Scientists Find Missing Link in Bird Evolution 236
BlueCup writes "Dozens of fossils of an ancient loon-like creature that some say is the missing link in bird evolution have been discovered in northwest China. The remains of 40 of the nearly modern amphibious birds, so well-preserved that some even have their feathers, were found in Gansu province, researchers report in Friday's issue of the journal Science. Previously only a single leg of the creature, known as Gansus yumenensis, had been found."
FSM Strikes Again! (Score:5, Funny)
They were planted there by the Flying Spaghetti Monster to test the convictions of the faithful!
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolutionary Link (Score:3, Informative)
Evolutionary links are inferred from biological data. With living species this is done primarily with DNA, but for fossils you have to use morphological information. So the taxonomists would line up all the specimens they have and figure out morphological connections among them. You might find that one group of fossils all have a certain bone structure, so they get grouped together while another group with different bone structure is interpreted as being a different lineage. You might be lucky enough to fin
The giveaway is that... (Score:2)
GSM should take a little more care with its duckies.
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:5, Insightful)
When pro-creation (anti-evolution) individuals make statements like "put a bunch of car parts in your garage and leave it for a year, then see if it's evolved into a Honda", I tend to doubt your assertions. For my own experience, creationists like to THINK they're being logical, but then accuse evolutionists of being "closed minded" when they point out the ridiculous logical flaws and mistaken assumptions in ID or creationism.
Also, the article forgot to mention anything about how they know these birds actually are evolutionary ancestors of modern birds, only that "they just are".
It's a short, summary article in a non-technical journal. If you want a more technical explanation I'm sure you can find one from a source targeted at that level of discussion. But don't assume that the researchers are making it up, just because a five paragraph summary fails to go into detailed technical explanations.
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:3, Funny)
Guest: And every human racial type is originally from another planet.
Host: Hey! What about dogs! I bet animals might have all had a different home planet too.
Guest: Uhhhhh....sure.
Host: WOW!!!
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:5, Insightful)
The PP is right, people who take part in these arguments are only looking for a fight and you can see just as many idiots on one side as you can on the other. Or do you really think that e.g. "evolutionists" are holy and Always Right(tm) while ID'ers are the devil? That wouldn't make you any better than them.
Finally, I cannot help wondering why ID'ers forget that their God might just have created evolution as a means by which his will is done, and evolutioners forget that there is much we do not know. Evolution might be a mechanism set in place by the aliens when the mothership left Erath, for all we now.
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
The problem I have with ID is, the so-called "leaders" of the movement make blatantly false assertions in almost every argument. Anytime you hear an ID proponent say, "well, this evidence disproves
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think any respectable scientist has denied that this is a possibility, in the strictest sense of the word. Maybe earth was seeded by aliens and evolution took its course from there. Maybe we didn't evolve from lower life forms, but instead were placed here overnight (over-7-nights?) by some higher being. Maybe we just popped into existence a millisecond ago with all of our memories pre-install
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:3, Informative)
And that's the main point that academics have been making - evolution (right or wrong) is a testable scientific theory, ID (right or wrong) is not. There's a lot of static from more emotion-laden people on both sides, but that's the view of almost all scientists.
some fossils that could be intermediary. to my knowledge, not a single one has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, though
The Horse Series [wikipedia.org] is rather compellin
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how creationists use this as a BAD thing. "Look at those wiley evolutionists... every time they find something new that doesn't fit, they up and change their theory!!!"
As if that wasn't exactly how science is supposed to work.
Evidence (Score:2)
Scientists are doing the best they can with the evidence they have.
Sorry, MOST scientists are doing the best they can with what they have. Some seem to be saying that they have Arrived at some point where they Really Understand the Truth, when what they have done is understand the evidence they have, pending new discoveries. I suppose you might be able to
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:4, Funny)
Do you have any evidence to support this statement, or is it just something you trot out in every discussion of evolution?
