Did dinosaurs predate humans?

[Johnny Skeptic]

At http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp, Ken Ham says no. Ham is quite a ham, isn't he? Consider the following absurdities:

"The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record.

"Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs. The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together. Actually, as we will soon see, there is a lot of evidence for this".

If "the Bible says so" ought to be sufficient, who needs science?

[ForensicAtheist]

So what's the "evidence"?

If "the Bible says so" ought to be sufficient, who needs science?

If you're raging dumbasses, which is what the people behind that website are, then you don't need science at all. No reason to think for yourself when it's easier to have something else think for you.

[Berthold]

Owen was a creationist (like Linnaeus, Lyell, Cuvier, Agassiz...) but not a YEC.

[engly-saxo]

Actually, as we will soon see, there is a lot of evidence for this"

Huh?! :rolling:

I'd like whatever this Ham geezer has been smoking!

[Jesse]

Moving to Evolution/Creation.

[Underseer]

I read bits and pieces of it and what I read was quite amusing!

[Jeez]

Did dinosaurs predate humans?Yes and no, because one group of dinos is still here.

http://www.bized.ac.uk/images/ostrich.jpg

[breathilizer]

Birds are a nice example of descendants of dinosaurs, but why do they get all the attention? There are more obvious relatives, like reptiles. And there are less obvious relatives, like mammals. This includes you and I. My grandpa was a Stegosaurus... Well, probably not, but you get the idea.

[llanitedave]

Birds are more than just relatives. They are directly descended from therapod dinosaurs. Reptiles and mammals are more or less distant cousins.

[paradigm9]

i think they are misinterpretting the bible's info on dinosaurs.

obviously, jesus was a dinosaur. :notworthy:

that's how he was resurected...everyone knows you can freeze lizards and thaw them back to life. that also gets rid of that anomoly "a nail hammered through the palm cant hold the weight of a human body" .

the scales make it strong enough :p

[Jeez]

Birds are more than just relatives. They are directly descended from therapod dinosaurs.More than that, birds ARE therapod dinosaurs (though I admit there are a dwindling number of paleontologists who may disagree).

[engly-saxo]

Birds are a nice example of descendants of dinosaurs, but why do they get all the attention? There are more obvious relatives, like reptiles. And there are less obvious relatives, like mammals. This includes you and I. My grandpa was a Stegosaurus... Well, probably not, but you get the idea.

Dinosaurs superficially are like modern reptiles. But some scientists believe that some dinosaurs species may have been warm blooded. Obviously reptiles today are generally cold blooded.

There was a recent fossil find of a T-rex bone, in which the layout of blood vessels resembled a modern bird's. http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/tyrannosaur_morsels/

[Jeez]

Birds are a nice example of descendants of dinosaurs, but why do they get all the attention? See Are Birds Really Dinosaurs? (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html) for a start or search google scholar for papers by Jacques Gauthier.

[Jeez]

Dinosaurs superficially are like modern reptilesGlad you edited the link :) I was about to post that no reliable information could be obtained from the AnswersinGenesis web site (your original link).

[breathilizer]

All that is peachy, but at the core of it all, we're all descended from dinosaurs. Yes, Big Bird is genetically closer to Barney than is Elmo. However, does that make Elmo any less family?

Look, I happen to like thinking about my great x 10^1,000,000 grandparents being dinosaurs, even if they were just little feathered and lightly haired rodents.

All this in mind, does the Birds = Therapods theory imply that dinosaurs never actually went extinct??

[Jeez]

All that is peachy, but at the core of it all, we're all descended from dinosaurs. Yes, Big Bird is genetically closer to Barney than is Elmo. However, does that make Elmo any less family?Is your brother more closely related to you than your 3rd cousin twice removed?Look, I happen to like thinking about my great x 10^1,000,000 grandparents being dinosaurs, even if they were just little feathered and lightly haired rodents.Nope, wrong branch. Dinos are from diapsids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid), whereas mammals arose from the synapsids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid).
All this in mind, does the Birds = Therapods theory imply that dinosaurs never actually went extinct??As my previous link indicated, dinos are not completely extinct since birds are dinos and birds are still here. Also, from wikipedia There is an almost universal consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Using the strict cladistical definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor are related, modern birds are dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct. Modern birds are classified by most paleontologists as belonging to the subgroup Maniraptora, which are coelurosaurs, which are theropods, which are saurischians, which are dinosaurs.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur)

Rather than taking pleasure from saying you are a descendant of dinos, you can always take pleasure in having one for dinner. I do every Sunday night with one specially prepared during the holidays. Hmmmm, roasted or fried, some dinosaurs are good eatin'.

