I don't know what to say. Labeling things is our attempt to understand things and how they relate to each other and for the most part it works pretty well in understanding how dinosaurs and other reptiles relate to each other.

[ZoPteryx]

Speculation is not proof.

True, but due to the naturally spotty nature of the fossil record, educated speculation is absolutely necessary to fill in the gaps between pieces of hard evidence.  And until hard evidence determines otherwise, the reigning theory/theories should be the ones taken most seriously, unless there is sufficient evidence to doubt them.

My point I was trying to state is...that there had to be a direct and immediate ancestoral family for these animals.

Yes, mammals and reptiles (including dinosaurs & birds) share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was not from the Triassic.  The synapsid reptiles (which would lead to mammals) & the sauropsids (which would lead to all other reptiles) split way back during the late Carboniferous, over 300 million years ago.  Further more, the lepidosaurs and the archosaurs split from each other during the late Permian and modern representatives of both groups (lizards and dinosaurs respectively) did not appear until the late Triassic.  By this time, the lepidosaurs and archosaurs had diverged greatly from each other, and the synapsids further still.

I don't think anyone here is denying that, at some point in evolutionary history, various forms of life shared a common ancestor.  But the odds of discovering that fossil ancestor are so miniscule that it might as well be impossible.  And even if we did have it, we probably wouldn't know it unless we had all of its ancestors and decendents.  And given all the new traits that have to combine to form a new group, it's very unlikely that a single "missing link" would posses them and allow scientists to say, "There! That's were they started!".  So in conclusion: yes, there is a common ancestor to the animals in question, but dinosaurs are not that ancestor, and not every group branched off at the same time.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Yes. ...precisely. A common ancestral family that became all birds and reptiles...one step removed from Amniotes. 250 million years later, these animals are all grandkids of the orginal (per his example) sauropsids, the common ancestor . What they have become and we call them today DOES not make alot of difference, they all share a common ancestor, and therefore many of the same traits. Seiijum worded it far better than I, but yes this is my point. So why is it surprising in the modern world so many people have trouble accepting birds are evolved from dinosaurs? That was where I was trying to go with my point . He said it far better than I did

Well, they aren't removed from amniotes, they are still amniotes but I digress. Few people today dismiss the dinosaur/bird connection. A few scientists and an uninformed public perhaps. That birds evolved from dinosaurs is about as close to a fact as you can get in this field. No one is arguing against you where that is concerned. What we are concerned about is your statement on the last page...
"I do not believe dinosaurs became birds ONLY. I believe they were the forerunners of of reptiles, and birds. Or more simply put I believe most animals to a degree are dinosaurs now. Dinosaurs possesed most of the ancestral traits for them. The things we label as birds now and reptiles now, are derived terms."

I'm still not sure about what you're saying here but is doesn't sound like it matches up with what Seijun is saying. It sounds like you're saying many of today's living animals are in fact dinosaurs when this is not true, the only living descendents of dinosaurs are the birds. If your issue is with how we label things than I don't know what to say. Labeling things is our attempt to understand things and how they relate to each other and for the most part it works pretty well in understanding how dinosaurs and other reptiles relate to each other.

I dont have issues with your labels Gwangi, i have issues with society's labels . To general society no, the dinosaur birds connection is not a closed debate. I live in the bible belt for instance of the US, and its hotly in debate here for instance. (to be sure, I do believe the bird is a direct descendant myself )  . I am trying to say there is far too much import being placed on the LABELS and not the animals . They all came from a common source, as Seijun stated, Amniotes. And then another step further sauropsids..... still a common ancestor. This group then derived into the the branches you are stating..modern reptiles and Dinosaurs, which then became birds. When modern people sit and argue was it a dinosaur or a bird, as I said, it is akin to the debate about feathered dinosaurs versus toothed birds. Speculation is not proof.
[/quote]

True, but due to the naturally spotty nature of the fossil record, educated speculation is absolutely necessary to fill in the gaps between pieces of hard evidence.  And until hard evidence determines otherwise, the reigning theory/theories should be the ones taken most seriously, unless there is sufficient evidence to doubt them.

