ARCHAEOPTERIX and feathered Dinosaurier

iam new here on this forum and unfortunately my english language is not great....hope the posters here can respect it.....in the last few years in china was discovered some fossil byrds with feathers,olso byrds where are called from some scientists to be flightless byrds with symetrical keeled feathers and olso a great find in great condition of a dinosaur with primitiv feather structures...i will post the link..after i have read some creation websites and some posts i think its worth to discuss new recent informations too in the byrd-reptil debatte of archaeopterix and the recent finds of fossil byrds and dinosaurs with featherstructures...not helpful in the past was that some scientists comments in the medien was called to quick to be facts....that means scientists where believe in evolution too did this too...after the first archeaopterix find in the 150 ears ago a heat debatte has started between darvinists and antidarvinists..experts in this days like wagner and owen (both antievolution believers)did say archaeopterix is a dinosaurier (wagner) and owen did say archaeopterix is a byrd..1985 famous astronom sir fred hoyle and his group did say the feathers of archaeopterix are fakes and archaeopterix is no byrd, he is a dinosaur..he was prooved wrong after the british museum of nat. history has prooved the feathers to be real with help of x rays and viewed with elektron microscops.the stonematerial was orign ..and its impossible to fake the stonematerial for the fact the positiv and the negativ plate puted together was absolut symetric...on the creation websites sir fred hoyle comments is mentioned allways..wonder why???he is far away to be a specialist of palontologie,geolgie,biologie..on the other hand creation websites say that archaeopterix is only a byrd??hoyle did say archaeopterix is only a dinosaur..after the hoyle debatte 2 more archaeopterix fossils was discovered 1988 and 1992 and descripted here in germany ( dr.peter wellnhofer)...again both with featherstructures..it was possible for the worker to see the featherstructures from this last archaeopterix exemplar after he has discovered him in the quarry...this seventh and latest archaeopterix is worth to mention more...he is descripited from german expert dr. peter wellnhofer a expert olso for flying reptils..i will post soon more details after many persons outside of germany where are no scientists dont know much of this 7 exemplar..iam no scientist , i live here in germany,hunt fossils (ammonites)and i have seen 4 of the 7 original archaeopterix..the meanings today is that archaeopterix is a early byrd with so much reptilnature that many believe byrds evoluted from reptils (therapods).....some scientists think archaeopterix endet maybe in deadzone of the byrd evolution..but this change not his status in the evolution of byrds...the marine solnhofen stones are ca. 150 mill years old ..that means that there are finds of ammonites too...so its possible to date the age of the solnhofen stones ..ammonite finds are a good perimeter to date stoneformations..the current great chinse fossil finds was called quick in the media from scientists to be in the same age or older than the solnhofen formation after the first finds some years ago...this is what i personel dont like from some scientists!!!!..??? proove it better before you tell it the media to be possible or to be facts..the yixian formation is NOT marine so its not possible to date this formation with help of ammonite finds..the last and best methods from a group chinese and canadian experts (geochronologen and palontologen) has prooved with a laserfusions technic methods with ar-gas , that the age of the yixian formation is 121-123 mill years old... ca. 27 mill years younger than the solnhofen formation..what this means???coming soon...pitt[This message has been edited by pitt, 09-13-2003]

here is the link to the chinise dinosaur with featherstructures from the yixian formation (ca 121-123 mill years old)...i was glad to seen this original dinosaur live in year 2001 (vacaition in new jersey) in the museum of naturel history in new york..http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/dinobird.htmlpitt[This message has been edited by pitt, 09-01-2003]

