Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"

On 17 Apr 2007 21:36:20 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1176870980.825190.56270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 16 Apr 2007 19:25:56 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1176776756.071072.243500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 15 Apr 2007 22:11:08 -0700, "JTEM" <jtem01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1176700268.837219.23680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 13 Apr 2007 22:17:21 -0700, "JTEM" <jtem01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1176527841.389124.209840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

"Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackle...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

2. It would be impossible for Archaeopteryx to climb a
tree.

And it was. Even the imaginary study of its claws that
your fellow kept drooling about disputed the notion of
it climbing trees. Plain & simple: It has the body of
a distinctly ground-dwelling dinosaur. In fact, without
the feathers, there would be absolutely no argument here,
no question.

Oh. The above isn't speculation. There were archaeopteryx
fossils discovered, sans feathers,

Since all but possibly one of the examples of
Archaeotperyx have feathers, this is, quite
simply, a lie.

You need to buy a dictionary.

And you need to read for comprehension, as can be seen below.


More than that though, you need to seek the nearest
mental health professional and ask them to help you
get over your JTEM obsession. It's just not funny
any more. Anyhow, don't stop reading too soon or
you'll keep being an ass crack...

Which is exactly what you seem to have done.


http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/skeletons1.html

Right in the second paragraph:

There, in the oblique sunlight, Ostrom saw the feathers.

Seventh paragraph, psycho breath, keep reading 'til at least the
seventh paragraph.

Hint for psychos: How many Compsognathus reconstruction
have feathers?

Quite a few actually, but that's irrelevant to your claim that "There
were archaeopteryx fossils discovered, sans feathers..."

Oh, okay, psycho breath. I guess I only meant the ones that
were mistakenly identified as Compsognathus, a dinosaur with
no feathers associated with it.

And these specimens were later found to *have* feathers, hence they
*weren't* "sans feathers". If you can't write what you mean, you don't
have an excuse for getting upset with people when they can't read you
mind.


I could understand why you'd
find huge fault in me.... you being a JTEM-obsessed whack
job & all.

No, I find fault with you because you make up stuff, and deliberately
try to mislead people, but you already know that.


Notice how not one person in this groups so much as questions
you?

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Doesn't Kent Paul Dolan
question me?


Popularity over facts... personalities above science....

No, it's science over fantasy. Unfortunately, fantasy is what you tend
to post. I can actually back up my claims.


because the
two specimens referred to, the Eichstätt and Solnhofen specimens, both
have feathers.


So much for "There were archaeopteryx fossils discovered, sans
feathers..." Remember, "don't stop reading too soon or you'll keep
being an ass crack..."


and nobody ever so
much as hinted at anything approaching an arboreal
lifestyle.

Nope. Not one human being on the face of the
planet saw anything that would place it in a tree.

Fancy that.

Wrong again:

Maybe you could look up "Compsognathus" some time...

What about it?


Have fun.


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.

No feathers mentioned.

[snip]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
    ... the feathers, there would be absolutely no argument here, ... were archaeopteryx fossils discovered, sans feathers..." ... laterally compressed claws, ... well adapted for climbing. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
    ... So much for "There were archaeopteryx fossils discovered, ... planet saw anything that would place it in a tree. ... laterally compressed claws, ... well adapted for climbing. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The insanity keeps coming
    ... planet saw anything that would place it in a tree. ... laterally compressed claws, and small size makes _Archaeopteryx_ ... well adapted for climbing. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
    ... planet saw anything that would place it in a tree. ... laterally compressed claws, and small size makes _Archaeopteryx_ ... well adapted for climbing. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"
    ... The origin and early evolution of birds: ... discoveries, disputes, and perspectives from fossil evidence. ... archaeoptryx has feathers". ... the context was archaeopteryx (and similarly built ...
    (talk.origins)