There is a big problem with the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs using the Archie, Sino and other fossils and the cladogram shown. Along with the cladogram, goes the following:
Cladograms depend on two main scientific ideas. The first is that time flows in one direction only. The cladogram represents this by moving strictly from left to right. Thus, common ancestors of related groups must arise prior to these descendants in time, just as in genealogy parents arise before their children. Just as parents cannot inherit characteristics from their children, an hypothesis of ancestry requires that the “ancestor”; occurred earlier in time than its first “descendants.”
The fossil dates, as you have noted, deny the cladogram.
Right. Bad cladogram! No biscuit! Not every single graph you pick up on the net is valid. This one is wrong. We get it. Stop bringing it up.
We are not restricted by randomness.
Okay, so instead of 10 million years it would only take us five.
Here's a clip from your man James Shapiro's site.
Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock’s discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes (5). It has also supported her view that the genome can "sense danger" and respond accordingly (56). The recognition of the fundamentally biological nature of genetic change and of cellular potentials for information processing frees our thinking about evolution. In particular, our conceptual formulations are no longer dependent on the operation of stochastic processes. Thus, we can now envision a role for computational inputs and adaptive feedbacks into the evolution of life as a complex system. Indeed, it is possible that we will eventually see such information-processing capabilities as essential to life itself.
and a reference:
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/index3.html?content=genome.html
I would need to ask a real biologist to be sure, but I think what he's actually studying is the processes by which cells respond to enviornmental changes. You would call this microevolution. I THINK he's saying that this is more likely to be the mechanism for genetic variation instead of random mutation. Natural selection is still a vital part of this. He sees this as a revolution in thinking about evolution. I'm not yet convinced, but it probably has some merit. He really isn't overturning the established system, just proposing a new mechanism for change that may well be valid.
I liked the interview. He kept things on his terms and didn't answer questions completely outside his area of expertise. Of course, I do answer such questions all the time on these threads, but I don't have to worry about my professional reputation, just that of my online alias!
From Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?
Today the important issue seems to be specifically which dinosaurs are the closest relatives of birds. The controversy over the dinosaurian status of birds had its heyday in the 1970's, but the coverage of the issue today by the press might make you think it was still a problematic matter. For those that have actually seen the relevant specimens and considered all of the relevant data (which is a basic procedure for any scientist), it is becoming increasingly difficult to draw the line between "bird" and "non-avian dinosaur"....
One proposed difficulty is the gap in the fossil record between the first known bird (Late Jurassic) and the dromaeosaurs, probable sister group of birds (Early Cretaceous). This overlooks the blatant fact that other maniraptoran coelurosaurs, such as Ornitholestes, Coelurus, and Compsognathus, are known from strata of Late Jurassic age. If other maniraptorans were there, it logically follows that the ancestors of dromaeosaurs were there. Fragmentary remains of possible dromaeosaurs are also known from the Late Jurassic.
...
Without its feathers, Archaeopteryx looks much like a small coelurosaur such as a dromaeosaurid or troodontid. The facts are resoundingly in support of a maniraptoran origin for birds; certainly a theropodan origin at the very least.