Bird-like dinosaur found with eggs in Patagonia

[DinoToyForum]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17688939

[Tyrannosaurid lover]

Mmmm interesting, what did you think forum members?
For me is verry cool, Im happy for fund this eggs

[CityRaptor]

Just more proof of the Bird-Dinosaur Connection, if you ask me. And getting more eggs, especially when found with the adult in question, is always nice.

[ZoPteryx]

Just more proof of the Bird-Dinosaur Connection, if you ask me. And getting more eggs, especially when found with the adult in question, is always nice.

Agreed.  Hopefully they'll find some with embryos preserved inside.

[Seijun]

Sounds like there were enbyos inside. The article says this:
"Palaeontologists said they expected the eggs, which were fertilised and well-developed, to help explain how birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some of the eggs were probably still inside the mother dinosaur when she died - other eggs were nearby."

Just more proof of the Bird-Dinosaur Connection, if you ask me.

Isn't that connection pretty well established already? I could be wrong, but it seems like at this point, anyone who still doesn't believe in a bird-dino connection is probably beyond all hope of scientific reasoning.

[CityRaptor]

I think it can't be pointed out enough.

[Gwangi]

Isn't that connection pretty well established already? I could be wrong, but it seems like at this point, anyone who still doesn't believe in a bird-dino connection is probably beyond all hope of scientific reasoning.

I couldn't agree more. I watched the video on that link and once the paleontologist started describing how birds evolved from dinosaurs I turned it off. I wanted to hear about this new fossil discovery, not a rehash of the obvious and well documented dinosaur/bird connection. The video went from discussing the alvarezsaurid and its nest onto how dinosaur arms evolved into bird wings...not really all that relevant. It used to be that every new theropod discovered was a "Tyrannosaurus relative" but a lot of them these days are hyped up as "bird relatives"...just the media looking to draw in some attention.
Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt for a second that birds are living dinosaurs but as someone well versed on the subject it annoys me sometimes when people need to force it into anything concerning dinosaurs. I suppose for the general masses it probably can't be said more than enough.

[CityRaptor]

Okay, maybe they are overdoing it. But this is pretty much normal for journalism, isn't it. You know like the whole "Tyrannosaurus is the ancestor of the chicken" thing... Compared to that, this is harmless.

[Gryphoceratops]

Isn't that connection pretty well established already? I could be wrong, but it seems like at this point, anyone who still doesn't believe in a bird-dino connection is probably beyond all hope of scientific reasoning.

I couldn't agree more. I watched the video on that link and once the paleontologist started describing how birds evolved from dinosaurs I turned it off. I wanted to hear about this new fossil discovery, not a rehash of the obvious and well documented dinosaur/bird connection. The video went from discussing the alvarezsaurid and its nest onto how dinosaur arms evolved into bird wings...not really all that relevant. It used to be that every new theropod discovered was a "Tyrannosaurus relative" but a lot of them these days are hyped up as "bird relatives"...just the media looking to draw in some attention.
Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt for a second that birds are living dinosaurs but as someone well versed on the subject it annoys me sometimes when people need to force it into anything concerning dinosaurs. I suppose for the general masses it probably can't be said more than enough.

It annoys me too because its old news to me.  However, its probably for the general masses.  Lots of people still have no clue birds are dinosaurs.  :/

[amargasaurus cazaui]

In my own view, the entire concept of physiology and the dinosaur/bird/reptile/ debate is poorly considered. You have to look at what we know with an unbiased eye...vertebrae body plans have remained markely constant since the Permian. Ribs, verts, humerus, radius, femur...in time some bones adapt and become fused as a single bone, but the general plan remains constant.  This is is because our atmosphere, and gravity determine so much of our physical makeup.
When you consider dinosaurs, you have to view the body of evidence. There were beaks, there were feathers, there was likely fur, nearly every physical trait today we describe as being part of any given modern animal , could be found in some form of archosaur.More succinctly those are the traits that fossilize, but there is another whole level we cannot speculate as to due to lack of fossil evidence. Coloration and behavior do not preserve. We know using trackways that dinosaurs migrated. They also built nests, laid eggs, and it would seem were giving parental care. Gizzards, feathers, bi-pedal locomotion, these are more indicators. But you also have to remember dinosaurs had scales, they possessed lizard-like teeth and bodies. They were also closely related to the forms today we call reptiles. 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. These are the grandkids of the dinosaurs. Whatever you want to call them is not that important.

