Well, I cant find that book at the moment to look at each of these different schools of thought, but let me make a guess at each of them to see if I am correct.

1. Uniplanar school - (i.e anagenesis) - this implies that the evolution from the earliest hominids to humans follwed a direct ancestor to descendant relationship (i.e no branching of lineages, directly from A to B to C to D

2. Polyphyletic school - implies that human evolution involved lots of branching events and side lineages which eventually went extinct.

3.Preneandertals school - I assume that this means we evolved from Neandertal

4. Presapiens school - if anything, I think I remember my teacher referring to this as the multi-regional hypothesis, in that modern humans evolved not from a single recent ancestral african population, but rather simultaneaously from multiple groups of H. erectus throughout the Old world. Gene flow between populations was sufficient for all groups to evolve together.

Now, hopefully I am correct or remotely close on these to make comments.

Uniplanar school - wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! IT has been documented numerous times that many species of hominids coexisted together for years. For example, Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans coexisted for 5,000 - 10,000 years before they disappeared. Also, H.habilus, A.robustus and A. Boisei also coexisted for hundreds of thousands of years. Source: Reconstructing Human Origins, Conroy, 1997

Preneanderthals school - Most likely, Neandertals did not contribute any genetic material to modern European populations, though this is obviously an ongoing debate. There has been recent finds of possible hybridization between the two species, however. http://www.athenapub.com/8zilhao1.htm
However, if there was interbreeding bewteen the two, would we expect to find neanderthal mtDNA in at least some populations? Also, we would expect to see at least a few Neanderthal Y chromosomes running around in Europe.

Presapiens school - here genetic evidence works against this theory. Obviously, we have all heard of mtDNA sequencing. Though this may come under fire, further analysis of other human DNA is backing this up as well. I refer to
1. Y chromosome analysis : Whitfield et al Sequence variation of the human Y chromosome. Nature Vol 378: November 1995 p379-380
2. Tishkoff et al : Global Patterns of Linkage Disequiblibrium at the CD4 locus and Modern Human Origins: Science vol 271: March 1996 p1380-1387

Obviously that leave us with Polyphyletic(though i am sure that this is not the term used any more). All evidence points to this, that the human lineage is a series of branching events and replacements of populations rather than of a single unified population changing through time. This is generally the agreed upon hypothesis for modern human origins, thouhg there are still a few clinging to the multiregional hypothesis.

By the way, how does this not apply to the rise of man?

__________________
No.

Hey, Vindex, I hit my "translate" button and nothing came up! That means this is all English! And I thought cuss words had only 4 letters. Learn something new every day....

If you are going to write like this, you are simply going to have to footnote this stuff. No, wait! I changed my mind....that would only create more of the same rhetoric. We will just have to believe what you say. How's that?

Hey, or you could try this: why not just write on a National Geographic level? That would immediately save us from two horrific situations: 1)evolutionists who don't understand what you're saying and think that you might be a creationist, and 2) creationists who don't understand and think that you might be God!

Nice to meet you (even if you did call my thoughts "specious rot").

Or better yet, try doing your homework before making posts. It would 1) allow you to make sense of all that crazy technical jargon, 2) spare Urvogel and trouble of tearing them to pieces and you the embarassment of having to sit through it.

Just a honest suggestion.

-GFA

You: Or better yet, try doing your homework before making posts. It would 1) allow you to make sense of all that crazy technical jargon, 2) spare Urvogel and trouble of tearing them to pieces and you the embarassment of having to sit through it.

Please don't tell me that you really believe his language is technical and would in any sensible and reasonable context be accepted into any scientific journal or be subject to peer-review outside the menial bounds of a Forum such as this. His words are utter, fluffy nonsense. Please help me - help us all - understand just at what point he waxed more scientific than amusing.

Can I ask you something aside from the above discussion? Why do you include "God Fearing" as part of your pseudonym?

