How did a bird evolve?

Here is a discussion of the matter. Please enlighten me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

"Archaeopteryx and the origins of birds

In the 1970s, John Ostrom argued that the birds evolved from theropod
dinosaurs (see Dinosaur-bird connection). Archaeopteryx provides a
critical piece of this argument, as it preserves a number of avian
features (a wishbone, flight feathers, wings, a partially reversed
first toe) and a number of dinosaur and theropod features (for
instance, a long ascending process of the astragalus, interdental
plates, an obturator process of the ischium, and long chevrons in the
tail). In particular, Ostrom found that Archaeopteryx was remarkably
similar to the theropod family Dromaeosauridae. Further research on
dinosaurs from the Gobi Desert and China has since provided more
evidence of a link between Archaeopteryx and the dinosaurs, such as
Chinese feathered dinosaurs.

Archaeopteryx is probably close to the ancestry of modern birds - it
shows most of the features one would expect in an ancestral bird - but
it may not be the direct ancestor of living birds, and it is arguable
how much divergence was already present in the early birds at its
time."

dick

Better watch out. Somebody on this newsgroup will probably tell you
that "argument from incredulity" is a fallacy.

Of course, "incredulity" means "unbelievability." And it is precisely
when an argument is not believable when the argument fails.

So basically, if the "argument from incredulity" is a fallacy, then
every attempt to make an argument unbelievable is fallacious.

But never mind all that. If you present an argument from incredulity,
an argument from non-believability, it is a "fallacy."

And stop questioning evolution. You are going to send some people here
into a BLIND RAGE!!!!!!!!

Argument from increduluity is more usually applied to examples of "I
can't see how", which, usually, are more like "I won't see how". It is
unreasonable as a debating tool unless one has first taken the time and
effort. Just because things appear unlikely, doesn't mean they are
impossible, typically, the argument from increduluity says something
along the lines of "this doesn't look very probable, therefore, it
can't have happened". It wasn't very likely that a cricket ball would
kill a sparrow, and create such a near image as a sparrow wrapped
around a cricket ball, but an example of when that happened (and the
ball, coplete with unfortunate sparrow) is in the museum of MCC.

Questioning evolution is actually what we like to see, but we don't
like to see people throw hissy-fits when they don't like the answers
they get through proper examination of the facts.

--

Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and
General Purpose Igor

The Anti-Theist

Convicted by Earthquack

"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"

Well said.

Nice strawman fallacy.

An argument fails when it is false. Some people find some things to be
unbelievable that are, in fact, true.

No....rejecting a sound argument without reason or counter-point, based
soley upon your personal incredulity, is fallacious.

Incredulity is not non-believability...nice strawman [another fallacy].

Oh...look....inflammatory language [another fallacy].

BIMMS, How did birds originate? Why do they show up where they do in
the fossil record? What is the first known organism to possess
feathers? Did it use these structures for flight or for some other
function?

I have read your criticisms of evolutionary theory. Now I am interested
in what you recommend as a replacement explanation. New organisms show
up all through the fossil record. Do you maintain that there is an
intelligent creator that is responsible for multiple creation events?

How did amphibians originate? Why do they show up where they do in the
fossil record? At what point in time did land dwelling organisms
originate?

What about reptiles or mammals? Why is it they mammals aren't found in
the earlier geological strata along with fish, amphibians, and
reptiles?

I know you don't have a taste for evolution. Fair enough. You have a
right to maintain your position. However, shed some light on how you
think it all came to be.

And why do you think a robin is any more (or less) sophisticated than a
dinosaur?

> dick

Cornelius.

"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being." (Abraham Lincoln).

Why? I don't understand the reason for your incredulity.

I'm not sure what your question is. Do you find something confusing in
the discussion below?

It all sounds find to me. And this is only a little bit of the evidence
for birds being dinosaurs. Try to remember that not even all Mesozoic
dinosaurs were giant beasties like T. rex. Would it be easier for you to
imagine the robin as being related to a chicken-sized theropod like
Compsognathus?

