Posted on 02/14/2002 8:34:36 AM PST by OBAFGKM
New species clarifies bird-dinosaur link
Field Museum paleontologist helps analyze fossil
CHICAGO – The discovery and analysis of an early carnivorous dinosaur, Sinovenator changii, are clarifying the evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and birds, according to a paper to be published in Nature Feb. 14, 2002.
The small, relatively complete fossil was found in the rich Yixian Formation of western Liaoning in China, where scientists have recently discovered many groundbreaking fossils, including feathered dinosaurs.
“This new dinosaur, which was probably feathered, is closely related to and almost the same age as the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx,” says Peter Makovicky, PhD, assistant curator of dinosaurs at The Field Museum and co-author of the paper. “It demonstrates that major structural modifications toward birds occurred much earlier in the evolutionary process than previously thought.
“Furthermore, these findings help counter, once and for all, the position of paleontologists who argue that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs,” he adds.
Article continues at Field Museum Press Release.
For the author to claim that Archaeopteryx is the oldest bird ignores the existing controversy among experts and betrays his bias. This article discusses the current debate and ends with this paragraph.
So, in the end, what is Archaeopteryx ? Was it a theropod dinosaur or a bird? Could it fly or not? Is it a crucial missing-link or a bizarre offshoot? A legitimate fossil or an artful hoax? The answers to these questions are far from complete but I'll bet that Archaeopteryx will continue to provoke curiosity and debate for a long time to come yet.
Well, he's certainly a fossil.
Possibly, and Janet Reno might be the only living fossil.
Creationist: There ARE NO transitional fossils. Look at fossil of species A that evoluionists claim evolved into fossil of species B. There's nothing in between!
Evolutionist Paleontologist: Look, I just found fossil C. It's in-between fossil A and fossil B in age, and has characteristics of both. There's yet another of the thousands of transitional forms that have been found.
Creationist: Look at fossil of species A and fossil of specis C! Look at fossil of species C and fossil of species B! There's nothing in-between! There are no transitional forms!
Evolutionist Paleontologist: Ok, I've found fossil D and fossile E. Fossil D is younger than fossil A and older than fossil C, and it has characteristics of both. Fossil E is younger than fossil C and older than fossil B. Both fossils are yet more of the thousands of transitional fossils we've discovered.
Creationist: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS! WHERE IS THE TRANSITION BETWEEN FOSSIL A AND FOSSIL D BLAH BLAH BLAH RANT RANT RANT
The laughable Paluxy "man" tracks of creation "science"?
Are you suggesting that "PROBABLY=Theory", therefore S. changii is not a transitional form? What's your point??
Its closest known relatives are on the dinosaur side of the line, however. I refer to Protoarchaeopteryx and this unclassified dromaeosaur (perhaps a juvenile Sinornithosaurus).
Actually, you mean "probably" is not fact, but even so, Dr. Makovicky doesn't present the statement as fact. However, he does hypothesize that S. changii had feathers. He does so because it is apparently closely related to creatures that demonstrably had feathers.
As for the Bible vs. evolution, I am staying out of this one!! Believe what you like.
Oh wait this isn't a caption thread... 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.