An ad hominem of this sort, requires, I think, as thorough a rebuttal as possible. I intend to answer in detail, every criticism of the data I presented, which you have made (excluding irrelevant personal attacks). I will include a full list of cited references at the end of each post, so that those individuals watching this thread, can externally verify that I have neither misrepresented nor fabricated evidence. Your protestations of dumbing the argument down so you can comprehend arguments you clearly have never taken the time to study, is forthwith dismissed. It is not my responsibility to do your homework for you, nor is it the responsibility of other members posting here. You can always refer to the references I have cited, and indeed, I would encourage you to do such--far be it for me to live up to your derisive moniker for me, and ask you take my posts on faith.

Let us start with the first points:

"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.

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. "

Lofty language? I use only two terms, which are technical in the paragraph to which, this response is directed: "Avialae," whose meaning has already been explained in other posts, and "pygostylian." A pygostyle, is the term for the fusion of caudal vertebrae into a single unit, which supports the fan of rectrices. Had you taken the time to look up the term, it would not have remained "lofty language."

You continue to claim that "hundreds of scientists now recognize that Protoavis has usurped Archaeopteryx as the earliest bird..." Really? Care to name them? Last I recall, Chatterjee has defended the validity of the "Protoavis" material (1991, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999), with his most eloquent treatment of his proto bird presented in his 1997 work, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. Beyond Chatterjee's vociferous advocacy, only Evegny Kurochkin has argued for the validity of the "Protoavis" material (1995).

Indeed, wide-scale review of the material has severely challenged the supposition that "Protoavis" is a valid taxon. The significant similarities between the temporal region of the skull in both "Protoavis" and drepanosaurs has led some authors to suggest that "Protoavis" is in fact a drepanosaur/theropod chimera (Paul 1988, Feduccia 1996, Paul 2002). These similarities include the structure of the quadrate, and moreover, the structure of the cervical vertebrae (Renesto 1994, 2000), although further post-crania including the structure of the carpus and manus strongly refute avian affinity. In your callous dismissal of these data, you in fact present no arguments based on the morphology you claim to champion, which would preclude the chimera-status of "Protoavis texensis" and merely present it as a given. Because "Protoavis" is valid it is therefore not a chimera and is therefore a valid taxon. While this sort of circular reasoning and sham-logic may be acceptable within the creationist camp, it will not suffice in reasoned debate, and you bear the onus of proof for your assertion that the "Protoavis" holotype and paratypes are composed of conspecific material.

Critiques of the validity of "Protoavis" include the following: Paul (1988), Witmer (1991), Chiappe (1995), Currie (1995), Welman (1995), Feduccia (1996), Ostrom (1996), Padian & Chiappe (1998), Sanz et al (1998), Feduccia (1999), and lastly Paul (2002). As I dare not further offend creationist sensibilities with "jargon" they have never deigned to familiarize themselves with, I instead refer the reader to these sources.

Here are the full citations:

Chatterjee, S. 1991. Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 332: 277-346.

Chatterjee, S. 1995. The Triassic Protoavis. Archaeopteryx 13: 15-31

Chatterjee, S. 1997. The Rise of Birds: 225 Million Years of Evolution. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Chatterjee, S. 1998. The avian status of Protoavis. Archaeopteryx 16: 99-122.

Chatterjee, S. 1999. Protoavis and the early evolution of birds. Palaeontographica A 254: 1-100.

Chiappe, L. M. 1995. The first 85 million years of avian evolution. Nature 378: 349-355.

Currie, P. J. 1995. New information on the anatomy and relationships of Dromaeosaurus albertensis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15: 576-591

Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds, First Edition. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Feduccia, A. 1999. The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Second Edition. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Kurochkin, E. 1995. Synopsis of Mesozoic birds and early evolution of class Aves. Archaeopteryx 13: 47-66.

Ostrom, J. H. 1996. The questionable validity of Protoavis. Archaeopteyx 14: 39-42.

Padian, K. and Chiappe, L. M. 1998. The origin and evolution of birds. Biological Reviews 73: 1-42.

Paul, G. S. 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon & Schuster, New York.

