[__ Science __ ] No birds are non-birds.

[Barbarian]

Remember when you were skeptical and I asked you to tell me even one characteristic of birds that was not found in dinosaurs, and you couldn't name even one?

To which "dinosaurs" are you referring, here?

Theropods. As you know, you were unable to find even one characteristic of birds not found in dinosaurs.

Remember, you claim that the ancestors of birds are non-birds, and you call the ancestors of birds, "dinosaurs."

Kind of like the ancestors of gorillas were non-gorillas and we call the ancestors of gorillas "primates." We call gorillas primates, too. Can you see why?

The set of primates includes gorillas and non-gorillas, just as the set of dinosaurs includes birds and non-birds. This doesn't seem like it would be difficult.

So, by all means, please feel welcome to tell us even one characteristic of birds that was not found in their ancestors

That's your assignment. You claim they are not dinosaurs; give us one reason to think so. If you can't find any way by which they are different, what makes you think birds aren't dinosaurs?

If you can't even name one (to borrow your term) essential difference between birds and their ancestors, then why do you say that birds' ancestors were non-birds?

So you're now claiming that all dinosaurs are birds? You're not making any sense here. You made a claim that birds aren't dinosaurs. You're being asked to support your claim. You failed the first time. And now it seems, you're failing again.

Once there was a long list. Then as one fossil after another turned up, the list got shorter and shorter. I mentioned not long ago, a pygostyle. But now...

Acta Geologica Sinica 77(3):294 - 298

Pygostyle-like Structure from Beipiaosaurus (Theropoda, Therizinosauroidea) from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation of Liaoning, China​

Abstract 
Pygostyle was previously considered as a unique structure of ornithothoracine birds, used to maneuver tail feathers. A similar structure from an oviraptorosaurian dinosaur was considered functionally associated with the rectrices as in birds. We report a pygostyle-like structure from a therizinosauroid dinosaur. The presence of filamentous integuments, but absence of rectrices, on the tail of this therizinosauroid, combined with other lines of evidence, suggests that the initial function of the pygostyle was not related to the rectrices.

So scratch pygostyle. But since you're convinced that birds are not dinosaurs, you surely have some evidence to support your claim, do you not? Tell us, what feature of birds is not found in dinosaurs?

Reasonably, if birds are a definable group within the dinosaurs, there has to be something, right? But we look and see many things birds have in common with dinosaurs:

"Avian" breathing system
"Avian"four-chambered heart
"Avian"metabolism and activity, (with Haversian canals found in warm-blooded animals)
"Avian"feathers
"Avian" hollow bones
"Avian" Large orbits
"Avian" Secondary bony palate
"Avian" Expanded pneumatic sinuses
"Avian" Teeth with a constriction between the root and crown
"Avian" S-shaped curved neck
"Avian" Strap-like scapula
"Avian" 3-fingered opposable grasping hand,
"Avian" Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal
"Avian" Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed hands
"Avian" Fused clavicles form a furcula
"Avian" Pubis is shifted to a more posterior orientation
"Avian" Four or five vertebrae form the sacrum
"Avian" Reduced, stiffened tail
"Avian" Erect, digitgrade stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
"Avian" Hingelike ankle joint, with restricted movement.
"Avian" Elongated metatarsals.
"Avian" 4-toed foot supported by 3 main toes. (frequently with reversed hallux

So what do you have that's different?

Let us know when you find something?

 

[Milk-Drops]

False. On the contrary, I define a bird as any animal that is not a non-bird.​

Yep, its a word game. This is the major reason I can never take young earth creationism seriously. Its all just word games and playing on ignorance. You also just committed a double negative.

Don't you agree that any and every bird is an animal that is not a non-bird?

Then define what a non bird is without contrasting it to a bird.

How can the elementary fact that no bird is a non-bird, and the fact that no non-bird is a bird, be burdensome on you?

It's not burdensome, its just nonsense.

A non-bird is anything that is not a bird. Some of those things that are not birds are animals, right? So, any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, anyone who can't agree with that is someone who is not amenable to being reasoned with. It's really very clear and simple.