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm just an evolutionary biologist, so you'll have to take this with a grain of salt, but that's bullshit. What they did was note that most species of birds near that occur near the base of the evolutionary tree are aquatic. That's it: they described a pattern. I suppose you could be right, maybe they have some vested interest in early birds being aquatic. I can't imagine what possible motivation you might have for fabricating such an esoteric claim, but you're the one who (anonymously) claims to know so much more than us biologists.
Of course, you could very easily and objectively test this yourself. Look up the latest evolutionary tree for birds, figure out which ones the ecology is known for, and label your tree accordingly. Then look at the tree, and see if the species near the base of the tree are mostly aquatic. If they are, then the guys in the article are ok. I don't think this is pressing enough that I'm going to rush out and do it myself. But you can be sure that there are more than enough fanatical ornithologists in the world to check these things out.
If you really can't find an "evolutionist" who knows more about the subject than you do, you are looking in the wrong places.
yp.
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the only expert on creationism that I am aware of is Kent Hovind, who clearly lies in each of his lectures (or at least uses deliberate omissions to make his points and fails to do appropriate research; if you're talking about stratigraphy, for instance, you might want to know who came up with the idea, and if you're trying to
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Eyewitness accounts -- or unsubstantiated claims of eyewitness accounts -- cannot be objectively evaluated. Empirical observations can be objectively evaluated. There is a key difference.
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
35-70 years (Score:3, Informative)
What sort of research have you seen? I remember from catholic religion classes, 70 years was considered about right. A survey of the scholarship at wikipedia [wikipedia.org] claims ranges of:
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:3, Insightful)
I am saying that eyewitness accounts cannot be scientific, nor can they be considered as reliable as empirical observations that can be reproduced by any individual.
Re:FSM Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Re:Without Theism, Rationality Goes Bye-Bye (Score:2)
Then again, not everything has to be pre-determined. Look at quantum mechanics. Not only are things not pre-determined, they're not determined at all till you actually look at it.
Re:Without Theism, Rationality Goes Bye-Bye (Score:2)
More directly addressing your point, dismissing the idea of control by destiny or some supposed omniscient being does not leave one with only chemical reactions and Einsteinian physics to explain behaviour--some of us subscribe to the idea of free will. At any rate, enough is no
Re:Without Theism, Rationality (strawman) (Score:3, Insightful)
It always strikes me as peculiar when people refer to "atheism" as though it were a unified philosophy. Dividing people into "theists" and "atheists" in itself is silly, since it is obvious that opinions vary greatly in the "theists" camp, even within the same sub-groups. What kind of uniformity or cohesiveness do you expect when you group people by entities they do not believe in?
What I find more disturbing in general is that in spite of all the sc
Missing Link, eh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:3, Informative)
Case in point: Some science journalist invents the "missing link" label, and the readers now believe that "transitional species" were not well-adapted specimens for their time, but were merely a waystation from one well-adapted species to another. This
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:2)
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:2)
Max
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:2)
The phrase is NOT USED AT ALL in TFA. The Slashdot submitter presumably added it to spice it up and bring out the usual flame war. Scientists haven't used the term for decades. Blame the creationists and tabliod journalists for its currency.
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:2)
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:2)
But, how close is it to Xenu [wikipedia.org]?
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't that obvious that "missing link" and "common ancestor" ideas are mutually exclusive?
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:2)
Really? Who said that? It wasn't even mentioned in TFA. It seems a reflex to add the phrase when mentioning any significant fossil discovery. I also like how the word "evolution" is prominently in the headline. It seems calculated to bring on rerun #497 of Slashdot's evolution vs creationism flamewar. Well, it's usually good for 800 posts, maybe after they get back from Church on Sunday.
More interesting perhaps:
Re:Missing Link, eh? (Score:2)
You mean the duck.
>
Amen to that! The luck of being found after 110 my is profound.
Consider the 150 years or so of serious palentology that it took to find one 110 myo duck.