Paul, G. S. 2002. Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Renesto, S. 1994. Megalancosaurus, a possibly arboreal Archosauromorph from the Upper Triassic of Italy. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 38-52.

Renesto, S. 2000. Bird-like head on a chameleon body: New specimens of the enigmatic diapsid reptile Megalancosaurus from the Late Triassic of northern Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratifragia 106: 157-180.

Sanz et al. 1998. Living with dinosaurs. Nature 393: 32-33.

Welman, J. 1995. Euparkeria and the origin of birds. South African Journal of Science 91: 533-537.

Witmer, L. M. 1991. Perspectives on avian origins. In Origins of Higher Groups of Tetrapods, H. P. Schultze and L. Trueb (eds). Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

This constitues the literature pertinent to the discussion of your claims about Protoavis. I challenge you to cite the data from these material which supports your claim that "hundreds" of researchers accept "Protoavis" as a valid taxon, and furthermore, I challenge you to produce the explicit anatomical data which will support the validity of "Protoavis" as a taxon.

Continued:

Now let us consider your next point:

"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."

An argument from incredulity? No, I was not at the Eichstatt Conference, however the symposium was hardly a clandestine meeting akin to a gathering of Illuminati numeraries. On the contrary, a marvelous collection of the research presented at the conference and the lectures given there, was published in 1985, and as I actually do have this splendid volume, I have access to the data which was mulled over at Eichstatt. Indeed, so could anyone interested in avian phylogeny. It is hardly a state-secret, this document:

Hecht et al. 1985. The Beginning of Birds: Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference, Eichstatt, 1984. Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstatt, Eichstatt.

And on to the next point:

"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.”"

Splendid, we are in agreement then on the phylogenetic affinities of the urvogel.

Next points:

"“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."


Now, this series of replies is most confused. First and foremost, it is internally contradictory. At one moment you uphold temporal problems, and yet you then go on to tacitly accept the validity of clade Maniraptora (very Darwinian of you) to argue that all the while you had never proposed temporal disparity, saying of such that: "Nowhere did I ever make the claim that the clade Maniraptora post-dated Archaeopteryx."

Your equally rambling assault on both the exaptational scenario I outlined and the neoflightless scenario I briefly described in fact address none of the data for or against either of those two hypotheses, and are instead lengthy ad hominems. Nailing down your position on alleged temporal disparity is akin to nailing down fog, which I think is plain to anyone who has read your own internally inconsistent series of replies to this matter. A clarification of your stance is in order, if you wish to avoid the appearance of deliberately obfuscating the matter.

The next point:

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."

Feduccia's poor research and questionable conclusions in other matters, have no bearing on his work on asymmetry values in Archaeopteryx, which as the 1979 work he did with Tordoff would indicate to anyone bothering to read it, is in fact excellent. Here, incidentally, is the full citation for this important study:

Feduccia, A. & Tordoff, H. B. 1979. Feathers of Archaeopteryx; asymmetric vanes indicate aerodynamic function. Science 203: 1021-1022.

And the next point:

“…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.

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."


You were in fact provided a significant body of anatomical data which strongly suggests that on the contrary, Archaeopteryx was volant, albeit in a rudimentary way. You utterly failed to examine these data, instead categorically rejecting them. For your argument that the urvogel was incapable of flight to hold, you are obliged to refute the data which suggests it did. Let me reiterate for you, using my original post:

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).

And as for your nice phyletic progression from Coelurosauria to Avialae, that is already quite nicely taken care of by the fossil material available. We see the earliest par-avian character states in the basal Maniraptoriformes such as compsognathids and coelurids, as well as in Ornitholestes hermani, and the par-avian osteology which first appears in these taxa is underscored in more derived maniraptorans. The most derived Maniraptora are indeed 'more' avian in their morphology, than is the urvogel. Consider the changes in character state represented by this grouping:

Compsognathus longipes
Sinosauropteryx prima
Coelurus fragilis
Ornitholestes hermani
Rahonavis ostromi
Unenlagia comahuensis
Beipiaosaurus inexpectus
Sinornithoides spp.
Troodon spp.
Oviraptor spp.
Avimimus portentosus
Protarchaeopteryx robusta
Sinornithosaurus millenni
Microraptor gui
Bambiraptor feinbergorum
Deinonychus antirrhopus
Velociraptor mongoliensis

