It must be a bird!

[The Cadet]

Sure does - that you got turkey's classed wrong. And hope people won't catch your mistake of putting one in the clade Ornithurae and the other Dinosauria. Then put the other in the clade Aves - even if it already belongs to the clade Donosauria.

Like I said - can't be consistent from one post to the next. So is the clade Dinoauria, Ornithurae, or is it Aves - because it can't be all three. No other animal that is known to exist is classified as such. Because the reality is you have not a clue as to where to put them, so you put them in three different clades so evolutionists can pick and choose on any given day what clade they want them to belong to. Sad.

...Um, Justa, you do realize that cladistics stack, right? A turkey is a member of Ornithurae. All members of Ornithurae are members of Euornithes, and all members of Euornithes are members of (I don't feel like spelling or copying right now).

Maybe this would be easier to understand from the other direction.

You have your clade, Dinosauria. All animals in this clade share certain characteristics. However, you can further subdivide this clade. For example, the members of Dinosauria can be split into two types of hip structure, giving us Ornithischia and Saurischia. Now, the members of Saurischia are still members of Dinosauria; they're simply more specified. We can say more about the organism, and more about its descent. We can continue using similarities and differences to subdivide into further and further clades, further expanding and specifying the cladogram.

It's not just that an animal is in Aves, Ornithurae, and Dinosauria. ALL members of Aves are also members of Ornithurae and Dinosauria! Just like you are a primate, a mammal, and an animal. You cannot out-grow your clade; you cannot evolve out of your own ancestry. I mean, to put it another way, you do understand that you are in the clades of Mammalia, Primates, and Animalia, right?

I don't mean to sound mean, but if you don't understand this, you should not be disputing cladistics or evolution in general. You have serious holes in almost every aspect of your education with regards to biology, and you'd do well to avoid the subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

It certainly doesn't breed with birds, nor did birds evolve from them, since they are not even in the same clade.

Birds are theropods, along with non-avian dinosaurs.

http://tolweb.org/Theropoda/15726

They are in the same clade.

Yes, I realize evolutionists like to make unscientific claims - but science does not even agree they belong to the same Clade.

I dare you to name any two eukaryotic species that do not belong to the same clade.

Let's see . . . humans and birds? Same clade? Yep. We are both in the Amniota clade.

http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990

Let's go trout and finch. Same clade? Yep, sure are. They are both in the Gnathostomata clade.

http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843

Which if one evolved from the other would be a necessity.

No species is ever considered a direct ancestor of any other species in a cladogram.

But that's because they once believed they were reptiles - now warm-blooded. And 10 years from now they'll be claiming something completely different when science advances some more and proves the current classification wrong too, like it did with the belief they were reptiles.

So now you make up fantasies about the future as an excuse for ignoring evidence in the present. Nice job.

"Those same people are also claiming birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species. So if they can't get it right with birds now known to mate and produce fertile offspring, what makes you think they got it right with something they have never observed alive? Especially when they refuse to correct such an obvious mistake with finches interbreeding?"

Do you think that the feathered creature in the opening post is a finch? Is the feathered creature in the opening post a separate species from finches?