[Horridus]

They were also closely related to the forms today we call reptiles. 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.

Not really. Birds are a type of dinosaur, and dinosaurs - as archosaurs - are quite closely related (ish...sort of...) to crocodilians, and more distantly related to lizards as diapsid reptiles. However, they were on their own evolutionary paths long before the first true dinosaurs had even evolved.

[Gryphoceratops]

In my own view, the entire concept of physiology and the dinosaur/bird/reptile/ debate is poorly considered. You have to look at what we know with an unbiased eye...vertebrae body plans have remained markely constant since the Permian. Ribs, verts, humerus, radius, femur...in time some bones adapt and become fused as a single bone, but the general plan remains constant.  This is is because our atmosphere, and gravity determine so much of our physical makeup.
When you consider dinosaurs, you have to view the body of evidence. There were beaks, there were feathers, there was likely fur, nearly every physical trait today we describe as being part of any given modern animal , could be found in some form of archosaur.More succinctly those are the traits that fossilize, but there is another whole level we cannot speculate as to due to lack of fossil evidence. Coloration and behavior do not preserve. We know using trackways that dinosaurs migrated. They also built nests, laid eggs, and it would seem were giving parental care. Gizzards, feathers, bi-pedal locomotion, these are more indicators. But you also have to remember dinosaurs had scales, they possessed lizard-like teeth and bodies. They were also closely related to the forms today we call reptiles. 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. These are the grandkids of the dinosaurs. Whatever you want to call them is not that important.

If I'm reading this correctly you got it a little mixed up.  Dinosaurs didn't evolve into modern day lizards, turtles, snakes and alligators.  Squamates, testudians and crocodillians were all around during the mesozoic alongside dinosaurs (some earlier than others).  They are to a degree related to but not direct descendants of dinosaurs.  Birds (which also have scales on the feet and legs and should really be accepted as just another kind of reptile) ARE living dinosaurs themselves.  They were present alongside their larger scalier kin during the mesazoic and persisted into today. 

Also fuzzy reptiles like pterosaurs and psittacosaurus didn't really have hair in the sense that it was the same material as a mammal's hair or fur.  It was scales modified into fine tubular structures.  Hair-like, yes but still scales. 

At least that's what all the evidence tells us. 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

In my own view, the entire concept of physiology and the dinosaur/bird/reptile/ debate is poorly considered. You have to look at what we know with an unbiased eye...vertebrae body plans have remained markely constant since the Permian. Ribs, verts, humerus, radius, femur...in time some bones adapt and become fused as a single bone, but the general plan remains constant.  This is is because our atmosphere, and gravity determine so much of our physical makeup.
When you consider dinosaurs, you have to view the body of evidence. There were beaks, there were feathers, there was likely fur, nearly every physical trait today we describe as being part of any given modern animal , could be found in some form of archosaur.More succinctly those are the traits that fossilize, but there is another whole level we cannot speculate as to due to lack of fossil evidence. Coloration and behavior do not preserve. We know using trackways that dinosaurs migrated. They also built nests, laid eggs, and it would seem were giving parental care. Gizzards, feathers, bi-pedal locomotion, these are more indicators. But you also have to remember dinosaurs had scales, they possessed lizard-like teeth and bodies. They were also closely related to the forms today we call reptiles. 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. These are the grandkids of the dinosaurs. Whatever you want to call them is not that important.

If I'm reading this correctly you got it a little mixed up.  Dinosaurs didn't evolve into modern day lizards, turtles, snakes and alligators.  Squamates, testudians and crocodillians were all around during the mesozoic alongside dinosaurs (some earlier than others).  They are to a degree related to but not direct descendants of dinosaurs.  Birds (which also have scales on the feet and legs and should really be accepted as just another kind of reptile) ARE living dinosaurs themselves.  They were present alongside their larger scalier kin during the mesazoic and persisted into today. 

Also fuzzy reptiles like pterosaurs and psittacosaurus didn't really have hair in the sense that it was the same material as a mammal's hair or fur.  It was scales modified into fine tubular structures.  Hair-like, yes but still scales. 

At least that's what all the evidence tells us.

The evidence sadly does not match the known results and there is much that is not known. The very time period when most dinosaur lines and most reptiles and birds went their seperate paths is in fact the least preserved period of the fossil record. Most of what is considered fact is based on speculation and not actual fossils to prove them. The stated argument is saying...reptiles existed during the dinosaur reign and therefore were not descended, but birds also lived during that time period and are, is somewhat dubious. There is a millenia of time unaccounted for in the fossil record when these lines all formed. Not everything is as simple and static as the currently known science holds. You cannot actually state at what point dinosaurian lines began, and where they first differentiated from reptilian forms to make that call honestly. There are so few known animals from that point in the tree that there is definitely more that is not known .Find the first basal dinosaur, and you might be able to close the discussion, but until you can, anything seems possible. I think they are more closely related than people realize and offer there is tangible proof in many forms.
Further food for thought, either of these articles, which are more evidence based and weigh facts known, not assumed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27663717/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/human-hair-linked-dinosaur-claws/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20921-advanced-birds-lived-alongside-hairy-dinosaurs.html

Both articles do a good job of stating the case without relying on scientific conjecture mired in unproven dogma

[CityRaptor]

Wasn't the second article disproved some time later? I remember one of the Feather Haters on the old Forum laughing at that.

Also, the first talks about the last common ancestor of amniotes, somewhere in the Carboniferous. This is not proof of your claim, just pointing out the obvious that Synapsid and Diapsids share a common ancestor.

[Gryphoceratops]

In my own view, the entire concept of physiology and the dinosaur/bird/reptile/ debate is poorly considered. You have to look at what we know with an unbiased eye...vertebrae body plans have remained markely constant since the Permian. Ribs, verts, humerus, radius, femur...in time some bones adapt and become fused as a single bone, but the general plan remains constant.  This is is because our atmosphere, and gravity determine so much of our physical makeup.
When you consider dinosaurs, you have to view the body of evidence. There were beaks, there were feathers, there was likely fur, nearly every physical trait today we describe as being part of any given modern animal , could be found in some form of archosaur.More succinctly those are the traits that fossilize, but there is another whole level we cannot speculate as to due to lack of fossil evidence. Coloration and behavior do not preserve. We know using trackways that dinosaurs migrated. They also built nests, laid eggs, and it would seem were giving parental care. Gizzards, feathers, bi-pedal locomotion, these are more indicators. But you also have to remember dinosaurs had scales, they possessed lizard-like teeth and bodies. They were also closely related to the forms today we call reptiles. 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. These are the grandkids of the dinosaurs. Whatever you want to call them is not that important.

If I'm reading this correctly you got it a little mixed up.  Dinosaurs didn't evolve into modern day lizards, turtles, snakes and alligators.  Squamates, testudians and crocodillians were all around during the mesozoic alongside dinosaurs (some earlier than others).  They are to a degree related to but not direct descendants of dinosaurs.  Birds (which also have scales on the feet and legs and should really be accepted as just another kind of reptile) ARE living dinosaurs themselves.  They were present alongside their larger scalier kin during the mesazoic and persisted into today. 

Also fuzzy reptiles like pterosaurs and psittacosaurus didn't really have hair in the sense that it was the same material as a mammal's hair or fur.  It was scales modified into fine tubular structures.  Hair-like, yes but still scales. 

At least that's what all the evidence tells us.

The evidence sadly does not match the known results and there is much that is not known. The very time period when most dinosaur lines and most reptiles and birds went their seperate paths is in fact the least preserved period of the fossil record. Most of what is considered fact is based on speculation and not actual fossils to prove them. The stated argument is saying...reptiles existed during the dinosaur reign and therefore were not descended, but birds also lived during that time period and are, is somewhat dubious. There is a millenia of time unaccounted for in the fossil record when these lines all formed. Not everything is as simple and static as the currently known science holds. You cannot actually state at what point dinosaurian lines began, and where they first differentiated from reptilian forms to make that call honestly. There are so few known animals from that point in the tree that there is definitely more that is not known .Find the first basal dinosaur, and you might be able to close the discussion, but until you can, anything seems possible. I think they are more closely related than people realize and offer there is tangible proof in many forms.
Further food for thought, either of these articles, which are more evidence based and weigh facts known, not assumed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27663717/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/human-hair-linked-dinosaur-claws/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20921-advanced-birds-lived-alongside-hairy-dinosaurs.html

Both articles do a good job of stating the case without relying on scientific conjecture mired in unproven dogma

"The stated argument is saying...reptiles existed during the dinosaur reign and therefore were not descended, but birds also lived during that time period and are, is somewhat dubious"

I should have been more specific.  Keep in mind the Mesozoic was a HUGE span of time. 

The first true birds appear in the fossil record during the late jurassic/early cretaceous well into the reign of the dinosaurs.  Before then there are lots of fossils showing a theropod dinosaur transition into more and more birdlike animals.  Its pretty obvious birds are dinosaurs.  The factual evidence is overwhelming. 

Testudians, lizards, and crocodillians first appear during the Triassic.  This is the same exact time the first true dinosaurs also start to pop up.  So yes this part of evolution we can actually map out pretty clearly.  At the very least this is solid factual evidence that modern reptiles (excluding birds) are certainly not descendants of dinosaurs. 

As for the hair issue.  I know personally a guy who studied the psittacosaurus specimen that preserved those quills everyone loves to refer to as "hair".  Under a microscope its pretty clear they are modified scales.  They would have looked similar to but were def different from mammalian hair.  All your second article is saying is that mammals have reptile roots a LOOOOOOONG time ago (late permian/early triassic) which I am well aware of.  This does not really apply to a dinosaur all the way in the cretaceous having something that superficially resembles hair at a distance though. 

[stoneage]

In my own view, the entire concept of physiology and the dinosaur/bird/reptile/ debate is poorly considered. You have to look at what we know with an unbiased eye...vertebrae body plans have remained markely constant since the Permian. Ribs, verts, humerus, radius, femur...in time some bones adapt and become fused as a single bone, but the general plan remains constant.  This is is because our atmosphere, and gravity determine so much of our physical makeup.
When you consider dinosaurs, you have to view the body of evidence. There were beaks, there were feathers, there was likely fur, nearly every physical trait today we describe as being part of any given modern animal , could be found in some form of archosaur.More succinctly those are the traits that fossilize, but there is another whole level we cannot speculate as to due to lack of fossil evidence. Coloration and behavior do not preserve. We know using trackways that dinosaurs migrated. They also built nests, laid eggs, and it would seem were giving parental care. Gizzards, feathers, bi-pedal locomotion, these are more indicators. But you also have to remember dinosaurs had scales, they possessed lizard-like teeth and bodies. They were also closely related to the forms today we call reptiles. 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. These are the grandkids of the dinosaurs. Whatever you want to call them is not that important.

If I'm reading this correctly you got it a little mixed up.  Dinosaurs didn't evolve into modern day lizards, turtles, snakes and alligators.  Squamates, testudians and crocodillians were all around during the mesozoic alongside dinosaurs (some earlier than others).  They are to a degree related to but not direct descendants of dinosaurs.  Birds (which also have scales on the feet and legs and should really be accepted as just another kind of reptile) ARE living dinosaurs themselves.  They were present alongside their larger scalier kin during the mesazoic and persisted into today. 