In which a more or less continual pattern of gradual change is observed indicating the ancestry or possibly subsequent derivation of the character state which is most basal for Aviale: that seen in Archaeopteryx. From Archaeopteryx, we can outline the following changes in morphology:

Confuciusornithidae
Enantiornithes
Hesperornithiformes
Ichthyornithiformes
Stem-neornithean lineages:

Gaviidae
Charadriiformes
Podicipediformes
Anseriformes
Gruiformes

In this grouping we again see a more or less continual pattern of gradual change which indicates modification of the bauplan of Archaeopterygiformes, to new demands thereof.

To assert that these fossils, in both groups, show nothing of the sort, demands that one demonstrate that, a) they in no way demonstrate gradual change over time, in the context of ancestry/descent or that b) these fossils are not valid, and therefore mean nothing. Either is a daunting prospect considering the significant data which refutes both. In the debate which should ensue as to the anatomical characters of these taxa, the extensive list of references which will be brought to bear can be enumerated.

Vindex Urvogel

Continued:

You then move on to feather origins:

"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….”

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."

Typically, you utterly fail to address the data which supports the model of feather origins which I briefly outlined, and presented no data which would refute it, instead categorically dismissing it. Whereas I had provided references pertinent to that very discussion, to support the data I presented. Let me repeat them:

Brush, A. 2000. Evolving a protofeather and feather diversity. American Zoologist 40(4): 631-639.

Chatterjee, S. 1997. The Rise of Birds: 225 Million Years of Evolution. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Feduccia, A. 1996. The Origin and Evolution of Birds, First Edition. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Feduccia, A. 1999. The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Second Edition. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Harris, M. P., Fallon, J. F., and Prum, R. O. 2002. Rapid Communication: Shh-Bmp2 Singaling Module and the Evolutionary Origing and Diversification of Feathers. Journal of Experimental Zoology 294(2): 160-176.

Maderson, P. F. A. and Homberger, D. G. 2000. Evolutionary origin of feathers. American Zoologist 40(4).

Prum, R. O. 1999. Development and evolutionary origin of feathers. Journal of Experimental Zoology 285 (4): 291-306.

Prum, R. O. and Brush, A. H. 2002. The evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. Quarterly Review of Biology 77(3): 261-295.

Prum, R. O. and Brush, A. H. 2003. Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird? Scientific American 228(3): 84-94.

You go on to say that:

"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."

I call Feduccia what he is, a conservative systematist and general anti-cladist. Whether it is stupidity is open to debate, but he advocates numerous classification schemes and ideas long since outdated or shown inaccurate, hence "obsolete." Example? Look no further than his usage of Aves sensu Linne (see Feduccia 1996, 1999, full citations already listed).

Next point:

"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."

And yet that is precisely what you have done. You have presented an argument for feather origins last seriously advocated by Regal in 1975, and now largely discredited such that even its long time proponents Alan Feduccia or Storrs Olson have come to express its dubious accuracy, as current thinking. Moreover you have misrepresented the debate on the early evolution of the feather: nearly all researchers in this matter concede that the feather is an evo-devo novelty (see the references I listed above), the main issue of contention is, novelty status notwithstanding, what was the feather first used for, and was it only exaptated for flight. So, one can feel free to punch through your strawman with ease, confident that with the exception of a Regalite lurking in the shadows here and there, he will not be hitting a "fellow scientist square in the jaw."

Vindex Urvogel

Ostrom extensively criticized the validity of the "Protoavis" material in the 1996 study I cited elsehwere. Feduccia, was at first critical in his 1996 work, which you have conveniently quoted in such a manner that you leave out this line: "Yet with the evolution of of late Triassic thecodonts one might wonder if in Protoavis we are seeing an early experiment in thecodonts becoming somewhat birdlike in morphology" (38). In his 1999 revision of his tome, he scathingly and categorically rejected the validity of "Protoavis"--hardly so sympathetic thereto as you would have him seem. Gauthier and Martin, both listed here, both reject the validity of the "Protoavis" material. Witmer, listed here, extensively criticized the validity of the Texas "bird," and the appropriate citation is in another post of mine on pg. 4. Of the sources you quote mine here, a veritable who's-who of those who reject the validity of "Protoavis" (nicely upholding my point, actually--thanks), only Chatterjee and Kurochkin, come out in defense of "Protoavis."

