Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird "Hands" Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs
University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill (http://www.unc.edu/) via Science Daily Magazine ^ | Posted 8/15/2002 | Editorial Staff

Posted on 10/24/2002 1:32:37 PM PDT by vannrox

Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird "Hands" Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs

CHAPEL HILL -- To make an omelet, you need to break some eggs. Not nearly so well known is that breaking eggs also can lead to new information about the evolution of birds and dinosaurs, a topic of hot debate among leading biologists. Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have done just that. They opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs. They also discovered the first concrete evidence of a thumb in birds.

"Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said. "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three -- which are the same as the thumb, index and middle fingers of humans -- because digits four and five remain as vestiges or tiny bumps on early dinosaur skeletons. Apparently many dinosaurs developed very specialized, almost unique 'hands' for grasping and raking. "Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible."

A report on their investigations will appear online in the August issue of Naturwissenschaften, the top German biology journal, and soon afterwards in the print edition.

The new work involved microscopic examination of early skeletal development in ostrich embryos, he said. Nowicki, who received her doctorate in biology at UNC last year, and he found the critical period for major features of the skeletons of primitive birds like ostriches to appear occurred between days 8 and 15 of those birds' 42-day growth inside eggs.

The beginnings of arm bones and "fingers" begin to appear around day 8, Feduccia said. Those that would grow into the animals' thumbs, however, appear around day 14 and later disappear by about day 17.

"Because most such studies in birds have relied on embryos in the second half of development, usually at or near hatching, these studies have therefore used embryos that exhibit the form of fully developed chicks and have generated misleading results," he said. "Questions about development of bird hands were first addressed in 1821 by the famous German physician and anatomist Johann Friedrich Meckel for whom the cartilage of the lower jaw was named. But no one has produced convincing evidence for a thumb before. For us, this is very exciting."

The UNC evolutionary biologist has been a strong critic of the belief that dinosaurs gave rise to birds as some paleontologists have claimed since the 1970s. He also has been a major figure in the debate for 30 years.

"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

Most of the bird-like dinosaurs were "looking at the meteor some 65 million years ago," he said, a reference to the giant meteor believed to have struck the Earth then and killed off all dinosaurs within a short time.

If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement.

Findings from careful examinations of alligator and turtle embryos were consistent with those of birds, the scientist added.

Far more likely is that birds and dinosaurs had a much older common ancestor, he said. Many superficial similarities between birds and dinosaurs arose because both groups developed body designs for walking upright on two hind legs and began to resemble each other over millions of years. "It is now clear that the origin of birds is a much more complicated question than has been previously thought," Feduccia said.

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found at http://www.unc.edu/ news/newsserv/research/feduccia081402.htm



Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill for journalists and other members of the public. If you wish to quote from any part of this story, please credit University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill as the original source. You may also wish to include the following link in any citation:



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020815072053.htm



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bird; claws; crevolist; dinosaur; feather; godsgravesglyphs; hands; history; past; revision; thumbs; unexplained; unusual
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: gore3000
Funny way evos have of dismissing evidence. So long as someone does not accept it, it does not count.

My point was that the scientist making the claim regarding birds and dinosaurs simply believes that evolution occured differently than the method commonly accepted. My statement had nothing to do with denying the claim regarding birds and dinosaurs. As usual, your response has nothing to do with what I actually said and only to do with what you pretend that I said.
61 posted on 10/25/2002 9:51:57 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Since I'm not a "creationist" I really don't care what is or isn't a "point" for them.
62 posted on 10/25/2002 10:10:34 AM PDT by That Subliminal Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I've only ever seen bits and pieces of that one, so I'm on the lookout for whenever it's on again..

It's funny, it's absurb, it's good. I usually just tape the entire "Adult Swim" schedule on Sunday nights (cartoon channel) and watch it over the next few days.

Well, I see they killed the pics, let's try this one:


63 posted on 10/25/2002 10:13:47 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
My point was ...