archaeopterix is current the oldest fossil byrd with a age of ca. 150 mill. years...the second oldest fossil byrd is confuciusornis from the yixian formation from china 121-123 mill. years old..what makes archaeopterix a byrd???the biggest factor archaeopterix is a byrd is that archaeopterix has feathers...his feathers looks close to the feathers of modern byrds where can fly...his feathers was asymetric keeled where is a indiz for flying byrds...archaeopterix has olso a furcula.....only byrds have a furcula???....this was the meanings in the past....but dr. peter wellnhofer the german expert for fossil byrds and flying reptils is quoted in the german magazine -spectrum der wissenschaft digest- 1998... FURCULAS ARE DISCOVERED RECENT FROM SOME CREDACIUS DINOSAURS, FROM THERAPODS (WHERE ARE QUOTED IN THE PAST FROM MANY SCIENTISTS TO BE IN RELATIONSHIP WITH BYRDS)....so this confirm again the relationship between dinosaur/therapods and byrds...from the latest discovered seventh archaeopterix , there was discovered for the first time a ossified sternum (breastbone)...big and keeled bony sternums are important for good flyers...so archaeopterix maybe wasnt a good flyer ..his bony sternum was primitiv,small and flat and thin and not keeled.. the most other structures of archaeopterix skeleton has very much reptilcharacter..the smallest archaeopterix exemplar from eichsttt was descripted for some years to be a small dinosaur like compsognatus..only after this archaepterix was viewed under special light there was clearly shown for everybody his feather structures..this confirm again the relationship between therapods and archaeopterix..the discovered bony sternum of the last archaeopterix exemplar confirm that this new exemplar was adult....the surprise was, that this new exemplar was the second smallest archaeopterix where was discovered and the fact that all others archaeopterix exemplares where was bigger (up to 30%), was discovered without bony sternums...so that makes this exemplar unique for solnhofen . so this exemplar is descripted to be a new art of archaeopterix.named archaeopterix bavaria..not archaeopterix lithographica..why there are no bony sternum discovered from the other archaeopterix exemplares??maybe they are lost in the quarry or for the fact this sternum was so breakable,small and thin so they was lost??not likely....or it confirm that the other archaeopterix exemplares was juvenile and the sternum was still not bony??its possible.. one archaeopterix exemplar , the smallest of all exemplares , is descripted to be juvenile...no furcula,no sternum was discovered..a important fact is olso that the latest and second smallest archaeopterix is discovered in a zone 9 meters above the third biggest exemplar and 14,5 meters above the second biggest discovered archaeopterix exemplar, unfortunately its not possibble to date the age between the foundhorizont of this 3 exemplares..its possible of some 10 thousend or some 100 thoused years??a effect for a evolution from a not bony sternum to a bony sternum??its speculative..pitt<[This message has been edited by pitt, 09-06-2003]

archaeopterix and his reptilnatur.....without his feathers archaeopterix skeleton is more reptilike...furculas are recent discovered from some therapods too (wellnhofer)...so this is not longer a indicate that only byrds have a furcula...only byrds have a pygostil....archaeopterix not, his tail was long and dinosaurlike....fossil byrds from china and spain where are 25-30 mill. years younger than archaeopterix have a pygostil, the tail was reduced too...archaeopterix has gastralrips like reptils...modern byrds dont have gastral rips....his footskeleton is very reptilike and a indiz for a good runner.. his legs was reptillike and his pelvis and pubis was reptillike and was in relationship to his long tail....a reduced tail and a pygostil from younger fossil byrds from spain and china and the modern pygostil from modern byrds has changed the pelvis and body construction after millions of years of byrd evolution up to strong keeled breastbones.....the skull of archaeopterix was byrd and reptilike...he was toothed but his teeths was not serrated like therapods..a surprise find was interdentalplates from the last discovered archaeopterix.. byrds dont have interdentalplates but many reptils(dinosaurs)since the trias.a important reptil indicater again...archaeopterix bones was without airsacks..modern byrds have airsacks..so its questionable archaeopterix did have a byrdlung.a indiz for a not goodflyer....olso only 1 of the 7 archaeopterix exemplares did have a breastbone and this was very primitv..his fingers and claws was reptillike....pitt[This message has been edited by pitt, 09-06-2003]

Try Nomingia gobiensis. Had a pygostyle.

hi,thanks for your information ....caudipterix..a former called dinosaur from china with feathers is current descripted to be a member of the oviraptors....oviraptores was descripted in the past not 100% to be in the system of dinosaurs..they have airsacks in the skulls... oviraptores skeleton was found above eggs..thats byrdlike too.....the new find of caudipterix with feathers where is current descripted a oviraptor member + the find of a oviraptor nomingia gobiensis with a pygostyl plus pylogenetische analyses confirm today that the group oviraptorsaurare must be current cladistic descripted aves...(oviraptores,flightless byrds)...sinosauropterix,protarchaeopterix,microraptor and sinorthisaurus...descripted with featherlike structures or feathers are descripted between coelurosaurus and maniraptor (sinosauopterix) or between maniraptor and aviale (microraptor,sinornitsaurus,droemaesauridae,trodontiae,deinonychus,velocirator,protarchaeopterix)there can not longer be disputed the mosaiklike evolutionare relationship between byrds and coelurosaurs(dinosaurs).....sorry for my bad english...pitt[This message has been edited by pitt, 09-11-2003]