[Professor]

So what's the "evidence"?

Alley Oop, B.C., the Flintstones - all of The Holy Cartoons agree. What more evidence could you need? :D

[Ezkerraldean]

So what's the "evidence"?



you know! those dinosaur footprints with human footprints inside them! don't you just love them?

[Worldtraveller]

Nope, wrong branch. Dinos are from diapsids, whereas mammals arose from the synapsids.
So what's the next 'branch' back where these to groups (clades?) diverged? How well is that known? And where does the therapsid branch fall in there?

(I'll take a link if you got a good one, you don't necessarily have to spell it all out fer me.)

Cheers,
Lane

[Codec]

So what's the next 'branch' back where these to groups (clades?) diverged? How well is that known? And where does the therapsid branch fall in there?

Not really my area, but it looks like Amniota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniota).

[Jeez]

So what's the next 'branch' back where these to groups (clades?) diverged? How well is that known? And where does the therapsid branch fall in there?

(I'll take a link if you got a good one, you don't necessarily have to spell it all out fer me.)As previously mentioned, it's Amniota. A good link to the material is at the Tree of Life Project (http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990) where you can move throughout the "tree" (bush) to any group you wish. A good intro to Phylogeny (the connections between all groups of organisms as understood by ancestor/descendant relationships) is hosted at UC Berkeley's web site (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibit/introphylo.html).

[ELECTROGOD]

Kind of on subject with the OP was the recent show "30 Days" where the Atheist stayed with the Christian family.
They did a quick bit on a Christian group that for years now has been taking groups through one of the big natural museums. They call the tours B.C. Tours referring to Biblically Correct. The guy giving the tour was explaining how "god" created the dinos on the same day as man and they lived together. He indicated that the scientists who said that 60 million years between dinos and man were making stuff up. That childish way of looking at the data just makes you shake your head because here he is looking at a dino skeleton and managing to get everything wrong. You actually have to try to be that uninformed.

[Ezkerraldean]

the scientists who said that 60 million years between dinos and man were making stuff up.

so they're not saying radiometric dating is wrong - now they're saying we MAKE IT UP?!!!!!!!??!?!?!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Urvogel Reverie]

More than that, birds ARE therapod dinosaurs (though I admit there are a dwindling number of paleontologists who may disagree).

Regardless of whether they are descended from theropods, it is grossly misleading to say that birds "ARE therapod [sic] dinosaurs", in the same way that it would be misleading (though factually accurate) to say that humans are nothing more than derived fishes. Birds have certainly evolved so much and in such unique ways that they are quite distinct from whatever their ancestors, be they fleet-footed theropods or anything else.

[Albion]

Dinosaurs pre-dated humans, they didn't predate them.

[Dlx2]

Regardless of whether they are descended from theropods, it is grossly misleading to say that birds "ARE therapod [sic] dinosaurs", in the same way that it would be misleading (though factually accurate) to say that humans are nothing more than derived fishes. Birds have certainly evolved so much and in such unique ways that they are quite distinct from whatever their ancestors, be they fleet-footed theropods or anything else.

How's it misleading? Of course humans are derived fish. Most of our "highly evolved" characters are really just derivations of traits found in fish. Of course birds are just highly-derived theropods. Most of their "highly derived" characteristics are simply derivations of characters found in non-avian theropods.

[Dr.GH]

The creationist responces to Mary Schweitzer's research are addressed in these articles I wrote;

Dino-blood and the Young Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html)

Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html)

Dino Blood Redux (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html)

AiG as posted a few reactions that are largely whinny "We DID NOT! Besides God Loves us better!"

[Jeez]

Regardless of whether they are descended from theropods, it is grossly misleading to say that birds "ARE therapod [sic] dinosaurs", in the same way that it would be misleading (though factually accurate) to say that humans are nothing more than derived fishes.And there your argument self-implodes. It is factually accurate to describe them as such.

Is it incorrect to state that humans are also apes or mammals or even eukaryotes? If every mammal except humans was suddenly to become extinct, would it be accurate to say all mammals are extinct?