It is.

Buy a dictionary, dipshit.

<snip troll shit>

Boikat

I don't see how water could violate the trend towards contracting as its
temperature is lowered. Yet water is at its most dense at 4 deg
celsius. Therefore God must have made water that way so that lakes
would freeze from the top down and fish could survive the winter.

We don't know how quantum physics work, so therefore God must be doing it.

>

uh, no. when there is evidence against an argument is when it fails.
sorry.

says the religious fanatic who's in a blind rage at scientists because
we accept evolution

There's issues...

The one word you need to know is "arboreal." This would
be opposed to "cursorial."

Arboreal... arboretum... trees. Yup, think trees. There ain't
no way to get an Archaeopteryx-like dinosaur in a tree
without it ALREADY flying. Period. They simply are not
built to climb a tree trunk.

Call Archaeopteryx a bird, and you call the whole "arboreal"
theory on the origins of flight a lie. That means
you've got flight starting from the ground up. You've got
flight begining not with animals living high in the tree tops --
maybe first gliding then eventually evolving into powered
flight -- but animals that started on the ground and only took
to the tree tops AFTER flight evolved.

Big problem with that one. You see, ground speed is
initially REDUCED by flight. Take a fast running bird, and
no matter how much faster it might regularly fly, when it
initially leaves the ground for the air it loses speed.

Yup.

So why evolve flight?

If it's to catch prey, the initial LOSS of ground speed is
going to give that prey an opportunity to get away. And
if flight is supposed to have initially evolved as an adaption
to escape danger, it's even worse.

You see, we *Love* the arboreal theory on flight. We're
in love with the idea of flight evolving in the tree tops. It's
so damn logical. After all, when you live up high what
could pose a greater benefit than not falling?

Answer: Flight!

And we can almost see it happening, evolution in the
making, caught within the very throws of creating new
flying creatures. The flying squirrel, for example. A
glider. No powered flight -- at least it hasn't evolved YET --
but how could we avoid seeing it as a model for the
perfect start?

Call Archaeopteryx a bird, and we have to throw that all
away. We have to say that it didn't happen that way.
We have to say that birds weren't once like the flying
squirrels, that they never lived in the tree tops and they
didn't evolve flight as an adaptation to their tree-top
environment.

Oh, the pain... the pain...

You're kidding, right? The claws on it's wings have been shown to be
very similar to those of arboreal animals, and it probably could use
those, in addition to the ones on its hind legs, to climb trees.

Why would giving a different label to the animal change anything?

Even if that's true, it still gains altitude.

Altitude is worthless?

I still don't see why. "A rose, by any other name..." and all that.

It seems that your whole argument only makes sense if Archaeopteryx is THE FIRST
bird (ever). Has anyone ever made that claim? Isn't it possible that even if
everything you say about Archaeopteryx is true (which is dubious), that other
even earlier proto-birds could have done the whole "started in the trees" thing
and that Archaeopteryx descended from them?

I agree, the position is just a strawman. If I say I don't believe in
"string theory" the guns would be blasting, if Einstein were alive to
say it, no one would utter a word about "incredulity."

dick

I didn't say one was more or less sophisticated. The question was
about the mini mutation steps, each deemed positive in the relevant
environment, which could lead to such a sophisticated organism.
dick

With so many changes needed for successful flight (find food, escape
predators), I don't see how any sequence of mutations leading to the
robin could "fit" the existent environment's challenges. Why were
the individual steps successful and what were they and what selected
the teleological changes that were sufficiently integrated to result
in the robin?

The last paragraph is the open question.

Nope, nor believing a fish became a bird.

Too many changes requiring total system integration.

Did you note that most of the responders prefer to pounce on the
incredulity than respond to the thread? Funny what is 'selected' by
the environment, isn't it?

dick

A couple of points here.

