Birds Before Dinosaurs?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лис 2020
- As one who studies and follows the behavior of living birds, I was surprised to be visiting a museum and see footprints, identical to the birds I study, in the sedimentary trackways said to be in the Triassic / Jurassic border. Further study into the known fossils reported and recorded by; Hitchcock (1836), King (1844), Gilmore (1926-27), Sternberg (1933), Ellenberger (1970-72) and others in the past leads me to believe that some fossils have most likely been misnamed, misinterpreted, and worse never properly addressed. In this video I also share the fact that I am not alone, and that there are paleontologists who came to this conclusion long before I did. My question would be why hasn't anyone addressed this issue more thoroughly?
I reference a paper by Lockley and others called; "The track record of Mesozoic birds: evidence and implications", here's the Royal Society link to it;
royalsocietypublishing.org/do...
I quote from Martin Lockley and Adrian Hunt's book, "Dinosaur Tracks and other fossil footprints of the Western United States" Available at Amazon here;
www.amazon.com/Dinosaur-Track...
Throughout the video I've referenced many papers both old and new. I tried to have some sort of address or name for each example used so that you could both find it and know it's original source. All were found, mostly in free downloadable PDF form, or online "free books" by searching;
The name of the writer (s) example "Ellenberger 1970"
The name of the paper "The track record of Mesozoic birds: evidence and implications"
These sites, and many others, contain research and peer reviewed papers on this subject;
www.researchgate.net
www.jstor.org
www.semanticscholar.org
Please feel free to leave any questions or comments, but I do have a lot of kids on the site so profanity (some words are auto blocked) and verbal abuse will be removed. - Домашні улюбленці та дикі тварини
This was very fascinating to listen to! I really enjoyed hearing your pov and it really opened my eyes to the possibilities. Thank you so very much for taking the time and care to put this together.
you all probably dont give a damn but does anybody know of a way to log back into an instagram account..?
I was stupid forgot the password. I would love any help you can give me.
@Maxim Curtis Instablaster :)
Been watching your channel since I was 12, I am now 19. Still have a thriving passion for ravens and learning underappreciated knowledge in general. Thank you for this
You are welcome, thanks for taking the time to watch and comment!
I hate how in modern science, so many assertions are made solely under the pretense of prior unverified assertions and any conflicting ideas are met with zeal and hubris rather than actual scientific methodology. This video was fascinating! If someone told me I'd watch an hour long video about bird foot prints I'd never believe them.
Thanks Bob! I agree and I just don't "get" many things today. I'm not a conspiracy person but I think the natural tendency of people being lured into the money, power and prestige stuff has to be considered. No better example than our current COVID situation. Things are being said and done that just baffle me and go against everything I've known to be simply common sense or in many cases, true. Take the masking bit, in school I learned if something is truly air-borne, just a mask is going to do absolutely nothing at all, cause it's going to get on your skin, in your eyes, etc. In fact what you'd really need is a complete hazmat suit with goggles, gloves and something head to toe that was both put on and taken off in a sterile environment. We were taught a mask alone was good for dust and such but in a biological environment it actually became a specimen collecting petri dish. I've looked for the science to say otherwise but thus far everything I've seen is pretty incomplete. Anyways, glad you enjoyed it! I've got a challenge out to a couple of museum curators, with some newer finds that are pretty cool. We'll see where it goes!
...I really found this so interesting and informative. Thank you for this study!
I would call this irrefutable evidence that settles the matter once and for all! Absolutely wonderful stuff! Thank you!
I mean I would not be so sure
@@egemenozcelik7494 That's fine but can you share what do you question? Or what would you change or want to look further into or have more evidence of?
@@theravendiaries well first of all the anotomy of birds and certain groups of dinosaurs are extremely similiar and I kind of doubt that they wouldnt be related. (my knowledge may be lacking, so correct me if Im wrong). So I believe there will still be very major connections made between two groups even If certain scientists accept that Birds are in fact not dinosaurs.