Are you able to define the term without comparing it to a bird?

Oh, sorry. Let me try to make it more palatable to you by getting rid of the negativity:

Do you not understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird?
Do you understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird?
​

LOL​

I don't think you understand what I mean by negative. Nonbird doesn't have a definition outside what a bird is. You have not defined what a bird is.

The question: "Do you understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird?"
My answer to it, which you are calling "circular": "[Yes,] I understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird."

By calling my answer "circular," do you mean to tell me that it is somehow wrong to answer that question in the affirmative? Should I, instead, say "No, I do not understand that any animal that is not a bird is a non-bird"?

its circular because you refuse to define "bird" so nonbird means nothing.



Look, I understand why you think this is a sound argument.

Your argument is that birds can't decend from non birds, and biologists are silly when they say birds demanded from dinosaurs. You are classifying dinosaurs as non birds and birds as birds.

The only problem is, you don't explain why birds can't defend from dinosaurs. Biology explains how birds specialized and diversified through multiple population mechanics.


Most biologists are just pointing out that when others came up with the concept "bird" our understanding of dinosaurs were limited. Now with new discoveries with genetics its clear birds are modern dinosaurs.

That's it. Seriously that's it. It's cool. The word bird is made up, the word dinosaur, is made up.

You are not your father, but you descended from your father. It's that simple.​

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Theropods.

To which "theropods" are you referring, here?

As you know, you were unable to find even one characteristic of birds not found in dinosaurs.

As you know, you were unable to find even one characteristic of birds not found in their (birds') ancestors.

I had written:

So, by all means, please feel welcome to tell us even one characteristic of birds that was not found in their ancestors (which ancestors you assert are non-birds).

But notice that you chose to not quote my sentence in its entirety. Why is that? Instead, in quoting me, you chose to truncate the last part of it in this manner:

So, by all means, please feel welcome to tell us even one characteristic of birds that was not found in their ancestors

Why is that? Why did you choose to lop off and leave out my parenthetical clause in that sentence: "(which ancestors you assert are non-birds)"? Why do you want to try to hide the fact that you assert that the ancestors of birds are non-birds?

You assert that the ancestors of birds are non-birds, yet you cannot tell us even one characteristic of birds that was not found in their ancestors.

Let us know when you find something?

Kind of like the ancestors of gorillas were non-gorillas and we call the ancestors of gorillas "primates."

LOL

You assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call fish "primates"?
You assert that one-celled organisms are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call one-celled organisms "primates"?

"the ancestors of gorillas were non-gorillas"

No they weren't. Obviously gorillas were the ancestors of gorillas, and gorillas were not/are not non-gorillas.

So what do you have that's different?

Different between what and what?

 

[Barbarian]

To which "theropods" are you referring, here?

If you don't know what a theropod is, how could you even compare it to a bird? You're going to have to find out.

As you know, you were unable to find even one characteristic of birds not found in dinosaurs.

As you know, you were unable to find even one characteristic of birds not found in their (birds') ancestors.

But I'm not the one making the claim. Up to you to find it. Good luck.

The ancestors of gorillas were non-gorillas and we call the ancestors of gorillas "primates." We call gorillas primates, too. Can you see why?

The set of primates includes gorillas and non-gorillas, just as the set of dinosaurs includes birds and non-birds. This doesn't seem like it would be difficult.

You assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call fish "primates"?

They are called "vertebrates." Gorillas are vertebrates, too. Are you beginning to figure out how it works?

