Ancient Birds Flew On All Fours

eurekalert ^ | Spet. 22, 2006 | Nick Longrich

[Tokra]

The earliest known ancestor of modern-day birds took to the skies by gliding from trees using primitive feathered wings on their arms and legs, according to new research by a University of Calgary paleontologist. In a paper published in the journal Paleobiology, Department of Biological Sciences PhD student Nick Longrich challenges the idea that birds began flying by taking off from the ground while running and shows that the dinosaur-like bird Archaeopteryx soared using wing-like feathers on all of its limbs.

"The discussions about the origins of avian flight have been dominated by the so-called 'ground up' and 'trees down' hypotheses," Longrich said. "This paper puts forward some of the strongest evidence yet that birds descended from arboreal parachuters and gliders, similar to modern flying squirrels."

The first fossil of the Jurassic-era dinosaur Archaeopteryx lithographica was discovered in Germany in 1861, two years after Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in On The Origin of Species. Since then, eight additional specimens have been unearthed and Archaeopteryx is considered the best evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs since it had both feathers and a bird-like wishbone, along with classic reptilian features of a long bony tail, claws and teeth.

Although scientists immediately noticed feather-like structures on the hind limbs, they were dismissed as insulating body feathers that didn't play a role in the animal's flight. It wasn't until several four-winged dinosaurs in China were described in 2002 that researchers began to re-examine Archaeopteryx's legs.

"The idea of a multi-winged Archaeopteryx has been around for more than a century, but it hasn't received much attention," Longrich said. "I believe one reason for this is that people tend to see what they want or expect to see. Everybody knows that birds don't have four wings, so we overlooked them even when they were right under our noses."

Under the supervision of professor Anthony Russell, Longrich examined Archaeopteryx fossils and determined that the dinosaur's leg feathers have an aerodynamic structure that imply its rear limbs likely acted as lift-generating "winglets" that played a significant role in flight.

[MayflowerMadam]

"So, I guess the scientists secretly built fake fossils with feathers, wishbone, claws and teeth just to trick everybody?"

That's exactly what happened in the case of Piltdown man. Piltdown was totally constructed by people using bones, etc., to propagate a lie. There are many other examples. Read "Godless"; might learn something

[2nsdammit]

Wow! That's an even BETTER Evo-troll sentence! It's a C1, B14, C2, B3! Congrats!

(Almost a little C4 in there, but with "humanist" instead of "communist". Close, but no cigar!)

http://www.freerepublic.com/~patrickhenry/#Toolkit

[2nsdammit]

Wow, a B6! I'm well oin my way to a BINGO!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/~patrickhenry/#Toolkit

[b_sharp]

"At museums of natural history throughout the country."

Is that the best you can do?

Be more specific and give cites.

Anyone can make bald assertions like you just did, and be just as wrong. Without some specifics and verification, your statement will have to be taken as worthless.

[b_sharp]

"dont try to take my humanist religion of evolutionism and point out ever-growing problems with it, or we'll call you ignorant bible-thumpers..."

I see your weapon is empty.

That's OK, you could always try to bluster your way through.

Oh... you are? Rather limp bluster...

[b_sharp]

"That's exactly what happened in the case of Piltdown man. Piltdown was totally constructed by people using bones, etc., to propagate a lie."

The piltdown man was not perpetrated by scientists, but was discovered to be a hoax by scientists. It was never accepted by scientists outside of Britain. Why? Because it didn't fit in with the other transitional fossils they already had.

Interesting to note that none of the other fossil finds found since then are hoaxes.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis

Have I made my point?

"There are many other examples. Read "Godless"; might learn something"

Like learning she repeats false statements without first verifying their validity?

[Coyoteman]

That's exactly what happened in the case of Piltdown man. Piltdown was totally constructed by people using bones, etc., to propagate a lie.

Piltdown was hoax designed to spoof some British anthropologists. They had a particular view of brain/locomotion development, so the hoaxer gave them what they wanted to see.

Anthropologists in other parts of the world saw things differently, and soon began to poke holes in the Piltdown finds.

The only people still using Piltdown for anything are anti-evolutionists trying to pretend that all hominid finds are lies. And that in itself is a blatant lie.

Lets try a test; can you cite a second fraud in hominid evolution?

(Warning: Nebraska Man does not count. That was a mistake by one individual.)

(Hint: the creation "science" websites will lie to you, so don't trust them.)

[PatrickHenry]

Hint: the creation "science" websites will lie to you, so don't trust them.

I'm shocked. Shocked!

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Why would you stretch the theory of evolution to make this fit?

The theory of evolution predicted such a fossil would be found, no stretching necassary.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

....for common sense would tell anyone a cow can't have a pig and a fish can't have a dinosaur. Good thing the theory of evolution doesn't claim that then, huh?

[Coyoteman]

calling something a transitional fossil because the empty theory needs it, does not a transitional make.....a list of fossils is just that, a list of fossils, because your empty theory requies SOMETHING, ANYTHING to be a transition, you call them transitions...

Please explain why you do not consider this specimen to be a transitional, when scientists who study the subject do consider it to be a transitional. Please stick to science in your answer, and shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, and never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' (credit to Heinlein, Time Enough for Love).

For your use in answering this question, note the position of this specimen in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[b_sharp]

"bluster? pointing out the emptiness of the bluster that is evolutionism you mean...."

No, bluster because you have supplied nothing but your opinion; opinion that is not founded in research nor evidence but in your belief that Evolution is a threat to your belief system.

If you had anything more than rhetoric to back your opinion it would include cites to scientifically researched papers that validate your contention.

As I stated, your inability to provide any evidence that corroborates your views makes your opinion empty.

[Stultis]

Sheesh, I can't beleive people are still trying to do research with Archaeopteryx. It's a fraud... a faked fossil!
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html

Do you realize that paper by Taylor is from the 1993 International Creation Conference?

Got any idea why Taylor has been unable, in well over a decade (or two decades since Hoyle and Wickramasinghe originally posited this claim in 1986) to convince hardly any other creationists of his hoax theory, with the vast majority of creationists insisting that Archaeopteryx is just a bird, and a completely genuine fossil? For example.

Taylor has only been able to convice a few of the meanest cranks among creationists, e.g. Kent Hovind. Why is this?

[b_sharp]

"calling something a transitional fossil because the empty theory needs it, does not a transitional make.....a list of fossils is just that, a list of fossils, because your empty theory requies SOMETHING, ANYTHING to be a transition, you call them transitions...

As usual you are quite wrong.

Transitional fossils, as predicted by the SToE, must have features, preferably diagnostic, shared by the preceding and succeeding fossils. As an example, Archaeopteryx is considered a transitional not because we 'need' a transitional but because the fossils show features that both birds and dinosaurs have, features only birds have and features only dinosaurs have.

If this doesn't fit your idea of a 'transitional' then perhaps you can clarify what features a transitional should have.

[Diplomat]

All your orionblamblam belong to us.

I didn't know RWP left. Banned or had enough?

[Ciexyz]

Most interesting.

[grey_whiskers]

He flew pretty good too.

Didn't land so well though.

Click here.

Cheers!