Please dont confuse your ignorance with Urvogel's, notso. Because i'm such a nice guy, i'll start your homework for you:

sternocostal - relating to sterum and ribs.

pectoral girdle - bone structure supporting forelimbs (or anterior fins).

carinate - having a keel (so a "carinate sternum" would be what kind of sterum?)

acromion - the part of the spine that articulates with the clavicle.

triosseal canal system - the little opening through the pectoral girdle.

Im sure all the others can be found here.

Now, with my help and the help of the link above, kindly reread Urvogel's post and attempt a reply, or I shall assume you concede it in its entirety.

Thanks.

-GFA

There is a bit of duplicity going on in the usage of words...

If you go to a doctor and he says your symptoms are idiopathic, it sounds like he know what he's talking about... when in fact he is saying he doesn't know what's caused your symptoms.

Evolutionaries like-wise hide behind such duplicitous constructs.

'Transitional', in evolutionary terms, seems to mean only that it looks like bits of this and that. To the general public, transitional suggests transit; as in "I took the transit bus from a to b". Transitional suggests that something is a link in a chain from one species to another. Evolutionaries will, when hard pressed say that their fave archaeopteryx is not in the link from anything to anything... but it 'is' transitional! Meaning, in the end, not really anything other than it looks odd. Show me what merged into or became archaeopteryx and what this archaeopteryx then became... then you'd be able to use 'transitional' in any meaningful way.

Another smoke and mirrors job is done using the word ancestral. It plainly suggests it is related to 'ancestor' but is in fact used instead of the word archaic. Archaeopteryx is often portrayed as ancestral of modern birds. To most peoples minds this suggests that it was the 'ancestor' of modern birds.

"An early fossil bird from the Jurassic, ca 150 mya: Archaeopteryx, Greek for "ancient wing," the link between birds and reptiles, looked like a small dinosaur with feathers preserved in fine-grained limestone."
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/.../evolhist.html
Here the key word is 'link' which is a connection. Again this suggests movement, or transition, but again, when hard-pressed evolutionaries will retreat away from such a normative description and move into more vague terms such as those in..."Archaeopteryx :An Early Bird"
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...aeopteryx.html
Can I draw your attention to " It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus." 'Intermediate' is another vague notion that also suggests between (how else did it come to have bits of one and bits of the other?)
Or "It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered."

No wonder so many people are confused... look at the wording around Figure 1 at
http://www.erin.gov.au/water/wetland...ds/evolve.html
"Figure 1 Archaeopteryx an ancient ancestor of modern birds"

Is it the 'ancestor' or is it 'ancestral'? This is more clearly a case of an evolutionary statement having gone to far, because this time the meaning is perfectly clear, Archaeopteryx lead to modern birds.

This is a way that evolutionaries set up a system of language that suggests that they have solved problems, when in fact they haven't.

Similarly evolutionaries will say Evolutionary Theory is proven, or is a fact (these terms too seem to be rather fluid). When pressed for 'proof' they say, 'oh, we've got evidences' but evidences don't necessarily point to anything, unless you interpret it so, so saying you've got lots of evidences sounds impressive, but is another hollow term.

I have to agree then with this statement "Moreover, there is such an astonishing diversity of contradictory opinion on the physiology of Archaeopteryx that claims of its status as an evolutionary transition may be all but meaningless."
http://www.rae.org/flight.html





"Tie two birds together and though they have four wings, they can not fly" (from "The Silent Flute" movie)...