You are confusing the context. No one said birds could ONLY be described as theropod dinos. Birds have certainly evolved so much and in such unique ways that they are quite distinct from whatever their ancestors, be they fleet-footed theropods or anything else.Evolution is descent with modification. No one would expect that they do not possess characters distinct from their ancestors. But, and here's the kicker, birds possess the characters that describe theropod dinosaurs and that is why it is factually accurate and not misleading that in certain contexts, they can be described as such. This thread was one of those occasions.

[Urvogel Reverie]

How's it misleading? Of course humans are derived fish. Most of our "highly evolved" characters are really just derivations of traits found in fish. Of course birds are just highly-derived theropods. Most of their "highly derived" characteristics are simply derivations of characters found in non-avian theropods.

No one denies (or at least no intelligent person denies) that, for instance, our limb girdles and our hands or feet are derived from our fishy ancestry. No one denies that our basic cell structure indicates that we are eukaryotes, or that our endothermy and ear bone structure places us with other mammals. I am not talking about somehow segregating humans or any other taxon off and treating them as organismal islands. However, to take humans again as an example, the profound (and hardly 'simple') evolutionary transformations during synapsid evolution that have produced human beings (and other primates) have also rendered them so qualitatively different from their fishy ancestors that however factually accurate, and at times quite informative it may be to call us little more than highly derived fish, it also a phrase that fails to capture more than a fraction of what characterizes Homo sapiens. Fish do not have advanced cognitive capacities, they do not have culture, they do not have language, they do not produce Platos or Shakespeares, whereas primates have done all of these things.

Similarly, if birds are derived from theropods, they have nonetheless undergone profound character transformations from the level of morphological organization nearest to theropods, say that of Archaeopteryx or one of the other basal forms (like Sapeornis). The neornithine skeleton alone is so qualitatively and functionally distinct from that of even the most birdy theropods that to assert that it represents but a simple rearrangement of the theropod body is a gross simplification. Similarly, in their soft-tissue anatomy (though there are perhaps some striking exceptions), behavior and ecology, neornithines are vastly different from what we can infer about their ancestors. The point is that a great deal of information about the considerable evolutionary changes that have taken place on the avian branch of the theropod tree is obscured by the blase assertion that birds are little more than glorified theropods. It would be far more accurate, and far more fruitful, to state rather that birds are derived from theropod dinosaurs which helps us understand the origin and evolution of uniquely avian skeletomuscular systems, behavior, and ecology. This is the point I was trying to make.

[Oolon Colluphid]

How's it misleading? Of course humans are derived fish. Most of our "highly evolved" characters are really just derivations of traits found in fish. Of course birds are just highly-derived theropods. Most of their "highly derived" characteristics are simply derivations of characters found in non-avian theropods.
In discussions of continuums (eg evolutionary change), beware the discontinuous mind and its discontinuous language.

[Oolon Colluphid]

The point is that a great deal of information about the considerable evolutionary changes that have taken place on the avian branch of the theropod tree is obscured by the blase assertion that birds are little more than glorified theropods.
Ah, but unless I missed someone else, the only one thinking in terms of "little more than glorified", is you.

This is the same semantic navel-gazing we get in 'humans are apes' discussions (see threads passim). It's just a matter of how you look at it.
It would be far more accurate, and far more fruitful, to state rather that birds are derived from theropod dinosaurs which helps us understand the origin and evolution of uniquely avian skeletomuscular systems, behavior, and ecology. This is the point I was trying to make.
I disagree that it is "far more accurate, and far more fruitful". It depends what you are trying to show.

If nested hierarchies and cladograms are your focus, then there is no inaccuracy in saying that birds are Theropoda, just as Homo and Pan are Primates. This is informative about the roots of the group.

If the unique features of the clade are your focus, then there is no inaccuracy in saying that birds are derived theropods. This is informative about the branches of the group.

If you are looking at what unites, then 'are' is the word you need; if you are looking at what differentiates, then 'derived' is yer word.

Urvogel, you are a birdy sort of chap (palaeornithologst, if there is such a word). So naturally you look at the differences. But others are thinking in terms of uniting. And they are not wrong or misguided to phrase things in accordance with that perspective.

In short:

Birds are theropods in the same way that humans are primates.
Birds are derived theropods in the same way as humans are derived primates.

Do you disagree?

Cheers, Oolon

[Urvogel Reverie]

Ah, but unless I missed someone else, the only one thinking in terms of "little more than glorified", is you.

It is actually a close paraphrase of a statement from either Luis Chiappe or Thomas Holtz, Jr., IIRC, and either way, the phrasea reflects a commonly expressed sentiment.

