Fossil find prompts rethink on dinosaur feathers

Yahoo (Reuters) ^ | 3/15/2006 | Patricia Reaney

[csense]

Despite the simplicity of the formulas, any physics student who has studied the APPLICATION of the field in any detail could probably relate some tales of horror about hours spent banging one's head with a copy of "Classical Electrodyamics" by John David Jackson. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Part of the beauty of Evolution is its simplicity. Through natural selection, a VERY simple concept, the entire field of biology can be illuminated. The details, however, can sometimes make one want to bang one's head with a copy of "The Origin of Species".

Part of the beauty of argument by analogy is it's simplicity in expressing the similarities of complex issues, but, as you say, the devil is in the details, and can somtimes make one want to bang one's head with a copy of Logic orCritique of pure reason.

The only similarity you've shown is that both contain complex information within a framework of simplicity. Something that can be said, and expressed, of virtually anything.

[Virginia-American]

Marsupial weirdness:

At Talk Origins, they describe how embryonic marsupials develop an egg shell which is then resorbed, and how some are born with a caruncle (like an egg tooth).

Makes evolutionary sense.

[Virginia-American]

One possibility is that feathers evolved more than once. I think this is highly likely

Weren't pterodactyls furry? I believe they were archosaurs, so they aren't closely related to mammals.

[longshadow]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1504547/posts

It says a grad student was quoted in a University press release as saying it was a meat eater. If the scientific paper on this find claims that based solely on the footprint, and no other information was relied upon to support a claim that they can tell it definitively was a meat-eater, then I think you have a beef.

But I doubt the actual paper makes that claim; it may say they suspect it was a meat-eater, or that they concluded it it was a meat-eater based on other corroborative evidence.

And a further review of the thread you cited indicates exactly what I suspected, regarding the meat-eating claim, we see that "Junior" already advised you:

Three-toed dinosaurs discovered to date have been carnivores.

Ergo, the conclusion about it being a meat-eater was based on additional information about three-toed dinosaurs, and not just from the footprint of the this single beast. The article may not have included this tidbit, but that's why science isn't done based on lay press accounts written from University press releases.

As I suspected; your comments in that case and mine in this case aren't at all the same. Have a nice day. This conversation is over.

[Stultis]

just a guy who wants the truth to be told.

You sure repeat (or originate?) large numbers of false claims for a self-professed truth teller! Like over here for instance where you falsely claimed that non-evolutionists exposed the Archaeoraptor fossil fraud.

In fact that post is full to the brim of wildly counter-factual, yet still arrogant and self righteous, claims. One -- that "Lucy" has "proven to be a chimp" -- was such an embarrassing whopper that you got corrected by a creationist! You realize how rarely that happens?

[vpintheak]

Maybe because we were made in His image, and blessed with a large amount of intelligence.

[vpintheak]

I for one, am a very intelligent crappy long distance runner. All my time in the Army still couldn't get me to be good at it.

[vpintheak]

Just for interest sake only, who or what is the cream?

[festus]

Feathers first evolved in pillows. It was only later that they were first installed on giant lizards. But they kept falling off so finally they were evolved onto birds.

[From many - one.]

Dunno. Cockroaches may outlast us, they're pretty sturdy.

[Quark2005]

..."Classical Electrodyamics" by John David Jackson...

The mere mention provides flashbacks of horror and foggy memories of 3am studying frustration. Somebody, somewhere needs to write a better graduate level physics E&M book. Jackson is a good reference but a horrible learning book (the very difficult problems had little relation to the text; almost no examples). I can't believe that someone hasn't stepped up to the plate and replaced or supplemented this text (but then, writing intro grad level physics books is not very lucrative considering the time expenditure per profit ratio. Writing high-level material with that breadth is tough to do - it could take a decade or more, I imagine, to put such a text together.)

[gomaaa]

The only similarity you've shown is that both contain complex information within a framework of simplicity. Something that can be said, and expressed, of virtually anything.

But that's my point (sort of). ANY scientific theory operates in this fashion. The post I was responding to (by Getready) suggested that making a theory more complex in order to account for new evidence was a BAD thing. I was trying to point out that not only is this NOT bad, it is the way science has worked since Kepler. A simple theory (in this case about the motion of the planets) requiring a great deal of difficult observations and precise mathematics to apply and prove. (Try observing and predicting the motions of the planets without a telescope OR calculus.)

ALL scientific theores "contain complex information within a framework of simplicity." That's the way it works.

[Quark2005]

ET is just a bunch of goofballs sitting around telling each other stories. They get grants to do it.

Biologists have, on <sarc>rare occasion</sarc>, been known to actually do careful testing and research using real data, too.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

There is evidence that some pterosaurs had hair or something very similar to hair.

But the real research is being done here.

;)

[Virginia-American]

Can't resist posting from their arch-enemies

What's next? Are pterosaurs actually elephants with hang gliders?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!