Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- From: Augray <augray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:41:41 -0400
On 13 Apr 2007 22:31:42 -0700, "JTEM" <jtem01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1176528702.302619.245990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The following come to mind:
I would never place "Augrey" and "mind" in the same
sentence...
"Why does one of those oh so "bird like" dinosaurs,
Scipionyx, have what appears to be a reptilian
intestines, and evidence for a cold blooded anatomy".
It does. Duh.
No, it doesn't. Provide a cite and prove me wrong.
"[Enantiornithines, a group of extinct birds] also
had a someone unique -- and somewhat clever --
survival strategy as a species. With their slow
growth, slow maturity, they occupied several
different ecological niches during their life cycle".
By no coincidence, I had predicted I would have to repeat
this, yet again:
Imagine if lions were born pretty much as miniture adults,
taking off on their own within a few days of birth. Could
they accupy the same niche through their entire life?
Of course not.
What does that have to do with anything? As I've asked in the past,
how was the diet of juvenile insectivorous enantiornithines different
from the adults?
"The trade for opposite birds [AKA Enantiornithines],
or so it appears, is that they weren't as diversified".
And, surprise-surprise, it really does appear that they
weren't as diversified!
Amazing.
Yes, fantasies can be amazing, but they can also be wrong:
_Longipteryx_ also shows that enantiornithines had experienced a
rapid increase in ecological diversity by the Early Cretaceous.
- Zhou Z.-H. 2004. The origin and early evolution of birds:
discoveries, disputes, and perspectives from fossil evidence.
Naturwissenschaften 91:455?471.
Such a new discovery indicates that, by the Early Cretaceous,
enantiornithines had diversified significantly in diet.
- Zhou Z.-H. 2004. The origin and early evolution of birds:
discoveries, disputes, and perspectives from fossil evidence.
Naturwissenschaften 91:455?471.
Although several of these early Cretaceous birds can be placed
within the Enantiornithes--a diverse, worldwide group of
Cretaceous volant birds...
- Chiappe, L. M. 1995. The first 85 million years of avian
evolution. Nature 378:349-355.
Despite the fact that all enantiornithines show morphological
features suggesting an enhanced flight capacity, they exhibit a
broad morphological range.
- Chiappe, L. M. 1995. The first 85 million years of avian
evolution. Nature 378:349-355.
By far the most speciose group of Early Cretaceous birds from
China?indeed the rest of the Mesozoic record?were members of
Enantiornithes. Close to one-third of the 25 or so valid species
of these birds are from continental Chinese deposits, and mostly
from Liaoning. The remaining diversity of this lineage has been
recorded from rocks spanning nearly the whole Cretaceous and from
every continent except Antarctica.
- Chiappe, L. M., & G. J. Dyke. 2006. The Early Evolutionary
History of Birds. Journal of the Paleontological Society of Korea
22(1):133-151.
"And don't the "opposite birds" suggest that powered
flight evolved more than once?"
Kind of does, now doesn't it?
Not at all. But feel free to explain why it does.
"...every last tree climbing theory is based on the fact that
archaeoptryx has feathers".
Of course, the context was archaeopteryx (and similarly built
dinosaurs) climbing trees.
And, yeah, not a single human being on the face of the planet
ever claimed it was climbing trees until AFTER a fossil was
unearthed with feathers.
Wow, *Exactly* as I stated...
Exactly wrong. Just because Archaeopteryx was found with feathers
doesn't mean that "every last tree climbing theory" was based on their
presence. And here's a clue: The first specimen discovered had
feathers, so no one made *any* claims about Archaeopteryx before "a
fossil was unearthed with feathers".
"Take away those feathers -- as we can in the case of many
maniraptorans -- and *Nobody* sees the slightest evidence of tree
climbing".
Actually, this was an error on my part. I worded it as if it
was my opinion, when it is an historical fact.
Another lie:
The combination of maniraptoran hand, anisodactyl foot with
laterally compressed claws, and small size makes _Archaeopteryx_
well adapted for climbing.
- Elzanowski, A. 2002. Archaeopterygidae (Upper Jurassic of
Germany). In "Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs",
edited by Luis Chiappe and Lawrence Witmer, pp. 129-159. Berkeley
and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, Ltd.
That the arms were larger and stronger than the legs indicates
that the former were the primary organs of locomotion and could
have been used for quadrupedal climbing.
- Part of caption to figure 9.2 in: Paul, G. 2002. Dinosaurs of
the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds.
Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
...the claws of the pes (hind foot) and manus (front hand) of
Archaeopteryx exhibit degrees of curvature typical of perching
and trunk-climbing birds, respectively.
- Feduccia, A. 1993. Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating
Arboreal Habits of _Archaeopteryx_. Science 259:790-792.
Climbing with the sharp, bent claws on its fingers and toes,
_Archaeopteryx_ could have ascended a tree in preparation for a
flight or to find food, mates or shelter.
- Wellnhofer, P. 1990. Archaeopteryx. Scientific American
262(5):70-77.
Amazingly, no mention of feathers.
"[Epidendrosaurus is] closer to birds than Archaeopteryx..."
It is.
You mean it's unadulterated bunk. But provide a citation to prove me
wrong.
"This means, yeah, not one of the dinosaurs found before
[Epidendrosaurus] have any clearly arboreal adaptations".
Out of context. Epidendrosaurus was the first EVER fossil
claimed to be an arboreal dinosaur.
No, Microraptor beats it to the punch. From the paper that described
Epidendrosaurus:
The dromaeosaur _Microraptor_ is the only other known theropod
that has possessed arboreal capability...
And as the paper that initially described Microraptor states:
The discovery of _Microraptor_ provides the first evidence to
suggest that some non-avian theropods had arboreal habits...
"...it HAS BEEN suggested, and widely accepted [that
Proceratosaurus was an ancestor of Archaeopteryx]... a
fact that is well established".
Oh, so what? I'm allowed to hype things.
Making things up is not "hyping" things.
I mean, considering
all the garbage you've spewed. Just check out this posting
of yours for example. Numerous facts and you're denouncing
them as... well... how the hell can anyone tell?
They could always check these things out for themselves. And if they
do, they'll discover that you lie. It's that simple.
You're insane.
I'm not the one who repeatedly makes claims that were debunked months
ago.
"...if archaeoptryx is a bird, then the arboreal
theory on the origins of flight is wrong".
Very true. Because archaeopteryx has *Zero* arboreal
adaptations. None. Zip, zero & nil. Nadda. Is pretty
much nothing more than an unremarkable terrestrial
dinosaur with feathers.
See above.
Yup. *Exactly* as every last person on the face of
the planet said, before anyone uncovered feathers.
Yet you can't provide a single citation. Is anyone surprised?
.
- References:
- Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- From: JTEM
- Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- From: Ken Shackleton
- Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- From: JTEM
- Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- From: Ken Shackleton
- Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- From: JTEM
- Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- From: Ken Shackleton
- Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- From: Augray
- Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- From: JTEM
- Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- Prev by Date: Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- Next by Date: Re: "Feathers and function in dinosaurs"
- Previous by thread: Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- Next by thread: Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
