--Original Message- From: siriraks arrathrakorn
<firstname.lastname@example.org>Date: 05 November 1998 19:40
>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!
But they are living in difference time and
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.
>So, may be.
>Archaeopteryx is may not the bird origin. But they are much more
>flying organism in the past and only some of them advance than other.
None. None found yet. None existed. Birdlike - yes. Arborial - yes.
Hairy and bristly - yes. Feathered - no.
>But it not make them derived to bird. In the past may have feather
>evolution more than one time. And only some of them led to bird.
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.
Feathers are extremely specialised - difficult to evolve. They took a long
time to appear (certainly a long time to appear in the fossil record). You
would expect the biggest explosion in birds to happen just after the first
feather. The biggest explosion we see appears just after the first fossil
feather. This time, we are lucky - we *do* see the important event in
evolution. Feathers evolved once - around the time of _Archaeopteryx_. 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).
John V Jackson email@example.com
(not a palaeontologist, and sometimes wrong, but not on this!)