And that is my main concern. When conjecture becomes consensus reality needs a new face. Science for me is not built around guesswork.  I detest reigning theories and have watched them over time fall flat on their face. Until there is a solid reason or proof, I dont choose to accept it. Just because its written in a book or a museum has it on their milk carton does not make it credible for me. Credibility is each persons responsibility as I see it. Mine just asks more facts.

[stoneage]

If all you're trying to say is that all animals are related...you're right. But if you're saying what I think you're saying I'm dumbfounded. Are you honestly suggesting that living reptiles and/or mammals are in effect...dinosaurs? Anyone with a basic understanding of tetrapod evolution will tell you you're wrong if that is the case. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs because they posses a unique set of characteristics that set them apart from other reptiles. They belong to the group the archosaurs which are also set apart from other reptiles because they too share characteristics not shared with them. You mention a similarity in teeth but actually no, the teeth of an archosaur are quite different from those of lepidosaurs (lizards, snakes). Archosaur teeth are set in sockets, lepidosaur teeth are fused to the jaw. Also, archosaurs don't have splayed legs. Even crocodiles who walk with their legs splayed out can tuck them under. In fact, one of the defining features of dinosauria is that they keep their legs tucked under their body. Birds walk like this too, lepidosaurs do not. There are many other differences in anatomy as well that set the two groups apart and tell us without a doubt that one of those groups did not give rise to the other. Dinosaurs did not posses lizard-like teeth or even lizard-like bodies, study up on the anatomy and you'll see the difference. There is a difference between looking at something through an unbiased eye and an uninformed eye. Do the research, the reality is far more fascinating than your fantastical notions. 

I will try to say it once more so that it makes sense . The period of the Triassic has produced a paucity of fossils to this point essentially in the moment when the first dinosaurs arose. There is no clear record of the first basal dinosaurs, or for that matter reptiles or birds. This is not supposition or imagination , it is known fact. The primitive state for nearly all of these animals is largely unknown and therefore unproven . Speculation is not proof. If you ask the most well educated herptologists today they cannot state categorically where the first snakes arose, the first lizards or for that matter turtles. It is an unknown to this point largely being speculated at. The same can be said for birds. There is speculation but not direct and final proof. More directly the WHEN is not a known factor either. When did it stop being a reptile and become a dinosaur? When did it stop being a dinosaur and become a bird? These are not things that are clearly understood nor known for certain. Without hard facts, it remains theory.
My point I was trying to state is...that there had to be a direct and immediate ancestoral family for these animals. Some evolved to what we classify now as birds. Some took another path and became reptiles. Still others are what we label dinosaurs now.  We are looking at the grandkids removed by 250 million years of evoloution. This is also known and simple fact. It doesnt matter what name we give it, or even if we agree. They came from the same parental family at some point in the past, and always were related. I dont think that is so fantastical, or far removed from proven fact. Sorry if you dont agree.

You should go back and read what myself and Gwangi both said.

Bottom line is this.  Birds are not just the modern descendants of dinosaurs, they are themselves dinosaurs.  All the other modern reptiles are def not.  This isn't based on speculation or guess work.  Its based on factual evidence that we can observe.  I gave you the fossil record proof and gwangi gave you the anatomical proof.  Any credible paleontologist, evolutionary biologist or herpetologist will tell you the same exact thing.  Go to a museum or read some books the answers are all there.

Stoneage: I think that the first true bird was a dinosaur.

That wasn't the question.  You said the first true birds appeared in the Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous.  Is this based on fossil evidence or speculation?

[Gryphoceratops]

Fossil Evidence.  The line between bird(still a dinosaur btw) and just dinosaur is a bit blurry.  But its roughly around there. 

[Gwangi]

There is fossil evidence that there may have been birds in the Triassic too. Do we want to open up that can of worms?