1) Nobody really gives a flip whether or not you accept (or 'believe") in
evolution (Or string theory). The problem arises when you feel your
"disbelief" (Or non-acceptance) means the theory is wrong, or invalid, and
you try to convince people who *do* accept the theory as valid that they are
wrong because *you* do not accept it.

2) If Einstein were alive to day and denounced string theory, he'd probably
back up his reasoning with actual facts, evidence, and so on, and submit his
paper to peer review. Just like any theory in science, if his work was
valid (Explains observations better thatn String Theory), then a lot of text
books would be re-written, and string theory would fall by the wayside, the
same way that "The Bible as 'science'" (flood geology, special creation, the
origin of man...) of the 1700 fell by the wayside of mainstream science as
better and more logical explainations and theories were developed in the
1800's.

3) Bimms doesn't really understand the definition of "Strawman argument".
And argument from incredulity is indeed a logical fallacy, and not a valid
scientific objection.

Boikat
--
<42><

Did you notice the last paragraph of the quote? Not everyone
(scientists?) agree the dino could be the beginning.

Personally, I am curious about all the minute mutations that have to
test positive to the existing environment and how all of the
individual positives came to be so integrated as a flight capable
organism. The design answer has its own problems with less chance to
investigate.

Oh, the pain...the pain...

dick

Is that an Afr... I mean an American robin or a European robin?

-- w.

Note that this is a different question from the one you asked
originally. First you refused to believe that robins were dinosaurs;
that's a question about common descent. Now you refuse to believe that
mutation and natural selection could produce the necessary changes;
that's a question about the mechanism of evolution. The two questions
are independent of eac other. Even if known mechanisms are incapable of
bringing it about, robins could still be dinosaurs; it only requires
mechanisms we don't now understand. Similarly, we can still know that
two balls dropped from the Leaning Tower of Pisa will hit the ground at
the same time even if we have no theory of gravity.

Why? I still don't see your point. What open question?

Well, you didn't give much to work with. Just "I don't believe it" with
no indication of a reason. That's a non-argument. A lot of unbelievable
things happen every day. It happens that the evidence for this
particular transformation is very good. We have intermediate fossils of
all sorts, and we can also tell that the closest living relatives of
birds are crocodiles. Somehow, by whatever means, a common ancestor
turned into both. Unless you ignore the evidence there's no way to
escape that conclusion.

Why it happened is another question, and much harder to answer. But you
can't go around saying that intermediate stages are impossible, because
we have the bodies of many of those stages.

There are many theories about how and why birds started flying. It's
hard to test those theories. Right now gliding does seem reasonable,
based particularly on Microraptor gui, which looks quite like what the
early theorizers predicted for a gliding intermediate. And it's obvious
that many features we associate with flight came before it. Feathers,
light bones, and probably many features of the avian metabolism. We also
have living examples of intermediate states, like flying squirrels and
phalangers. However, if you want to know exactly what selective regime
caused every change between primitive theropods and modern birds, you're
probably going to be out of luck forever. The fossil record just isn't
good enough for every purpose. But I think it's good enough that
disbelief in the events themselves is just not possible for anyone who
knows the facts.

Are you familiar with WAIR?

Why?

That seemed to be a self-contradictory statement. Was there a word or
two missing?

Again, why? And what would you call Archaeopteryx?

Why does it make sensse even in that case?

I think you mistake JTEM's argument. But I'm not quite sure what his
argument is, so maybe not. However, I think he is supporting the
arboreal theory, whatever Archaeopteryx does or doesn't have to do with it.

Not true. You misunderstand the quote. It doesn't mean birds aren't
dinosaurs. It just means we can't distinguish ancestors in the fossil
record from those ancestors' cousins. Archaeopteryx may not be the
direct ancestor of modern birds -- probably isn't -- but we are unlikely
to find ancestors at all, given the quality of the record. Fortunately,
cousins of the ancestors are almost as useful in determining the course
of evolution.

