EARLY EVOLUTION OF 'BIRDS'

["Matthew Troutman" <m_troutman@hotmail.com>]

>>After I have read some papers. I see that many fossils have feather
>>and may be origin of bird.

>This is what many people say.  But many people are often wrong!

I agree to an extent with this if I understand your standing correctly.

>Yes - they come after the first bird.  Not just some of them but all of
>them.  This means probably the origin is the other way round - these
>feathered dinos are *descendants* of birds.

This could just be an example of a preservation bias.  Anyway, you 
cannot use the fact that the birdlike dinosaurs came after 
_Archaeopteryx_ as proof that they are descendents of _A._.  More 
evidence should be gathered.  Thus far, I think that the evidence shows 
that these creatures are long-surviving relicts that were close to the 
ancestry of birds.  You cannot look at _Archaeopteryx_ and get a perfect 
dromaeosaur, _A._ is too birdlike and derived.  

>This is not what I think because there were two very big explosions, 
>both just after the first bird known:  other birds, and bird-like 
>dinosaurs. I would expect this - feathers give an animal great 
>advantages no other animal has, and drives evolution in new 
>directions.

Of course, you have to show that the birdlike dinosaurs evolved from the 
first-known bird.  

>All birds are descended from a very close relative to >_Archaeopteryx_. 
Many so-called "dinosaurs" are also.  The fact >that cladistics doesn't 
agree with this will be evidence that cladistics >is bad (when proof 
appears).

Where is your proof other than the temporal 'problem' (?) and the 
existence of feathers?  Here's what I see;

_Archaeopteryx_ is extremely birdlike with the hooked ectopterygoid, no 
serrations on teeth, etc, birdlike braincase, single sternum, etc. 
etc...  

Advanced birdlike dinosaurs show few of these features.

'Nuff said.

Matt Troutman


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com