Assuming that the rate of discovery decays exponentially with age, and it takes, let's say, a week to find a 10 yo duck corpse, exp(nx+m), x|0.02=>10, x|150=>1.1e8...
I predict on the basis of curve fitting that after 10 more years we'll discover a duck that is 320 myo, and
within 50 years the old
Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:2)
That argument is a fallacy, I don't have the list with me right now... but that HAS to be one. The reason is, there IS a point where the gaps can be filled in enough that it's obvious to anyone that it's a continuous graduation from one to the other. Take donkeys, mules and horses, nobody argues that they are SOMEHOW related... also dogs and wolves, foxes, nobody would try to argue
Re:Oh noes! (Score:2)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:2)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:2)
Of course, the scientific reports don't seem to use the phrase "missing link". The significance is mostly that it's a high-quality new bird fossil,
Re:Oh noes! (Score:3, Interesting)
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Opposite birds... (Score:2)
Did these birds fly upside down, or in reverse gear?
Wasnt this already found ? (Score:2)
Is "Can you say OOOOLD news" department at it again ?
Name? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Name? (Score:2)
No, because as the Latin name states, it came from Yumen [wikipedia.org], not Peking.
How do they know this creature was amphibious?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How do they know this creature was amphibious?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How do they know this creature was amphibious?? (Score:2)
Re:How do they know this creature was amphibious?? (Score:3, Informative)
The exact wording, from the abstract [sciencemag.org] is
The anatomy of Gansus, like that of other non-neornithean (nonmodern) ornithuran birds, indicates specialization for an amphibious life-style, supporting the hypothesis that modern birds originated in aq
Re:How do they know this creature was amphibious?? (Score:2)
That's what "amhibious" means. You're probbaly thinking of "amhibians", like frogs, etc.
amhibious Biology. Living or able to live both on land and in water.
Re:How do they know this creature was amphibious?? (Score:2)
amhibious -> amphibious
amhibians -> amphibians
probbaly -> probably
If "preview" wasn't so damn slow I would do it more.
"Missing link"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Missing link"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Missing link"? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Missing link"? (Score:2)
Another Chinese Fossil?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Caveat Emptor (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another Chinese Fossil?!? (Score:2)
"Missing Link" eh? (Score:2)
Where's the link? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um ... they found an old duck ... and we still have ducks today ... and ... um ... can somebody please help me out figure out why the story title says "Scientists Find Missing Link in Bird Evolution". Thanks.
Re:Where's the link? (Score:2)
As for why it says "missing link", that's because sensationalism is very popular.
Re:Where's the link? (Score:2)
----
Previously there was a gap between ancient and modern species of birds, and "Gansus fits perfectly into this gap," added Jerald D. Harris of Dixie State College in Utah.
"Gansus is the oldest example of the nearly modern birds that branched off of the trunk of the family tree that began with the famous proto-bird Archaeopteryx," said Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania, a co-author of the paper along with Lamanna, You and
Re:Where's the link? (Score:2)
No, they found a new form that has some traits that ducks have. If it walks like a duck but doesn't quack like a duck, then it could be a predecessor to a duck.
can somebody please help me out figure out why the story title says "Scientists Find Missing Link in Bird Evolution". Thanks.
Because they found a signifigant transitional form. Not only is it not a duck, it fails to have many of the current defining traits of birds. It has a mix of traits - some primitive traits of proto-birds a
couldn't resist, sorry (Score:3, Funny)
Gah! (Score:2, Insightful)
C'mon people, get it right. There is no such thing as a 'missing link'. What we have here are previously unknown Transitional Fossils (you know - the kind that the Creationists keep insisting don't exist). Let's try to use the correct terminology. Furthermore, the subject line indicates that there is only one missing link, and we've found it (yay!). Truth is that there are countless missing Transitional Fossils, and no - it's has nothing to do with the loud yammering of Ignorant Bible-Bashers. The truth is
auntie? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Regardless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Godwin time... (Score:2)
Re:Regardless... (Score:2)
Two of the most technologically advanced states in the last century (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), were very un-free places.