what about Protoavis? It's older than all those dinosaurs and might be the real ancestor of Archeopteryx. Besides, coelurosaurs and dromaeosaurs were running animals with large hind legs and small arms. How do they evolve wings or flight?I'm in the Feduccia camp, 'birds are not from dinos'

Andya, Why? When birds share so many synapomorpies with dinosaurs, & none with archosaurs? Any clade other than birds have feathers? Megalancosaurus may have been arboreal, may well have had long limbs, but so what when compared to the numerous synapomorphies of the dinosaur-birds? Dinosaurian Synapomorphies Found In ArchaeopteryxTridactyl manus with manual digits IV, V lost,
Manual digit I robust,
Manual digit II longest in hand,
Manual digit III slender, with phalanges 3, 4 both short,
Semilunate carpal,
V-shaped furcula present,
Straplike scapula,
Functionally tridactyl pes with retroverted hallux,
Advanced mesotarsal ankle,
Splintlike metatarsal V,
Ascending process on astragalus,
Slender fibula,
Femur with orthogonally inturned head,
Perforate acetabulum,
Pelvis moderately opisthopubic,
Pubis long, rodlike with distal expansion,
Bladelike ilium,
Sacrum with at least 5 vertebrae (A. has six),
Long tail, distally stiffened,
Jaws with teeth.Protoavis is extremely dubious, with many palaeontologists holding to the view that it is a mosaic.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

unfortunately your aruments are to small....if you believe the fedducia camp so tell me your story against the relationship beween byrds and dinosaur ,coelurosaurs..flightless byrds dont need wings , but they are byrds..and archeaopterix was not a bad runner too, still with his wings and feathers..archaeopterix without his feathers looks like a dinosaur..one exemplar from archaeopterix was descripted many years to be a dinosaur in realation ship to the small dinosaur from solnhofen compsoghnatus...i have posted some posts with new informations .plus the new finds of skeleton from china with feathelike structures and feathers.........the bones and find of protoavis 75 mill. years older than archaeopterix is questionable in the scientiestscene..only a minority of scientist believe in protoavis to be a real ancestor from archaeopterix.. the find is not complete and from diffrent individiums...many scientist have diffrent meanings where protoavis stand...there wasnt feathers discovered to say protoavis is a byrd..the last strict reduced cladistic consensus method allow not a big effect of protoavis in the system of byrds...the postion of the protoavis find is very unsure...the problem is to say what makes a byrd a byrd and what makes a dinosaur a dinosaur....fossil finds are rare ... helpful was the excellent finds from china..the recent finds are a mosaik mix of the relationship of byrds and dinosaur..new question in the featherdebatte for the fact of primitive feathers from fossils (flightles byrds, and dinosaurs with feathers) where are younger than archaeopterix..helpful are finds of fossils where are older than archaeopterix with primitve feathers..but again...the current situation is that there cant not longer be big disputed the realationship between byrds and dinosaur/coulurosaur...and each fossil find more is helpful...pitt[This message has been edited by pitt, 09-13-2003]

"Protoavis" is a chimera. I suggest you read "Dinosaurs of the Air" by Gregory S. Paul.

About birds and coelurosaurs... (maybe you mean dromaeosaurs?) I think they're some kind of cousins, parallel evolution maybe? The biggest problem with the dino-bird theory is that every alleged ancestor to archy is living millions of years after it. I suspect that some kind of generalized ancestor like Compsognathus gave rise to two lines, one arboreal and leading to birds, while the other cursorial and leading to velociraptors. The feather synapomorphy is obtained by the bird lineage only. In time, some early birds that stem from the bird lineage gave up flying; they are the 'dino-birds' like Caudipteryx and others.The recent find, Microraptor gui with four wings, is a plausible link in the bird ancestry line. But as yet I have no opinion whether it is more primitive or derived than Archaeopteryx.

