I'm loving the weather here too, greywhiskers!
Posted on 09/22/2006 6:27:23 AM PDT by 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.
It's in the archives: http://wiki.darwincentral.org/tiki-index.php?page=Ancient+birds+flew+on+all-fours
Personally, I wonder if they would make good pets. I'm a big avian pet fan. My next question - Can they talk?
I have no idea...let me go ask one.
Once you get over a certain weight, it takes more than a pound of living tissue (bone, meat, etc.) to get a pound of lift. That is why the maximum.
So the question is begged about ancient "flying" creatures. Either they didn't "fly" (glider, etc) or the environment in which they flew operated under different circumstances than ours (less gravity, heavyer "air", etc>). Each answer brings with it it's own inconsistencies.
We don't know what we don't know.
No, it's you don't know what you don't know.
Thanks goodness actual scientists do know.
But it is amusing to watch you try and tell them that they don't know, because you don't.
Promise? :)
Re: Microraptor Gui
er, I'm looking at the image of the cast, the feathers are painted on with iron oxide. There are no impressions.
Well, now, it is no more of a joke than to assume macroevolution based on microevolution.
Personally, I beleive in guided modification.
Neither. I believe the fossil record, as far as it goes. I don't believe one can make honest taxonomic definitions from a single thighbone fragment or jaw or whatever; all too much of the fossil record is so fragmentary that it really should have been classified as "curious".
But, there are a number of interesting fossils that get just as quickly downplayed by the evolutionists as archeopteryx by the creationists. Things like fossilized dinosaur footprints crossed by very human looking footprints in the same strata.
As for strata dating, I believe in at least one major flood and probably 3. strata from prior to these events is misdated very easily, as they each laid up a sudden accumulation. The clean limestone regolith (here in Illinois, ranging from surface to 200 m down, depending on where you are) is most probably, as near as I can tell, the result of the noachide flood. Everything since then was laid up by the after effects of that flood and the ~4000 years since. All of the river valleys I have seen - throughout the world - have been quite obviously both young and formed by a vastly greater water flow than currently supported. As an example, the Illinois river has cut about 3m down from the "flood plain" - which is cut about 10x the width of the river into the surrounding landscape.
Now, I'm no fool - I know about carbon dating and ice cores and tree cores. tree cores were used to date - from the current trees to the petrified specimens - to reach to about 5000 years before present. I think that if the creation of C-14 in the upper atmosphere was changed for some reason, that would badly skew C-14 dating. I read a very interesting piece recently about the varying ages of carbon in samples.
At best, I think, we have made a number of assumptions in many aspects, and the people in one field rarely understand the assumptions being made in a related field. We look at the deposition rates in modern situations, and assume deposition rates will be similar throughout the time-span.
I most emphatically do not believe the earth was made from nothing in 6 days 6000 years ago or so; I do not believe that the earth was uninhabited by any life prior to 6000 years ago; and I do not believe the multitude of life forms on the planet were made from nothing.
And um, no, not a satanic atheist conspiracy, but a greedy man. and then perpetuated because people have reputations at stake or a need to believe. To a man who is greedy and self-centered at his core, or who has a cause to hate a church, there is ample reason to believe in something that lets you discount Gods.
Incidents of soft-tissue fossilization - and feathers easily qualify as soft tissue - are extremely rare. People are claiming that in archeopteryx, there has been 80% soft-tissue fossilization! I'm just amazed! Where are our fossilized parrots, cormorants, sparrows and such with feathers? What's that? Oh, there aren't fossils of modern things. Tell that to the fish they found in Africa, living peacefully, while it's relative - same morphostructure - "30 million" years old - was fossilized. we find fossils that were obviously horses, or Mastodons, which easily lasted until the human era. There should be fossilized birds with fossilized feathers. There might be, I'm no archaeologist. But I don't want to hear about crazy mixed things like rehona.
Visuals unlimited has (1) fossil feather impression, and Archeopteryx. the fossil feather is not in combination with a skeleton.
Frankly, I find the Archeopteryx "feathers" over-done - like someone wanting desperately to prove something. But it not to me impossible that that someone was not human; I believe in supra-human agents. Such might seem impossible to you. Our razors shave at different places, it seems.
A flying squirrel does not have those features. It can still glide from branch to branch
What the article is positing, is that birds started off as tree climbing dinosaurs. A tree-dweller what is good at getting from branch to branch will be more likely to survive. A tree-dwelling predator that gets prey by landing on them from above will survive better if it is able to glide onto prey a little distance from the tree, rather than waiting for prey to pass directly underneath
Over time, in gradual increments, features will evolve
Are you suggestion that the Designer or Guider of Modifications is in the business of painting fake fossils?
But, there are a number of interesting fossils that get just as quickly downplayed by the evolutionists as archeopteryx by the creationists. Things like fossilized dinosaur footprints crossed by very human looking footprints in the same strata.
There are good reasons for that, and it's not just that the only ones anyone can find seem to be in Paluxy, TX on property owned by YECs. Most of them really look like 3-toed dino prints. The very few that don't look [oxymoron alert!] truly fake.
As for strata dating, I believe in at least one major flood and probably 3. strata from prior to these events is misdated very easily, as they each laid up a sudden accumulation.
Mainstream geology can't find even one world-wide flood event.
As for strata dating, I believe in at least one major flood and probably 3. strata from prior to these events is misdated very easily, as they each laid up a sudden accumulation. The clean limestone regolith (here in Illinois, ranging from surface to 200 m down, depending on where you are) is most probably, as near as I can tell, the result of the noachide flood.