We can at least use the fossil record to determine the order in which
many of those mutations happened. Feathers before wings, flight before
many of the advanced features of modern birds, etc.

My take on his argument (which could very well be wrong) is that that a "down
from the trees" evolution for birds is disproven because Archaeopteryx couldn't
have been a competent climber. My response was basically saying that even if
Archaeopteryx could not climb (which is not a given) that it does not matter
unless you believe Archaeopteryx was the first and only animal around developing
the ability to fly. Archaeopteryx could easily have been descended from earlier
forms who were very capable climbers.

I am not qualified or well read enough on the subject to know what the
prevailing theories on this are. It just seems to me that from a purely logical
viewpoint his argument is flawed.

Tree tops aren't the only places to live where you're up high.
Mountanous terrain could provide an advantage for being able to glide
down from rocks and cliffs. And it sure seems like it would be good to
escape predators by running to a nearby cliff and jumping off if you
can safely glide down.

You did rather heavily imply that, by your statement. You gave the
impression that you felt that a dinosaur ancestor was less sophisticated
than a modern bird.

Again, if a dinosaur was already a sophisticated organism, why would you
find it incredible that a number of small steps could produce "such a
sophisticated" organism as a robin?

DJT

Good thing scientists don't give a shit what you are incapable of
understanding, ain't it?

Evolution is not something that can be "questioned." Perhaps you meant
"evolutionary theory" instead.

Now then: please provide a superior explanation, than evolution and
evolutionary theory, to the diversity of life we observe on Earth.
Thank you.

It is, but has nothing to do with this.

No.

No.

No.

Please tell us what other theory does explain the evolutionary evidence.

I think it's a tribute to JTEM's total lack of interest in clarity that
we are now arguing about what he meant. You will note that he seems to
be ridiculing both trees-down and ground-up theories. But the only
alternative would seem to be creationism, and he's not a creationist. So
one of those ridiculed theories must be the one he actually supports. If
you read closely, I think you can tell that he's supporting trees-down,
and what he's really trying to riducule, for some unclear reason, is the
terminological choice of calling Archaeopteryx a bird (instead of what?).

Why be incredulous? If you learned more about the evidence, I
suspect your incredulity would evaporate.

Various dinosaurs are now known to be extremely birdlike, including
having true feathers. And early fossil birds are often extremely
"reptile"-like, with long bony tails and toothy jaws and finger
claws on their wings.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Looks good. What further questions did you have about it? Note
that Archy clearly has long true feathers [not just "feather like"]
on its wings as well as along the tail. Note also that creationists
often like to dismiss Archaeopteryx as "just a true bird, not a
transitional".

No one should assume that any given fossil species is ever necessarily
the actual direct ancestor of any of its later relatives. It's more
than enough that it's relatively little-changed from the actual common
ancestor it shared with its later relatives. In this case Archaeopteryx
[and now also the various more recently discovered others] clearly
shows that there once existed a whole range of clear "reptile-bird"
intermediates in the form of "dino-birds" and the feathered dinosaurs
mentioned above. Several non-bird theropod dinosaurs are now known to
have feathers or protofeathers; the initial evolution of feathers
evidently long preceded their use in bird flight.

Some relevant links that seem to still be good:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm
http://www.daily-tangents.com/Aves/Archaeop/
http://dino.lm.com/taxa/display.php?name=Archaeopteryx
http://dino.lm.com/taxa/display.php?name=Microraptor
http://dino.lm.com/taxa/display.php?name=Sinornithosaurus
http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/dinobird.html
http://www.dinosaur.org/news/news01-04-25bird01.html
http://www.amnh.org/science/specials/dinobird.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1081000/1081677.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1058000/1058475.stm
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Dinos/evolution_of_dinosaurs.htm

Hope it helps dispel that incredulity.
cheers

Nope.