What about the four-winged dinosaur?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...8feathered.asp

I know and I wish you would stop.
So you are saying that creationist arguments are idiopathic?
Actually this will be another case in which you have failed to educate yourself.
Well, I was right. How is your ignorance relevant to the discussion?
Well, there's your problem. Since we are talking about evolutionary biology, shouldn't we use the meanings of words used by evolutionary biologist? Who cares what the general public says. What they understand from common use and what evolutionary biologists mean are not necessarily the same. Of course, ignorant creationists frequently argue by using the common use of the words. The meaning of the word theory as some sort of "wild guess" is an example.
Nonsense. At least be honest and stop misrepresenting.
Really. Please explain to me the significance of the presence or abscense of the gastralia, carina, furcula, and hallux. Why is any of that odd? Is it an odd bird or an odd dinosaur? why?
Is it because you don't understand or because you are trying to mislead. Do you actually expect that a specific ancestor and descendant for every fossil should also have been found? Archaeopteryx looks very much like a small theropod dinosaur with feathers. In fact, it looks like a Compsognathus. If the hypothesis that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs is correct, then it is logical to expect that there existed organisms that had a mixture of dinosaur and avian characteristics and that some examples would be more dinosaur like and others would be more bird like. Guess what has been found.
I don't doubt that discussions have been a bit sloppy. But we aren't talking about the use of the word "ancestral", we were talking about a transitional. In fact, declaring that a fossil is transitional does not make a claim that it is ancestral to some specific organism. This seems to be related to the creationist misunderstanding of what evolution is. Populations evolve, and in this case what is being discussed are several populations of maniraptorian, theropod dinosaurs that had derived characteristics that were bird-like. Most of these populations went extinct, but some survived, or at least one, survived.
True. It is a link but not the only one.
Yes. And it is.
The problem seems to be your ignorance. Instead of demanding that evolutionary biologists use all of the terms in the way that you want them to, why don't you learn what is being discussed. The issues are complicated and sometimes confusing. There are even sometimes differences among qualified experts. But who are you to demand that evolutionary biologists use words to mean what you want them to mean.
You think that is vague to say intermediate? Strange. An intermediate in this case is an organism that morphologically shows characteristics of two groups of organisms, sometimes characteristics of one, sometimes characteristics of the other, and sometimes characteristics that are a mixture. So do you want to talk about the preorbital fenestra, gastralia, carina, hallux, beak, teeth, pygostyle, uncinate processes, sacrum...that should be enough to get the discussion started.
How is that a problem? You have been crying about ancestors and when it mentions the Maniraptora you seem to have some unspecified objection to that.
I assumed by the way that you set that up that the figure went with the quote above. When I followed the link I found out that the link was to an Australian page about waterbirds. But still, you have a point. It does call Archaeopteryx an ancestor. That's pretty sloppy. In point of fact, there are few who are informed who think that Archaeopteryx is actually the ancestor of modern birds. It is an intermediate - a transitional species.
I think the use of the word is careless. Archaeopteryx is neither an ancestor of nor ancestral to (I'm not sure of your distinction) modern birds. And the site isn't even aimed at those who might actually be informed about the topic.
Nonsense. That would imply that the intent was to deceive, as when you made claims as to what was contained in a book you didn't read, or several other statements you have made.
[qute]Similarly evolutionaries will say Evolutionary Theory is proven, or is a fact (these terms too seem to be rather fluid).[/quote]
No they won't. Is that your ignorance or are you being decietful. Proof is not a matter of science. Only scientific illiterates claim that science proves something.
You are pretty much a scientific illiterate. Here is how an observation becomes evidence. First there is an observation. An explanation is devised to explain the observation. The explanation is called an hypothesis. Then a prediction of some fact or further observation is made from the hypothesis that must be true if the hypothesis is correct. A test is then devised to verify or falsify the prediction.

But that still isn't "proof". There is also the possibility that additional data will not fit the explanation and that the hypothesis will have to be revised. When an hypothesis has been strongly tested, usually many times, it is called a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is now about 150 years old and it has been tested many, many times. Evidence from paleontology, population genetics, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry and others has been found and tested and it continues to support the theory of evolution.
I'm sure you do agree, but the author of that site is so ignorant and uninformed.
What about it? Not sure what your point is. How is this evidence against Archaeopteryx and other transitionals between dinosaurs and birds?

In opposition to Vindex Urvogel at the request of "God Fearing...."

