The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

avialan question. As with other dinosaur groups, missing data was still an issue. To account for this, two ordinations were performed – one employing the entire dataset (regardless of the amount of missing data) and a second ordination that retained only taxa with a minimum of 50% of their character data. Both ordinations yielded instructive observations. PCA divided the complete maniraptoran dataset into four groups (Fig. 38). PC 1 divided non-avian Pygostylia andAves + Limenavis + Iaceornis from all non-pygostylian maniraptorans, supporting Garner et al . ’s (2013) conclusion that modern birds and dinosaurs were distinct. Although many avialans do not cluster with non- avialan maniraptorans, some do. Group 2b contains “basal” avialans, but they are mixed with troodontids ( Zanabazar and Byronosaurus ) and a dromaeosaurid ( Hesperonychus ). Instead of the break being between avialans and non-avialans, the obvious break along PC 1 occurs between pygostylians and non- pygostylians. Additional division was revealed along PC 2. PC 2 grouped dromaeosaurs, “basal” avialans, and troodontids while separating them from “basal” coelurosaurs, alvarezsauroids, ornithomimosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, therizinosaurians, tyrannosauroids, a scansoriopterygid, and the non-coelurosaur outgroup. Most groups retained internal morphospatial distinctions among their members, although therizinosaurians and oviraptorosaurs overlap significantly. One possibility was that each group retains ecological affinities among members yet differences between groups. In addition to these divisions, the timing of the appearances of member subgroups was notable. The fossil record first-appearance order of each subgroup reflects the approximate Flood burial order. “Basal” coelurosaurs (Fig. 38, “1”) appeared first stratigraphically while the dromaeosaurid, avialan, troodontid, and alvarezsaurid morphologies appeared at essentially the same time (groups 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d, respectively). This was followed by ornithomimosaurs (3), oviraptorosaurs (4), non-avian Pygostylia (5) and Aves (6). Though some dinosaur baramins occur within stratomorphic morphoseries, the morphology and appearance order of maniraptoran groups appear to reflect no relationship between morphology and stratigraphic position. One potential problem of these ordinations is the possibility that missing data could have created spurious patterns. To account for this a second ordination using more complete data was generated (Fig. 40). This more selective ordination resulted in a notable Y-shaped ordination. The ordination included twomorphoseries that corresponded to the groups in the more inclusive ordination (Fig. 40). Dromaeosaurids, “basal” avialans, and troodontids formed the connecting point for both morphoseries. One morphoseries included oviraptorosaurs, the outgroup taxa, tyrannosauroids, “basal” coelurosaurs, alvarezsaurids, and ornithomimosaurs. The other included the “derived” avialans and avians. The somewhat random stratigraphic appearance of group members shows that the morphoseries are functional, ecological, or morphological series – not stratomorphic series. Both ordinations agree in displaying a close, but distinct, relationship between “basal” avialans and dromaeosaurids. Neither ordination shows a discernible first- appearance pattern among the subgroups beyond the observation that all feather-bearing groups appear at essentially the same time and that modern bird species ordinate distinctly and appear stratigraphically higher. 3. Does baraminology work for dinosaurs? The findings here are consistent with over a decade of research in baraminology on extant groups: dinosaurs show discontinuity at or near the family level. This study provides an instructive comparison to previous studies on extant groups since the dinosaur fossil record is both incomplete and wholly reliant on hard-part anatomy. For those skeptical of the methods of statistical baraminology the findings here reinforce the case that holistic analysis of biological character traits, for both plant and animal groups, tend to identify discontinuity near the family level – whether for neontological or paleontological subjects. One skeptical critique was Senter’s (2011) report that taxon correlation analysis found a “continuous morphological spectrum” within the Dinosauria that united groups as diverse as basal Saurischia, Sauropodomorpha, Ornithischia, and other members. While acknowledging that sauropodomorphs and thyreophorans had some evidence for stratomorphic morphoseries, we did not find a continuous morphological spectrum. Senter’s conclusion was that the “creationist camp will have to acknowledge the genetic relatedness of a very broad morphological spectrum of dinosaurian species” (Senter, 2011). Here Senter (understandably) equated morphological similarity with genetic relatedness. A creationist approach, however, acknowledges both genetic and structural realties. Creationist structuralism should recognize the nuances of Aristotelian distinctions (Thompson 1942). That is, genetics may be the instrumental cause of dinosaurian relationships but all analyses – whether BDC or phylogenetic – are founded upon only the material causes ( i.e., the skeletal elements themselves). Skeletal anatomies, in turn, reflect the mechanical, architectural, or functional requirements of their possessors. In other words, whether or not Apatosaurus neck and tail architecture functioned as a cantilever bridge, there is no question the functional requirements of a sauropod skeleton necessarily differ, at almost every point, from the requirements imposed by a bird-like theropod existence. This may be why nearly every dinosaur cited within Senter’s morphological continuum were (1) relatively large, (2) bipedal dinosaurs with (3) short forearms, and (4) long counterbalancing tails. Given the functional requirements of this architecture it would likely be difficult to distinguish ancestry from structure, particularly when datasets are often incomplete. Re-stating Senter in structuralist terms, it appears that creationists should acknowledge the functional and/or ecological relatedness of a very broad spectrum of dinosaurian species. Wilson (2010) tried to address a similar problem of the holobaramin grouping members at too broad a level. One solution was to encourageemphasisongeneticsandthegeneticprogramsunderlying regulatory changes. In order to do this, baraminologists were advised to pursue things such as hybridization, synapomorphies, and other measures of genomic equivalence. Wilson’s proposal is sound (particularly for neonatologists). Unfortunately, these criteria rule out the fossil record. Yet the question is still valid; it is possible statistical baraminology misses some discontinuities. The analyses here may have captured some distinctions that would otherwise have been missed with other methods and deserve consideration Doran et al. ◀ Dinosaur baraminology ▶ 2018 ICC 447