What drove bird evolution?

Somebody's been watching too much Flintstones. Sauropods aren't cranes; unlike the cranes they had no need to cantilever enormous loads at the end of their necks, so they wouldn't need a "10 to 12 foot spur."The bony crest that they did have would have been more than sufficient:

What, says you? As the man said:

quote:

---

Once somebody's been shown to be an ideologue and a liar, you don't have to go on checking his pronouncements...

---

Boring, RW. If all you have are empty pronouncements that "it simply can't be so!", all you've done is present a cynical argument from personal incredulity.

Here's that crane again, handling torque loads hundreds of thousands of times greater than the sauropod:Can you show me, on that crane, where the thousands of Iowa-class battleship engines are located? Because I can't seem to find them, but your argument insists that they must be there.

You mean, your claim about sauropod torque loads and Iowa-class battleship engines? Yes, given that the sauropod neck handled torque loads in the exact same way the modern skycrane does, I would indeed say your claim was irrelevant. That was the purpose of my example.But it's good to see you agree. Now can we drop this ridiculous gravity fiction?

An assertion contradicted by a number of skeletons shown to you so far. The sauropod's arched back provides a more than high enough anchor point for the torque loads experienced by the neck, and the tail provides the same counterbalance that the skycrane uses.Boring, RW. If you can't do anything but repeat already-rebuked assertions, why do you even post here?