In any case, do you celebrate mother's day? Because Stalin had a mother. Shame on you mommies!
Re:Regardless... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Soviet Union had good competence in a few key areas that were funded well, but lagged in overall development.
Re:Regardless... (Score:2)
It very much enables it in the first place.
What is your evidence for this statement?
You mix up science and engineering. And Nazi Germany's technology was based on the scientific lead Germany had achieved in the early late 19th and early 20th century (and they lagged in things like code breaking, operational research,
No, I'm not. Nazi Germany contributed things to science too. In the field of aerospace, for example, a lot of ba
Re:Rehash... (Score:2)
In Communist China the egg hatches Gansus yumenensis?
Re:"Previously only a single leg ... (Score:2)
Re:Doubious Dating Techniques (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doubious Dating Techniques (Score:5, Informative)
Often proponents of creationism and intelligent design tend to choose the dating technique that fits the picture they have in their minds. For example, the poster above me stated a single, unrefined example of a dating technique being off in order to set a mindset that this technique is unreliable, and, unjustifiably, useless in all situations. He or she also states the half life of carbon-14, and a continued presence of it in fossils to understate the possible age of the fossil, conviently fitting into creationary mold set by the bible. How old is the world again? 6,000 years?
Re:Doubious Dating Techniques (Score:5, Informative)
After ~60k years, the level of C-14 in a sample can not be reliably seperated from the "background noise" of the C-14 that might just happen to be lingering around.
Potassium-argon dating can not be used on once-living things because radioactive Potassium-40 decays into Argon, a gas, which tends to escape into the environment -- unless it's in solid rock. Thus is is useful for dating lava flows. Also, the half-life of radioactive Potassium-40 is very long, about 1.3 million years (compare to C-14 at a mere 5730 years). Therefore K-Ar dating is only useful for dating "really old non-organic things" like... ancient lava flows.
It's simply a matter of using the right tool for the job.
=Smidge=
Re:Doubious Dating Techniques (Score:2)
I am not a fundie but there has to be a reliable way to date something. Otherwise scientists would not claim things like the age of the ducks in the article or any scientific paper.
Re:Doubious Dating Techniques (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, no; there doesn't have to be a reliable way to date something. There are a great many ways of dating old things. Usually, scientists consider a date determined by a single method to be preliminary and requiring verification. The verification usually happens by using several different methods. If they all come up with a similar date, that is considered good support for the date.
Most of the methods used by paleontlogists are based on various sorts of decay processes, mostly the decay of radioactive isotopes. Taken singly, each of these has ways that that the samples can be contaminated, giving a bad date. But different chemical elements or compounds have different kinds of contamination that produce different kinds of dating errors. If you use N different dating methods, it's unlikely that all would be contaminated in such a way as to produce the same error. So if all N (or N-1) give the same date, that implies that there's little or no contamination, and the date is reliable.
The first scientific papers dealing with a new discovery often have tentative dates due to the use of a single dating method. But with new fossil beds, once good fossils have been excavated, it's routine to apply several different dating methods to pin down the fossils' ages more precisely.
This whole topic is a serious scientific field in it own right. Explaining how it all works would take several years of intensive study.
Re:Doubious Dating Techniques (Score:2)
Scientists tend to report everything. If multiple dating techniques are used, they would report them all. Of course, ambition, expetation, and other problems with human nature lead to flaws. That's why the scientific method has peer review.
So, feel free to review the published findings.
I've found that people who hold convictions but are presented with contrary evidence will often try to write-off the person presenting the evidence. What you did with your post is
Re:Doubious Dating Techniques (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is it stated that Carbon-14 dating was used to derive the age of the fossil? The article makes no mention of it; presumably a different dating technique was used that does not have the same limitations as Carbon-14 dating. It would appear that your commentary is a non-sequitur.
