Were some “types” of “dinosaurs” like Theropods/T-rex, simply ground birds that adapted to a diverse planet??

I wrote a thread once about Theropods having like anatomy with birds as possibly just a convergence of bone type with physics. So birds did not evolve from dinosaur types like theropods.

I have watched recently youtube docs on T-rex and theropods etc and how they are claimed to be birds.

Once again its ac classification error. First there was no dinosaurs. tHey are just KINDS with some trivial like traits. just as mammals or reptiles are just KINDS of creatures with like traits. no relationship otherwise from a creator ir from evolutionary lineage.

It occured to me as another option that these theropods and T-rex could be simply ground birds.

there was later, post flood or above the k-pg line, 6 and 9 foot moas and elephant birds on islans like New Zealand and madasgaschar, and South America, and elsewhere.

They also were meat eaters, sometimes, and could not fly or even had wings/yet flourished in great sizes.

I think its a very viable option that many KINDS of dinos who have very bird like anatomy were in fact just ground birds. So T-rex, despite its great head/teeth, was possibly just a ground bird that did not roar. I saw a Youtube doc by a Dino guy, who advised the Jurassic park movies, who argues T-Rex etc head shape changed greatly as they grew older.

I suggest its very likely true that some ‘dino” types like the bird bone ones were just birds. Not reptiles. Just adapted to a rough post fall world. Just that simple. Possible also for others to have like anatomy for like needs but I’m leaning towards like anatomy means the same thing.

So the evolution of birds from dinos is not true and based on a classification system more then observation and other options of anatomy origins.

 

13 thoughts on “Were some “types” of “dinosaurs” like Theropods/T-rex, simply ground birds that adapted to a diverse planet??

  1. There’s a bit of real scientific controversy in Byers’s incoherent rant. If we define “bird” as a theropod that can fly or is descended from a flyer, it’s possible that some of the commonly known non-avian dinosaurs, including Velociraptor and/or Caudipteryx, but probably not Tyrannosaurus, are birds, meaning that they had flying ancestors. Greg Paul is a big proponent of this idea, and there’s some potential morphological support for it. There’s certainly no reason to consider it a priori implausible. Flightlessness has evolved hundreds of times in birds that we know of, and a few more, early on, would not be out of the question.

  2. Robert,
    Get a spellchecker mate. It won’t help with the content but it’ll be less awful.

  3. It doesn’t matter, as long as one ovary no longer functions. After all, that’s what allows birds to fly. Right John?

  4. John Harshman:
    There’s a bit of real scientific controversy in Byers’s incoherent rant. If we define “bird” as a theropod that can fly or is descended from a flyer, it’s possible that some of the commonly known non-avian dinosaurs, including Velociraptor and/or Caudipteryx, but probably not Tyrannosaurus, are birds, meaning that they had flying ancestors. Greg Paul is a big proponent of this idea, and there’s some potential morphological support for it. There’s certainly no reason to consider it a priori implausible. Flightlessness has evolved hundreds of times in birds that we know of, and a few more, early on, would not be out of the question.

    Incoherent? rant?
    Anyways.
    I didn’t know about this Greg paul. i’ll look him up.
    My stance is that they are not dinosaurs. this is a wrong idea in classification. They are not reptiles.
    i’m saying they just are birds. A great diversity of ground birds.
    Yes flightlessness, without wings, has happened and in hugh birds like the ones I mentioned. moa etc
    The T-rex not being a ground bird option would only be hard to swallow because of its hugh teethy head.
    Yet some now say T-rex head changed with age into a more extreme biggish look.

    It would work to see veery bird like skeletons as being birds. its the IDEA that they are reptiles/dinosaurs that throws everything into a wrong, i think, direction.

  5. Robert, you have to understand where John is coming from. He thinks that creationism is synonymous with utterly random. It’s stupid, but it’s what he believes. He’s like the opposite of the creationist who believes that evolution is utterly random.

  6. Robert Byers: Incoherent? rant?

    Surely that doesn’t come as a surprise. Lots of people have been pointing that out to you for years. And yes, that comment was incoherent too.

  7. Mung:
    It doesn’t matter, as long as one ovary no longer functions. After all, that’s what allows birds to fly. Right John?

    Does anyone know what motivates Mung to defecate in every thread even remotely relevant to evolutionary biology?

  8. “So the evolution of birds from dinos is not true and based on a classification system more then observation and other options of anatomy origins.”

    Could it be possible that birdlike dinosaurs were not today’s modern birds, and reptile-like dinosaurs were not today’s modern lizards?

    I smell the creationist tendency to assume that gradual evolutionary change is not possible (or an inability to grasp its nature). The common ancestor of dogs and cats was neither one. Evolution is not some current organism somehow morphing into another current organism (no crocaducks allowed).

  9. Flint:
    “So the evolution of birds from dinos is not true and based on a classification system more then observation and other options of anatomy origins.”

    Could it be possible that birdlike dinosaurs were not today’s modern birds, and reptile-like dinosaurs were not today’s modern lizards?

    I smell the creationist tendency to assume that gradual evolutionary change is not possible (or an inability to grasp its nature). The common ancestor of dogs and cats was neither one. Evolution is not some current organism somehow morphing into another current organism (no crocaducks allowed).

    I’m offering another idea on why “dino” creatures, some, had such bird like anatomy. Evolutionists say it shows birds are living dinos etc.
    Instead i dismiss there is dinosaurs as a group. Instead only KINDS of creatures. if they have some minor traits in common its only for some common need.
    So dino’s with bird anatomy, yet not birds they say but dinos of fame, REALLY ARE ground birds.
    They are just ground birds with teeth. Even, possibly, t-rex.
    its a classification system that is directing conclusions for evolutionists etc and not actual observation with all options on the table. they are falsely committed to seeing a dino group which they also see as reptiles.
    I’m not sure t-rex was a big bird. however i stronly suspect many of the other dinos were. no wings but birds.

  10. John Harshman: Surely that doesn’t come as a surprise. Lots of people have been pointing that out to you for years. And yes, that comment was incoherent too.

    Oh yeah. i guess its not a surprise but its just wrong and surprising it continues.
    you understood my point, i think, and so incoherence was limited.
    i see no rant but enthusiasm.
    I think its a good creationist improvement on investigation of these dead creatures .
    I see a classification system dominating when a pure observtion should be dominating.
    i think they should see many of these dinos as ground birds or in convergence with birds etc that simply need to be light on the foot.
    So bird bones are not bird bones but a biophysics result on limited options in nature.
    Then I thought they might , probably, just be special ground birds.
    Real birds. No reptiles or dinos.

  11. John Harshman: I’ll give you the possibility that it’s not always a rant. But believe me when I tell you it’s always incoherent.

    If you really want to fly, lose an ovary, mate!

Leave a Reply