Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Birds not descended from dinosaurs but from common ancestor with them?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Scansoriopteryx, with feathers outlined/Stephen A. Czerkas

From ScienceDaily:

The re-examination of a sparrow-sized fossil from China challenges the commonly held belief that birds evolved from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs that gained the ability to fly. The birdlike fossil is actually not a dinosaur, as previously thought, but much rather the remains of a tiny tree-climbing animal that could glide, say American researchers Stephen Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, and Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina. The study appears in Springer’s Journal of Ornithology.

The fossil of the Scansoriopteryx (which means “climbing wing”) was found in Inner Mongolia, and is part of an ongoing cooperative study with the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences. It was previously classified as a coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur, from which many experts believe flying dinosaurs and later birds evolved. The research duo used advanced 3D microscopy, high resolution photography and low angle lighting to reveal structures not clearly visible before. These techniques made it possible to interpret the natural contours of the bones. Many ambiguous aspects of the fossil’s pelvis, forelimbs, hind limbs, and tail were confirmed, while it was discovered that it had elongated tendons along its tail vertebrae similar to Velociraptor.

Czerkas and Feduccia say that Scansoriopteryx unequivocally lacks the fundamental structural skeletal features to classify it as a dinosaur. They also believe that dinosaurs are not the primitive ancestors of birds. The Scansoriopteryx should rather be seen as an early bird whose ancestors are to be found among tree-climbing archosaurs that lived in a time well before dinosaurs.

Well, the official story demands that dinosaurs be the ancestors of birds, so there’s that.

Here’s the Abstract:

Jurassic archosaur is a non-dinosaurian bird.

Stephen A. Czerkas, Alan Feduccia

Journal of Ornithology, July 2014 | DOI: 10.1007/s10336-014-1098-9

Abstract: Re-examination utilizing Keyence 3D digital microscopy and low angled illumination of the fossil Scansoriopteryx, a problematic sparrow-size pre-Archaeopteryx specimen from the Jurassic Daohugou Biotas, provides new evidence which challenges the widely accepted hypothesis that birds are derived from dinosaurs in which avian flight originated from cursorial forms. Contrary to previous interpretations in which Scansoriopteryx was considered to be a coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur, the absence of fundamental dinosaurian characteristics demonstrates that it was not derived from a dinosaurian ancestry and should not be considered as a theropod dinosaur. Furthermore, the combination in which highly plesiomorphic non-dinosaurian traits are retained along with highly derived features, yet only the beginnings of salient birdlike characteristics, indicates that the basal origins of Aves stemmed from outside the Dinosauria and further back to basal archosaurs. Impressions of primitive elongate feathers on the forelimbs and hindlimbs suggest that Scansoriopteryx represents a basal form of “tetrapteryx” in which incipient aerodynamics involving parachuting or gliding was possible. Along with unique adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle, Scansoriopteryx fulfills predictions from the early twentieth century that the ancestors of birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and instead were derived from earlier arboreal archosaurs which originated flight according to the traditional trees-down scenario.

Feduccia is well known for taking the view that birds are not descended from dinosaurs but from an earlier ancestor, alongside them. His story is more complex but he might turn out to be right, if unpopular.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Kind of like the idea that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. It is a nice idea. But until someone can explain how such a thing could actually occur -- in practice, in the real world -- it is just that: a nice idea.Eric Anderson
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
here are some cool video clips from 'FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds':
FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Hummingbird tongue - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMw3RO7p9yg FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Feathers - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yeNoDCcBg FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Flight muscles - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdvkopOmw0 FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Skeletal system - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11fZS_B6UW4 FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Starling murmurations - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GR9zFgOzyw FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Embryonic Development - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ah-gT0hTto
Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Alison Krauss-Gillian Welch - I'll Fly Away - music video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdRdqp4N3Jw
bornagain77
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
You just got to love how all these Darwinists wax poetic on how the bird evolved from such and such creature without ever stopping to question if it is even possible for them (or anything else) to evolve in the first place:
The Evolution of Birds and Flight: It's impossible Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yS-r83aw6k "Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way." - Doug Axe PhD. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/ podcast - Michael Behe: The Limit in the Evolution of Proteins (Thorton's 2014 paper) http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-07-09T16_35_28-07_00 A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html
bornagain77
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Many thanks to whoever recommended Riddle of the Feathered Dragon, by Alan Feduccia. Timing couldn't be better. I'm halfway through this great read and then this article appears in sciencedaily! "we paleontologists are in danger of once again being referred to as stamp collectors..." pg.136smordecai
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply