Giant fossil shows huge birds lived among dinosaurs

BBC News ^ | 8-10-2011

[Renfield]

An enormous jawbone found in Kazakhstan is further evidence that giant birds roamed - or flew above - the Earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Writing in Biology Letters, researchers say the new species, Samrukia nessovi, had a skull some 30cm long.

If flightless, the bird would have been 2-3m tall; if it flew, it may have had a wingspan of 4m.

The find is only the second bird of such a size in the Cretaceous geologic period, and the first in Asia.

The only other evidence of a bird of such a size during the period was a fossilised spinal bone found in France and reported in a 1995 paper in Nature. Sharing space

An overwhelming majority of the birds known from the period would have been about crow-sized, but Dr Darren Naish of the University of Portsmouth said that a second find of an evidently different species suggests that large birds were common at the time....

[wildbill]

Vincent Ricardo: They have tse-tse flies the size of eagles...in the evening you could see them flying away with little babies in their mouths.

Sheldon: That must have been something.

[SunkenCiv]

Well, I was stumped. :’)

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0018776/quotes

[1010RD]

For a long time ‘scientists’ have told us that dinosaurs evolved into birds. This article states that ‘some’ birds are their own branch and that other birds are descended from dinosaurs, not these ones.

Evolution cannot be falsified and therefore isn’t a science. Every contradiction simply results in the rewriting of the theory to accept the new ‘fact’.

[wildbill]

Stumped? Oh, you mean you wanted to know what is Plan B?

There is no plan B.

[ZX12R]

Every contradiction simply results in the rewriting of the theory to accept the new ‘fact’.

As far as I know, scientific theories have always needed to be changed to accommodate new facts or information that comes along through experimentation or discovery. Whether by the testing of new ideas derived from guess work, mathematics, intellectual insight, or serendipity. Is that not how modern science progresses?

By the way, I don't support the idea that evolution theory was born complete. I think there has to be things missing, which if discovered, would explain the diversity of life and speciation to a greater, more sensible level, i.e., giving evolution more tools than just time and random mutation.

But the notions that there is nothing at all to evolution theory, and the earth is only thousands of years old, are seen as preposterous to anyone that looks at the evidence and is truthful with themselves.

[SunkenCiv]

:’)

More generally, if Plan A is so freakin’ good, why even have a Plan B? In fact, in that case, why not just call Plan A “the plan”? ;’)

[1010RD]

But the notions that there is nothing at all to evolution theory, and the earth is only thousands of years old, are seen as preposterous to anyone that looks at the evidence and is truthful with themselves.

Agreed, but how would you falsify the theory if every new discovery simply reinforces the theory of evolution? That's not science.

The theory of evolution really states that a rock, under specific, though unknown, circumstances, can come to life. What many people, perhaps you as well, are confused with is natural selection. Natural selection is a real and observable process.

Natural selection isn't evolution, though evolution wholly depends on natural selection. Promulgators of the theory of evolution have muddied the waters by discussing micro-evolution (natural selection, not evolution at all) with macro-evolution (the theory of evolution). Creation must have some cause and atheists use the theory of evolution to remove God from creation. It is not a scientific theory, but a religious one - the religion of atheism.

[ZX12R]

Agreed, but how would you falsify the theory if every new discovery simply reinforces the theory of evolution? That's not science.

I think it is science, just not to everyone's liking. It just is not a science like say, physics, or chemisrty.

The theory of evolution really states that a rock, under specific, though unknown, circumstances, can come to life. What many people, perhaps you as well, are confused with is natural selection. Natural selection is a real and observable process.

I don't think anyone, who's opinion would be of any consequence, thinks a rock can come to life. And I agree that natural selection is an actual observable process, so much so, that to deny it, immediately destroys your credibility and brings your sanity into question.

Natural selection isn't evolution, though evolution wholly depends on natural selection. Promulgators of the theory of evolution have muddied the waters by discussing micro-evolution (natural selection, not evolution at all) with macro-evolution (the theory of evolution). Creation must have some cause and atheists use the theory of evolution to remove God from creation. It is not a scientific theory, but a religious one - the religion of atheism.

I've already stated that in my opinion, things are missing, and current evolution theory is incomplete. And I think no one knows what those things are, but science may find a mechanism that allows for spontaneous creation of life, or perhaps spontaneous creation of radically new body forms, I don't know.

I'm not an atheist, and I have no particular axe to grind for or against any particular agenda. To me, things simply are what they are, and science works to illuminate how things are. Science is not evil, and there are plenty of religious scientists in every scientific field.

[wildbill]

Even better, call it Plan 6 or F to misdirect your enemies.

[Lazamataz]

The theory of evolution really states that a rock, under specific, though unknown, circumstances, can come to life.

The Bible states the same thing, however, the known circumstance is the command of God.

[1010RD]

I think it is science, just not to everyone's liking. It just is not a science like say, physics, or chemistry.

You're correct. It isn't a science like physics or chemistry because it cannot be falsified.

I don't think anyone, who's opinion would be of any consequence, thinks a rock can come to life. And I agree that natural selection is an actual observable process, so much so, that to deny it, immediately destroys your credibility and brings your sanity into question.

Agreed.

I've already stated that in my opinion, things are missing, and current evolution theory is incomplete. And I think no one knows what those things are, but science may find a mechanism that allows for spontaneous creation of life, or perhaps spontaneous creation of radically new body forms, I don't know.

I'm not an atheist, and I have no particular axe to grind for or against any particular agenda. To me, things simply are what they are, and science works to illuminate how things are. Science is not evil, and there are plenty of religious scientists in every scientific field.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I like science and use it every day. Just noting that the Theory of Evolution is non-science aka nonsense.

[1010RD]

Adam from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib. So men are made from dirt and women from men?