Birds From Theropods?

[Hockeycowboy]

interview with Dr. Alan Feduccia, who disagrees based on evidence:

Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia—Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds | DiscoverMagazine.com

The following excerpt reveals how he was treated, because he didn't agree with the accepted view (he was still an evolutionary biologist for crying out loud!):

"Is there anything that would convince you birds really did evolve from dinosaurs?

At the time period when birds are thought to have evolved, there are plenty of theropod dinosaurs, but they do not have the key birdlike features. Finding a feathered dinosaur that lived earlier, during the late Triassic, would be very convincing. Until we discover the critical specimens, the issue will never be laid to rest.


How did you get involved in the debate in the first place?

I really was not interested in the origin of birds until I wrote a book called The Age of Birds back in 1980, for which I had to write a chapter on bird origins. I tried to be as fair as possible, but when I did not come down firmly on the side of the dinosaurian origin of birds, I was viewed as a heretic. The vitriolic response I got was a big red flag to me. If these researchers were so convinced that they were right, why did it make a difference what I thought? Why did they get so enraged? As the years progressed, I started looking into the problem of the origin of birds in great detail, and everywhere I looked, it was as if we were being asked to put a square peg in a round hole. "

"Truth Has to Conform!"

 

[Sapiens]

You are misrepresenting Feduccia. He opposes, not the archosaurian, reptilian origin of birds, rather he disagrees with the consensus that birds originated from and are deeply nested within the Theropoda that makes birds, at least cladistically, living theropod dinosaurs. Feduccia proposes an alternative hypothesis: birds share a common stem-ancestor with theropod dinosaurs among more basal archosaurian lineages, with birds originating from small arboreal archosaurs in the Triassic, but that still leaves agreement that birds are archosaurian reptiles.

 

[Grandliseur]

interview with Dr. Alan Feduccia, who disagrees based on evidence:

Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia—Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds | DiscoverMagazine.com

The following excerpt reveals how he was treated, because he didn't agree with the accepted view (he was still an evolutionary biologist for crying out loud!):

"Is there anything that would convince you birds really did evolve from dinosaurs?

At the time period when birds are thought to have evolved, there are plenty of theropod dinosaurs, but they do not have the key birdlike features. Finding a feathered dinosaur that lived earlier, during the late Triassic, would be very convincing. Until we discover the critical specimens, the issue will never be laid to rest.


How did you get involved in the debate in the first place?

I really was not interested in the origin of birds until I wrote a book called The Age of Birds back in 1980, for which I had to write a chapter on bird origins. I tried to be as fair as possible, but when I did not come down firmly on the side of the dinosaurian origin of birds, I was viewed as a heretic. The vitriolic response I got was a big red flag to me. If these researchers were so convinced that they were right, why did it make a difference what I thought? Why did they get so enraged? As the years progressed, I started looking into the problem of the origin of birds in great detail, and everywhere I looked, it was as if we were being asked to put a square peg in a round hole. "

"Truth Has to Conform!"

Evolutionists are the modern inquisition.
They can flavor it all they like, but that is how they work.

 

[Sapiens]

Evolutionists are the modern inquisition.
They can flavor it all they like, but that is how they work.

Science is based on skepticism, some folks are too thinned skinned. There is no inquisition, there is just evidence, some well argued and some poorly argued. The hot-blooded dinosaur revolution catapulted a then grad student, Bob Bakker into the limelight without any problems despite it overturning the status quo. Bakker is also a Pentecostal, Ecumenical Christian minister, who argues that there is no real conflict between religion and science, and that evolution of species and geologic history are compatible with religious belief.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Sapiens said, "You are misrepresenting Feduccia."

I am? Where?

 

[Grandliseur]

There is no inquisition, there is just evidence

Wouldn't that be nice if that truly were so.

Anyway, we all have our own opinions, and whatnot. I know you think you are standing on a pure solid foundation. I hope your heart is pure in your pursuits being unbiased when you weigh the evidence and rationally looking at it.

 

[Skwim]

A 15 year old article on Feduccia that happened to mention the response he received for his disagreement with the prevailing theory is hardly news or discussion worthy.

.​

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A 15 year old article on Feduccia that happened to mention the response he received for his disagreement with the prevailing theory is hardly news or discussion worthy.

.​

Then ignore it.

 

[Skwim]

Then ignore it.

It's already been done.

.

 

[sayak83]

interview with Dr. Alan Feduccia, who disagrees based on evidence:

Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia—Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds | DiscoverMagazine.com

The following excerpt reveals how he was treated, because he didn't agree with the accepted view (he was still an evolutionary biologist for crying out loud!):

"Is there anything that would convince you birds really did evolve from dinosaurs?

At the time period when birds are thought to have evolved, there are plenty of theropod dinosaurs, but they do not have the key birdlike features. Finding a feathered dinosaur that lived earlier, during the late Triassic, would be very convincing. Until we discover the critical specimens, the issue will never be laid to rest.


How did you get involved in the debate in the first place?

I really was not interested in the origin of birds until I wrote a book called The Age of Birds back in 1980, for which I had to write a chapter on bird origins. I tried to be as fair as possible, but when I did not come down firmly on the side of the dinosaurian origin of birds, I was viewed as a heretic. The vitriolic response I got was a big red flag to me. If these researchers were so convinced that they were right, why did it make a difference what I thought? Why did they get so enraged? As the years progressed, I started looking into the problem of the origin of birds in great detail, and everywhere I looked, it was as if we were being asked to put a square peg in a round hole. "

"Truth Has to Conform!"

Scientists that do not change their views even when evidence piles against their favored hypothesis get sidelined and rightfully so. They no longer get citations, no longer get invited to prestigious conferences, no longer get grants, and students no longer come to them as they have obviously failed in being scientifically objective. So they grow bitter and angry and accuse the rest of scientific community of bias. It's normal and it has been happening since the inception of science. There have always been and always will be a few bitter sidelined scientists chomping at the bits.

We are not polite people. Vitriolic exchanges is how debates and conferences get conducted and review of papers occur. One is expected to defend one's ideas through evidence against the severest of attacks. If you can't, you get ruthlessly sidelined. That is why science works so well, it's ruthless cutthroat competition just like the start up industry in the private sector.

 

[sayak83]

Wouldn't that be nice if that truly were so.

Anyway, we all have our own opinions, and whatnot. I know you think you are standing on a pure solid foundation. I hope your heart is pure in your pursuits being unbiased when you weigh the evidence and rationally looking at it.

I at least am. The evidence of therapod origin of birds is just overwhelming.

 

[Grandliseur]

I at least am. The evidence of therapod origin of birds is just overwhelming.

That is all anyone can ask of each of us.

 

[Hildeburh]

There's an awesome BBC podcast on this topic here:

Feathered Dinosaurs, In Our Time - BBC Radio 4

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that objection after objection of Feduccia's have been shown to be wrong. He used to claim that the feathers on other dinosaurs were not rneal feathers. That has been shown to be wrong. He claimed that theoropods that could have evolved into birds did not exist at that time. That has been shown to be wrong. If you want a more thorough refutation of his work you might try to read this, warning, since Feduccia has been shown to be not willing to learn from his mistakes there may be an f-bomb or two in the article:

Really, again? You’ve got to be ****ing kidding me!


ETA: Or perhaps in the title itself.