Reasonably, if birds are a definable group within the dinosaurs, there has to be something, right? But we look and see many things birds have in common with dinosaurs:

"Avian" breathing system
"Avian"four-chambered heart
"Avian"metabolism and activity, (with Haversian canals found in warm-blooded animals)
"Avian"feathers
"Avian" hollow bones
"Avian" Large orbits
"Avian" Secondary bony palate
"Avian" Expanded pneumatic sinuses
"Avian" Teeth with a constriction between the root and crown
"Avian" S-shaped curved neck
"Avian" Strap-like scapula
"Avian" 3-fingered opposable grasping hand,
"Avian" Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal
"Avian" Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed hands
"Avian" Fused clavicles form a furcula
"Avian" Pubis is shifted to a more posterior orientation
"Avian" Four or five vertebrae form the sacrum
"Avian" Reduced, stiffened tail
"Avian" Erect, digitgrade stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
"Avian" Hingelike ankle joint, with restricted movement.
"Avian" Elongated metatarsals.
"Avian" 4-toed foot supported by 3 main toes. (frequently with reversed hallux)
So what do you have that's different?
Let us know when you find something?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Nonbird doesn't have a definition outside what a bird is. You have not defined what a bird is.

What, according to you, is it to define something? Since I already defined what a bird is, and yet you assert that I did not, I obviously don't know what (if anything) you're asking me to do when you tell me to "define what a bird is". I take it you have put no thought into whether or not you are even using your word, "define," in a cognitively meaningful way. And, far be it from me to assume that you are not using your word, "define," in a cognitively meaningless way.

So, when you tell someone to "define what X is," what (if anything) are you asking them to do? What, according to you, is the nature of defining X?

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think you understand what I mean by negative. Nonbird doesn't have a definition outside what a bird is. You have not defined what a bird is.

I think this can be confusing for someone not familiar with biology and comparative anatomy. It seems at this point, Paul no longer knows what a bird is. And it's easy to see why. Instead of looking for key features unique to birds, he's trying to define away all the things that are common to birds and dinosaurs, but nothing else.

A huge list of shared apomorphic characters. And as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer things true of birds only.

 

[Barbarian]

Since I already defined what a bird is

Well, that's great start. Could you just link to the post where you did?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

But I'm not the one making the claim.

False. Yes you are. You're the one making the claim that the ancestors of birds are non-birds. I'm certainly not the one making the claim that the ancestors of birds are non-birds.

As you know, you were unable to find even one (to use your phase) essential difference between birds and their (birds') ancestors, yet you claim that birds' ancestors are non-birds. Since you can't find even one essential difference between birds and their (birds') ancestors, why do you claim that the ancestors of birds are non-birds?

You're stuck there until you can tell us even one essential difference between birds and their ancestors in order to back up your assertion that the ancestors of birds are non-birds, or until you decide to swallow your pride and admit the obvious truth that the ancestors of birds are not non-birds.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Well, that's great start. Could you just link to the post where you did?

Yeah. I could, but it'll be easier for me just to repeat, in this post, my defining of what a bird is: a bird is any animal that is not a non-bird. Do you not agree with me that a bird is any animal that is not a non-bird?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I asked Barbarian:

You assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call fish "primates"?

Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer this question, Barbarian?

I asked Barbarian:

You assert that one-celled organisms are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call one-celled organisms "primates"?

Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Why can't you answer this question, Barbarian?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Remember when you were skeptical and I asked you to tell me even one characteristic of birds that was not found in dinosaurs, and you couldn't name even one?

To which "dinosaurs" are you referring, here?

Theropods.

To which "theropods" are you referring, here?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Why do you refuse to tell me to which "theropods" you are referring, by your word, "dinosaurs," in your phrase, "one characteristic of birds that was not found in dinosaurs," Barbarian?

---

They are called "vertebrates."

No one asked you if fish are called "vertebrates."

Here's what I asked you:

You assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call fish "primates"?

Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

You see, then, that I did not ask you, "Do you call fish 'vertebrates'?" By answering a question no one asked you, you're trying, in futility, to deflect attention away from your failure to answer the question I asked you.

Barbarian, since you assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas, do you call fish "primates"? Yes or No?

If so, why? If not, why not?

---

Barbarian, I notice you still have not given us even one essential difference between birds and the ancestors of birds, yet you assert that the ancestors of birds are non-birds. What's the hold up?

And, since, as you know, there is no essential difference between birds and the ancestors of birds, why do you consider it reasonable to assert that the ancestors of birds are non-birds?