Your trace fossils...it is actually quaint to see you argue that tridigitate footprints represent proof that there were advanced avialians around to make them. I refer you, to the sorry story of one Edward Hitchcock, and his early 1800s fiasco. See Paul (2002), cited elsewhere in my posts.

Vindex Urvogel

I find it truly sublime that notsofast refers to me as "Vindex God," and not Vindex Urvogel--considering what "vindex" means. It is of course Latin for "defender" or "protector," and thus in my pen-name makes perfect sense. I think notsofast would cringe did he realize that everytime he calls me "Vindex God" he is in fact calling me "Defender of God"--at title I supremely doubt he would wish to bestow upon me.

VindexUrvogel

You continue to claim that "hundreds of scientists now recognize that Protoavis has usurped Archaeopteryx as the earliest bird..." Really? Care to name them? Last I recall, Chatterjee has defended the validity of the "Protoavis" material (1991, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999), with his most eloquent treatment of his proto bird presented in his 1997 work, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. Beyond Chatterjee's vociferous advocacy, only Evegny Kurochkin has argued for the validity of the "Protoavis" material (1995).

Won’t work, Vindex. “Hundreds of believing scientists” – excluding creationists – falls well within the bounds of safe assumptions. The verdict may not be in yet for this early bird, but the forensic evidence is too strong to gag the opinion of reputed scientists. Or do you consider it trivial that a paleornithologist of the repute of Evegny Kurochkin is calling this a bird? He alone could sway hundreds by his esteemed opinion and cause hundreds more to re-examine their staunch disbelief. No, forget it. I don’t have to provide you a list.

Indeed, wide-scale review of the material has severely challenged the supposition that "Protoavis" is a valid taxon. The significant similarities between the temporal region of the skull in both "Protoavis" and drepanosaurs has led some authors to suggest that "Protoavis" is in fact a drepanosaur/theropod chimera (Paul 1988, Feduccia 1996, Paul 2002). These similarities include the structure of the quadrate, and moreover, the structure of the cervical vertebrae (Renesto 1994, 2000), although further post-crania

Please tell me - just how many definitive ways will the crushed skull be reconstructed and under whose directorship? Are you here denying that Ostrom and others have convincingly stated that the skull is so badly crushed (all pieces being long removed from the matrix) that it renders the creature’s cranial reconstruction impossible? Please tell me and others how Paul and Feduccia went about their reconstruction so as to arrive at their claims of “significant similarities.”

including the structure of the carpus and manus strongly refute avian affinity.

This paltry offering might be the only anatomical minutiae you have mentioned that is worth considering (other than perhaps the cervical vertebrae, where implications of its potential similarities to drepanosaur or a theropod could be passed over without consequence). But your assertion that they “strongly refute avian affinity” flies in the face of a long list of avian affinities that Protoavis does possess. Why do you insist on truncating the evidence for flight?

The humerus gives indication that flight muscles were present. Quill knobs on the arm provided for the attachment of flight feathers. A shortened fibula points to a leg like that of a bird. A perching toe is on the foot, which some believe also possesses an avian ankle joint. A keeled sternum and furcula were obviously for flight. The hips are especially birdlike.

But all this data is what we both already knew, isn’t it? Do you insist that I list it as an exercise in futility? It certainly won’t sway you or others who find your opinion on this Forum so distinguished. I think the bad science from you is your unforthcoming presentation of Protoavis, a strategy that confines the fossil to the shadowy realm of “dubious.”

In your callous dismissal of these data, you in fact present no arguments based on the morphology you claim to champion, which would preclude the chimera-status of "Protoavis texensis" and merely present it as a given. Because "Protoavis" is valid it is therefore not a chimera and is therefore a valid taxon.

I never denied that the fossil is possibly chimeric in nature. Does chimera pose an insurmountable grade for paleontologists to climb? Does it always prohibit positive taxonomic identification by trained eyes? I wholeheartedly reject your accusation that I am advancing a claim which precludes a potential chimeric fossil thereby establishing Protoavis as a “given.” If two creatures are seen superimposed in that Triassic stone, it is of no consequence – if a bird is present (as many believe), it will be discovered.

While this sort of circular reasoning and sham-logic may be acceptable within the creationist camp, it will not suffice in reasoned debate,

I am not guilty of this as you accuse, but I do entertain suspicions about evolutionists. Here’s an example: birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, but the admission of Protoavis as a taxon poses severe and irreconcilable temporal discontinuity to this theory, so Protoavis is denied legitimacy. Here’s another: human ancestors can be enthusiastically added to the hominid lineup by virtue of several pieces of a badly crushed skull or jawbone, but Protoavis is disallowed because its skull is “fragmentary,” though its distinct birdlike features have been positively identified. Here’s a third as a hypothetical question: how anxious would paleontology be to dismiss Protoavis as a valid taxon if it were chimeric in nature and badly fragmented, but found in late Jurassic or early Cretaceous stone?

and you bear the onus of proof for your assertion that the "Protoavis" holotype and paratypes are composed of conspecific material.

You won’t make me bear the onus to prove anything. Besides, the materials do not have to be conspecific to do damage to historically accepted avian evolution. Instead of wasting your energy arguing against what many believe to be the inevitable outcome of this find, I would think a wise man should be working on revising his evolution and making room to welcome Protoavis texensis into avian history or at least making room for the next fossilized bird to come along that antedates Archaeopteryx. The higher you climb up your scaffold of unbelief, the farther and harder you will fall when that time comes.

And I find you blithely inept. The "God" label I forced on you was unmistakably that of a false god. That you are the "defender" of a false god should not be surprising at all.

Nice attempt to cover that up. You can barely tell that you are just out to verbally bash instead of logically debate both in this post and the one Vindex Urvogel quoted you in.

__________________
(Ezek 30:10 NRSV) Thus says the Lord GOD: I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt, by the hand of King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon.

Impressive. The only thing that I can imagine that would shoot down your flying "phyletic progression" would be the entrace of Triassic birds. Vindex, please don't misinterpret my refusal to deal piece by piece with your lists above to mean that I do not understand them (I think the revelatory occurrence would actually be to find that YOU don't understand them) or in any way to mean that I agree with your evolutionary continuum surrounding early flight. My intense problem with this whole debate has been that you and others are jumping to conclusions way too soon. Seasoned evolutionists would caution you to not build edifices around pet theories during a whirlwind era of fossil finds that will inevitably leave your structures in heaps of ruins.

Your closing advice might be equally applicable to your defense of Protoavis. Let's review the points you have made.

First point:

"Won’t work, Vindex. “Hundreds of believing scientists” – excluding creationists – falls well within the bounds of safe assumptions. The verdict may not be in yet for this early bird, but the forensic evidence is too strong to gag the opinion of reputed scientists. Or do you consider it trivial that a paleornithologist of the repute of Evegny Kurochkin is calling this a bird? He alone could sway hundreds by his esteemed opinion and cause hundreds more to re-examine their staunch disbelief. No, forget it. I don’t have to provide you a list."


The "forensic" evidence is precisely what has led most authorities to view "Protoavis" as an invalid taxon. Your argument from authority (in citing Kurochkin) will hardly serve as a compelling substitute for hard data. The fact remains the multiple independent reviews of the "Protoavis" material, which I have cited for all to go and check externally for their benefit, have come to the conclusion that this same taxon is invalid. The "Protoavis" material, which you claim is so explosive that it can sway hundreds, has completely failed to do so. Yet, you claim "hundreds" feel it is indeed an ornithurine bird which pre-dates the urvogel. Your assertion that you do not need to provide evidence (ergo, a list) to support this argument, is entirely specious. Either uphold the claim, or withdraw it.

Your next point:

"Please tell me - just how many definitive ways will the crushed skull be reconstructed and under whose directorship? Are you here denying that Ostrom and others have convincingly stated that the skull is so badly crushed (all pieces being long removed from the matrix) that it renders the creature’s cranial reconstruction impossible? Please tell me and others how Paul and Feduccia went about their reconstruction so as to arrive at their claims of “significant similarities.”"

Ostrom's review, as do those of the others I cited, make note of the following cranial regions which are well enough preserved to permit comparative analysis with other taxa: the quadrate, the occiput, and to a lesser extent the maxillae. Since you obviously have no intention of referring to the material which I ctied, I will detail the conclusions reached by Ostrom, Paul, and others, as to the nature of these materials.

The "Protoavis" quadrate (the two preserved quadrates are in fact astonishingly different from each other) when compared to drepanosaur material, exhibits similarities in the form of the bone and the condyle of the proximal articular surface. Both lack evidence of doubling of this condyle characteristics of the modifications necessary for streptostylic kinesis.

The occiput of Protoavis, is notably plesiomorphic comparative to even the most basal Avialae, in that it retains a post-temporal fenestra, which in Avialae is reduced to a fossa or entirely absent, and lacks the strongly twisted paroccipital process characteristic of Eumaniraptora. Claimed synapomorphies for the "Protoavis" occiput and that of the urvogel are in fact found in Deinonychosauria as well.

The maxillae of "Protoavis" are more difficult to analyze, but they appear to lack the accessory fenestra leading to auxilliary sinuses so apomorphic of the derived Maniraptora.

Any attempt to present "Protoavis" as a bird more derived than the urvogel, and pre-dating it, cannot simply dismiss these plesiomorphies in the skull of Chatterjee's specimens.

Your next point:

"This paltry offering might be the only anatomical minutiae you have mentioned that is worth considering (other than perhaps the cervical vertebrae, where implications of its potential similarities to drepanosaur or a theropod could be passed over without consequence). But your assertion that they “strongly refute avian affinity” flies in the face of a long list of avian affinities that Protoavis does possess. Why do you insist on truncating the evidence for flight?

The humerus gives indication that flight muscles were present. Quill knobs on the arm provided for the attachment of flight feathers. A shortened fibula points to a leg like that of a bird. A perching toe is on the foot, which some believe also possesses an avian ankle joint. A keeled sternum and furcula were obviously for flight. The hips are especially birdlike."


I would first address your categoric dismissal of the stunning similarities between the cervical vertebrae of drepanosaurs and "Protoavis." How does one explain the shared morphology of these elements, if not by arguing that indeed the cervicals of "Protoavis" 'are' drepanosaurian? Now, let us see about the carpal and manal osteology. You claim they do not refute avian affinity? Curious. How, then, are the carpal and manal elements in "Protoavis" particularly avian? Let us look at them:

The manus is not tridigitate, digit I is not medially divergent, the distal carpals lack a semilunate element, stiffening and elongation of the proximal phalange of digit II is absent, and there is no posterolateral flange on the base of the proximal phalange in this digit. All of these characters are difficult to account for, if "Protoavis" is indeed as birdlike as has been claiemd.

Your further claims about the humerus and ulna are curious. The humerus is not particularly avian, and it lacks a hypertrophied deltopectoral crest, and the alleged ulnar quil nodes are entirely unlike the quil nodes seen in Avialians or par-avians, and appear to be preservation artifacts. The fibula is no more reduced in the avian manner than those seen in Maniraptora. The reversed hallux restored by Chatterjee has not been supported by the fossil material, since the hallux has not been preserved in articulation with the pes, and there is a lack of in site documentation as to its initial position upon recovery. Your argument that "Protoavis" has an "avian ankle" is amusing--advanced mesotarsal ankles are shared by 'all' Ornithodirans, and are of no phylogenetic relevance in formulating synapomorphies with which to link "Protoavis" to birds. A carinate sternum, is present in "Protoavis," and the furcula, though not as initially claimed displaying a hypocleidium or particularly hypertrophied, is present as well. This is all well and good, but considering that both features are present throughout Theropoda, they hardly serve as diagnostic synapomorphies which permit "Protoavis" to be allied with Avialae. The pelvic girdle of "Protoavis" is most avian in the presence of an antitrochanter, although such is known in Maniraptora as well, thus refuting its advancement as a synapomorphy of "Protoavis" and Avialae. Furthermore, the pubic orientation of this specimen is as yet unknown due to the incomplete preservation of the pelvis, and at best, statements to the effect that the pubis was retroverted remain speculative.

How do you account for these discrepancies if "Protoavis" is as closely allied to Avialae as you insist?

Vindex Urvogel

Continued:

Your next point:

"But all this data is what we both already knew, isn’t it? Do you insist that I list it as an exercise in futility? It certainly won’t sway you or others who find your opinion on this Forum so distinguished. I think the bad science from you is your unforthcoming presentation of Protoavis, a strategy that confines the fossil to the shadowy realm of “dubious.”"


Bad presentation of "Protoavis?" On the contrary, I have catalogued the anatomy at hand, and listed in entirety the pertinent literature so that individuals reading this thread can externally check my posts for accuracy. How is this "unforthcoming" in presentation?

Your next point:

I never denied that the fossil is possibly chimeric in nature. Does chimera pose an insurmountable grade for paleontologists to climb? Does it always prohibit positive taxonomic identification by trained eyes? I wholeheartedly reject your accusation that I am advancing a claim which precludes a potential chimeric fossil thereby establishing Protoavis as a “given.” If two creatures are seen superimposed in that Triassic stone, it is of no consequence – if a bird is present (as many believe), it will be discovered.


If "Protoavis" is a chimera than it lacks any nomenclatural reality, and the specimen is useless for phylogenetic analysis since it is not conspecific. This is phylogenetic reconstruction and Linnean protocol 101 here.

Your next point:

I am not guilty of this as you accuse, but I do entertain suspicions about evolutionists. Here’s an example: birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, but the admission of Protoavis as a taxon poses severe and irreconcilable temporal discontinuity to this theory, so Protoavis is denied legitimacy. Here’s another: human ancestors can be enthusiastically added to the hominid lineup by virtue of several pieces of a badly crushed skull or jawbone, but Protoavis is disallowed because its skull is “fragmentary,” though its distinct birdlike features have been positively identified. Here’s a third as a hypothetical question: how anxious would paleontology be to dismiss Protoavis as a valid taxon if it were chimeric in nature and badly fragmented, but found in late Jurassic or early Cretaceous stone?


"Protoavis" present in intractable temporal dilemma to theropod origin? Curious, since Chatterjee who has most exhaustively presented phylogenies based on "Protoavis" came to no such conclusion. On the contrary, his 1997 tome was largley based on the assertion that "Protoavis" presents compelling data for a Triassic derivation of Avialae from Theropoda. For someone claiming familiarity with this work, that you would assert such a temporal discontinuity issue, is puzzling. As for the hominid material you mention, I hardly claim any particular familiarity with hominid evolution and thus will leave that to others more competent in that area. Your last hypothetical question is easily answered: "Protoavis" would have been treated exactly the same way, and building conspiratorial castles of sand such as you have in your last question, will not change that.

Your next point:

"You won’t make me bear the onus to prove anything. Besides, the materials do not have to be conspecific to do damage to historically accepted avian evolution. Instead of wasting your energy arguing against what many believe to be the inevitable outcome of this find, I would think a wise man should be working on revising his evolution and making room to welcome Protoavis texensis into avian history or at least making room for the next fossilized bird to come along that antedates Archaeopteryx."

Oh, but the burden of proof is indeed on you. You have made sweeping claims about avian phylogeny and "Protoavis texensis" and yet provided little data to support those claims. It is elementary, however, that if one is to claim something, they must substantiate it. The remainder of this last paragraph I addressed elsewhere.

Vindex Urvogel

Indeed, your continued evasions 'are' impressive. You intend to argue on grounds which require anatomical data, and yet you refuse to do so, instead making veiled ad hominems--sparing me the humiliation of your trumping me on the matter osteology of the specimens at hand (very gracious of you). Your intellectual disingenuousness is hardly praiseworthy, but it is certainly one of the best developed amongst creationists that I have seen. I present the following argument to the moderators: I have now gone out of my way to respond point by point and list full citations in my posts. Has notsofast? I think not. Who is the one who is making specious and dishonest arguments here?

On a side note, of more interest, let us look at the entrance of birds pre-Archaeopteryx, which you insist would be so damning to theropod-origin (or even "thecodont" origin). This is a most curious argument, since neither scenario asserts that the urvogel is the phyletic progenitor of anything--instead being the most basal known character state for Avialae. Pre-urvogel birds which display a more plesiomorphic anatomy from the medial or lower Jurassic, or perhaps the terminal Triassic (though this is doubtful) are hardly far-fetched nor unexpected. It is not pre-dating Archaeopteryx which places "Protoavis" in the ranks of nomen dubium, it is the nature of the material itself.

Vindex Urvogel

Here, I enter a formal concession in the argument surrounding Protoavis texensis. Good science demands I do it. Though I do not share “dubious” feelings about its avian affinities, I am at a loss to put my hands on the literature I feel I need to adequately support my position. I have solicited opinions and literature from reputed sources and upon examination of the evidence, will either re-enter the debate or let the matter lie.

I would like to retract my statement that hundreds of scientists feel that Protoavis is a true bird and has usurped Archaeopteryx as the earliest bird. Good science demands I do it, and on those same grounds, my opponent has rightfully requested I do it. Though I believe the statement to be true, I am at a loss to prove it.

Here, I enter retractions and apologies for these characterizations of my opponent.

1. “God” or “Vindex God”
2. “Blithely inept” - where he has capably proven himself to be anything but that remark.

Note regarding Vindex’ last post:

You misunderstood what I said when you posted this reply:

Now, let us see about the carpal and manal osteology. You claim they do not refute avian affinity? Curious. How, then, are the carpal and manal elements in "Protoavis" particularly avian?

My original statement actually allowed for the presence of a carpus and manus that did not promote flight:

But your assertion that they “strongly refute avian affinity” flies in the face of a long list of avian affinities that Protoavis does possess. Why do you insist on truncating the evidence for flight?

Why am I conceding?

1. The validity of Protoavis is not vital to the original argument posed in this thread.
2. My lack of literary support from which to base an argument (stated above).

What I am not conceding:

1. I do not concede this entire thread. Evolution does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to presenting convincing transitional fossils. No evolutionist contributor to the thread has offered evidence to prove that statement false.
2. I do not concede the non-existence of a smooth “phyletic progression from Coelurosauria to Aviala.” I believe my opponent’s long dinosaurian list will be shown to be nothing more than a chronologically and/or clade-based approach to naming dinosaurs.
3. I do not concede the existence of authentic birdlike tracks in Triassic stratum.
4. I do not concede the non-existence of scales to feathers evolution.
5. I do not concede any argument not specifically conceded at the beginning of this post.

I have retracted and apologized for these remarks. See my last post in this thread.

I am gratified by the concessions offered, and it helps restore a modicum of academic rigor to the debate. With the matter of "Protoavis" closed, I will address those points you do not concede:

Point 1: Essentially, that there are no transitionals.

This argument is burdened with explaining why there are specimens which display the intermediary anatomy which is predicted by evolutionary biology, of which Archaeopteryx is but one of many. The plain fact remains that according to creationism, there should be no such taxa in the first place.

Point 2: No phyletic progression from early theropods to Avialae, merely chronologically listed or clade based approach to naming dinosaurs.

To be sure, there is not anagenetic or phyletic progression--the derivation of birds is an example of cladogenesis. However, while the list I presented is by default chronological (after all, evolution proceeds over time and cladograms are mapped with time as the x-axis), that list is based on the quantifiable morphologic change in these taxa, which steadily approaches the avian condition. It is not a clade-based approach, though had I chosen to list clades, it would have been just as valid as clades themselves are delimited on anatomical grounds.

Point 3: Triassic tridigitate prints are those of birds

This is possible, but it is extraordinarily hard to identify prints to the species level, or even higher levels in the Linnean hierarchy, and considering that there is no diagnostic difference between the print of an archaic bird and a standard tridactyl theropod, any attempt to definitively say that these Triassic prints belong to birds is wholly speculative.

Point 4: Scales-to-feather evolution is still a valid model

I have already extensively listed the data which renders this nothing more than a myth, and if you wish to still hold to it, you must produce data to support it.

Vindex Urvogel