No, that was not your point. Your point was that because the discoverer of this is still an evolutionist the evidence does not disprove another evolutionist assumption. Every day we see more and more evolutionst assumptions disproven. If evolution were science then the findings of science would be proving evolutionist assumptions. They are not, they are disproving them.

64 posted on 10/25/2002 8:50:57 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: vannrox
If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences, Feduccia said.

Binoculars?

66 posted on 10/25/2002 9:00:48 PM PDT by Interesting Times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
Binoculars?

Sure. How else would you look at chicken skeletons? Haven't you ever been birdwatching? ;)

67 posted on 10/25/2002 9:57:40 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Your point was that because the discoverer of this is still an evolutionist the evidence does not disprove another evolutionist assumption.

The evidence is evidence a common assumption regarding evolutionary descent. I admit it here, and I never stated otherwise. Of course, you're known for lying about the statements of others, so your misrepresentation of my words is no surprise.
68 posted on 10/25/2002 11:24:39 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: jejones
corrected. If science worked like religion,

When evolutionists get shown to be wrong, they always bring up religion. The argument here is not between religion and evolution. The argument here is between the pseudo-science of evolution and real science. Real science examines and tests the evidence before assertions. Pseudo-science like evolution makes wild assertions with no evidence. This is what the article shows quite well - evolution is pseudo-science.

69 posted on 10/26/2002 6:53:28 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
"This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible."

Nothing is impossible for evolution. It is more magical than the most primitive religion.

You must only close your eyes tight and believe, believe, believe!

70 posted on 10/26/2002 6:56:26 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Seems to me if creationism was real science it would be taught in schools right now and evolution would be pushing to be included in what's taught.
71 posted on 10/26/2002 7:06:38 AM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
Seems to me if creationism was real science...

The argument here is not between religion and science. The argument here is between science and the pseudo-science of evolution. The argument here is about what science has shown to be true and what the pseudo-science of evolution claims to be true. The article amply shows that evolution is pseudo-science and that its claims are totally contradicted by the facts.

72 posted on 10/26/2002 8:11:37 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: All
Dana Blankenhorn placemarker.
73 posted on 10/26/2002 8:34:16 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
The individual words I understand, thanks; however, you seem to be incapable of creating grammatical sentences.
74 posted on 10/26/2002 9:03:43 AM PDT by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: jejones
I use p*** off parties for... lighter(#167)---fluid!

Don't worry...I'll post it for you!

75 posted on 10/26/2002 9:12:21 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jejones
To: Condorman

cm...

Keep up the good work and give me a ping when you've mastered "coherent thought."

fC...

Any particular reason your bio page is blank?

Because your mind is consumed by evo schlockism nothing resonates in an empty space?

A guy over here always inebriated(fairy science) died in a drainage ditch with a broken neck. Nobody was around like the the times before to pull him out.

Your tank must have a permanent drain/hole in it.

I know another guy who pushed his junker(evolution) off of a cliff into the ocean because the only value was the insurance pay out for theft.

Ping me back when you get your brain donation---transplant!

167 posted on 9/28/02 4:49 AM Pacific by f.Christian


76 posted on 10/26/2002 9:13:29 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
77
77 posted on 10/26/2002 9:13:50 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jejones
You don't know your departure-exit bottom from a whole in the ground and your going to correct----criticize me?

To: f.Christian

The fact that the nomenclature of the political spectrum is
is reversed in the USA indicates the radical nature of our republic. The radical idea of the 18th century was reducing the power of central authority in favor of individual liberties. American liberals of today seem more interested
in returning those hard won individual freedoms to the central government. (I deliberatly use the term central rather than federal because I am a Southerner who recoqnizes the difference.)

American conservatives today are Classical Liberals.


7 posted on 10/25/2002 9:34 PM PDT by limitedgov

78 posted on 10/26/2002 9:25:08 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jejones
hmmmm...

You don't know your departure-exit bottom from a whole in the ground and you're going to correct----criticize me?

79 posted on 10/26/2002 9:30:11 AM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
That should be "The evidence is evidence against a common assumption ..."
80 posted on 10/26/2002 11:17:35 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson