When birds were on top of the food chain

[Wolf]

If you are interested id such things then you may find this interesting

http://avian.genomics.cn/en/

[Pajarita]

Well, although I am sure that there is, indeed, people who don't believe that birds descend from a kind of dinosaur so, in a way, one could say that there is a controversy, it doesn't appear as if the greatest majority of scholars and academics have any doubts... See these.

From Berkeley University:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_06

From the Natural History Museum:
http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collec ... -dinosaurs

National Geographic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... t-science/

Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ame-birds/

Wikipedia (I know it's just Wikipedia but it has 139 references)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

[seagoatdeb]

Thanks for all the links, lots of info there for everyone. Note that they are saying that they believe and mostly agree that birds came from one ancient species and one only. This is the point where the ancient dinosaurs that evolved into modern day birds diverged from the rest of the ancient dinosaurs. This is where my belief comes from, after many years of research.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/s ... ptora.html.

So this would be an ancient bird. there is a tendency to call all ancient animals dinosaurs, and because of that even have come up with a reptilian classification for this ancient bird group, but birds are warm blooded, which leads again to my belief that birds came from their own ancestor that was not a reptile, like the ancient aligator, and the ancient birds predate many other species of ancient animals all lumped into the name dinosaurs. The T Rex may have even been warm blooded since its more ancient relatives were related to the ancient bird. it will take some time to gather enough evidence to get a clearer picture of which ancient animals had fur, which had feathers, and which had scales, and which were warm blooded and which were cold blooded. Lots of facinating info to come in the future.

[Pajarita]

No, no, the maniraptora is not an ancient bird species (they were actual dinosaurs), it's a 'clade' from which the avian species descend (see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniraptora). And while one may say "Well, a clade is a group of species that have a common ancestor so we are still talking about a single species", in reality, all species come from clades and the definition of clade is a group of species that have similar characteristics and a common ancestor (we, humans, come from the Homo-Pan clade) but, on the other hand, every single species on Earth comes from one clade or another and, if we go back far enough, we all descend from the same unicellular organism that lived 3.5 billion years ago.

[seagoatdeb]

While that is "true" as far as it goes, it does not make what I said untrue, since all clades change membership constantly as scientests learn more, and they are the ancient precursers only lumped together because they share something and may in fact end up not related much at all. The most accepted belief is that birds sprang from that ancestor. It is constantly changing, and there is not anyway you can tell me I am wrong to believe what I do, since I am only believing one theory at this point. I do not want to have a big dipute about something like this, which happens when you tell someone they are wrong and you can never prove your point since it is all theory and currently changing. I am done commenting to you. I only said this is controversial topic which is true and I am allowed to have my own belief. You can beleive what ever you want, but you must allow other to believe what they want to.

But it is a great topic for anyone interested in it. Over the years, the only scientests that could make a living had to have findings that would fit with what their contributors wanted to find out. It could be religious or other interests. We are still sorting out truths just on that basis and we have new discoveries too. Even the theory that avians shrunk rapidly in size is not conslusively proved by fossil records yet. That humans descented from homo erectus is not conclusively proved either, there is not link found yet. There is a link between Neanderthal and homo Erectus, but carbon dating has show us that we did not decend from Neanderthal. We did interbreed with Neanderthal, and some people today still have Neanderthall genes. It is all facinating, but always changing.

[Wolf]

The link that I gave to you was/is a whole research project on the avian genome so this was/ is a genetic research project using DNA so it should be more accurate than the old methods of classification.

Now, I should not need to be saying this, much less saying it here, but let's all remember to play nice with each other.

[seagoatdeb]

The link that I gave to you was/is a whole research project on the avian genome so this was/ is a genetic research project using DNA so it should be more accurate than the old methods of classification.

Now, I should not need to be saying this, much less saying it here, but let's all remember to play nice with each other.

I meant to thank you for that link, it is really facinating and have been really having a good time going over it. It really is unfortunate that since birds can fly that they didnt leave many fossilized remains, but still very interesting on what has been acomplished in sequencing with what they do have. It is only the person coming in with a no no, always wanting to debate, so if I dont comment to her anymore on this post then everything should go smooth, it takes more than one to have a debate.

[Pajarita]

I wasn't trying to convince you or debate anything, Seagoatdeb, I was merely correcting what might have been confusing to the other people who read the thread. Because, although the information we currently accept as valid now might very well change in the future, it is what is widely accepted as fact.

It seems to me that you take my answers to you as personal affronts when they are not meant that way. I don't mind you believing what you choose to believe but you can't really expect me or anybody else to allow a statement which deviates from what is taught nowadays to remain unchallenged - how would that help all the other people that are reading it?

[seagoatdeb]

There are many that share that belief Pajarita and it is your view of whats taught nowadays, your opinion. Just because most think one way does not make it the "right" way. It is okay for you to have your opinion, and others to have theirs. You can correct what you say, but you cant correct people on the theory you acept, even the scientests know it is a theory and is not right or wrong.

Thanks for explaining what you are trying to do. It is not so much your information that is a problem it is the presentation. You have a habit of being condescending. We should not diminish others and speak in a way that empowers everyone. Then everyone is okay and can all present their opinions without debate.

Where I am coming from, is that I want to be able to share my opinion and have that respected and have others share their opinion and have that respected, without an attitue being presented that someone "knows" what is right and wrong. I does not make people believe your point they will learn their own way. The only right and wrong in this world is in a science like mathematics. On this topic, you cant be either right or wrong, you can only have an opinion on a theory.

[Pajarita]

Seagoatdeb, I don't want to debate you but you continue to use statements that are not 100% accurate and which are confusing. Scientific theories are proven by data, it's hypothesis that are completely unproven. Hypothesis come first, then comes the gathering of all data related to every aspect of the theory and, if the data all agrees, it becomes a scientific theory and an accepted fact. And what I stated is what is taught nowadays by universities (I gave you the links). And I am sorry that you think I am condescending but maybe you should consider that you are in a very small minority of people who think so. The written word is iffy at best because the reader can put any sort of accent, tone or ulterior motive to it. Personally, I try to read everything in a neutral tone - it works for me.

You are, of course, within your right to express your opinion but when you say that a theory that is currently widely accepted as a fact by science is 'controversial', you are using a word that people understand to mean that both beliefs are on a par and that there is a debate going on between scientists as to which one is the right one- and this is not so. There might be people who don't believe in it, as you do, and, for all we know, they might be right but, right now, there is no debate so there is no real controversy. And the accepted theory is that birds descend from dinosaurs. It's not that this is MY opinion and that I don't accept anybody else's opinion because I am right and they are wrong, it's that this is the consensual opinion of the greatest majority of people who know much more than I do and I bow to their greater knowledge.