So many errors, where does one begin?

This obviously means that “God” is about to speak.

The entire specious claim that there are pygostylian Avialae which pre-date Archaeopteryx lithographica stems from Chatterjee's most dubious fossil, "Protoavis texensis,"

Here, he begins to play with your mind using the lofty langue of science, and you’re swallowing it whole. Whereas Sankar Chatterjee’s Protoavis texensis might stump Vindex and remain “dubious” in his mind, it is not at all dubious in the minds of hundreds of scientists who now recognize that Protoavis has usurped Archaeopteryx as the earliest bird, predating the latter by 75 million years. With debates raging right now about the origin of birds, I cannot believe that you are going to let this self-proclaimed “God” do your thinking for you.

and Confuciusornis sanctus, which was initially described as dating from Tithonian horizons of the terminal Jurassic--although subsequently Hou et al (1996) presented more conclusive evidence placing the confuciusornid material from the Barremian (much to the chagrin of Alan Feduccia, who made much of Confuciusornis being from the Jurassic).

More of the same haughty jargon. But we already know that Confuciusornis follows Archaeopteryx, so what’s the point? It must be that Vindex wants to berate a recognized scientist: “…much to the chagrin of Alan Feduccia….” Here, the “Vindex God” has fooled you into thinking that perhaps he has some overweening right to label a good scientist “chagrined” and apparently find some pleasure in the process.

As for "Protoavis," the holotype and paratype are almost certainly composed of material which is not conspecific, and the material seems to correspond to a coelophysoid/drepanosaur chimera (Paul 2002), or a coelophysoid
chimera (Gauthier & Rowe 1990).

I am not impressed, Vindex. Protoavis is dated as the earliest bird at roughly 225 million years overthrowing your accusation that to do so is a “specious claim.” Thus far in your discussion, the specious claims have been yours. Morphological and evolutionary gaps in avian history are wide open at this scientific juncture and some paleontologists would caution you to save yourself some embarrassment and not to try to fill them right now.

As for the Eichstatt Conference. It hardly concluded that Archaeotperyx was a "true bird," it concluded that as opposed to the hypotheses of some (e.g., Thulborn 1976), Archaeopteryx was indeed the most basal avialian, and not a less derived member of Coelurosauria. One would actually suggest referring to the published data from the conference, in Hecht et al 1985, before continuing to make such assertions.

Notice the exclusive “Eichstatt Conference.” I wasn’t invited to attend. Were you? But I’m sure “God” was there, and he will help us mortals by filling us in on the details we missed.

Did you call Archaeotperyx a “true bird?” Did Lurch call Archaeotperyx a “true bird?” Well, if you did, shame on you both! “[“God”] would actually suggest [you] referring to the published data from the conference…before continuing to make such [ignorant] assertions.”

The research from the Eichstatt conference, published in Hecht et al 1985, is actually still quite useful and is regularly cited in any major review of the questions pertaining to avian phylogeny. As for the matter of the Linnean terminological infrastructure and the concomitant system of typological classification, it is precisely for that reason that systematists have by and by adopted a clade-based approach for reconstructing the phylogeny of birds, hence the introduction by Gauthier in 1986 of the taxon Avialae (=Aves sensu Linne, emended by Chiappe 1999). In this cladistic manner, Archaeopteryx can be classified as both bird and theropod, as that is precisely what it is.

The point of this paragraph must be to impress weak minds with an in-depth science lesson on avian phylogeny. That Archaeopteryx is both bird and therapod is old news. But just in case we didn’t know that already, “Vindex God” declares, “…that is precisely what [the creature] is.”

Ah, the Feduccian argument which will not die no matter how often it is shown to be absurd.

“Absurd” is an unfair word. Sometimes scientific thought “will not die” because there is reasonable strength supporting its claims and sufficient doubt about its opponents’ claims. But “Vindex God” called it “absurd,” so I guess we will just have to obtusely comply with his terminology. Right? Wrong! We will search out who and what is really absurd here.