The entire skeleton is so similar to unambigiously terrestorial
dinosaurs that many have suggested that it is nothing more
than a dinosaur fossil to which someone had added feathers.

Fact is, this can't climb trees:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/maniraptora.html

Seriously.Show us the tree-climbing dinosaurs!

Because it can't climb trees. Clever how you missed that, it being
the main point & all...

It is if you're too slow to gain it before a predator eats you.

Yeah.

Incorrect....their wing claws could easily grasp a tree trunk. Their
wrists were able to rotate so that the palms would face one another,
that coupled with their claws would give them very capable
tree-climbing ability.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

Previous premise is incorrect, therefore, so is this conclusion drawn
from it.

Again....this conclusion is drawn from incorrect premises.

Again....this is a point flowing from the incorrect premise that small,
feathered, theropods were uncapable of climbing trees. They were
endowed with gripping forelimbs, and that would enable them to climb
well.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/maniraptora.html

It's a problem that likely did not exist.

Not necessaily...in fact....this would only be true if they gained
altitude after taking off. If the flyer chose to remain low and skim
the ground, they would gain speed after picking up their feet. If they
chose to gain altitude, the lost speed would be regained as soon as
they leveled off, and then they would have the advantage of altitude
and not be required to follow terrain. Also....the prey would likely
stop when it thought that it was no longer pursued....so the initial
loss in speed due to climbing would not be an issue.

>
> Yup.

Nope.

>
> So why evolve flight?

Apparently....it provided some reproductive advantage.

Not really....see above.

No....loss in speed would not typically be an issue since *altitude* is
gained and the flyer is soon out of reach of its pursuer. This loss in
speed would only be an issue if the pursuer is so close that the flyer
was not able to gain the altitude quickly enough....perhaps this is why
birds are so difficult to sneak up on.....they are attentive; perhaps
these small dino-flyers were equally attentive and looked out for
danger as well as prey.

Answer: Not being killed or injured by falling....this could include
flight....but it could also include mechanisms to slow the descent or
minimize the impact when hitting the ground.

Again...why?

Why?

Why?

Take an Advil for the pain....and try again.

To points.

The first is that it's not *My* argument, it's a often
debated issue. The second is that you're wrong.

Skeleton wise, Archaeopteryx simply isn't that
different from ground dwelling dinosaurs:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/maniraptora.html

I know you're a worthless retard who compensates for
his stupidity by sparking pissing matches, but you
need to really take a step back here.

It's pretty clear that I introduced an issue.

You're literally arguing that there's something wrong
with that. That, it's not okay to make factual statements,
that I'm somehow required to draw & state conclusions
(opinions) based on the facts I presented.

Your parents must be proud, assuming they had other
children...

Identify & explain this contradiction.

Go on, piss boy.

Incorrect. What an isolated part of their anatomy can or can
not do isn't the issue. Not unless you want to argue that their
claws detached themselves, climbed to the tree tops, lowered
a rope and then pulled the rest of the body up.

Seriously. I'd expect as much from a creationist....

"Well, if we concentrate on an isolated part, ignoring the
whole, my position makes so much sense!"

Later.

What the hell, is *Everyone* here a nine year old retard?
Is that why your two first responses is always "I don't
understand" (as if that's an accomplishment), followed
by trying to make it about personalities?

MY argument? SHEESH!

Oh, it's a given, retard.

Look at the skeletons of tree climbers. Look at Archaeopteryx.

Next, look at terrestrial dinosaurs.

Fine. Show us the tree climbing dinosaurs.

Thanks in advance.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard....

Your entire argument is based on the notion that the ancestors of
modern birds *could not* climb trees. I, and others, have pointed out
that this premise of yours is incorrect. There is no reason to imagine
that they could not climb trees, and plenty of good evidence to support
that they could.

Even if such creatures were primarily terrestrial....this does not mean
that climbing was not possible, as you conclude.

