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

[js1138]

I guess I'm not the only one who got confused by Chomsky's own words. For a linguist he communicates poorly. The link you gave reads like a democrat trying to weasel out of a former position without contradicting himself. What exactly is he saying?

[Nebullis]

I suggest you follow the thread on post #474.

I did. It supports exactly what I'm saying. The emphasis is mine.

It is sometimes argued that though knowledge might in principle be innate, it must nonetheless be grounded in experience through evolutionary history… there is no reason to require...that evolutionary adaptation play some special role. There is no reason to demand and little reason to suppose that genetically-determined properties result from specific selection

I suggest you also read what Chomsky has to say in my link at #479.

[Nebullis]

For a linguist he communicates poorly.

Oh, I agree. His books are very difficult to plow through.

[VadeRetro]

I personally reject the notion that the smarter mammals are not conscious.

It strikes me as ludicrous. I don't see how anyone who has come to know a few cats and dogs could say such a thing. They're not as smart as most humans. They basically can't talk. Nevertheless they're very expressive and have unique personalities.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I'm Catholic, but I'm also an evolutionist. There is nothing anti-Christian about accepting the validity of science for describing the universe. Certainly science cannot answer what happens to us after we die or the ultimate "why are we here," but for matters temporal, including the descent of modern species, science, and especially evolutionary biology, have some pretty good answers and plenty of evidence on its side.

This Jew agrees with you.

[js1138]

I think we're merging in our understanding of Chomsky's statements on evolution. I may have misunderstood him, but I have lots of company, and I've only spent a few hours reading his stuff.

So now it appears that he's a punkeek. Instead of language emerging in tiny increments, through gradual selection, it popped out as a sport, a large scale mutation that became available for further refinement.

Or am I missing something? Does he really believe in special creation?

[js1138]

Nevertheless they're very expressive...

[Nebullis]

"No one who is within any realm of discourse I even remotely take part in doubts that language, like everything else about humans, is the product of evolution. But evolution has many mysteries, as every biologist knows. To say that some part of the organic world is the result of evolution is close to truism; beyond truism the interesting (and mostly unsolved) questions arise." --Noam Chomsky

[Nebullis]

Or am I missing something?

There is a difference between evolution (the truism) and the specifics, such as the development of language or zebra stripes. Each representation of evolution in the biological world may have a different evolutionary origin.

[js1138]

What Chomsky seems to deny in his theories is that evolution continues (in a different time scale and by different mechanisms) in the development of the individual. If he had an adequate theory for the production of language, we'd have AI by now. But he leaves out emotion, context, connotation -- all the things that evolution and psychology would say are the reasons for language in the first place.

[Doctor Stochastic]

He may not be remembered at all. Of course for a while he was the "world's most cited author."

[js1138]

He may not be remembered at all.

I was being sarcastic. I still think that in the field of linguistics -- his scientific specialty -- he will one day be regarded as an american Lysenko.

[Nebullis]

Of course for a while he was the "world's most cited author."

He's also been "America's greatest intellectual". However, his politics can be dismissed (closely situated with the anarcho-libertarians on this forum), his contributions to language, computation and automata will outlive him.

[Doctor Stochastic]

That's quite a perceptive and accurate statement.

[Nebullis]

I still think that in the field of linguistics -- his scientific specialty -- he will one day be regarded as an american Lysenko.

I doubt it. I just don't see a comparison. Chomsky's Syntactic Structures came out in 1957 and his theories are still going strong today. They enjoy empirical support, one big difference between his theories and Lysenko's, and they are not dependent on the political expediency of the day.

[f.Christian]

Didn't you say something earler in the year...

something about a prediction of Nostradamus---

concerning the demise of evolution!

Really...

do you think this madness/folly---

can go on for much longer?

[edsheppa]

Certainly cats and dogs have a limited ability to forsee events, but then, so do most people.

We used to have a smart little Corgi dog. She loved to torment our other not-as-smart Elkhound and we'd sometimes play a game where I'd stay between them and push her away (the Elkhound of course had no idea it was a game). One time we were playing it in the kitchen when, all of the sudden, the Corgi turned, ran out through the living room then through the dining room then through another entry into the kitchen to get at the Elkhound from the other side. As soon as she'd run out I realized her intention (and I'm morally certain that's what it was) and moved to block her when she came in the other way. That really made an impression on me.

Another time we were having the fence replaced in our back yard. We'd have to take the dogs out in the back on a leash. Just after the fence was down and the two side gates had been removed, my daughter took the Corgi out. They went around to the side where one of the gates had been. My daughter said the Corgi immediately turned and dragged her to the other side "as if" to see if the other gate was missing. That's pretty damned abstract.

Just sharing.

[js1138]

Well, Lysenko was in favor for a long time. I do not think his work is entirely without merit, but ignores most of the features of human communication. Most of us do not spend our days creating well formed sentences. Heck, I'm over 50 and still have trouble. Where's my language bump?

I think it is a truism to say that languages have structural similarities. That is like saying bird wings and bat wings and insect wings have similarities. Sometimes form has to follow function.

Of course language requires brain structures, and of course these structures contrain language. It's probably fun to figure all this out.

But meanwhile, most of us communicate with hidden meanings, coded in body language, tone of voice, private meanings for common words, grunts and sentence fragments, etc. Chomsky is analyzing a subset of language that is as sterile and artificial as computer language.

[js1138]

You have encountered a game which dogs play by themselves, independent of humans in their midst. I have both cats and dogs, and some of each are clever enough to take the roundabout way to attack the others. We also have a cat I nicknamed Attilla, who waits by the cat door to ambush anyone trying to enter. It's really interesting watching cats and dogs -- with their different style of play -- trying to find an accomodation. They do, but it takes a lot of scratched noses for the dogs to figure it out.

[js1138]

I do not think his work is entirely without merit

Make that Chomsky's...