Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber 190
An anonymous reader writes "A stunning array of prehistoric feathers, including dinosaur protofeathers, has been discovered in Late Cretaceous amber from Canada. 'Protofeathers aren't known from any modern, existing groups of birds and therefore the most obvious interpretation is that they belong to dinosaurs,' said University of Alberta professor, Alexander P. Wolfe. The 78 to 79-million-year-old amber preserved the feathers in vivid detail, including some of their diverse colors."
Yes! (Score:3, Funny)
Can't wait for Jurassic Farms. *licks chops*
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, I second that!
Re: (Score:2)
Won't it just taste like chicken?
Re: (Score:2)
More like emu.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Won't it just taste like chicken?
Technically chicken tastes like dinosaur.
Re: (Score:2)
:) Yeah, maybe I got it backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're called emu. Smack into one o' those with your expensive car and the damage will look like another car caused it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I've actually eaten emu. It tastes like ass.
Very red meat for bird, also very gamey.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you know what ass tastes like?
You know your mom? Well...
Non-Avian (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Current thinking has birds more closely related to dinosaurs than reptiles. Some go so far as to say birds would be a subclass of dinosaurs if what we think of as dinosaurs were still around to compare them against.
Re: (Score:2)
Current thinking has birds more closely related to dinosaurs than reptiles.
Dinosaurs are/were reptiles. Which means that so are birds (biologically, though not of course in common parlance). The term "reptile" is polypyhletic (or paraphyletic), meaning that it encompasses something other than a complete evoloutionary sub-tree.
So Many Missing Links to Choose From (Score:4, Funny)
What's really neat is that there are now so many dinosaur/bird hybrid fossils that we don't know which one is the direct ancestor of modern birds [ideonexus.com]. There are just too many candidates for the missing link.
The really funny is that the Creationists are spinning the overwhelming abundance of missing links to mean that none of them are missing the link.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
None of them *is* the missing link.
Re: (Score:2)
Them is some good potatoes.
Now, please return to English class.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, the subject of the GP's sentence is "none," not "them." You fail English.
And while I'm on the subject, your English teacher *flunks* you, not *fails* you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That should read "none of them are the missing link". (Hangs head in shame for watching TV while commenting)
But of them, are the link missing none? This dinosaur stuff is really confusing sometimes.
Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (Score:4, Funny)
The Creationist, of course. Goodbye.
Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (Score:5, Informative)
It's even more hilarious if you look at what was known, say, 20 years ago, before the recent discoveries and compare it to what has been found to date. Sure, since the late 1800s we had Archaeopteryx from the Late Jurassic with its odd combination of dinosaur-like features (teeth, claws, long bony tail) and flight feathers. Ignore the feathers and it looked an awful lot like a small Velociraptor-like dinosaur. Anti-evolutionary creationists mostly said it was a bird, although they weren't entirely consistent and sometimes called it a reptile. You could try to say that birds and dinosaurs were still different creatures, if you danced around some of the peculiar features of Archaeopteryx (any way you slice it, it was either a VERY weird bird or a VERY weird dinosaur). They also tried and failed to scientifically show that the feathers preserved on it weren't real.
Then in the 1990s dinosaurs with feather-like hairy structures turned up ( Sinosauropteryx [wikipedia.org]), then long-legged and obviously not flying dinosaurs with pretty clear flightless-bird-style feathers (e.g., Caudipteryx [wikipedia.org]), then Microraptor [wikipedia.org] with asymmetric *flight* feathers on its arms AND legs (the "four-winged dinosaur") and which experiments have shown could probably glide. It still had teeth, Velociraptor-like claws and a long, dinosaur-like tail. Then the complaint was "but these are all younger than Archaeopteryx" (Early Cretaceous), which is true, but given the rarity of these sorts of fossils it's statistically unlikely that you will find them at the very first point they ever existed. Then Anchiornis [wikipedia.org] turned up in the Late Jurassic anyway, close in age to Archaeopteryx. And that's not even all of them. Inevitably there are gaps, because there always will be gaps even if you find millions of fossils (very tiny gaps), but it's fair to say that the distinction between birds and certain dinosaurs has progressively become so blurry and arbitrary that it's hard to reliably draw the line between them. Wishbones? We used to think they were unique to birds. No. Even T. rex has a wishbone. And the list goes on and on of features we thought were unique to birds but turn out not to be. People are even questioning whether the conventional view that Archaeopteryx is a bird is correct, rather than a side-branch close to the divergence between birds and dinosaurs, which if accepted would mean you could have a flying dinosaur that isn't technically regarded as a "bird". That would be weird.
Even after all those discoveries of the last 20 years or so, anti-evolutionary creationists still assure us that there are immutable boundaries between categories of life. Scientists still do argue about the exact relationships between these various group, but it is always going to be hard to resolve close to the branch points. I think any reasonable person looking at the history of discoveries would say that we aren't seeing ever-clearer indications that birds and dinosaurs are completely distinct, but that over time they blur together more and more. This is not unique to birds either. The same sort of thing is seen if you compare, say, what was known about the transition between fish and land vertebrates in the 1800s versus the fossils that are known now. Nobody expects a perfect record of life on Earth, but the pattern with increased sampling of it is pretty obvious. To me it is no more of a jump than when you draw a regression line through an ever-increasing number of sample points along a clear trend. Meanwhile the anti-evolutionary creationists will forever emphasize that there are spaces between the data points.
Re: (Score:2)
Very nice post from the primordial mists of the AC. As the data points accumulate, it's becoming more evident that the AC did not branch from the human race as long ago as it often seems, but still walk among us, capable of intelligent digital locomotion, possessing the full modern complement of shift keys and angle brackets.
I've said it before: Tyrrell rocks. I grew up in the area, but only visited later in life as a tourist. When I trim my chin feathers and expose my Grenadier Guard chin wattle, I can
one of my better typos (Score:2)
s/mental/mention
The vast majority of my typos are full word substitutions. No idea at all how that word leaked into the sentiment.
Re: (Score:2)
I think any reasonable person looking at the history of discoveries would say that we aren't seeing ever-clearer indications that birds and dinosaurs are completely distinct, but that over time they blur together more and more.
Creationists aren't reasonable people:. their world view is based on faith, not reason, but they try to disguise this simple fact by arguing about scientific facts as thouh it made any diference to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, whenever my boss complains my code doesn't compile, I simply explain to him that it's just that there are "spaces between the object dependencies".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then Microraptor [wikipedia.org] with asymmetric *flight* feathers on its arms AND legs (the "four-winged dinosaur") and which experiments have shown could probably glide. It still had teeth, Velociraptor-like claws and a long, dinosaur-like tail.
Oh god, don't tell that to Monroe, imagine his reaction if he knew there were flying raptors too!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, who can blame them? You're correct that we can't expect a perfectly smooth fossil record, but when there is such a large sampling surrounding the data points, with nothing in between, it would be kind of suspect to a mathematician. I mean, for example, we have found 30 T Rex. We have found 11 Archaeopteryx. And it is not like all of these were found in the same location trapped in a mudb
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile the anti-evolutionary creationists will forever emphasize that there are spaces between the data points. Well, who can blame them? You're correct that we can't expect a perfectly smooth fossil record, but when there is such a large sampling surrounding the data points, with nothing in between, it would be kind of suspect to a mathematician.
Not to a real mathematician, who understands statistical inference, no.
Re: (Score:3)
And Evolution is still a theory because fossil can only prove a species existed not that it turned into another. That can't be proven empirically.
Uh... *nothing* can be proven empirically. Proofs use axioms and rules of logical inference. Theories use a more generic sort of inference from evidence.
And evolution is "still a theory" because theories are as good as it gets in the empirical sciences, and no evidence has come along to shoot that theory down.
Evolution, general relativity, and the atomic theory are "still theories"; phlogiston and the steady-state universe are not. "Theory" is the corner where we park the winners, not the losers.
Re: (Score:2)
Group theory, set theory, type theory, category theory....all mathematical theories. Your distinction between axiomatic theories and natural theories correct, but axiomatic theories are just that, theories.
Re: (Score:3)
No. fact is where we park winner. You drop something from a 110 story building, it falls at the same rate either feather or brick. that's gravity. Gravity is fact.
Why are you so sure that that will be the observed behavior? Gravity is just a theory. Granted, there are a lot of observations that fit the theory, but how can you be absolutely sure that this theory applies at every place and moment? You are basing yourself on a finite number of observations, and the vast majority of these observations are so casual that they wouldn't spot subtle deviations.
Actually, I am sure that if you drop a feather and a brick and a feather from a 110 story building they will not
Re: (Score:2)
And for the record, adaptation to environment isn't evolution to me. Having species just mutate from one type to another is.
It might be an idea to read at least one book that explains what the (neo-) Darwinian theory of Evolution actually is. I'd recommend one of Richard Dawkins' books like The Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene, as he is a very clear writer.
Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (Score:5, Informative)
>> And Evolution is still a theory because fossil can only prove a species existed not that it turned into another. That can't be proven empirically.
Gravity is still a theory, too.
Speciation [talkorigins.org] has [newscientist.com] been [wikinews.org] observed [wikipedia.org], but I'll concede the point that it hasn't been observed in dinosaurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted,my 5th-grade science is a little rusty, but I though gravity was a Law? As in, if a theory has enough corroborating evidence the scientific community agrees that it deserves to be promoted to a Law.
Also, can't gravity be rigorously proven from first concepts using basic forces, etc? Isn't that how the Law of Universal Gravitation and the Gravitational Constant are calculated?
I'm not a physicist...hopefully one can chime in, I'm honestly curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Theories do not get "promoted" to become laws. "Law" is an outdated term and is no longer used because it implies something immutable or final. "The Laws of Physics don't allow for that!". Science is always open to being challenged and rethought, so therefore "theory" is now as good as it gets. I beli
Re: (Score:2)
And Evolution is still a theory because fossil can only prove a species existed not that it turned into another. That can't be proven empirically.
Every description of the real world is "just" a theory unless you believe somehing like the Bile sets down immutable truths.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really going to appeal to authority *and* object to blind faith in the same post?
Re: (Score:2)
People are even questioning whether the conventional view that Archaeopteryx is a bird is correct, rather than a side-branch close to the divergence between birds and dinosaurs, which if accepted would mean you could have a flying dinosaur that isn't technically regarded as a "bird". That would be weird.
You mean like the pteradoctyl?
Actually, surprisingly enough, no. Not like a pteradactyl. Modern cladistics completely exclude the pterosaurs from any part of the sub-tree (Dinosauromorpha) that can be called "dinosaurs" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosauria). They split off from dinosaurs in the clade Avemetatarsalia at about the same level as birds do.
Circular logic (Score:2)
I think the comment from the story is telling:
"'Protofeathers aren't known from any modern, existing groups of birds and therefore the most obvious interpretation is that they belong to dinosaurs,' said University of Alberta professor, Alexander P. Wolfe."
Re: (Score:2)
I think the comment from the story is telling: "'Protofeathers aren't known from any modern, existing groups of birds and therefore the most obvious interpretation is that they belong to dinosaurs,' said University of Alberta professor, Alexander P. Wolfe."
Considering the age of most fossil finds in Alberta, that isn't as crazy as you think.
Still circular (Score:2)
The "already known" fact that dinosaurs had protofeathers reinforces his theory, and his theory ends up reinforcing the "already known" fact?
Still seems circular to me.
http://www.icr.org/article/6398/ [icr.org]
and
Feduccia, A., T. Lingham-Soliar and J. R. Hinchliffe. 2005. Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence. Journal of Morphology. 266 (2): 125.
See also 'Silkie chicken', referred to elsewhere in this thread
Re: (Score:2)
I did.
If you read my reply above, and the links referenced, you'll know why it is
Re: (Score:2)
Hi... Gladly.
Please see my post above. Heres' the link to the paper quoted there.
...
http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol241/bird%20flight%202005%20Feduccia_Alan.pdf [kenyon.edu]
[From the main paper]
We examine the alleged support from the fossils Sinosauropteryx (Currie and Chen, 2001), Sinorni- thosaurus, an indeterminate theropod (Ji et al., 2001), and Caudipteryx (Qiang et al., 1998) with respect to the key features in stages 1–4 of Prum and Brush’s (2002) developmental theory on feather morphogenesis.
[
Re: (Score:2)
1. No evidence of birds?
http://www.icr.org/article/6398/ [icr.org]
If dinosaurs evolved into birds, then protofeathers should be found on dinosaur fossils located below (and therefore dated before) fossils of birds, not above and after them. McKellar's fibers came from Cretaceous deposits, but true bird feathers have been found in fossil layers far below the Cretaceous. Why would feathers still be evolving long after they supposedly already existed?
2. Dino Feathers?
http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol241/bird%20flig [kenyon.edu]
Birds are dinosaurs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Birds are dinosaurs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, whenever I walk into a park I'm concerned these vicious pigeons could attack me like a velociraptor
Cue Tom Lehrer's "Poisoning Pigeons In The Park"...
When they see me coming, the birdies all try and hide,
But they still go for peanuts when coated in cyaniade...
Re: (Score:2)
I actually pointed out a flaw in Jurassic Park.
Oh no! Next thing you'll be telling me that velociraptors were not even Jurassic.
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but that is how I remember it.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear god, please don't quote Jurassic Park as a reference.....
To be fair, it was that film that sparked the revival of interest in cool UNIX-based 3D graphical operating systems amongst the general population, wihout which we wouldn't have Compiz today.
Re: (Score:2)
Raptors(falcons, hawks, eagles) are killing machines. If they were any bigger I don't doubt we'd make for a nice quarry. When I read JP I remember more being made out of the feather theory, I remember because it reminded me of the evil rooster that tormented me when I was 3yo.
BTW, I've been privileged to have a family of Harris' Hawks nesting outside my bedroom window for the last 10 months. No shitting, I went to the aid of a peacock a few hours ago after they cornered him on the neighbor's porch.
Re: (Score:2)
Velociraptors were bad enough to begin with, but now you're saying they can fly? Now we're fucked.
Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber? (Score:4, Funny)
You know what would be cool? (Score:5, Funny)
Kind of an out there thought but I had to share. I thought it was cool.
Re:You know what would be cool? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except in the book it was the little boy...
It's a perfectly cromulent reference. (Score:2)
In the book, the lawyer survived (and, iirc, was actually not a bad guy...), and Hammond was killed in a fairly disturbing fashion.
Nevertheless, the quotes from the movie are more memorable. I don't think I can recall any of Muldoon's lines from the book...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And when they where about to eat you they menaced you by repeating the words of the last person they ate. So they'd corner you and yell, "Please don't eat me! Please don't eat me! Oh God! Nooo!"
It's the drugs. It's the drugs, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
"Any time..."
Re: (Score:2)
my favorite museum item (Score:2)
amber with mummified spider's lung
Spielberg does a Lucas (Score:2, Funny)
Now the Raptors look like chickens.
Dr Alan Grant: "NOOOOooooooooooo!"
Science ruins Michael Crichton again!
Luke, here is your feather (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Spielberg does a Lucas (Score:5, Insightful)
They loved him once (Score:2)
And then he blasphemed against the Holy Church of Global Warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that a number of scientists secretly love him for making their line of work popular and thus getting them significant amounts of funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, although I enjoy Crichton's works, most are soft science fiction (harder than most though). The velociraptors were far more like Deinonychus antirrhopus (considered a species of Velociraptor by Crichton's primary source, though the dispute is even acknowledged by Alan Grant, oh, and no feathers have been found on this species), and a lot of cinematic liberty was taken in the mov
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of his life he wrote a string of disaster novels where science was the cause and the moral was the luddite "if only we had left it alone". Those sort of books most likely inspired the "hate-hate relationship" comment from the poster above.
The biggest clanger ultimately pushing an anti-science agenda was of course "State of Confusion" as
Re: (Score:2)
I think you don't understand what the discussion is about because it all happened a few years ago. Crichton attracted a lot of criticism for pushing his own little anti-environmentalism agenda which had no basis in reality but he pretended it did. He treated science like magic in a few of his books, fair enough, a lot of SF writers do that, but they don't then try to pretend that the magic is rea
Re: (Score:3)
My basic respect extends as far as I think he deserves.
When I write a misleading author's note about global warming on my next book, I'll expect no less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll happily mock anyone who is purposefully misleading.
I also wasn't aware that choosing a 'side' meant endorsing every opinion within it.
Luckily 'my side' includes almost every reputable scientific body in the world, which makes me feel slightly more comfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
That Dang Amber- I keep telling her (Score:2)
Found in Amber (Score:2)
It was announced dinosaur feathers have been found in Amber this week. High placed French official Cordell Fennevall is on record as saying that this is a 'real discovery', and all other paleontological work this year will merely be its shadows.
Artistic renderings in this article were created by one Dworkin Barimen. All rights reserved.
Calling Prince Corwin (Score:2)
Two jokes about women named "Amber" and none about the one true world?
Of course there are dinosaur feathers in Amber - our dinosaurs are just shadows of them.
This place is really going to the dogs!
Re: (Score:2)
Amber was quite surprised at the finding.
I'd wager Amber stopped being surprised a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
But once she decided to incorporate the feathers into her act, Amber's clientele doubled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyer shot first.
Not to be crude, but the lawyer _shat_ first, if I remember the scene correctly...
Re: (Score:2)
Because the second you tell people where they were found, you get a billion people cutting through the rock to try to find their own, to keep or to sell on, destroying everything that is there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Think about a giant Ostrich" - one that's about the size of a chicken.
To follow my rules for keeping pets - I'd be quite happy to have it because I *COULD* drop-kick it over the wall if it were to turn against me. (And hence, I don't keep Great Danes or any of a range of other breeds of dog as pets).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)