Yeah, you see how you've trapped yourself, Barbarian.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

But we look and see many things birds have in common with dinosaurs:

Have you forgotten already? I've asked you to list the essential difference(s) between birds and the ancestors of birds (which ancestors you assert to be non-birds, and call "dinosaurs"). So far, you've not come up with even one essential difference between birds and the ancestors of birds. Are you going to give us any essential difference(s) between birds and the ancestors of birds, or are you going to finally admit that you've been wrong all along in your assertion that the ancestors of birds are non-birds?​

 

[Barbarian]

Have you forgotten already? I've asked you to list the essential difference(s) between birds and the ancestors of birds

Sorry, not doing your work for you. I asked you to show us that. You were unable to come up with even one difference. And again, if you can't even tell us the difference between a bird and non-avian dinosaurs, what makes you think birds aren't dinosaurs?

If they weren't I would think you'd be able to show us at least one. But you still can't.

 

[Barbarian]

No one asked you if fish are called "vertebrates."

As you just learned, gorillas and fish are both vertebrates. Just as gorillas and other primates are both primates. And birds and other dinosaurs are both dinosaurs.

But you still can't come up with one difference between birds and other dinosaurs. If you can't even tell the difference between a bird and other dinosaurs, what makes you think birds aren't dinosaurs?

BTW, I haven't told you that there are no differences between birds and other dinosaurs. But I'm not going to do your work for you. If you want to claim there's a difference, then you'll have to figure out if there are any differences and show us what they are.

 

[Barbarian]

Yeah. I could, but it'll be easier for me just to repeat, in this post, my defining of what a bird is: a bird is any animal that is not a non-bird. Do you not agree with me that a bird is any animal that is not a non-bird?

So you still don't know what a bird is? If you can't even define what it is, how do you know it's not a dinosaur?

Paul E. Michael said:
You assert that one-celled organisms are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call one-celled organisms "primates"?

I call them eukaryotes. Gorillas are eukaryotes and the unicellular ancestors of gorillas are also prokaryotes. Just as birds and the non-avian dinosaur ancestors of birds are also dinosaurs.

I've pointed this out to you repeatedly. Doesn't seem that difficult to understand. Of course, because gorillas are a long way from unicellular prokaryotes, you can probably tell the difference between a single-celled organism and a gorilla. You're unable to tell the difference between birds and other dinosaurs, because birds and other dinosaurs are very closely related, and you don't know very much about either of them.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Darwinist: "Birds are descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are dinosaurs."

By his word, "dinosaurs," either 1) the Darwinist is referring to birds, or 2) the Darwinist is referring to non-birds, or 3) the Darwinist is not referring, at all, and is thus merely speaking in a cognitively meaningless manner.
​

• If, by his word, "dinosaurs," the Darwinist is referring to birds, then here is what he is saying: "Birds are descended from [birds], therefore birds are [birds]."​
• If, by his word, "dinosaurs," the Darwinist is referring to non-birds, then here is what he is saying: "Birds are descended from [non-birds], therefore birds are [non-birds]."​
• If, by his word, "dinosaurs," the Darwinist is neither referring to birds, nor referring to non-birds, then he is not referring, at all, and is thus merely speaking in a cognitively meaningless manner.​

Some animals are birds, and all other animals are non-birds. Ask the Darwinist, then, to which (if any) animals he is referring by his word, "dinosaurs," when he says "Birds are descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are dinosaurs": to birds or to non-birds?

By being confronted with this question, the Darwinist is inexorably forced into a corner out of which he can't get, by the embarrassing trilemma he has created for himself by his Darwinistspeak; he knows that 1) he cannot answer it by saying "I am referring to birds," without embarrassing himself, and, just the same, he knows that 2) he cannot answer it by saying "I am referring to non-birds," without embarrassing himself. In trying to evade your question, he will be tempted to react to it by saying "By my word, 'dinosaurs,' I am referring to dinosaurs." But such a reaction from him to that question is not only a glaring failure to answer it, but also, it is yet another instance of the Darwinist merely inviting the same question to be asked all over again. So, instead of choosing to embarrass himself by answering the question, the Darwinist chooses 3) to embarrass himself by never answering it, and by always stonewalling against it.​

Ok, I reread the op and I can see that this is all just a pre conclusion designed to force a person into loop.

