Talk:Temporal paradox (paleontology)

message: The previous version of this page was deleted for three stated reasons. The first is that it had inadequate references. The second is that editors felt its content should be moved to Origin of birds. The third is that an apparent consensus of the editors felt that the "temporal paradox" was, in their words, "balderdash". I hope that I have answered the first critique. The second is debatable, since it would make Origin of birds quite long and with a huge section on alternative theories much bigger than the content on consensus findings. i will consider a rewrite of the Origin of birds article in the near future. 
But finally I would suggest that the third point is actually inappropriate. We may disagree with some hypotheses, but I feel that it is better policy to explain them and provide the critiques of them than it is to silence them or erase reference to them. In this example, a researcher trying to find out what the "temporal paradox" is can find a sketch of the arguments, the counterarguments, and good references to learn more, and they can make up their own minds. 
Thank you.Jbrougham (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous deletion

message: *1. we don't delete whole articles due simply to lack of references - we tag them [unreferenced] or [refimprove], then work together to reference them
*2. we don't delete articles because they belong elsewhere - we tag the relevant articles [merge to] and [merge from], then work together to merge them
*3. we don't delete articles because they aren't part of the mainstream, even if they're fringe science - we add them to categories like [Fringe Science]
This article isn't about birds, it's about evolution and the fossil record.  It's not quite the same topic as Temporal paradox, so shouldn't be merged there.
Creationists hop all over our collective booty because this problem exists - things like coelacanth appear from nowhere, and by most measures, are unlikely to 
have evolved from anything, except they must've; but what?  Darwin himself noted gaps in the fossil record pose a serious problem for the theory.  Let's work 
together to say something here. Sbalfour (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused., where is this coming from?  (Coelocanths didnt come from no-where and that is well shown already)--Kevmin § 18:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I muddied the water with Coelocanths.  The contention of paleontologists like Feduccia is based on the lack of fossil intermediate forms between unflighted reptiles and flighted birds (now we're starting to have them, however, so he's busted).  It seems plausable that if we can't find those fossils in the theropod lineage, its because the missing fossils are in some other lineage, i.e. the lineage of flying reptiles descended from pterosaurs. But there are gaps there, too, big ones.  Couple that with the past paucity of avian cousins among Jurassic theropod fossils predating the supposed date of origin of birds, and you get the contradiction that primitive Cretaceous-dated theropods must've spawned Jurassic birds.  The whole temporal paradox issue dates from the early 20th century, and is now a non-issue.  Feduccia himself has moved on to other ideas. We have good statistical tools now, and a wide variety of fossils to test, when proposing aves phylogenies. Those other than maniraptoran theropod ancestries for birds just don't fit. We need to wrap up this article and move on. It's fringe science now. (But not bad enough to add to Category:Fringe science, a perjorative label. This was a scholarly debate and paradox, but it's over now.)Sbalfour (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD, redux