Page 42 - The Origin of Birds and Flight

40 The Origin of Birds and Flight

Proponents of the arboreal theory maintain that
alleged primitive birds ascended to the trees to escape
enemies or to build nests, that they climbed the trees
with their front claws and subsequently learned to fly by
gliding down to lower branches. Evolutionist critics of
the theory, however, state that Archaeopteryx’s claws
were not suited to a fast-moving creature that ran along
the ground, and resembled those of modern-day perch-
ing birds. 24
David E. Fastovsky, the professor of geosciences and
paleontologist, and the cellular biologist and anatomist
David B. Weishampel express their criticisms of the
arboreal theory:
It has been argued that perhaps the earliest birds scaled
trees, and from that position learned to fly. There is
however, no evidence for an arboreal proto-bird, no
evidence for climbing adaptations, and no evidence in
the skeleton of any nonavian theropod for arboreal
habits. 25
Interestingly, critics of this theory propose an even
more inconsistent one—the cursorial theory described
above. They find themselves in such a predicament by
obliging themselves to offer some explanation within
the evolutionary template. Those who maintain that
dinosaurs’ forelegs gradually grew into wings are equal-
ly critical of the theory proposed, mainly by Alan
Feduccia and Larry Martin, of the “from the trees
down,” or arboreal theory.
The evidence shows that both sides are correct in
their criticisms. Birds evolved neither from dinosaurs
nor from small reptiles living in the trees. Anyone free of
an evolutionist preconception can easily see the incon-
sistencies inherent in both claims.