There is no real question, just a statement that there are birds and non birds. Now if you accept young earth creationism and think birds and dinosaurs are different kinds then asking how birds came from dinosaurs are valid.

Since Biologists generally don't group organisms by Kinds and use Taxinomy and phylogenetic. The premise is a non starter. It's not embarrassing to answer, it's that the 2 parties are at different frame works.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Have you forgotten already? I've asked you to list the essential difference(s) between birds and the ancestors of birds (which ancestors you assert to be non-birds, and call "dinosaurs"). So far, you've not come up with even one essential difference between birds and the ancestors of birds. Are you going to give us any essential difference(s) between birds and the ancestors of birds, or are you going to finally admit that you've been wrong all along in your assertion that the ancestors of birds are non-birds?

Since you cannot come up with even one essential difference between birds and the ancestors of birds, I'm going to assume that you now see your error, and that you no longer believe that the ancestors of birds are non-birds.
​

Sorry, not doing your work for you. ​

My work? LOL

You're not listening, Barbarian. Remember, you're the one asserting that the ancestors of birds are non-birds; I'm not asserting that the ancestors of birds are non-birds. You're the Darwinist, not me. Duh. Remember, I'm the one claiming that the ancestors of birds are birds—that the ancestors of birds are not non-birds.

You continue in your failure to come up with even one difference between the ancestors of birds and birds. Since, as you know, there are no differences between the ancestors of birds and birds, why do you assert that the ancestors of birds are non-birds?

You were unable to come up with even one difference.​

You were unable to come up with even one difference between the ancestors of birds, and birds, and yet you continue to assert that the ancestors of birds are non-birds.
​

And again, if you can't even tell us the difference between a bird and non-avian dinosaurs, what makes you think birds aren't dinosaurs? ​

According to you, you can't even tell us the difference between a hummingbird and a brontosaurus. You crack me up.

What makes you think robins are triceratops?
​

If they weren't I would think you'd be able to show us at least one.​

If, as you assert, the ancestors of birds were non-birds, I would think you'd be able to show us at least one difference between birds and the ancestors of birds. But you still can't. Do you now wish to admit the truth that, contrary to what you've been asserting, the ancestors of birds are not non-birds?

You've trapped yourself, Barbarian.

​

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I had asked you this question, which you've thus far pretended to not have understood, and against which you have thus far been stonewalling:

You assert that one-celled organisms are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call one-celled organisms "primates"?

Yes or No? If Yes, then why do you call one-celled organisms "primates"? If No, then why do you not call one-celled organisms "primates"?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

Why can't you answer this question, Barbarian?

Should we just assume, then, that you call one-celled organisms "primates"?

I call them eukaryotes.

No one asked you if you call one-celled organisms "eukaryotes". Duh.

As you just learned, gorillas and fish are both vertebrates. ​

No one asked you if gorillas and fish are vertebrates. Duh.

Here's the question I had asked you, which you've thus far pretended to not have understood, and against which you have thus far been stonewalling:
​

You assert that fish are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call fish "primates"?​

Yes or No? If Yes, then why do you call fish "primates"? If No, then why do you not call fish "primates"?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

Why can't you answer this question, Barbarian?

Should we just assume, then, that you call fish "primates"?

​

But you still can't come up with one difference between birds and other dinosaurs.​

But you still can't come up with one difference between birds and the ancestors of birds.
​

If you can't even tell the difference between a bird and other dinosaurs, what makes you think birds aren't dinosaurs?​

If you can't even tell the difference between birds and the ancestors of birds, what makes you think the ancestors of birds are not birds?

Yeah, you see how you've shot yourself down, here, Barbarian.
​

BTW, I haven't told you that there are no differences between birds and other dinosaurs.​

"Other dinosaurs" besides which dinosaurs?