Whether one argues for a classic exaptation scenario in which Deinonychosauria and Avialae represent a nice example of bifurcating cladogenesis, or a neoflightless hypothesis whereby Dromaeosauridae at least, represents a clade more closely allied with Avialae than does Archaeopteryx, this temporal discontinuity is a non issue.

All the foregoing is the obscuring of plain language. Though scientific, it’s all show. Pure fluff. It is an ostentatious trick of argument that softens the opponent so that the next blow penetrates. Such manipulation and ambiguity usually means that the “next blow” is not such a good punch. Sometimes it can mean that which follows is an outright fabrication which the perpetrator hopes will remain unchallenged.

We know that Maniraptora originated somewhere in the medial Jurassic, perhaps following the Pliensbachian event in the early Jurassic, and thus the argument that this clade post-dates the urvogel is specious rot.

There’s the punch – “specious rot.” Let’s see if it did the damage it was meant to do. Nowhere did I ever make the claim that the clade Maniraptora post-dated Archaeopteryx (a member of the clade itself), so immediately, without much effort at all, we have established that this “Vindex God” knows how to deceive. Or maybe he was continuing an argument with someone from another Forum? Or maybe he has been arguing with himself? In any case, I would have to award his discussion the ignominious title “specious rot.”

Indeed, in the neoflightless hypothesis, modified in large part from Olshevsky's initial suggestions (1994), the temporal distribution of basal dromaeosaurs may be more parsimoniously explained, than that of the exaptational model. If this should be correct, then the "temporal disparity" will be even more of a non-issue that it currently is.

More science indeed, but also more fluff to impress and obscuring of plain communicated thoughts.

First and foremost, the evidence that Archaeopteryx flew is rather conclusive. See Feduccia & Tordoff (1979)

Remember the “chagrined” scientist above? Well, now Vindex wants to cite him.

on asymmetry values in archaeopterygiform remiges, and Hecht et al (1985) for general reviews of the pectoral girdle in Archaeopteryx. The real question is not whether the urvogel flew, it is how skilled a flier was it?

“…Evidence that Archaeopteryx flew is rather conclusive” is a misleading statement and will cause weak minds to conjure up pictures of dinosaurs flapping their wings like birds. I earlier quoted an evolutionary biologist who concluded that Archaeopteryx could not have done this. But I really don’t care if the beast DID fly! All I asked for in my earlier posts was a traceable transitional trail of fossils that explained the evolution behind Archaeopteryx. No one to this day has provided that.

The lack of a robust, carinate sternum, ossified uncinate processes, a basal sternocostal morphology, the incipient nature of the acrocoracoid and acromion process, and lack of a triosseal canal system indicating that the supracoracoideus and pectoralis major were still fairly generalized comparative to Pygostylia, suggests that Archaeopteryx was not a skilled aerialist, its ability to fly notwithstanding. I might add that multiple par-avian Maniraptora display flight adaptations more derived than those seen in the urvogel, and in multiple Maniraptora, the orientation of the glenoid permits a flapping arc to be described (Jenkins 1993, Novas & Puerta 1997, Paul 2002).

Here’s the part that really impressed "God Fearing...." Just look at all the anatomical science in this paragraph! But, how has he said any more than what I asserted in my post? He says, “Archaeopteryx was not a skilled aerialist” and I said the same. He added, “…its ability to fly notwithstanding,” but this is misleading. Jumping from a cliff and soaring or running fast enough to become airborne is a much smaller matter and less complicated anatomically than flapping wings and remaining aloft. That is where the heated disagreement between real scientists enters.

But "God Fearing...." still liked his scientific prowess here. Somehow, to you, they eclipse my reasonable, well-founded views.

continued....