This is the same semantic navel-gazing we get in 'humans are apes' discussions (see threads passim). It's just a matter of how you look at it.

I hardly think it is 'mere' semantics. How we talk about taxa greatly influences how we conceptualize them and their relationships.

Urvogel, you are a birdy sort of chap (palaeornithologst, if there is such a word). So naturally you look at the differences. But others are thinking in terms of uniting. And they are not wrong or misguided to phrase things in accordance with that perspective.

I would contend that if they mean by it the additional idea that you can more or less understand most of what there is to be understood about birds by simply studying theropod anatomy (or vice-versa), then they are both wrong and misguided. Incidentally, even some perfectly well behaved supporters of the consensus view on avian evolution have urged caution in this matter, and it is well worth pointing out the Ostrom, father of the whole bit, was very much in agreement with the sentiments I have expressed here.

In short:

Birds are theropods in the same way that humans are primates.
Birds are derived theropods in the same way as humans are derived primates.

Do you disagree?

Cheers, Oolon

With the above caveats, yes, and of course I would say:

'If birds are theropods, then they are...' ;)

[Oolon Colluphid]

It is actually a close paraphrase of a statement from either Luis Chiappe or Thomas Holtz, Jr., IIRC, and either way, the phrasea reflects a commonly expressed sentiment. Now you mention it, you're right, I think I have read something along those lines, probably from Chiappe.

But then again, I suspect that the context would be revealing. If (and it's a medium-sized 'if' ;)) I'm remembering it correctly (Dingus and Chiappe's Walking on Eggs, I think), it would have been in the context of talking about feathered and/or otherwise strongly-avian theropods. So taking already very bird-y things as the starting point, and saying it in a 'popular' context (Walking on Eggs is clearly not a Nature paper ;)), it is only popular hyperbole to call birds 'little more than glorified theropods'. In other words, it's a stretch, but not much of one, given what they were talking about. Obviously they were meaning more general morphology, rather than denying the rather un-theropod-y things like a spoonbill's bill or hummingbird's nectar-drinking.

I still think it's no more 'wrong' than calling humans 'little more than jumped-up chimps'. It's all a matter of where your focus is: whether on the amazing apomorphies, or on the plesiomorphies.
I hardly think it is 'mere' semantics. How we talk about taxa greatly influences how we conceptualize them and their relationships.
No and yes, in that order. Look at how creationists get their knickers in knots about Homo and Australopithecus: what you call something obviously influences how you think of it, but again it's semantics, since it is we humans who are slapping discrete terms onto evolutionary continua. Some of us can see both sides of the coin, and realise that we're talking about the same thing. Like Dawkins's metaphor of the necker cube for genes vs bodies conceptualising.
I would contend that if they mean by it the additional idea that you can more or less understand most of what there is to be understood about birds by simply studying theropod anatomy (or vice-versa), then they are both wrong and misguided.
Wholeheartedly agreed. But I don't think anyone does that, except maybe if getting carried away a bit in popular contexts. Maybe.

In the parallel context, is anyone seriously daft enough to think that you can understand most of what there is to be understood about humans by simply studying, say, Thrinaxodon's anatomy?
Incidentally, even some perfectly well behaved supporters of the consensus view on avian evolution have urged caution in this matter,
Sure. And I'll bet where, too: not in popular books, but in proper papers, yes?
and it is well worth pointing out the Ostrom, father of the whole bit, was very much in agreement with the sentiments I have expressed here.Sure.

But cos I'm in 'that sort of mood', I'll just say that I don't much care what Darwin Ostrom thought on the matter; things have moved on somewhat since then. :devil3:
With the above caveats, yes, and of course I would say:

'If birds are theropods, then they are...' ;)
<grin>

So where are we? We can probably get a civil law decision -- 'proven on the balance of probability' -- but are we yet up for a criminal conviction: 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'?

[Urvogel Reverie]

So where are we? We can probably get a civil law decision -- 'proven on the balance of probability' -- but are we yet up for a criminal conviction: 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'?

Well, I won't comment much on it here, but we all know the lay of the land.