Also keep in mind the huge amounts of proof birds are dinos
It’s not proof since the points they gave were quite weak compared to the evidence suggesting otherwise
That was excellent. In-depth and clear.
Dinosaurs are very diverse, you shouldn't expect them to all walk the same
This is going to be pedantic, but I mean well:
The V in "urvogel" is pronounced like an English F.
The German V sound is spelled with a W, as in Wagner.
It's OK and thank you for the correction, a master of languages I am not, in fact the French ask me to please not even try! The worst part of my biology training in school was latin! : )
Are you using bird as a synonym to "avian dinosaur" ? Since in modern cladistics birds are considered dinosaurs. So when you make comparisons such as "birds did this, while dinosaurs did that" You mean, non avian dinosaurs vs avian dinosaurs? They are both dinosaurs , like hare and a deer are both mammals. Because dinosaurs is just the group. It just sounds odd, as the title has the same vibe as "hares before mammals?" So they did exist at the same time and there really isn't a split, as they literally are dinosaurs.
Or do you by this mean, that you believe that they should be separated groups with much older common ancestor than thought ?
Or do you believe that birds evolved outside of archosauria?
@@Anomalous-Plant First of all, thank you for your questions, here's my explanation. "Cladistics" and in fact ALL the classification systems of families and groups is nothing more than a guesswork of science not actual science. In my world you can't even show how and why a raven, nutcracker and a jay are related and are all "classified" as corvids and are all in the "crow family", they just are because someone choose it to be. So just because the story tellers of modern cladistics "consider" birds as dinosaurs doesn't make it true. It is a guess of what they want to be true or more accurately it is a guess as to "what may be true." But far more important is the fact that all the actual tracking information I can gather the world over, actual bird prints, exactly as we see them today, are found deeper in the layers than anything found the dinosaur family. I maintain that the chances of a dinosaur of any sort having exactly the same print as a modern day bird (which is what we find and that is what this report is about) is very unlikely. In my opinion some paleontologists are getting away with some pretty crazy stuff that when we really dig, I find to be impossible. : )
@@theravendiaries There are a lot of animals that have remained relatively unchanged for a really long time, but that is another subject. Cladistics are not just guess work, where someone just decides something just because they feel that way, but are based on something that is peer reviewed until there is a mostly agreed on common ground. Like interrelationships of corvids is currently based on DNA sequence analysis. Of course, these groupings change when evidence is provided that there should be a separate group, when something indicates a different evolutionary path for an animal than previously thought. The "bullying" of the original authors that you mentioned in another comment of yours.. well, in doing science in order to make credible hypothesis you need to be scrutinized so that the weak points of your theory are shown and you need to be able to defend them. If you do it well, your hypothesis is more credible.
There is always disagreements in the science community but it seems whenever I look deeply into these outliers with extraordinary claims, there is inconsistency, refusal to be questioned or strong ready made assumption etc. When I look into all the research on this subject, for me as someone who is not a scientist and thus doesnt have the required knowledge of the subject as a whole to make anything more than vague hypothesises based on data provided by others, the evidence provided on the matter right now, really is more strongly indicating something else than what you claim here and I simply can't just shrug it off and adapt this view. This would need to be placed under hard scrutiny and further prove itself trough other accounts, until then, for me there is likely and an unlikely option. It's wiser for me to choose to believe, currently, to the more likely one that has been more widely researched.
It is clear that this is something you have strongly decided to believe trough the evidence you provided here and I hope you will also question it and look into other research and all the possible flaws this one has and see if it still rings true to you.
@@Anomalous-Plant There are many animals that remain unchanged (another questionable feature about the whole theory) but for an "ancestor" of something to have the exact track as a modern would be pretty far fetched. For example, people didn't have people feet until they where fully people. And I'm betting no animal had bird feet until it was fully bird.
