[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
The raging debates, or the latest ones anyway, concerning the whether there
is a close relationship between birds and dinosaurs seems too narrowly
focused to see the composite.
Consider gastroliths, a common trait among birds, but not all. Gastroliths
are also associated with some, but not all, dinosaurs. Hmmm...
Limb structure, so similar that without certain bones to articulate them
could be mistaken for either, especially in the smaller species of
Skeletal composition in the neck, and muscle scaring evidence in dinosaurs,
again in the smaller Theropods, are very similar to some extant birds.
Tridayctal (sp?) foot structure, all theropods had this foot if I'm not
I think I could go on but I'm sure I've established a line of reasoning
with these points. Without a broad scoped view of any problem any one trait
can be used out of context to propose, or disprove, anything.
If G.O. is right, and I've begin to see why he just may be, BCF could
explain much. Doesn't it seem likely that there was a ancestrial organism
that both dinosaurs and birds are the offspring? A split in lifestyles or
selection of habitat, who knows, but Dinosaurs took one evolutionary path
and BIrds another. There just seems to be too much evidence to dismiss the
logical relationship. Are dinosaurs birds, outright? Maybe not, but there
is a relationship we don't fully understand, yet.
Go ahead, fire at will!
Roger A. Stephenson
Hell Creek Homey