Some Dinosaurs evolved from birds, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
If I understand this article correctly, it says that today's birds perhaps evolved from velociraptor-type animals rather than from therapods (T. rex-style dinosaurs). But how is that so much different than what people have been saying for the past 20 years? Whenever a scientist says that birds evolved from dinosaurs, it's always the raptor-type "dinosaurs" that they point to as evidence -- just like this article.

That's what I remember from the stuff I read. And, as someone said, they have similar body forms.

They never point to T. rex and say "that's where birds came from".

Probably because T. Rex doesn't show up until the later part of the Cretaceous (some of his ancestors which aren't T. Rexes show up earlier.)

It's good to know that scientific work is now reaching the public more quickly than hitherto, but this promptitude has a downside. Many scientists, eager to establish priority, publicize the results of work that is not yet definitive. When the media get hold of this parboiled work, they tend to jump to or highlight conclusions the work itself doesn't justify. This article seems to be an example of just that sort of gun-jumping.

* * *

Originally posted by l neXus l
the only problem i have with this "discovery" is, why would birds who have a four chambered heart which FLY need to Evolve, or in my opinion, De- Evolving into Ground dwelling quadruped or biped with a three chambered heart?

Good question. Please remember the article is not suggesting that all dinosaurs evolved from birds--only that later, advanced group of dinosaurs popularly known as raptors. Did Velociraptor and its kin have three- or four-chambered hearts? Does anybody know?

* * *

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The way I see it, raptor-style dinosaurs could be just considered a different kind of dinosaur -- and that's the kind of dinosaur that evolved into today's birds.

Obviously, velociraptors did not evolve from today's birds, or there would be a fossil record. Rather today's birds evolved from velociraptors-style animals.

What you're saying may be diagrammatized as follows:

Dinosaurs > Theropods > Dromaesaurs ('raptors') > Birds

I think what they're saying is:

Dinosaurs > Theropods > Birds > Dromaesaurs

Or maybe even

Dinosaurs > Birds > Theropods > Raptors

though the latter sounds a bit far-fetched to me. Then again, I'm not a palaeontologist, so what do I know?

Not much more than palaeontologists, perhaps:

Our knowledge of the evolutionary history of the Theropoda is constantly under revision, stimulated by new, exciting fossil finds every year or so such as Mononykus olecranus, a very bird-like theropod found recently in the Mongolian desert, or Giganotosaurus carolinii, a giant theropod probably rivaling the size of T. rex., found recently in Argentina. In fact, the 1960's discovery and study of the remains of Deinonychus antirrhopus helped to revise paleontology's old vision of all dinosaurs as slow, stupid reptiles, and was a key factor in the onset of the controversial hot-blooded/cold-blooded debate. Currently, there are two or three main groups of theropods, depending on whom you ask; we have yet to fully understand their origin. Fascinating page on theropods from UC Berkeley

[edit on 11/2/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Nothing new to me. Years ago I picked up Gregory Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World" first published in 1988, where he proposes the same idea. His hypothesis was that not only did birds evolve from therapods, but that some groups of therapods are the descendant of birds.

Interesting citation. I don't see this finding as turning science around. We know the fossil record is woefully incomplete so it only stands to reason that as more fossils are discovered, our understanding of the evolutionary paths should increase.

But yes some people may jump the gun and claim we had it backwards, using oversimplified definitions instead of, for example, the three stages you mentioned.

Maybe this is why a lot of people are scared of birds - because they are quite scary when you think about it.

The classic Hitchcock movie "The Birds" is pretty horrible, and also they are a bit like flying rats - just in my perception.

I think we only like creatures that like us (or the ones people breed to be killed...ugh).

One of these days, oppressed and ancient creatures may rise up!

reply to post by kawacat

I have always found that fear of birds is silly. They are so fragile, with their hollow bones, that killing them is easy, even for the timid. The movie THe Birds never frightened me. There are some birds that lost the ability to fly but there are no missing links(reptiles with wing appendages) to support this theory.

Originally posted by earthdude
I have always found that fear of birds is silly.

I was attacked by a big rooster in my grandmother's yard when I was about three. I was scared witless, and I was right to be scared: those pecks hurt.

And even for the Governor of California, these birds would have seemed pretty scary: Phorusrhacid.

Originally posted by earthdude
Wouldn't DNA evidence verify this theory? Can't scientists follow the gene path like they have done with humans?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think they have ever successfully retrieved DNA from fossilised dinosaur bones.Which may hamper the scientists following any gene path from birds back to dinosaurs. Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick , I believe that is what you were talking about.