Look, the last thing I want to do is TELL people what to believe. I tried to make it clear in this video I was more asking for help from others and especially those who are actually involved in this field to do what they say they should do and that is to simply take a look and revisit some things that in my opinion were shrugged off and over ridden (like Lyle calling the "King" find Indian artifacts) because at the time protecting the "theory" was far more important than really looking hard and considering the hard evidence.
There's a fun movie out called "Finding Altamira" with Antonio Banderas that demonstrates exactly what the "bullying in science" leads to: ua-cam.com/video/F0FP0_h_aXc/v-deo.html
Also I left some links to the original articles I used in the video's description. if you are interested take a look. I will be frank, ever since I took my many science classes way back in the 70's, I've had a mistrust of the popular science view. What we learned in the class and what we actually went out and did in the field gave us two completely different stories. But even so, even with the hard evidence in their face, the professors would not change the narrative. Worse, as an owner and chef of a middle high end restaurant that "well to do" people loved to frequent, I got a back door view to a world few people know about. I got to see the actual inner workings in many fields and industries. And I can tell you it doesn't matter what industry you want to name, people are rarely 100% sure of anything, people will chose to just take the already beaten path, and most people are cowards and will not be the one to stand against what they question or worse, what they know to be wrong. The science and academic environment is no different from a political one, or even a particular police force, or most anything else you want to name. Each has it's many fools, each has it's control freaks and all have many followers who just go along. That is just people. I could have been a lot more straight forward in my presentation here and called out a number of things that are flat out fraud and misconstrued in the paleontology world, but that's not how you get people to work with you. Instead I'm presenting some insight from a field I am an expert in (working and tracking living animal) and asking others to join in with what they find. I am not the one to "change the world" in this field but if I can influence someone willing to take a serious look. maybe they can and will do something about it? More importantly the fact that a well respected paleontologist of the caliber of Martin Lockley, who writes and voices the same questions I have is real the weight of the argument here. : )
Very interesting. Thanks👀🌈
Very interesting video I do agree with you on most things thanks for the video very educational
IT WASN'T TO LONG, WAS INTERESTING THX, I ENJOY ALL UR POST, WISH WE HAD RAVENS IN MY AREA😶
Alfred king' s footprintavare demonstrated to be made bynative american, Alfred_King's_Pennsylvanian_tetrapod_footprints_from_western_Pennsylvania, while triassic icnofossils were datated at the Eocene epoch: Retraction Note: Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic, so otger footprints can be more recent, or maybe were made by a dinosaur with a foot similar with the bird foot, the scansiopterygidae had a opposite finger like birds.
Birds are birds
Dinosaurs are dinosaurs.
But what came first? Reptiles or Birds?
@Nobody Important as of Now bruh didn't u watch the vid?
Very interesting
Evolution is real though
@@halilzelenka5813 "Evolution" simply means change, and yes change is real but the fact remains, the science I can do, and that done before me by others, leads me to believe that birds seem to be found before the dinosaurs.
@@theravendiaries that makes sense. I guess I misinterpreted some video titles I saw on your page, which (the interpretation I mean) really didn't add up with what I believe you say in this video. The idea that there is a deeper root in the common ancestry between birds and dinosaurs
Hmmmmmm interdasting, thanks for the vid btw make more like these pls I'd like to learn more
Hello Kevin, I generally don't go into these kinds of areas cause they tend to create a us vs them wedge. Right now I have a challenge out to a couple of museum curators and I honestly don't know if I'll ever hear back or is I will get ignored. I don't push cause in science it has to be their idea, I wouldn't even begin to try to change someones opinion, the science itself has to change them. Are they willing to look and consider? Time will tell, and I'll certainly report back if I find something new or different.
And when you say "more like these" what subjects are you interested in? Thanks!
@@theravendiaries thx, im interested in any geo or other animalistic evidence that can disprove the common thought proces. Like what u just made right now, u showed that birds existed during the dino age, that was really cool.
