There's nothing ironic about it at all. My post is based on the latest evidence and best fits all available research. Feduccia's fringe conclusion is not. As even the "article in question" admits, the theropod dinosaur origins of birds is "the prevailing theory" -- and it got that way because the copious evidence and decades of research has convinced the vast majority of biologists of the correctness of that conclusion. The only significant hold-outs are Feduccia and one other guy (Miller), and they frequently commit widely recognized errors in their methods.
For example, Feduccia has been caught relying on obsolete findings when newer, more complete information has superceded it, and so forth, which is a BIG no-no in science (it's grounds for legitimate considerations of incompetence and/or being dishonestly selective about your facts) so I don't have a lot of confidence in his reliability on that topic.
For one specific, Feduccia keeps harping on the "2-3-4" pattern of bird digits, as if that matter is settled in his favor (and as if it would actually be a major obstacle for bird evolution even if it were). But even the article which started this thread, you'll see that he relies on Hinchcliffe:
But the study's third author, Dr. Richard Hinchliffe -- a recognized expert in vertebrate limb development -- "points out that there are five different assessments showing that the bird hand has the three middle fingers left," the "2-3-4" morphology, Feduccia said.The problem here is that Hinchcliffe's last research paper on this topic was in **1984**, which is ancient history as far as genetics goes. There have been ENORMOUS strides in analytical genetics since then. But Feduccia is still clinging to a twenty-year old study (apparently because he likes its conclusion), while *ignoring* many subsequent findings which use much more reliable analystical methods to find answers to that issue, such as:
The digits of the wing of birds are 1, 2, and 3. A review (J Exp Zoolog B Mol Dev Evol. 2005 May 15;304(3):206-19)Feduccia is either inexcusably careless, or he's picking-and-choosing results based on what he *wants* the results to be, instead of on the latest, most accurate findings. And neither option inspires confidence. There are similar problems with Feduccia's other points which he argues in order to try to support his very minority view on the matter of bird evolution.
Do a Google on Feduccia's name, skip the fawning creationist websites (they love anyone who "bucks the evolutionist party line" no matter how poorly, even when he still espouses Darwinian evolution as Feduccia does), skip Feduccia's own personal pages, and most of what you're left with is pages of folks pointing out Feduccia's many mistakes on the subject.
For example:
The problems with The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Discussion of the problems with hypotheses made by Dr. Alan Feduccia in his new book on bird evolution, plus general discussion on the dinosaurian affinities birds.Gregory Paul's comments about Feduccia's bird digit paper
The Continuing Debate Over Avian Origins (A review of Feduccia's book)
Perhaps you should consider retiring it for a bit....
I have given it all due consideration, and concluded that there is no need to revise my post. It contains no errors, fits all the evidence, and is not contradicted by anyone's findings, not even Feduccia's. If you have any actual evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it.
Your ignorance really showed with that post ;-)