Your argument fails miserably from the outset....get over it, move on.

Ken

Red Squirrel:

http://www.kidwings.com/skulls/redsquirrel/index.htm

Norway Rat:

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/biological_sciences/lab13/images/ratskell.jpeg

One is arboreal, the other terrestrial.....aside from the claws....see
much difference?

Oh...btw...the rat can also climb trees....

Yes.

Yes. And I was supplying you with further information,
if you didn't notice. The specific issue being the arboreal
theory on the origins of flight.

You are aware that flight feathers are associated with
Archaeopteryx, right?

"Powered" flight. Somehow, nobody is scratching their
head over gliders, like the flying squirrel.

The parallels with human technology are strong enough.
Meaning, gliders (or at least model/toy versions) date
well back into ancient times, hot air balloons date back
more than two centuries, but the one we get all excited
about was that first powered flight at Kittyhawk.

There's more than one design. Insects and bats solve
the powered flight problem differently than birds. There's
some debate whether or not pterosaurs managed powered
flight, if a subset achieved it or none at all. If they did, that
would present yet another solution.

....which it is.

The fallacy is due to the assumption that disbelief, in and
of itself, is a valid argument about the truth of a
statement. The fact that someone finds an assertion
unbelievable says nothing about whether that assertion is
true. When the incredulity exists in the face of evidence
that the assertion is true, it's not only a fallacy, but a
sign of poor reasoning skills as well.

<snip>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

<snip>

>...what he's really trying to riducule, for some unclear reason, is the

A feathered theropod which happens to be able to fly? ;-)

None that challenge Archy's role as an important early "reptile-bird"
intermediate.

Why opposed? Many animals can both run and climb. Why couldn't the
answer here be "either or possibly both"?

Nonsense. Exclamation point.

It has limbs well provided with claws, and trees are often
rough-barked and commonly have branches and twigs.

There's also something of a gray area between "trees" and "bushes".
Looking at modern vegetation, there is often a whole lot of other
ways for a small animal to get up high into a tree than by climbing
a vertical, bare, treetrunk.

Are gray foxes? Goats? Rat snakes? Lots of modern animals are
surprisingly good at climbing trees.

[One might suggest the solution here is "Elementary, my dear
Hoatzin..."]

> Call Archaeopteryx a bird, and you call the whole "arboreal"
> theory on the origins of flight a lie.

You seem to have a penchant for overstatement. Even if Archy's
climbing ability or alleged lack of same was necessarily identical to
that of its last common ancestor with all other birds [clearly not the
case], the first flight capability in that lineage of dinosaurs could
still have arisen much earlier, perhaps in fully arboreal forms.

"Ground" also includes hills, rocks and cliffs, right?

Not shown to be the case here.
How do you rate Microraptor's possible climbing capabilites?

> Big problem with that one. You see, ground speed is

Even if so, there's obviously more than one "reason" for an animal to
take flight besides simply increasing its speed of attack or escape.

There's the flier's ability to cross empty space to fly up to a tree
branch or to cross from one branch or tree to another, or to flit or
glide across an intervening ditch or ravine, and generally to get
around in its environment in various fun new ways.

The new ability for the pre-bird to cross empty space and suddenly
land next to its unsuspecting prey might be an advantage [especially
effective if the prey is fruit]. How many modern birds catch their
food by actively chasing it at speed? Some clearly do, but is it
really all that common?

Why not "both, and generally to get around more freely"?

Of course, small animals aren't necessarily that inconvenienced by
long falls. For a mouse- or small lizard-sized animal, there's the
chore of having to get back up the tree, but no injury is likely
from the fall. I've heard that some woodlands are almost constantly
raining arboreal lizards [according to researchers who'd set out
containers to measure leaf litter accumulation rates and got lots of
leaping lizards instead]. It seems some small arboreal animals may
spend a surprising amount of their time falling out of trees.