[Dlx2]

No one denies (or at least no intelligent person denies) that, for instance, our limb girdles and our hands or feet are derived from our fishy ancestry. No one denies that our basic cell structure indicates that we are eukaryotes, or that our endothermy and ear bone structure places us with other mammals. I am not talking about somehow segregating humans or any other taxon off and treating them as organismal islands. However, to take humans again as an example, the profound (and hardly 'simple') evolutionary transformations during synapsid evolution that have produced human beings (and other primates) have also rendered them so qualitatively different from their fishy ancestors that however factually accurate, and at times quite informative it may be to call us little more than highly derived fish, it also a phrase that fails to capture more than a fraction of what characterizes Homo sapiens. Fish do not have advanced cognitive capacities, they do not have culture, they do not have language, they do not produce Platos or Shakespeares, whereas primates have done all of these things.

I could just as easily select one of thousands of fish species and choose other characteristics which make them "above and beyond" the typical concept of "fish." How about Mormyrids, which have complex electrocommunication and electroimaging? How about seahorses? How about tetraodontiiformes? I could go on and on. All you're demonstrating is an anthropocentric view of evolution. All these other groups have been evolving as much as we have been.

Similarly, if birds are derived from theropods, they have nonetheless undergone profound character transformations from the level of morphological organization nearest to theropods, say that of Archaeopteryx or one of the other basal forms (like Sapeornis). The neornithine skeleton alone is so qualitatively and functionally distinct from that of even the most birdy theropods that to assert that it represents but a simple rearrangement of the theropod body is a gross simplification. Similarly, in their soft-tissue anatomy (though there are perhaps some striking exceptions), behavior and ecology, neornithines are vastly different from what we can infer about their ancestors. The point is that a great deal of information about the considerable evolutionary changes that have taken place on the avian branch of the theropod tree is obscured by the blase assertion that birds are little more than glorified theropods. It would be far more accurate, and far more fruitful, to state rather that birds are derived from theropod dinosaurs which helps us understand the origin and evolution of uniquely avian skeletomuscular systems, behavior, and ecology. This is the point I was trying to make.

The difference between even Coelophysis and a modern hummmingbird is significantly smaller than the difference between, say, Leptolepis and Gnathonemus, and those are both basal teleosts. The difference between, say, Kathemacanthus and Fugu puts any diversification within Aves to shame, and yet you have no problem calling them all fish.

Anthropocentrism (or avecentrism, as the case may be) deserves no place in phylogenetics.

[Urvogel Reverie]

I could just as easily select one of thousands of fish species and choose other characteristics which make them "above and beyond" the typical concept of "fish." How about Mormyrids, which have complex electrocommunication and electroimaging? How about seahorses? How about tetraodontiiformes? I could go on and on. All you're demonstrating is an anthropocentric view of evolution. All these other groups have been evolving as much as we have been.

Anthropocentrism, when last I looked, is the idea that human beings are the central element of the universe, around which its development has revolved, and that human experience is the rubric by which all things should be evaluated. My argument was summarized as such:

'However, to take humans again as an example, the profound (and hardly 'simple') evolutionary transformations during synapsid evolution that have produced human beings (and other primates) have also rendered them so qualitatively different from their fishy ancestors that however factually accurate, and at times quite informative it may be to call us little more than highly derived fish, it also a phrase that fails to capture more than a fraction of what characterizes Homo sapiens. Fish do not have advanced cognitive capacities, they do not have culture, they do not have language, they do not produce Platos or Shakespeares, whereas primates have done all of these things.'

I have carefully re-read this sentence and cannot find in it any trace of the idea that humans are the central and most important constituents of the universe and that all things must be evaluated against human experience, needs and desires. I can only conclude that you therefore either do not understand what 'anthropocentrism' means, using it merely as an abusive epithet, or have so misunderstood my argument that it somehow seemed to suggest, contrary to its intention, that I regard humans as the crowning glory of Creation. Since I do not know how to put my position more clearly than I already have, I am afraid that if your accusation of 'anthropocentrism' was generated by confusion about my position, I can do little to alleviate this confusion.

As for the fish you offer as examples, since I do not know much about fish, certainly not enough to make a considerd argument vis-a-vis the questions you put forward about these fish, I will refrain from offering an opinion one way or another. On the other hand, I can't imagine the sort of differences between the taxa to which you were referring being so great as the differences I was referring to in the passage quoted above. At any rate, I do not see how my argument about birds, and the argument about humans which I introduced to further illustrate the point, are contingent upon a positive or a negative answer to your questions about fish.

The difference between even Coelophysis and a modern hummmingbird is significantly smaller than the difference between, say, Leptolepis and Gnathonemus, and those are both basal teleosts. The difference between, say, Kathemacanthus and Fugu puts any diversification within Aves to shame, and yet you have no problem calling them all fish.

