Skip to comments.
Ancient bird is missing link to Archaeopteryx (rational caucus)
The New Scientist ^
| 02 May 2008
| Jeff Hecht
Posted on 05/06/2008 5:27:49 PM PDT by Soliton
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
1
posted on
05/06/2008 5:27:49 PM PDT
by
Soliton
To: Soliton
Cool.
But, I wonder how long it will take for the usual suspects to call it a fraud.
2
posted on
05/06/2008 5:38:03 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Coyoteman
Every new discovery creates TWO missing links, one on either side of it.
3
posted on
05/06/2008 5:40:00 PM PDT
by
null and void
(My brain is a sieve, and Aratosthenes is nowhere to be found. ~ Stolen from Darksheare...)
To: Soliton
![](http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn13824/dn13824-1_471.jpg)
Looks like a duck...
4
posted on
05/06/2008 5:42:21 PM PDT
by
null and void
(My brain is a sieve, and Aratosthenes is nowhere to be found. ~ Stolen from Darksheare...)
To: Coyoteman
All the others have been PROVEN to be frauds. Why should this be any different?
5
posted on
05/06/2008 5:46:04 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: blam
To: null and void
That has been run over several times and laid out to dry.
7
posted on
05/06/2008 5:47:00 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Coyoteman
But, I wonder how long it will take for the usual suspects to call it a fraud.I know. "A big scary demon under ground created this stone statue that looks like a bird just to contradict St. Ben of the Stein".
8
posted on
05/06/2008 5:49:14 PM PDT
by
Soliton
To: Blood of Tyrants
All the others have been PROVEN to be frauds. Why should this be any different? Name two that have been proved to be frauds.
9
posted on
05/06/2008 5:49:17 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
10
posted on
05/06/2008 5:50:57 PM PDT
by
null and void
(My brain is a sieve, and Aratosthenes is nowhere to be found. ~ Stolen from Darksheare...)
To: Soliton
they are limited to a period from 125 to 120 million years ago too narrow a time span to show much evidence of evolution within bird lineages How much time do you need? How much do you have?
They're saying that 5 million years is too narrow to show much evidence of evolution within bird lineages -- uh, how much time do they postulate for hominid evolution? Less than 5 million I think. How's that work?
11
posted on
05/06/2008 6:12:47 PM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Et si omnes ego non)
To: Coyoteman
The Chinese have perpetrated several genuine frauds in the recent past, especially regarding early birds. I hope other scientists are looking very closely at this.
12
posted on
05/06/2008 6:23:25 PM PDT
by
arthurus
To: Blood of Tyrants
All the others have been PROVEN to be frauds. Why should this be any different?I think you're just engaged in wishful thinking. Perhaps you have links that support your statement.
13
posted on
05/06/2008 6:26:35 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: ClearCase_guy
Adaptation is driven by changing environments.
A few hundred thousand years of rapid frequent climate change - ice ages, thaws, warm inter-glacials and more ice ages - drives rapid adaptation (or extinction for critters that can’t adapt fast enough).
Five million years of a relatively steady warm wet climate doesn’t put much additional evolutionary pressure on critters that successfully adapted in the first few tens of millennia.
The differences in adaptation rates are exactly what the underlying theory would predict.
14
posted on
05/06/2008 6:29:02 PM PDT
by
null and void
(My brain is a sieve, and Aratosthenes is nowhere to be found. ~ Stolen from Darksheare...)
To: Soliton
This is great fossil of a line of birds which had long feathers on their legs as well.
A documentary on PBS’s NOVA showed how these long leg feathers helped the bird fly versus today’s birds which do not have these features at all.
To: Soliton
What is the “rational caucus”?
16
posted on
05/06/2008 6:37:03 PM PDT
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
To: SunkenCiv
To: JustDoItAlways
I’m not seeing any leg feathers in the fossil. Two wings, and two streamer feathers in the tail. The upper leg is cocked up over the upper wing and doesn’t seem to have any sizeable feathers of its own.
To: arthurus
The Chinese have perpetrated several genuine frauds in the recent past, especially regarding early birds. I hope other scientists are looking very closely at this. Name two Chinese frauds.
19
posted on
05/06/2008 6:45:58 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: LiteKeeper
I threw it in there. There is a Catholic caucus where criticism is prohibited
20
posted on
05/06/2008 6:47:18 PM PDT
by
Soliton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson