I know some on this site reject the definition of birds as dinosaurs, but I'm laying here a theory that was taken from wikipedia, that velociraptor and his relatives were actually birds in both the technical and common meaning of the word.
Here it is:

"Whether Velociraptor was a bird or a dinosaur depends on the definition being used. Technically all members of the clade Aves are dinosaurs, however, in common usage a "bird" is not just a member of Aves, but any animal with feathered wings. Under the latter definition, Velociraptor and all maniraptor "dinosaurs" are actually birds, since they evolved from feather-bearing animals. Recently, fossils of dromaeosaurids more primitive than Velociraptor have been found in China with feathers covering their bodies, and fully developed feathered wings. In light of this, it is almost certain that Velociraptor bore feathers too (although fossil evidence has not yet confirmed this), since even flightless birds today retain most of their feathers, and Velociraptor would be no exception (Paul, 2002). It is becoming increasingly likely that Velociraptor and other dromaeosaurids are true birds under the technical definition, as well as the common usage of the word (Paul, 2002). The "primitive" dromaeosaurs, such as Microraptor and Rahonavis, have turned out to be more birdlike than the advanced forms like Velociraptor (some could even fly, making it likely that Velociraptor was secondarily flightless, like an ostrich, having evolved from flying ancestors). The discovery in 2005 of the Thermopolis specimen of Archaeopteryx, which preserves a dromaeosaur-like hyperextendible second toe, may mean that Archaeopteryx itself is more primitive than Velociraptor. If this turns out to be the case, all dromaeosaurs must be considered true birds and members of the class Aves."

Link.

What are your thoughts?

Velociraptor never evolved from its featherd cousins. They were heading in an entirely different evolutionary pathway. The Velociraptor never had any ancestors, as the dromaeosaurs died out. However, its feathered cousin's ancestor could possibly be the birds today. All we know, are that both dinosaurs and birds and crocs are archosaurs. Velociraptor should be considered a bird. There were birds already when Velociraptor was around. Hersperonis..etc. Velociraptor was a dromaeosaur-a dinosaur.

didn't velociraptors have feathers? they were probably related to birds...

Your post is a bit conflicting frogfish...
Plus the existance of birds at the time of the Velociraptor doesn't prevent that the Velociraptor itself evolved from a bird.
The case is that the scientific community has recently gathered enough information to change everything we knew and thought about dino out of the window...
For instance, while many today agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs, the imlications that some dinosaurs evolved from birds or where birds themselves has far implications on how we percieve our Avian friends.

The long way around. Everything is related the long way. The fact is that they are not directly related. Dromaeosaurs never evolved into birds, as they came AFTER birds evolved.

so they were related!

Sure...but not directly related...as they DIDN'T EVOLVED into birds.

It's even more than that - evidence suggests they were in fact birds!

How's that for your next chicken dinner .

Note that this theory presented by frogfish is against how the majority of theories of science^

Note that Erikl here doesn't even know the theory of evolution and my logic. Do some research first and you will se how I'm right. Birds evolved in the early Jurassic. The first Dromaeosaur evolved in the late Jurassic.

So how can they evolve into birds? Dromaeosaurs didn't evolve into birds, but another kind of dinosaur did. Coelurosaurs were the most probable to evolve into birds. Dromaeosaurs showed bird-like features, but they never evolved. They were wiped out before they had the chance.


Feathers merely don't mean they are birds.

Oh, finally a well-written post .
I actually do know a thing or two about evolution.
Regarding your theory - this thread is about the possibility of birds evolving into velociraptors, not the opposite.
Also it might very well be that the overall trend of evolution among many theropods was toward becoming birds, thus different groups of theropods evolved through the years into different types of avians.

This thread, however, is about the possibility of Dromaeosaurs evolving from birds and being true birds, hence that the line between what we consider a dinosaur and a bird to be technically none existance (and this proving birds are dinosaurs, just one branch that survived).

Ahhh, that still wouldn't happen. Dromaeosaurs evolved from theropods. Evolution does not reverse itself. If dromaeosaurs evolved from birds, that means that they would be evolving back into dinosaurs. That would never happen, as the only reson birds evolved was so they were more adapted. Devolving back into dinosaurs is just a waste. It would never happen. The reason Dromaeosaurs look like birds are that they were on path to evolve into 'birds' also, but they never got the chance.

I can see why you brought this up though.

sharing a unique trait like feathers pretty much proves they had a common ancestor... hence they were related...

I bet you and I agree that 4-chambered hearts are unique, right?

Crocs have 4 chambered hearts, so do birds. So do we have a common ancestor with them?

No.

Feathers were used as insulation...Mammals have just evolved a much more effecient way. Its called fur.

Birds, like mammals, have a 4-chambered heart (2 atria & 2 ventricles)

Avian Circulatory System

I just said that...

Stop avoiding my question.

The Veloci Raptor (Swift Theif) was a bacteria at first. Like all living things it evolved into a lizard, which evolved into a known as Dinosaur. Eventually, this lizard grew feathers and evolved into what is known as a Bird.

It's been explained many times on the Discovery Channel.



No, it doesn't mean your bird is going to start dashing through corn fields at the speed of 92 miles per hour.

First of all, its Velociraptor...


Velociraptor was never a bacterium...It was a dinosaur...Do you know what you are talking about?


Not everything evolved inot reptiles...Some stayed as bacterium, eukaryotes, amphibians, fishes, and arthopods...

You don't know anything about evolution.



Dromaeosaurs never evolved into birds...It was the Coelurosaurs that evolved into birds...Birds emerged BEFORE the Velociraptor.


Evolution, yes. You messed-up theory, no.


Velociraptors cannot run that fast...

This doesn't seem likely. As Frogfish has said, dromaeosaurs were not directly related to birds. The theory of bird evolution isn't that velociraptor's descendants were birds, but that creatures closely related to velociraptor evolved into birds. The dromaeosaurs possess certain bird-like traits, like being able to pivot their wrist - an essential evolutionary trait for flight. However, this is probably a case of parallel evolution because birds already existed at the time. Furthermore, the dromaosaurs lacked certain other traits, like a beak or keeled breastbone, which were already present in the birds that existed around the time of velociraptor. Thus, a case of reverse evolution seems somewhat far-fetched. However, it's hard to say and it depends greatly on how one defines a bird. If a bird is just an animal with feathers, then many theropods would fit that defenition.

One thing that is certain - velociraptor could not fly. Thus, I think the label of "feathered dinosaur" is more apt than "bird."



Not so. Evolution can move in any direction at any time, including backwards. Dolphins and other aquatic mammals started as fish and amphibians, evolved into reptiles and land-dwelling mammals, then went back to the sea. It depends entirely upon the conditions of the time. Also, we need to remember that there is no clear line that divides birds from dinosaurs. For a period of several million years, the world was populated by animals which shared the traits of both. It is possible that a dinosaur would evolve bird-like traits, only to abandon those traits when they no longer prove useful. However, I don't believe that to be the case in this particular instance.

Also, I should point out that traits which help a creature survive can't be lost through evolution. For instance, aquatic mammals did not become cold-blooded. If bird-like traits are useful, they will be retained into further generations. This is why birds did not devolve back into dinosaurs during, say, the paleozoic.



Actually, feathers evolved from fur, and are far better at insulating than fur is. Fur works by trapping air close to the body, which is then heated and creates a buffer of warm air around the creature. Feathers are better for this as they form something akin to a net, trapping air much more effectively. This is also how feathers produce lift.

-Pilgrim

They still advanced...A dolphin is more advanced than a fish...You missed my point. Hypothetically speaking, a Herrasaurus won't evolve into a Allosaur, and then back into a Herrasaurus. Sure, it can evolve into another theropod, but it will be more advanced.


The why have dinos with only down been found, not any with fur?

The velociraptors are thought to have leaped out of tree's to ambush prey ect, (no they didn't climb to the very top, perhaps a couple feet up) and the feathers are theorised to have helped them 'glide' down to catch the prey.

OR

the feathers could have been insulation (to keep them warm /or cool during the day) or brightly coloured to warn off bigger preditors/or camaflouge.

but frogfish has been pretty right so far, saying velociraptors evolved into birds is like saying porcupines evolved into hedgehogs because they both have spines to protect themselves.

My appologies, I was not clear. I believe if you look to my earlier post you will see that I did say that useful traits cannot be lost through evolution. Perhaps I could have phrased that better. We are in agreement; dolphins did not loose their warm-bloodedness upon returning to the sea, nor did they grow scales or begin laying eggs. Neither could useful bird-like features (such as a keeled breastbone) be lost upon evolving into a hypothetical velociraptor. Thus, velociraptor's lack of same can be viewed as evidence that it is not, in fact, a bird.



Firstly, because fur and feathers don't fossilize. Only the impressions of them can fossilize, and then only under the right circumstances. Thus, only through blind chance could you find such evidence. Secondly, because fur is believed to have evolved in the early to mid Triassic period if not sooner, a time for which the fossil record is sparse. Lastly, not all feathers are what we might deem perfectly evolved feathers. Some dinosaurs had primitive feathers which resemble hair in certain ways.

Of course, it is also possible that hair and feathers developed seperately in different animals for the same purpose (insulation). However, to the best of my knowledge, the prevailing theory is that feathers evolved from hair.

-Pilgrim

Dromaeosaurs might of of evolved into birds if time let be (parallel evolution), but the "K-T" disaster struck first...There were many small-feathere raptors found...especially in the Liaoning Province in China. They could of evolved into birds if they lived another couple million years.


If fur was sparse enough, you would be right, but for feathers to evolve, dinos must of had a lot of fur.


That would work also.

Quite so. However, I think we can both agree that the reverse is not true: birds did not evolve into dromaeosaurs.

-Pilgrim

Dollo's Law states that evolution is irreversible:
Dollo's law

Here's an interesting link about the features of birds:
Birds

just thought i'd toss those into the mix.

FrothyDog just proved my point...Evolution cannot reverse.

Pilgrim, we can be SURE of that.

Well yes, however, as I said before, we are in fact in agreement. When I said that evolution can move backwards I qualified that by saying that useful traits cannot be lost. I was speaking more in terms of what might be deemed a form of parallel evolution - that a creature that had evolved to one role could evolve to a different one, then later evolve back into the original role. Perhaps what I should have said is that evolution can move to fit any ecological niche, even one that had been filled before. Certainly, I was not arguing that a bird could someday evolve into a fish.

-Pilgrim

i maybe lost on this but trying to get a feel for it... so youre saying when the raptor type dino evolved into birds the strong dino traits got passed on and over time are still in the genes right? Then maybe over time those dino traits become dominate again and say instead of a beak the bird could have teeth? sorry if that sounds kinds outlandish there just trying to grasp the devolution there...

kinda like those scientist triggering chicken embroys to develop teeth so is that kind of like controlled devolution?

Well, yes and no. What I am saying is that a bird could evolve to fill a role similar to a dinosaur. And, in fact, they did, during the paleozoic. Land-dwelling birds, some of which developed grasping hands in place of wings, evolved to terrorize mammals. However, for that bird to actualy evolve INTO a dinosaur, with scales and all, is not possible. The adaptations that make birds successful, like feathers and warm-bloodedness, can't be lost.

-Pilgrim

Yes, you mixed up Mendelian genetics with evolution. They are two different things.