Your second paragraph rather argues the cherished myth of feathers being nothing more than scales gone frayed, which has most recently been advanced in Regal (1975), whose work more or less represented the last gasp of this classical hypothesis. Modern research indicates that feathers are novel structures derived via relatively simple alterations in the expression of developmental genes and their regulatory proteins (namely Sonic Hedgehog, and Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2), and from these data a scenario for feather development over time has been formulated,

Well, shut me up! Those scales did turn into feathers after all! And all because “…a scenario for feather development over time has been formulated….”

which in turn, has meshed quite well with the fossil data

I’m sure it “meshes” very well to eyes that desperately want it to. Notice that “Vindex God” does not bother to point out that this is an intensely debated theory with vociferous advocates as well as opponents in the scientific mainstream.

(Spearman & Hardy 1985, Chatterjee 1997, Prum 1999, Maderson & homberger 2000, Brush 2000, Harris, Fallon & Prum 2002, Prum & Brush 2002, 2003). Even Alan Feduccia--the paragon of intellectual obsolescence, has argued as much (see Feduccia 1996, 1999a).

This poor scientist, Alan Feduccia, has been round and round with “God” today. First he got pummeled, then he was cited, now he is being used to advance the evolution of feathers - though at the expense of being termed “the paragon of intellectual obsolescence.” That’s “God’s” way of calling him stupid.

Therefore, your strawman argument concerning feather origin is entirely invalid.

Ok, if Vindex thinks I constructed a straw man suggesting the difficulty of scales evolving into feathers, then I invite him to thrust his fist through the face of my straw man. In doing so, he is liable to punch a fellow scientist square in the jaw.

But notice how he has played with your mind: “…your argument…is entirely invalid.” This kind of language always works on weak minds because they seldom have the resolve, resources, or courage to either affirm or dispute the claims.

The last paragraph deals with the same tired problem of alleged "temporal discontinuity" that I have already addressed elsewhere.

Oh dear. “God” is distressed. If no one has asserted “temporal discontinuity,” then no alleged “temporal discontinuity” exists! We will henceforth leave your clade Maniraptora alone and leave you to your almost-able-to-fly Archaeopteryx as well. If you believe that in some “God-like” manner you have sustained a smooth evolutionary continuum for early flight in the fossil record by speaking up for Archaeopteryx in the upper-Jurassic and downplaying his ancestor, Protoavis texensis, your work is far from over. But I could tell you didn’t really know all that much – your language gave you away.

Lurch...I know and I wish you would stop.

A wish? Hmmm, sounds a bit unscientific!

Lurch...So you are saying that creationist arguments are idiopathic?

Again, Hmmm... weren't you accusing me of misrepresentation?





Lurch: Well, there's your problem. Since we are talking about evolutionary biology, shouldn't we use the meanings of words used by evolutionary biologist? Who cares what the general public says.

Yes, let's dictate to them, we'll construct a new language called "NEWSPEAK"* We'll use terms that make the public think that we know what we're talking about.



However, the real reason there is confusion about these terms is because evolutionaries themselves keep moving things around. When Archaeopteryx was first found, it was hailed as a direct 'link' now it is not seen as one. So, when you started calling it 'ancestral' that made sense in the actual meaning of the word, but now it is no longer part of a link, the term ancestral leads to natural confusion... and scientists themselves don't know where they're up to in retaliation to Archaeopteryx... you have so many competing theories.


When I said "Evolutionaries will, when hard pressed say that their fave archaeopteryx is not in the link from anything to anything... but it 'is' transitional!"

It is exactly like my doctor's analogy (recall using the word 'idiopathic'). By calling it 'transitional' which simply means an odd looking thing which seems to be bits of something and bits of another, it suggests knowledge but is a construct used to hide the fact that evolutionaries really don't know where archaeopteryx lies in the scheme of things.


Lurch said..."Really. Please explain to me the significance of the presence or abscense (sic) of the gastralia, carina, furcula, and hallux. Why is any of that odd? Is it an odd bird or an odd dinosaur? why?"

So, you're saying that these things don't set Archaeopteryx apart from reptiles and birds? How odd!