I don't happen to know the age real geology assigns to your limestones, but nothing here in WV goes past the Pennsylvanian Orogeny some 300 million years ago. We don't have dinosaur fossils at all, for instance. That tends to go unexplained in flood geologies. Other mountains like the Himalayas have mammal fossils. Thus, some things are clearly geologically very, very old and others are not.
Everything since then was laid up by the after effects of that flood and the ~4000 years since.
All of the river valleys I have seen - throughout the world - have been quite obviously both young and formed by a vastly greater water flow than currently supported.
No. The Potomac near my house drains mountains formed in that aforementioned orogeny 300 million years ago. It started flowing then. It's older than the dinosaurs. At Cumberland, MD, it has a gorge called "The Narrows." That's a place it erosionally cut a late-rising mountain like a buzz saw as fast as the mountain could rise. Erosion is always faster than plate tectonics.
Even the Himalayas, as spectacular as they are, were sliced by the Brahmaputra River as they rose, leading to mountains in near-perfect cross-section. You can put a real limit on how old a valley is by 1) the mountains the river drains, and 2) the mountains the river cut because it was already flowing in a certain place when a new mountain rose. I've got old mountains and one pretty old valley that I'm living in.
Now, I'm no fool - I know about carbon dating and ice cores and tree cores. tree cores were used to date - from the current trees to the petrified specimens - to reach to about 5000 years before present.
Carbon dating is one of the better calibrated radiometric techniques, but it doesn't go past about 50K years. It's used more in archaeology than in geology. For a good primer on radiometric dating, try this site.
I think that if the creation of C-14 in the upper atmosphere was changed for some reason, that would badly skew C-14 dating.
Scientists discovered the variability of C14 formation and had recalibrated their charts before the antiscience screechers ever tried to make a talking point out of it. We knew how to detect it, we knew how to fix it, we fixed it. Check the link I gave you above.
I most emphatically do not believe the earth was made from nothing in 6 days 6000 years ago or so; I do not believe that the earth was uninhabited by any life prior to 6000 years ago; and I do not believe the multitude of life forms on the planet were made from nothing.
You wouldn't have to announce that if you hadn't swallowed so many talking points from people who do.
And um, no, not a satanic atheist conspiracy, but a greedy man. and then perpetuated because people have reputations at stake or a need to believe. To a man who is greedy and self-centered at his core, or who has a cause to hate a church, there is ample reason to believe in something that lets you discount Gods. Incidents of soft-tissue fossilization - and feathers easily qualify as soft tissue - are extremely rare.
This is true, but the number of feathered theropod fossils--yes, including Microraptor gui--is beyond dismissal at this point. This article isn't about M. gui, for instance. I brought up gui because they just found the same features on Archaeopteryx. Was your alleged faker lucky or what?
Incidents of soft-tissue fossilization - and feathers easily qualify as soft tissue - are extremely rare. People are claiming that in archeopteryx, there has been 80% soft-tissue fossilization! I'm just amazed! Where are our fossilized parrots, cormorants, sparrows and such with feathers? What's that? Oh, there aren't fossils of modern things.
You seem to think faunal succession is a weakness of evolution. I would say it's a real problem for people who don't accept it. Where is that Precambrian rabbit? There wasn't any.
Tell that to the fish they found in Africa, living peacefully, while it's relative - same morphostructure - "30 million" years old - was fossilized.
Again, you wouldn't have to tell people you're not a YEC if you didn't believe everything they tell you. In fact, why don't you just list the YEC talking points you DON'T believe and your posts will be shorter?
Anyway, the problem with the coelacanth YECism. That's from An Index to Creationist Claims, which allows you to check before posting whether you're going to stump modern science and get a Nobel for your shoot-down of evolution.
... we find fossils that were obviously horses...
... and fossils that are tending horse but not quite, and fossils that are tending toward the things that are tending horse, but not quite, and fossils that are barely diverged from generalized Condylarth herbivores...
... or Mastodons...
Mastodons, yes! A dead end off the fish-to-elephant in 50 steps of "microevolution" series.
... which easily lasted until the human era.
News to me. Did you mean "mammoths?"
There should be fossilized birds with fossilized feathers. There might be, I'm no archaeologist.
There are. Here's a really early one with still a few primitive features.
But I don't want to hear about crazy mixed things like rehona.
Why not? It is a prediction of evolution that we should find fossils that flesh out a phylogenetic tree of life. Thus, we should find crazy in-between things going from reptiles to mammals. We do. We find all kinds of in-between things.
Visuals unlimited has (1) fossil feather impression, and Archeopteryx. the fossil feather is not in combination with a skeleton.
I can't tell what you're talking about exactly here, but Archaeopteryx isn't M. gui. Crackpot Fred Hoyle raised the "Archy is an ordinary theropod with faked feathers" claim long ago. It was extensively investigated and utterly refuted. The feathers are real. There are more feathered dinos and primitive early birds retaining dino features than you will ever lay a glove on.
Here's a definitely non-flying dino with real feathers.
Clicking on the thumbnails at the bottom of the page gives you pictures like this...
... or this.
Quite a birdlike appearance, but it's on a little theropod with T-rex body plan.
Frankly, I find the Archeopteryx "feathers" over-done - like someone wanting desperately to prove something. But it not to me impossible that that someone was not human; I believe in supra-human agents. Such might seem impossible to you. Our razors shave at different places, it seems.
Any skepticism which borrows discredited talking points from the YECs is an unwarranted skepticism of two centuries of scientific evidence.
>>Thanks goodness actual scientists do know.<<
They don't know what they don't know either, actually.
LOLOL!!!
You realize that's not my comment, right? I quoted tomzz in order to ridicule his analogy....
Hard to follow sometimes, these threads are.
Sorry.
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.