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.
A friend of ours was out walking Pumpkin, her shihtzu, one day when someone remarked, "How cute! You've trained your guinea pig to walk on a leash!"
Earl: "Randy, I've already told you. If they did, they'd wear pants."
Show me the difference(s) between a human embryo & a tadpole. Or, for that matter, the human genome & a fly. The problem with science is the cold reality that one confronts. That's why religious intellectuals, like the current pope, take the smart road by ceding the evolution debate.
Instead, they focus on such inponderables like who/what created energy/matter & the physical properties we see in our current universe? (Are there others in the 'current' plane ie can we only experience a 'slice'? Have there been others before & more to come in infinite time?) As long as science cannot answer those questions, the pope will never get a rebuttal.
This statement is utterly fatuous. Domesticated chickens can't survive in the wild, much less reproduce to the point where anyone would notice. I know this never made any impression on you when you posted as "Medved," but why make the same silly mistakes when you're tomzz?
What's next? A re-run of your minstrel dialect act and telling us how much you loved Amos 'n' Andy?
nah - the usual televangelists' catamites and other assorted ineducables have already corrupted Tokra's thread
yes, that statement was utterly fatuous.
and, of course, one could observe that only a citified primadonna doesn't know that domestic chickens are quite capable of flight.
It's a primate, more related to monkeys than to the bats it resembles. This is more starkly obvious when you see a young one, as in this baby clinging to the side of its mama in mid-glide.
The picture starkly demonstrates another bit of evolutionary lore, that humans look like the babies of other primates. That is, we exhibit neoteny within our group.
Nice picture!
The Tree of Life has colugos as the only 2 species in the order Dermoptera, family Cynocephalidae.
I've seen articles from 2002 that include them in the Primate order based on DNA analysis.
I report. You decide.
I just like a primate with flying in its name.
You make it sound like the sky was absolutely full of birds at all times. The sky isn't full of anything; it's mostly empty air. In most parts of North America, you'll see an eagle or hawk about once every couple of weeks. You probably ought to stick with the ad-hominems and the crybaby acts, logic and grasp of reality don't seem to be any sort of strong suits for you.
Your statement is totally false. Ever read the early explorers' accounts? (I thought not.)
He said "plentiful", not "full off". I would also point out that Jungle Fowl, given the nature of the environment to which they have adapted, only fly short distances (the vegetative cover precludes longer flight). They are, however, extremely quick on their feet (have you ever tried to catch a chicken?).
And actually he said "full of", not "full off". So there.
Never underestimate the felt gravity effect.
The 4th Law: if you can't feel it you won't get pulled down
Gosh, you have reminded me of what an ill-tempered, retarded, buffoonish, conspiratorial clown medved was when he was around here.
Flying lemurs aren't true primates. They are, however, our closest living non-primate relatives (unless you don't consider tree shrews to be primates).
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.