About birds and coelurosaurs... (maybe you mean dromaeosaurs?) I think they're some kind of cousins, parallel evolution maybe? The biggest problem with the dino-bird theory is that every alleged ancestor to archy is living millions of years after it. I suspect that some kind of generalized ancestor like Compsognathus gave rise to two lines, one arboreal and leading to birds, while the other cursorial and leading to velociraptors. The feather synapomorphy is obtained by the bird lineage only. In time, some early birds that stem from the bird lineage gave up flying; they are the 'dino-birds' like Caudipteryx and others.
The recent find, Microraptor gui with four wings, is a plausible link in the bird ancestry line. But as yet I have no opinion whether it is more primitive or derived than Archaeopteryx.---------------------------------dromaesaurs are coelurosaurs....sinornithsaurus,microraptor and protoarchaeopterix are members of the familie of droemosauridea and build with the trodontidae the group of deinonychosaura...both groups represent the line of the maniraptoria.....archaeopterix is related to the droemaesaurs...sinosauropterix with filigran structures is a 25 mill years younger cousin of compsognathus...compsognathus is in the same age of archi...both represent the group of compsognathidae (coelurosaur)..a new find from a therapod 3 years ago from a area close to solnhofen is 1-2 mill years older..he is still not fully prepared or descripted..but he is bigger than compsognathus and juvenile...may be he is related to to compsognathus , but older...the new finds of china...byrds (confuciusornis),dinosaurs with filigran structures,dinosaurs with featherlike structures or feathers,and secondr byrds like caudipteryx confirm that the ancestor of the byrds was dinosaurs..caudipteryx with relativ modern feathers is phylogentisch descripted current to be a member of the oviraptor famile and represent a secondr flightless group of byrds... i remember a oviraptor with the name nomingia gobiensis where has a pygostyl..and only byrds have pygostyls...so the meanings today...caudipteryx evouluted from a former flying byrd to a flightles byrd (a mesozioc living fossil..a mesozoik kiwi)..he is like all other finds from china 25 mill years younger than archi...a sharp separation after the new finds from china between byrds and reptils is not easy today..the featherstructures and primive feathers from dinosaurs 25 mill. years younger than the modern feathers of archaeopterix can not be protofeathers....the beginnig of feathers must be in the line of coelurosaurs millions of years older than archaeopterix...the evolution of feathers has only secundr to do ,to give byrds the opputurnity to fly..the earlyest dino with hypothetic protofeathers or skinfolikels where evoluted to feathers, needed the feathers to control his bodytemperatur and some other factors..so one of the few hypothesen...and evoluted in a mosaikmix of dinosaurs with feathers or featherlike structures and paralell up to the byrds where the feathers evoluted up to the modern feathers archaeopterx has ,and parallel back from some flying byrds to flighless byrds (caudipteryx)...archaeopterx is not the direct line of all byrds...his feathers are to modern, but he is close in line of the earlyest reptil/byrds (before archi) where must have heypotehetic protofeathers or skinfolikels where evouluted to feathers....the problem is that fossil finds in the group of coelurosaurs where are older than archi are very rare...and fossilfinds with feathers or hypothetic protofeathers or skinfolikels where evoluted to feathers is a million $ lottery win.. the dinolike byrd archi is the oldest fossil with feathers and the feathers are modern..foundplaces like solnhofen ot the yixan formation are very rare and lucky exception in the palantology..pitt[This message has been edited by pitt, 09-16-2003]

quote:

---

Besides, coelurosaurs and dromaeosaurs were running animals with large hind legs and small arms

---

Sounds like a chicken or emu to me ....

And I suppose chickens and emus were on their way to the air? They are secondarily filghtless. Just like Caudipteryx &co.Anyway, are there any bird/birdlike reptile fossil dating before Archaeopteryx? Protoavis does not seem popular here, and nobody cared to check it out I guess.

Umm... Dromaeosaurs don't have small arms. The arms of Sinornithosaurus are 80% as long as the legs.And also, If all the feathered dinosaurs are actually secondarily flightless birds, how do you explain the feathered dinosaurs Beipaiosaurus, Cryptovolans, Omnivoropteryx, and Sinosauropteryx? How do you explain the quills on psittacosaurs?------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!