Living dinosaurs

abc.net.au ^ | 9/30/2002

[SteveH]

News in Science

News in Science 30/9/2002 Living dinosaurs

[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s687677.htm]

	Model of Sinosauropteryx sprima (pronounced 'sine-oh-saw-op-te-rix pree-ma')made by Alan Groves working with palaeontologists Drs Walter Boles and Sue Hand.

If we are to believe the message of a new exhibit demonstrating the evolutionary transition from dinosaurs to birds, dinosaurs are not extinct.

Four life-sized reconstructions of ferocious-looking, smart-thinking, flesh-eating feathered dinosaurs – representing 125 million-year-old missing links between dinosaurs and birds – have landed at the Australian Museum in Sydney as part of the Chinese Dinosaurs exhibition.

"The birds we see flying around our backyards are actually living dinosaurs, descendants of prehistoric beasts we all once presumed became extinct 65 million years ago," said museum director, Professor Mike Archer.

"But feathers were evolving as dinosaur attributes long before they became valuable as flight structures," he said.

"Indeed fossils uncovered in the Liaoning Province of China have provided a whole sequence of missing links in the dinosaur to bird story."

Model of Sinornithosaurus smillenii (pronounced 'sine-or-nith-oh-saw-rus mill-en-ee-eye) made by Alan Groves working with palaeontologists Drs Walter Boles and Sue Hand.
 

One of the earlier links is Sinosauropteryx prima. The creature is covered with what looks to be a fine fuzz but are really small barbs – a link between scales and feathers.

"It's a metre-long, meat-eating, ground-dwelling predator, closely related to the dinosaur in Jurassic Park II which ate the little girl on the beach," said Professor Archer.

He speculated these very early feathers were probably for insulation since this group was almost certainly warm blooded.

The Sinornithosaurus millenii (top picture) embodies a later link.

"This is a very vicious little predator about a metre long. But here the feathers are much larger – although they're not fully formed or capable of flight," said Professor Archer.

An interesting characteristic of the creature was its capacity to lift its arms over its head in a flapping motion. Professor Archer said scientists assumed its array of feathers had a purpose – to frighten predators, help capture prey, attract mates or threaten male competitors.

The next stage – the development of feathers for flight – is seen in creatures like the Archseopteryx, a smaller animal than Sinornithosaurus millenii with longer and assymetrical feathers.

While there has been some debate as to whether dinosaurs (unlike other groups of reptiles) are the ancestors of birds, Professor Archer believes since 1996 there has been no strong argument against the hypothesis.

"I don't know anyone who is still holding out on this one," he said. "Other than the creationists of course who don't want anything to be ancestral to birds."

Chinese Dinosaurs is open until February next year. The dino-bird exhibit is sponsored by The Australian Skeptics.

Anna Salleh - ABC Science Online

More Info?

British Natural History Museum Dino-Birds Exhibition

Missing link from fur to feathers – News in Science 27/4/2001

Dinosaur fossil with proto-feathers – News in Science 8/3/2001

Dinosaur-bird theory defended – News in Science 24/11/2000

© ABC 2002 | privacy

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The theist evolutionist (many of my friends) still believes that there is purpose, direction, and a definite intelligence behind the whole operation.

I agree with you as well.

[VadeRetro]

Maybe cells are too complicated to have been designed. After all, evolution doesn't need a brain but a designer does.

Your TV program seems to be at odds with other research on ape-human differences in neurological wiring for language. With some trouble, you can get an ape to "talk" in sign language (Washoe the chimp, Koko the gorilla), but not with his or her vocal apparatus. The problem seems to be in the division of brain area relegated to the control of different body areas (lips, tongue, and throat versus hands and fingers). Humans have a huge brain investment in the mechanics of talking the way they do.

[VadeRetro]

Where's LBB? Usually by this time of the morning these crevo threads are 60+ posts longer just from his efforts alone...

He gave us the night off.

[PatrickHenry]

He gave us the night off.

We can't let you off that easily. Work on these:

You're a sliming liar.
Everything in the last 150 years disproves evolution.
You are unable to refute anything I've ever said.
You're a coward to hide behind your screen name.
It's all your fault that medved was banned.
Why are there still monkeys?

[VadeRetro]

You're looking rather elliptical this morning, PH! Wildly so, in fact.

For 1⁷²⁰ cents I'd show you a thing or two about spewing blue.

[balrog666]

Apologies to folks discussing fossils, I truely didn't mean for the thread to go here. But... well ...

Divergent subthreads are like adding spices to food - it makes it a lot more interesting.

[js1138]

Your TV program seems to be at odds with other research on ape-human differences in neurological wiring for language.

Some decades ago, our friend, Noam Chomsky weighed in ape sign language. He declared it isn't language at all. He also revealed that he doesn't believe in evolution. Pretty revealing, I thought.

[balrog666]

The ID theory has been around for a long time and before the ‘blind watchmaker’, ID was usually compared with a musical instrument rather than some deity winding an object and letting it run its course…

So, are you an ID/IOT proponent then? Do you think it a "scientific" theory? Does it explain the fossil record better than evolutionary theory?

[VadeRetro]

The next chimp to be studied got the name "Nim Chimpsky" because of that business.

[VadeRetro]

A Good Article on the Studies and Controversies, although I'd like to know why it appears to have a picture of Marisa Tomei with an organgutan at the top.

[PatrickHenry]

Trash science finds a worthy home

[Gumlegs]

Where's LBB?

Nowhere near where I am, which suits me fine.

[Nebullis]

He also revealed that he doesn't believe in evolution.

As I understand it, Chomsky does not find selection or an adaptationist view of language sufficiently explanatory. This seems perfectly reasonable. I had no idea he doesn't believe in evolution. Where did you find that information?

[scripter]

This isn't Chomsky's words but someone talking a little about his position on evolution: here.

[js1138]

As I understand it, Chomsky does not find selection or an adaptationist view of language sufficiently explanatory. This seems perfectly reasonable. I had no idea he doesn't believe in evolution. Where did you find that information?

I'm afraid I read it in an article Chomsky wrote for Psychology Today in the early 70s. I was so struck by seeing an MIT scientist who didn't believe in evolution that I have remembered it to this day. He did not explicitly reject any and all biological evolution, but was clear that evolution couldn't account for language.

I suppose that puts him in the ID or special creation camp.

I picked up one of his books in a store and read the dust jacket. He said he would rather be remembered for his political writings than his science. When the dust has settled on linguistic theory, I'm sure he'll get his wish.

[js1138]

Ohhhhh! I like your post. See the last line of my post #475. Chomsky is An American Lysenko. For decades he has been able to ruin the careers of anyone who disagreed with him on language. Now that cognative neuroscience is taking off, he's toast.

It is obvious that some kinds of brain structures are required for language. This is a tautology. But his theory of language requires you to disregard connotation and all the emotional undertones of communication.

[Nebullis]

I suppose that puts him in the ID or special creation camp.

Not at all. I think you make a big mistake consigning all those who don't subscribe to gradualist selectionist processes as IDers or creationists. Chomsky believes in evolution, but has stated that he does not believe that all traits can be accounted for by selection theory. That is, physical constraints, canalization, and self-organizing behavior (all of which fall under evolutionary theory) play important roles in evolutionary development.

[js1138]

I'm curious. Would Chomsky say that a deaf child who grows up with no language is not conscious?

I personally reject the notion that the smarter mammals are not conscious. Certainly cats and dogs have a limited ability to forsee events, but then, so do most people.

[Nebullis]

This may be helpful.

Language and Evolution Chomsky and Smith

[js1138]

Not at all.

I suggest you follow the thread on post #474.