WASHINGTON (AP) - A new analysis of archaeopteryx, the earliest known birdlike animal, shows it had feet like dinosaurs - a finding that adds weight to the belief that the birds frequenting backyard feeders today are descendants of mighty ancient carnivores.

While not all scientists agree, many consider archaeopteryx the first bird, since it had wings and was the first fossil found with feathers. Details have been lacking, however, since only a few fossil specimens have been found. The new one, reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science, is the 10th known and one of the most complete.

Contrary to what had been thought, the new fossil shows that the first toe was not reversed in archaeopteryx, as is the case on current birds, according to a team led by Gerald Mayr of Research Institute Schenkenberg in Frankfurt, Germany.

Lack of the reversed toe would hamper the animal's ability to perch like current birds, the researchers said.

However, its second toe could be extended, like those of theropod - beast-footed - dinosaurs.

Matthew Carrano, a dinosaur expert at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, agreed that the discovery supports those who consider birds descendants of dinosaurs.

The lack of a reversed toe doesn't mean an archaeopteryx couldn't sit in a tree, but probably indicates that it was not a habitually tree-living animal, said Carrano, who was not part of Mayr's team.

"We assume it could fly but we don't have a lot of information about its flying ability," he added.

Most of the known specimens are partial so the new one adds to the knowledge of the animals, Carrano said.

Archaeopteryx was originally identified as the earliest fossil bird because of its feathers, Carrano said. Since then, other dinosaurs with feathers have been found; if archaeopteryx were discovered today it probably would be considered more dinosaur than bird, he said.

The specimen, discovered in the Solnhofen area of Germany, was acquired by the Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, Wyo.
Source
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Birds evolved from dinosaurs alright?

Why'd they become so small and fragile O_o.

Yes, although the Archeopteryx is widely considered to be an evolutionary dead-end.



There are a couple of different theories about that (and it's possible more than one is correct). One of the theories is about the decreasing amount of oxygen in the air making trouble for creatures with a higher body mass. Another is a climate change that encouraged a different sort of evolutionary pattern.

But once they started getting smaller there wouldn't be a problem anymore, so why'd they get SO small?

EDIT: And what kind of climate change would cause this and is there proof that this happend?

These are the things I mean when I say you have to assume quite a bit when it comes to evolution. I believe in evolution to an extent, just not as much as most people.

Well, that's the thing about evolution: it's generally random. It isn't a matter of the dinosaurs noticing that it was getting harder to breath, so they started getting smaller. It was a case of a mutation arising that started changing the dinosaurs, and the mutations that resulted in animals more capable of procreating than others passed on the gene. It isn't a matter of getting SO small, because that implies that there was some type of decision involved in the process. It's simply that the gene that made the dinos smaller is the one that got passed along because (presumably), it also gave them a procreative advantage.



It is difficult to say. The theory we are talking about here is called Punctuated Equilibrium. Basically, it attempts to explain the sudden burst of evolutionary change that the fossil record shows, along with the slow and steady sort of evolution we are familiar. For instance, temperature changes have been shown to cause certain types of species to transform into different species when applied to the larval stage. It is possible, though not yet proven (to my knowledge), that the human genome may be susceptible to change through environmental changes as well, for instance, due to environmental duress (such as cataclysmic disasters) or even extraterrestrial sources (such as solar flare radiation).



What have we assumed?

You've assumed that there was a climate change that caused this to happen. =P

Interesting. One thing though


You said evolution is generaly random, but when It seems too unlikley for certain things to have happend randomly, I have evolutionists on my back.

No assumption there. Climate changes are recorded by nature in a variety of ways. Everything from the amount of oxygen lock in glacial ice, to the amount of rainfal shown by a trees growth rings, heck, even the polarization of the Earth's magnetic field within iron-bearing stones, it's all recorded and so black and white it is considered factual, not subjective, data.



For starters, you don't have people at your back. You have people trying to correct the incorrect statements you make, that is true, but don't think that there is some sort of plot against you.

When you say things like: "Why'd they become so small and fragile O_o.", "But once they started getting smaller there wouldn't be a problem anymore, so why'd they get SO small?", "And what kind of climate change would cause this and is there proof that this happend?", those are questions that people will happily answer. When you say things like "These are the things I mean when I say you have to assume quite a bit when it comes to evolution.", that is a basic and unfounded criticism that people will react to.

If you have questions, great, ask them. Don't assume, though, that because you do not know the answers to these questions, that no one else does either, and therefore there must be something faulty, or something that must be assumed, or something that must be taken on faith, about evolution. Ask and learn, don't assume.

No no, they get on my back if I say "I believe this was too complicated to happen by chance".


You still have to assume that you're correct when saying that this is what caused them to get smaller.

I am not assuming I am correct at all. The theories are logically valid and factually supported, and as of yet, have not been falsified, but there is no guarantee that that will not change in the future.

In other words, these theories are likely explanations, not definite causes.

Not all dinosaurs were big and massive, there were plenty that were very small, but of course they don't get as much attention as the big spectacular ones. Though in the end the small ones were the winners, because they survived the Extinction along with small mammals, aquatic creatures and insects.

Small dinosaur: Compsognathus.

Pic source

The smaller you are, the less energy you need, you can reproduce more, and the ecosystem can hold more....

Also, its unlikely that Trex evolved into birds, more likely that Coelphysis or Compsognathus did.

it's for me birds evolved into human how i don't know but if we watch carefully we have some aspect of it like dinosaur bird but we lost ours wings.

Bird never evolved into humans...its preposterous! Birds evolved from archosaurs, humans didn't...they are two seperate evolution pathways.

because scientific said that !!! i never trust what they said they are wrong at 98 % for this

What are you saying? Your sentence structure is unreadable.

Well, never trust a scientists unless you understand everything he's doing. And never trust them unless they show pictures/video of the "experiments" or "tests" they do. How else do we know the experiments actualy ever happend? Because they said so?

Yes, I do understand what they're doing....Bird evolved from Archosaurs, humans didn't...TWO SEPERATE PATHWAYS!

that funny didn't it each time we found fossil of human being they said it's a monkey ^^.

??? Can't read your sentence again...I'll try though.

Human evolved from Apes....apes evolved from lesser primates, primates evolved from placentals...which evolved from mammals

I suggest you look at a evolutionary tree

Humans
^
Placental
^
Mammals
^
cynodonts
^
therapsids
^
SYNAPSID
^
REPTILE > DIAPSID > archosaurs > theropods > birds


There....see?

Plus, the physiology is all wrong for birds to evolve into humans...Its impossible...Need any more proof?

I collect skulls and bones from animals so I personally have evidence to back some of this up...

There is 0% chance that humans evolved from birds...everything proves against it...physiology...evolution..etc.

Are you talking to me? I hope not because I was agreeing with you.

No, I'm not talking to you...I'm talking to Beryth

When scientists say that it's likely that humans evolved from monkeys they're not sh**tin', Beryth. To my left sits a skull from a vervet monkey. It resembles a human's so much I'm blown away every time I look at it!

It's so simular. Same number of insisors, molars (including wisdom) teeth). Domed braincase, walls behind the eyesockets. Yeah.

Birds are way do dissimular. For one thing the jaw hinge is rigged up differently. It's like a reptiles. The hip and sholder structures are very different also.

Bone structure is all different

Totally.

Not all birds became that fragile and small.
There are few birds, called Ratites that are quite large, more than 1.5m tall as a matter of fact. Actually, the only creature known to have make a Ratite go extinct is human...
Meaning that if it wasn't for human hunt, we'll still be having many large birds.

But I guess that's overlooking the fact that the great majority of birds are indeed small.
It wasn't always like that. Few million years ago there were many large birds from different species and families. It is probable that the rise of the mammals as the promiment animals caused most of them to evolve into small, fast creatures in order to survive a mammal-dominant world.
It is interesting to note indeed that most of the large Ratites live in places either difficult for large mammalian predators to live in (deserts in the case of the Ostrich) or places where there were no fast, large mammals at all (New Zealand where no big mammals existed, and Australia which only had slow-moving marsipual predators).

Ostriches prefer grasslands, not deserts.


Australia had many large, fast marsupial predators. They were all hunted to extinction.

An ostrich, the largest living bird, can swallow an apple. But a phorusrhacid could swallow a medium-sized dog in one gulp... birds haven't always been small...

Terror Birds:

Ostriches live mostly in the Savanah and Saharan Desert... both quite difficult regions to live in.


Marsupials are incapable of being that fast... that was one their disadvantage against non-marsupial mammals.
As a matter of fact, the Kangaroo is one of the fastest marsupials in history, and can only reach a top speed of 30mph.

Tasmanian Tiger, Cat-like giant marsupial predators, Giant Kangaroos, could all reach pretty fast speeds.

Australia also had some remarkable ambush predators, the crocodiles and Megalania.

Was a slow mover... it actually got tired pretty fast if and when it had to run fast, and that's a recorded fact.


Which were cold-blooded and thus couldn't match with warm-blooded birds and mammals.

I'll remind you today that crocodiles thrive of mammals. They are the ultimate predator in the water. They are much more adapted than the lions, cheetahs, and leopards.

You still forget there were other marsupial predators that ruled Australia.