Coelophysis and a trochilid, comparable osteologically? In the most trivial sense, yes, certainly: both are tetrapods, both are amniotes, both are diapsids, both are archosaurs (though in the case of the neornithine skeleton it can be very difficult to see archosaur and diapsid affinities). I am not familiar with the osteology of basal teleosts, but I am very familiar with the osteology of coelophysoids and trochilids, and they are so radically different that only deep ignorance of archosaur anatomy could underwrite an assertion to the contrary.

[Dlx2]

Anthropocentrism, when last I looked, is the idea that human beings are the central element of the universe, around which its development has revolved, and that human experience is the rubric by which all things should be evaluated. My argument was summarized as such:

'However, to take humans again as an example, the profound (and hardly 'simple') evolutionary transformations during synapsid evolution that have produced human beings (and other primates) have also rendered them so qualitatively different from their fishy ancestors that however factually accurate, and at times quite informative it may be to call us little more than highly derived fish, it also a phrase that fails to capture more than a fraction of what characterizes Homo sapiens. Fish do not have advanced cognitive capacities, they do not have culture, they do not have language, they do not produce Platos or Shakespeares, whereas primates have done all of these things.'

I have carefully re-read this sentence and cannot find in it any trace of the idea that humans are the central and most important constituents of the universe and that all things must be evaluated against human experience, needs and desires. I can only conclude that you therefore either do not understand what 'anthropocentrism' means, using it merely as an abusive epithet, or have so misunderstood my argument that it somehow seemed to suggest, contrary to its intention, that I regard humans as the crowning glory of Creation. Since I do not know how to put my position more clearly than I already have, I am afraid that if your accusation of 'anthropocentrism' was generated by confusion about my position, I can do little to alleviate this confusion.

In this case, my use of the term "anthropocentrism" is a reference to the fact that the characters you consider important are those relevant to humans. I fail to see how the establishment of culture means that the distance between humans and, say, Panderichthyes is any greater than the difference between Cheirolepis and Anableps. I can pick out all sorts of individual characteristics and show important and radical character change within fish and essentially no character change within tetrapods. Just because "a fish looks like a fish" doesn't mean anything.

As for the fish you offer as examples, since I do not know much about fish, certainly not enough to make a considerd argument vis-a-vis the questions you put forward about these fish, I will refrain from offering an opinion one way or another. On the other hand, I can't imagine the sort of differences between the taxa to which you were referring being so great as the differences I was referring to in the passage quoted above. At any rate, I do not see how my argument about birds, and the argument about humans which I introduced to further illustrate the point, are contingent upon a positive or a negative answer to your questions about fish.

According to you, the differences between the following are minor:

http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Panaque_cf_nigrolineatus/head/specimen.jpg
http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Polypterus_senegalus/head/specimen.jpg
http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Selene_peruviana/head/specimen.jpg
http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Chirostomias_pliopterus/specimen.jpg
http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Acipenser_fulvescens/specimen.jpg

Whereas the following are radically different:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~longrich/eichstattskull.jpg
http://digimorph.org/specimens/Struthio_camelus/skull/specimen.jpg
http://www.digimorph.org/specimens/Patagona_gigas/navthumb.jpg
http://digimorph.org/specimens/anas_platyrhynchos/skull/specimen.jpg
http://digimorph.org/specimens/Bucorvus_abyssinicus/specimen.jpg

And I'm being generous here.

Coelophysis and a trochilid, comparable osteologically? In the most trivial sense, yes, certainly: both are tetrapods, both are amniotes, both are diapsids, both are archosaurs (though in the case of the neornithine skeleton it can be very difficult to see archosaur and diapsid affinities). I am not familiar with the osteology of basal teleosts, but I am very familiar with the osteology of coelophysoids and trochilids, and they are so radically different that only deep ignorance of archosaur anatomy could underwrite an assertion to the contrary.

Within basal teleosts, there are significant changes throughout the cranium, especially in the suspensorium, as well as major changes to much of the axial skeleton, not to mention ossification of the centra and the neurocranium and the branchial arches. There are also major changes in the integument, fusions and losses of cranial bones, and so forth. Within advanced teleosts, even bigger changes occur, and from basal actinopterygians? You'd hardly recognize the similarities. And don't even start with other fish, like placoderms, sharks, agnaths, lungfish, stem tetrapods, etc.