Or "throes", for that matter. I suppose if we were to throw an animal
up into the air it might have a good test of its incipient flying
abilities.

Well, it has the problem of just having its patagia between the limbs.
Kind of hard to see how to expand it or power it. In bat ancestors,
the gliding membranes evidently extended out between the animals long
fingers as well.

Non sequitur. We already call ostriches, penguins and many other
non-tree climbing beasties "birds", without any such consequence.

Even if you wanted to change the definition and say that Archy is a
"non-bird, winged feathered dinosaur" it really changes nothing for
your "problem". You'd still have to account for the critter's evident
close kinship to the "true birds" however you're now defining them.

All this from your claim that Archaeopteryx couldn't possibly climb
trees, and your implied but unspoken claim that it couldn't possibly
have had a more aboreal ancestor?

Have an aspirin.

cheers

Then you obviously don't read your own posts.

What you said made no sense, for the reasons stated above.

I made no arguments. I stated some facts. The anatomy of
archaeopteryx is not -- Repeat: NOT! -- significantly different
from unambigiously terrestrial dinosaurs. On the contrary, it
so closely matches earth bound dinosaurs that many people,
scientist amongst them, have suggested that archaeopteryx is
a Compsognathus fossil to which feathers had been added.

Compsognathus:

http://www.cbv.ns.ca/marigold/history/dinosaurs/datafiles/compsognathus.html

This is not a tree climber. Period.

Other than their anatomy, you mean?

This thing has the body of a ground runner. Period. No room
for debate. It is simply not physically equipped to climb trees.

Are you on crack?

Show us the evidence! And, please, try to make some sense
this time.

So you're comparing a tree climber to a tree climber...

Amazing.

You're full of it.

Irrelevant, as I pointed out earlier. If all it took were claws,
crocodiles would be great tree climbers!

The issue is getting the rest of the skeleton up the tree.
It simply can't be articulated in such a way as to allow
it, the same as all those ground-living dinosaurs it so
closely resembles.

*Duh*!

The article is pretty easy to understand. Exactly what is your
difficulty? If you have trouble seeing how birds ARE dinosaurs, watch
some emus.
Dinosaurs came in many shapes and sizes. Most laid eggs in nests. Some
had feathers, some had beaks, some were small with lightweight bones.
Many extinct birds had clawed hands and teeth.Modern birds still have
scales.
So, once again, why do you have difficulty believing this?
Look at the evidence.
Klaus

Yes...it is amazing how a creature [such as a rat], which is clearly a
terrestrial critter, can be so agile and climb with such ease. Perhaps
not with the skill and grace of a squirrel.....but a capable climber
nonetheless. Archy, with its longer limbs and grasping, clawed
appendages....would have been easily as capable as a rat in
climbing.....wouldn't you agree?

Ken

And you know this how?

-- w.

You seem to be unclear of the concept of *fact* then.

You have looked at some skeletons and have seen [admittedly striking]
similarities between some terrestrial dinosaurs and Archy. From this
you *drew the conslusion* that Archy is unable, in any capacity, to
climb trees.

All I need to do to negate your argument [and it is an argument, not
statement of fact] that Archy *could not* climb trees is to simply show
how it could have climbed....and I have done that....it has grasping
hands with claws on both hands and feet....it was also a small and
agile creature...climbing trees would have been child's play for such
an animal.

It would not have been impossible [your position] for Archy, or for
that matter, any number of small theropod dinosaurs, to clamber up into
the tree-tops. I do not need to demonstrate that they did climb, only
that it would not be impossible for them to have done so.

Hopefully the subtlety of this difference will not escape you.

Ken

Let's see: flexible back, light weight, strong arms, hooked claws on
feet and arms. Looks like it could probably climb to me.
The article said absolutely nothing about maniraptors being unable to
climb. Clever how you lied about that being the main point.
Klaus

Duckbill Platypus, anyone?