dinosuar extinction

[neginf]

I learned about a dinosaur called a gigantoraptor that had a large beak, tiny wings, and died 70 million years ago. It is known from 1 skeleton. Although it has a tail, it looks like a giant terror bird.
Can these two things be possible?
1. A few gigantoraptors, or relatives of them survived the extinction, but haven't been discovered because few survived, and so left few fossils between 65 million years ago and 62 million years ago,
2. after 3 million years, what survived evolved into terror birds and became more common so that fossils start showing up starting 62 million years ago.

Or, are these types of creatures similar because of convergent evolution ?
Or, something else ?

[JackBean]

terror bird, that's some regular name?

Of course, you get only few fossils per milions of living animals, thus you can easily miss such links

[neginf]

It is the name for the type of birds that included Phorusrhacos, Kelenken, Titanis, etc.

[skeptic]

The kind of evolution you describe is unlikely since the precursors of birds date back to well before 70 million years ago. If Gigantoraptor was a genuine dinosaur, it would not evolve into a bird, since birds preceded it.

[neginf]

I see what you mean.
If I remember right, the archaeopteryx lived during the jurassic, the osrtrich mimics lived in the late cretaceous, and so did the gigantoraptor. All of them were very birdlike yet seem unrelated.
Could the dinosaurs have branched off towards birds more than once over long periods of time?

[skeptic]

to neginf

Seriously unlikely. I am sure that we still have much to learn about evolution, and there will be surprises. However, the idea of dinosaur to bird evolution happening several times seems very, very improbable.

[Jonl1408]

Gigantoraptor was actually proved to be a fake, by evolutionists and creationists both.
Here is one link about it.
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=3550

[canalon]

Gigantoraptor was actually proved to be a fake, by evolutionists and creationists both.
Here is one link about it.
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=3550

Beside a quote from a forum full of racists ignoramus that just mention than someone might have heard that it was a fake from the National Geographic, do you have anything substantive?
According to Wikipedia in late 2010 it was reclassified, but I do not see any trace of "proved to be a fake" anywhere.

[Jonl1408]

@Canalon Very good point, it does look like it might not be true, someone else suggested the link, but next time I will use my own judgment.
Thanks for informing me,
God Bless