@@firekoovin3347 Thank you! In short I was brought up and educated from the early 60's to about the late 70's. The teaching of evolution was not put into California public education until 1962 (I was in second grade), so for most of my public education "evolution" was treated as a posable "theory" and other arguments or ideas were both welcome or a least tolerated. In other words we could actually discuss something and opposing views were normal. That all changed in my college biology classes were opposing views were shunned and not welcome. However in the field work they sent us out to do out at the Back Bay in Newport Beach, I found the long ages impossible. The rates of erosion from just the rain water tables alone pretty much went in direct evidence against the long age view our professor swore allegiance to. So I'm kind of a "flood geologist" from the evidence of my work and I question many of the things we now teach our kids. Also because of my work with ravens, I'm asked about the dinosaur to bird stuff a lot. I don't see it, nor do i understand how "others" think they do see it. I also see from the past that many things were either misinterpreted or flat out ignored (like the fossils above). So my objective is not os much to disprove, as it is to bring to the table the possibility that maybe our ancestors were telling the truth when they told us there was a flood?
Here's some things I've already done in the past;
Erosion and the Flood;
ua-cam.com/video/zwyczdS8wjY/v-deo.html
Scientific Evidence for a Recent WorldWide Flood;
ua-cam.com/video/pmtVqhr32Vs/v-deo.html
Birds From Dinosaurs?
ua-cam.com/video/w8lbEyRHBEM/v-deo.html
Bill Nye, One Piece of Evidence?
ua-cam.com/video/gu_TOpQY-Gk/v-deo.html
If The Whole World Were To Social Distance ...
ua-cam.com/video/xG8kuUmdwfk/v-deo.html
Science vs Evolution (answering a You Tuber's question)
ua-cam.com/video/EBI55sn4Z4M/v-deo.html
Here's my problem, the science I can do myself leads me to believe there was a recent worldwide flood. The science I read about that others have written about tells a different story that i can't back up scientifically myself. We each have to chose who and what we believe. I'm not here to tell others what to believe but I don't mind sharing with others why I believe what I believe.
@@theravendiaries oh ok well thanks for the 2 cents. Here's mine, ua-cam.com/video/PYSmV2FlHDw/v-deo.html . Again thank u for your videos they really help me understand some things.
Yes ! Apart from the tracks it's odd so many dinos are so bird like in their bodies if they evolved from a creeping animal when mammals are not.Also about the feathers.Plenty details to group, dig dig.But how unlucky it is to not get the former bird fossil when it should have showed up .Facts mysteries questions ...
Good video
Not sure why it’s so hard to consider birds and dinosaurs existing at overlapping times. They still have obvious shared ancestry.
Well, if the historical findings outlined in this video prove to someday be correct, then birds were before dinosaurs. So, we either have it backwards, or there is no shared ancestry. I agree there a few similarities and a few mosaics, but I'm also aware of many of the far more complicated differences between the two. So I don't see an obvious shared ancestry. I'm not alone, in fact there is a specific scientific group called BAND (birds are not dinosaurs). They are a minority, cause books about dinobirds sell better (and isn't most everything about the money anyways?), and grants for dino-bird ancestry is easier to get because of the attention it draws, but the fact remains there are some very good reasons to believe they are separate. Time will tell!
Scleromochlus Had very thin toes, long legs, and is believed to to be the ancestors of Pterosaurs (Pterosaurs are flying reptiles) meaning It might be able to fly for short amounts of time.
Scleromochlus is also not a dinosaur, and there's a Pterosaur (Vesperopterylus) with a reversed hallux, meaning It could too.
Scleromochlus does not have preserved fingers, so it could've had wings
The reason their tracks are so birdlike could be due to Convergent Evolution.
Scleromochlus: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Scleromochlus_taylori.jpg
Vesperopterylus: 3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZUg7n1XfDFQ/WghuqifSqKI/AAAAAAACBOg/XwdrUQOJRkUy5VwgdQ8gj_aM3IFI2NmFACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/Versperopterylus_lamadongensis-novataxa_2017-L%25C3%25BC-Meng-Wang-Liu-Shen-et-Zhang.jpg
And some dinosaurs do have bird feet rmdrc.blogspot.com/2013/12/giant-oviraptor-tracks-from-hell-creek.html
Unless you make some claim that Oviraptorids are just extinct giant flightless birds or something.
If you look at the feet of your example Scleromochlus, it has four toes all pointing in the same direction? It looks like the same for your other example?
@@f.u.m.o.5669 Personally I would say those tracks are far more dinosaur then bird. First the size (2 feet?), next the the toes look a bit too thick to be bird.
@@f.u.m.o.5669 Um, no, the arms have claws at the end?
💚💚💚💜💜💜💚💚💚💚💚
Expertly lain out and, again, very interesting indeed. Got me wondering. Maybe life crawled out of the skies, rather than the oceans 😏
No that’s just a Dino track
Easy to say but what species of dinosaurs has a "flat foot," ie all four toes are at the base of the foot like a perching bird?
@@theravendiaries birds evolved from dinosaurs we know that feathers first evolved in the late Jurassic
@@turkeyvulture2882 "we know"? We actually "know" very little , and most is speculation from bones and trace fossils. We think the first feathers might be in the jurassic, but if you actually watched the video you saw there is very good cause to believe birds, at least by the footprints we find, are much earlier. Three toed "bird" tracks are found in carboniferous, permian and triassic sediments. Four toed (like what's pictured) perching bird like tracks are found at the triassic - jurassic border. Maybe earlier (King). The question that needs to be answered is, are they real birds? From all I can tell they are, there's no such thing as a perching dinosaur. And the chance of a dinosaur having the same exact footprint as our shorebirds today is pretty far fetched. I'm not alone, the work I quote in the video asks the same questions.
@@theravendiaries none of these points hold up when you think of what Dino’s started off as
@@gecko8621 As one who has learned to track many different types of animals over the years one thing is for certain, everything and I mean everything has a very distinguished track. It's that way today and it was that way in the past. To assume some sort of "dinosaur" would have the same exact track as a modern flying bird is a stretch at best.
Evolution is a religion
It’s not
the *accepted* theory of evolution absolutely is. Major holes in Darwinism, like the lack of transitory fossils especially through intermediate forms.. even Darwin commented on this puzzled as to why these fossils didn’t exist.. even modern professors and chief paleontologists state that the lack of fossil evidence to construct a clear model of what these intermediate forms *might of looked like* is a big issue. You would think after all this time, the scientific community would have found something concrete to completely guarantee the accepted theory of evolution once and for all and put it to bed.. unfortunately they haven’t.. they have tried.. hoaxing many “missing links,” that turned out to be complete fakes.. even going so far as to kidnapping a black man from Africa and locking him in the New York zoo and touting him as the missing link.. who would eventually take his own life due to depression and horrid conditions.. and even more unfortunately the *only* ones who debate the mainstream scientific community tend to be religious fanatics who don’t know what they are talking about which makes criticizing mainstream science, Darwinism, and the accepted theory of evolution seem justifiably stupid. Regardlessly, the concept that everything came from nothing.. but somehow there were energies built up that predated everything and randomly exploded, eventually leading to the creation of the earth itself, and organic life emerging from inorganic materials (on its own), then a single celled organism got struck by lightning which gave it the ability to evolve into every living thing on this planet.. that sounds just as absurd as the concept of god/ religion, in my book.
@@101trus You mean “inorganic materials” like carbon? By “All this time”you mean 170 years? The thing you’re failing to understand is the universe doesn’t care that it doesn’t make sense to the limited ways we have of comprehending it.There’s often a lot people don’t know they don’t know.Its why specialists(but not laymen)are cautious of commenting on a topic outside their chosen field of study. And it’s why people are often so sure they’ve found holes that have actually been thoroughly filled in. For example,using the term “missing link” in an argument against evolution points to a general misunderstanding of the theory. There’s a lot of information to process in any given topic. Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger tend to get the best of us all at one point or another.