Lee Olsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DDeden Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lee Olsen Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > DDeden Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm merely using the terms
> correctly.
> > >
> > > Then how did you come up with a modern
> owl
> > for a
> > > model?
> >
> > DDeden: "They were not really fast ground
> runners,
> > they probably hopped most of the time. They
> were
> > forest tree-perchers (see big perching claw)
> that
> > swooped down on ground prey, and probably
> danced
> > and displayed near ground level. Leopards,
> owls,
> > fishing cats (Borneo) share some similar
> traits.
> > "
> >
> > I claimed owls share some similar traits.
> Hardly a
> > "model".
>
> I just looked up the word "model" and your use of
> the word fits, IMO.


Cite ref. please.

>
> > > Terms are not the issue.
> >
> > They are the language of science.
>
> Language is not evidence. Without data it's
> verbiage.


Data and evidence without language? Have fun with that. I'll stick with language first.

>
> > First you claimed modern
> > > ostriches didn't count because they live
> on
> > the
> > > savannah today.
> >
> > I claimed that modern birds including
> ostriches
> > kiwis and cassowaries lack a long fleshy
> boney
> > tail, while dino-birds had them.
>
> A long fleshy tail is not evidence for "slow
> moving" or "hopped most of the time".
>

No idea where you are getting this, maybe chopping my sentences into bite size meaningless fragments again? Please cite ref.

> > But "ostrich-like" animals did
> > > evolve during the Cretaceous,
> >
> > Did they have long boney fleshy tails, pen
> > feathers, teeth? If so, they I would not
> refer to
> > them as ostrich-like, but rather as
> dino-birds.
>
> OK, since you objected to the word "model", I'm
> easy, call the "ostrich-like" association as
> "share some similar traits".
> None of the things you have pointed out is
> evidence for a pouncer, a hopper, or a percher.

Of course dino-birds share some similar traits with modern birds.
That doesn't make them modern birds.

>
> >
> > dense forests or
> > > not, and given modern ostriches can run
> fast,
> > on
> > > the ground without climbing trees to
> pounce
> > on
> > > anything, and if their ancestors have
> the
> > same leg
> > > structure, balance etc. it seems to me
> they
> > didn't
> > > need to climb trees. While the ancestors
> of
> > > ostriches came somewhat later, there
> still
> > wasn't
> > > African savannahs around yet, so they
> must
> > have
> > > evolved in a different environment.
> >
> > I've never seen an ostrich pounce, its long
> neck
> > allows it to poke around though.
>
> Of course not, that's my point. You have never
> seen a Zs pounce either.

I've never seen a Zs. Neither has anyone.

>
> > > I don't see anything in the paper about
> Zs
> > not
> > > being a fast runner or their mentioning
> > hopping.
> > > I'm still waiting for you to provide a
> > counter
> > > paper or some evidence that that Zs
> were
> > slow,
> > > tree climbing hopper/pouncers.
> >
> > Pouncing from above is swift.
>
> No one is arguing the definition of swift. The
> definition of swift isn't evidence for Zs pouncing
> out of trees onto victims because it was not a
> very fast runner.

because? Traits do not evolve "because it was not" something. There is no evidence that Zs ran.

>
> > Climbing isn't,
> > upward flying evolved which changed the
> structure
> > of the shoulders, just as brachiation did so
> in
> > apes.
>
> The fact that apes can hop if you forced them to
> doesn't mean they normally sit around waiting in a
> tree to pounce on a victim.

So?

>
> > > OK, so maybe it will take a while for a
> > counter
> > > paper to show up, but here was another
> > example I
> > > linked to:
> > >
> > >
> > > "These proportions imply it could put
> great
> > long
> > > strides in and move fast," said Dave
> Hone, a
> > > paleontologist based at the Chinese
> Academy
> > of
> > > Sciences in Beijing who has been
> studying
> > the
> > > skeleton."
> >
> >
> > Kangaroos, kangaroo rats, kangaroo mice have
> long
> > lower limb proportions but rarely stride
> > alternatively, they can move very fast.
>
> Good...progress. Then your claim for 'They were
> not really fast ground runners" is not valid?

They (K,KR,KM) leap quickly, as did dino-birds based on anatomic similarities.

>
> > > Certainly these paleontologists
> understand
> > > proportions and if these creature have
> > running
> > > proportions, why would they hop most of
> the
> > time
> > > or perch or pounce?
> >
> > A long boney fleshy tail is not needed for a
> > running ostrich, but it is for a kangaroo.
>
> Ah, but both, as you just pointed out, can move
> very fast, so your claim "They were not really
> fast ground runners" has been refuted by your own
> examples.

You better throw in the towel (again). Why do you keep distorting a simple message?

Dinobirds (eg. Zs) were leapers, climbers, pouncers with some flight capability.


So if a kangaroo wanted to catch
> something on the ground, it would not have to
> climb into a tree first to do it because they are
> fast.

More unnecessary confusion?

Try to understand this simple message:

Dinobirds (eg. Zs) were leapers, climbers, pouncers, with some flight capability.

>
> As I see it, you have just added another step into
> the process that is not really necessary.

Again, Dinobirds (eg. Zs) were leapers, climbers, pouncers, with some flight capability.

> Animals with running proportions and
> killer/fighting claws then, even if they did hop,
> are still fast if you want to bring kangaroos into
> the mix. There is still nothing to show why either
> would need to be climbing trees if both are fast
> on the ground.

I guess you didn't see the photo of the tree kangaroo.

Since the conversation appears stagnant, I'll stop here.

DDeden