By the way... I've read something about bird's breathing systems being totally unlike reptiles. Do you know anything about this?

Lurch: If the hypothesis that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs is correct, then it is logical to expect that there existed organisms that had a mixture of dinosaur and avian characteristics and that some examples would be more dinosaur like and others would be more bird like. Guess what has been found.

Are you saying that it is not correct? What other explanations are there then?

By the way what is Archaeopteryx a link to?












*In homage to George Orwell's "Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Four"

Actually I would be surprised if there were 10 qualified scientists who recognize Protoavis as a bird. But that's the standard creationist claim. Any point they wish to make has "hundreds" of scientists on their side. Protoavis is basically road kill. Some features look like it may have been a theropod dinosaur. The dubious nature of Protoavis is the predominant opinion in the profession.

But that aside, are you ever going to present some evidence that supports your position? Assume that evolution was completely discredited as of yesterday. What theory explains all of the evidence better than the theory of evolution. We are stuck with evolution until you can come up with a better theory. Why should anyone accept mythology as factual?

I haven’t noticed that creationists are quickly embracing this find and welcoming it to the degree that you might believe. Most of them have not seen it and are reticent about the specifics. More than anything, I find them amused to see it causing such a stir in the scientific world around them.

This chimeric signature in Triassic rock of Protoavis is here to stay no matter how we feel about it. Chances are good that more finds along the same lines and in the same time period are forthcoming anyway. We are going to probably be forced one day to find a permanent home for it in our avian evolution or creation theories.

Immediately, some names pop up that have commented on the “early bird.”

John Ostrom: “Astounding.” But also, “Calling this the original bird is irresponsible.”
It is interesting to note that before John Ostrom was introduced to Protoavis, he already had feelings that Archaeopteryx was not a link to modern birds.

J. Gauthier: “While some of the bones appear bird-like, they also look dinosaurian and could represent a new type of theropod dinosaur.”

Larry “bubba” Martin (I added “bubba”): “Road kill.” But also, “There's going to be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face.”

Alan Feduccia: “The features Chatterjee illustrates are without question quite birdlike, and an early bird from the late Triassic is certainly possible.”

Lawrence Witmer on Evgeny Kurochkin and D. Stephen Peters: “[these] esteemed paleornithologists…have regarded Protoavis as a bird in their published accounts of early avian evolution.”

Chatterjee: “Many experts on fossil birds came to our museum and confirmed my belief that the newly found material exhibited a suite of distinct avian traits.”

And how about those trace fossils!
1974 Africa: Late Triassic - Early Jurassic bird prints
1992 Africa and N. America: Early Jurassic birdlike tracks
1993 Virginia: tracks “from a Protoavis-like bird”

While it is so gracious of you to offer advice of this magnitude for me, I think I shall have to decline and rather offer counter-advice. Perhaps if one actually took time to read the literature, and not memorize creationist dogma, you would actually be familiar with the terminology and language of paleontology, and phylogenetic systematics. Until such time, I would suggest that these sort of petty attacks in which you assail others for your exposing your own ignorance, be discontinued. As it were, they merely serve to discredit you, and that is something your pontifications on subject matter you clearly understand not in the least, has already done quite nicely.

Vindex Urvogel

Ah--yes, the classic creationist tactic. When confronted with the bare bones (no pun intended) of their paleontological arguments, and the true extent of the anatomy which is opposed to those arguments, the ever faithful ad hominem can always be pressed into service. Had you a shred of intellectual honesty, you would have replied to the morphology at issue.


Vindex Urvogel

Actually, you won't because it's a spelling mistake on my part, it's unilinear. Sorry.

But the book anyway was a university text I had in 1986... Yes, a lot of people will now yelp that it is ancient history... I make no bones about the fact that different ideas may have developed since then... but that is in fact beside the point. At that time (1986) there were several different schools. Nowadays, there's probably still 2 or 3. All using the same evidence.