Often evolutionists choose the dating technique that fits the picture they have in their minds. For example, 200 year old lava flows have been dated to be 3 billion years old by the potassium-argon dating method.
This is another example of creationists distorting facts [talkorigins.org]
Re:Doubious Dating Techniques (Score:2)
Yes; this is an example of why scientists usually treat single-method dates as preliminary. Most dating methods can be contaminated in one or more ways, giving an erroneous date. But different methods have different kinds of possible contaminations, and the errors are usually wildly different. So you use several different methods. If some of them give the same date, that's evidence that th
Re:Distortion of Facts? (Score:2)
It appears to be another case of creationist quote-mining.
You have a reputation for error. (Score:2)
Re:Doubious Dating Techniques (Score:2, Insightful)
No, C-14 should be decayed to 1/2 in fossils 5730 years old, 1/4 in fossils 11,460 years old, 1/8 in fossils 17,190 years old, etc.
In case you didn't notice, that sequence works to infinity, and C-14 never is "fully decayed".
That said, it is only reliable up to about 60,000 years (10 times the age of the "Christian" universe) due to our ability to measure it.
Maybe if we were all blessed w
Re:Oh no, not again... (Score:2)
The problem is the spin, not the theory (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't the missing link, it's a missing link. The fossil record is imperfect, and that makes every new fossil discovery a previously 'missing link' that connects a pair of things together in an evolutionary chain. This doesn't indicate a problem with Darwin's theory, just the tendency for journalists to sensationalize things in hopes that people will actually pay attention to less-than-earth-shattering discoveries. Unfortunately, scientists play the same game, as it helps give their work higher profile
Fascinating logic, really. (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire complaint there is that the find was called "the missing link". Except... who called it "the missing link"? Well... Fox News.
Fox News manages to disprove evolution sheerly by how they chose to word their headline? Wow. Who would have seen it coming?
This is really the most fascinating thing about the "Intelligent Design" movement. The most extreme and fundamental flaw with "Intelligent Design" creationists is that they simply don't produce anything; year after year while evolutionary biology moves ahead and makes interesting new discoveries, intelligent design creationists keep repeating the exact same mantras over and over, year in and year out, barely stopping even to revise them in the face of refutations. While science goes out and does research, intelligent design creationists sit around and do nothing, because they either already know all the answers or don't care what the answers are.
You'd think intelligent design creationists would be kind of embarrassed of this, and try not to call attention to this. But no. In fact, they take it as a point of pride. Every time evolutionary biologists learn something new, intelligent design creationists-- in particular those at Dembski's uncommon descent blog-- jump on it and claim victory. "Ah ha!" they said. "Evolutionary theory now knows something it didn't before! Why didn't it know that before? This shows how flawed evolution is, that they keep discovering new things!". IDCers see evolution's willingness to learn and constant progress as a sign of weakness, flipfloppery and intellectual bankruptcy. The IDCers themselves, meanwhile, are safe from any such allegations, as each year they remain exactly as ignorant as they were before.
Re:Fascinating logic, really. (Score:2, Interesting)
I have, quite recently, observed a creationist state that humans should not attempt to learn how the universe works, and that God did not give humans brains for that purpose.
In fact, the creationist's exact quote is "God didn't give us brains to bother about how the world works; he told us all we need to know about how the world works and we venture into that area on our own, an [freerepublic.com]
Re:Fascinating logic, really. (Score:2)
Creationists believe that natura
Re:What came first? (Score:2)
Mate, you've got to learn to touch type, you'll be able to finish all your posts, and it's a lot less frustrating than hunting and pecking.
Re:Why is it proof of evolution ? (Score:2, Interesting)
The whole point is that it's a "bird" that is different from the birds we have today. It's also much more closely-related to older birds and bird-like creatures. That's why we call it a transitional fossil. You provide us with no source or explanation of why this isn't another feather in the cap of evolution.
Then you attack the media and slashdot for reporting it, once
Re:Why is it proof of evolution ? (Score:3, Insightful)