Also fuzzy reptiles like pterosaurs and psittacosaurus didn't really have hair in the sense that it was the same material as a mammal's hair or fur.  It was scales modified into fine tubular structures.  Hair-like, yes but still scales. 

At least that's what all the evidence tells us.

The evidence sadly does not match the known results and there is much that is not known. The very time period when most dinosaur lines and most reptiles and birds went their seperate paths is in fact the least preserved period of the fossil record. Most of what is considered fact is based on speculation and not actual fossils to prove them. The stated argument is saying...reptiles existed during the dinosaur reign and therefore were not descended, but birds also lived during that time period and are, is somewhat dubious. There is a millenia of time unaccounted for in the fossil record when these lines all formed. Not everything is as simple and static as the currently known science holds. You cannot actually state at what point dinosaurian lines began, and where they first differentiated from reptilian forms to make that call honestly. There are so few known animals from that point in the tree that there is definitely more that is not known .Find the first basal dinosaur, and you might be able to close the discussion, but until you can, anything seems possible. I think they are more closely related than people realize and offer there is tangible proof in many forms.
Further food for thought, either of these articles, which are more evidence based and weigh facts known, not assumed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27663717/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/human-hair-linked-dinosaur-claws/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20921-advanced-birds-lived-alongside-hairy-dinosaurs.html

Both articles do a good job of stating the case without relying on scientific conjecture mired in unproven dogma

"The stated argument is saying...reptiles existed during the dinosaur reign and therefore were not descended, but birds also lived during that time period and are, is somewhat dubious"

I should have been more specific.  Keep in mind the Mesozoic was a HUGE span of time. 

The first true birds appear in the fossil record during the late jurassic/early cretaceous well into the reign of the dinosaurs.  Before then there are lots of fossils showing a theropod dinosaur transition into more and more birdlike animals.  Its pretty obvious birds are dinosaurs.  The factual evidence is overwhelming. 

Testudians, lizards, and crocodillians first appear during the Triassic.  This is the same exact time the first true dinosaurs also start to pop up.  So yes this part of evolution we can actually map out pretty clearly.  At the very least this is solid factual evidence that modern reptiles (excluding birds) are certainly not descendants of dinosaurs. 

As for the hair issue.  I know personally a guy who studied the psittacosaurus specimen that preserved those quills everyone loves to refer to as "hair".  Under a microscope its pretty clear they are modified scales.  They would have looked similar to but were def different from mammalian hair.  All your second article is saying is that mammals have reptile roots a LOOOOOOONG time ago (late permian/early triassic) which I am well aware of.  This does not really apply to a dinosaur all the way in the cretaceous having something that superficially resembles hair at a distance though.

And what do you consider the first true bird?

[Gwangi]

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. 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

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.

[Gryphoceratops]

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. 

[Gwangi]

I will try to say it once more so that it makes sense .

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 but I feel an obligation to defend against what you're saying. I assure you I mean no offense.

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 .

So the primitive state of some lineages is unknown. So what? We still know what is related to what by looking at the fossil record.

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.

The first lizards appear to have arose in the late Triassic or early Jurassic. The first turtles also in the late Triassic. The first snakes in the early Cretaceous. There may be no final proof of this but there seldom is in this field. This is the best we have to work with and anything that questions it is speculation in need of evidence. Do you have any evidence for your claims? What evidence do you have that lizards are dinosaurs aside from an incomplete fossil record?

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.

Any evolutionary biologist will tell you that you cannot evolve out of a group. Dinosaurs never stopped being reptiles and birds never stopped being dinosaurs and thus...birds have never stopped being reptiles either. We all know this.

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.

There is an ancestral family for these animals. In the case of birds it is the dinosaurs. In the case of reptiles it is early amniotes. In the case of dinosaurs it is archosaurian reptiles. Yes, all animals always have been and always will be related but that does not make lizards dinosaurs, lizards did not evolve from dinosaurs or even from dinosaur stock. This as you like to say is known and simple fact.