Only someone who asserts that birds are dinosaurs (in other words, only a Darwinist, such as you) would use a loaded phrase like your phrase, "birds and OTHER dinosaurs." In that phrase, you are just re-asserting what you've been asserting all along: that birds are dinosaurs. It's up to you to prove your assertion that birds are dinosaurs. So far (as you admit, even) you've not proved that birds are dinosaurs.
​

 

[Barbarian]

You assert that one-celled organisms are the ancestors of gorillas. Do you call one-celled organisms "primates"?

I answered this, pointing out that I call them "eukaryotes." Gorillas are eukaryotes, too. I get that you didn't like the answer, but denying that I gave you one isn't a very smart move

If Yes, then why do you call fish "primates"?

I call fish "vertebrates.

If No, then why do you not call fish "primates"?

For the same reason I don't call non-avian dinosaurs "birds." Only some dinosaurs are birds. Only some vertebrates are primates. This doesn't seem like a difficult thing for you to understand.

You refuse to admit that birds are dinosaurs, yet you continue to refuse to give us even one characteristic between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Do you think no one notices? If you can't even tell the difference between a bird and other dinosaurs, what makes you think birds aren't dinosaurs?

If you can't even tell the difference between birds and the ancestors of birds

I can. It's just that you can't. The list is pretty short, now, but you'll have to do your own looking. You made the claim, you'll have to support it without my help.

You see how you shot yourself down here, Paul? You're telling us that birds aren't dinosaurs, but you can't find even one difference between birds and non-avian dinosaurs. When you're ready to admit that they are so closely related that you can't find a difference, I'll show you how birds are distinguished from other dinosaurs. Until then you're on your own.

Only someone who asserts that birds are dinosaurs (in other words, only a Darwinist, such as you) would use a loaded phrase like your phrase, "birds and OTHER dinosaurs."

Like "gorillas and other primates"; anyone with any understanding of biology would see why. But you can't.

In that phrase, you are just re-asserting what you've been asserting all along: that birds are dinosaurs.

As you've admitted by repeatedly refusing to answer, you can't find even one difference between birds and other dinosaurs. So that's pretty good evidence, isn't it?

It's up to you to prove your assertion that birds are dinosaurs.

Remember that very long list of shared apomorphic characters of birds and other dinosaurs? Shall I post them again for you?

Reasonably, if birds are a definable group within the dinosaurs, there has to be something, right? But we look and see many things birds have in common with dinosaurs:
"Avian" breathing system
"Avian"four-chambered heart
"Avian"metabolism and activity, (with Haversian canals found in warm-blooded animals)
"Avian"feathers
"Avian" hollow bones
"Avian" Large orbits
"Avian" Secondary bony palate
"Avian" Expanded pneumatic sinuses
"Avian" Teeth with a constriction between the root and crown
"Avian" S-shaped curved neck
"Avian" Strap-like scapula
"Avian" 3-fingered opposable grasping hand,
"Avian" Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal
"Avian" Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed hands
"Avian" Fused clavicles form a furcula
"Avian" Pubis is shifted to a more posterior orientation
"Avian" Four or five vertebrae form the sacrum
"Avian" Reduced, stiffened tail
"Avian" Erect, digitgrade stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
"Avian" Hingelike ankle joint, with restricted movement.
"Avian" Elongated metatarsals.
"Avian" 4-toed foot supported by 3 main toes. (frequently with reversed hallux)
Then there's that bit of dinosaur heme found in the bones of a T. rex. It turns out to be more like the heme of birds than of the heme of other reptiles. Which is once more consistent with all those apomorphic characters, the large number of transistional forms, and so on.

So what do you have that's different between birds and other dinosaurs? We have all these shared apomorphies, but you can't find even one difference. You're not doing very well, are you?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If you can't even tell the difference between birds and the ancestors of birds, what makes you think the ancestors of birds are not birds?

I can.

Obviously you can't, or else you'd tell us at least one difference between birds and the ancestors of birds.

Since you can't tell us even one difference between birds and the ancestors of birds, what makes you think the ancestors of birds are not birds?

I see you've finally come to grips with the fact that all the ancestors of birds are birds/that none of the ancestors of birds are non-birds.