Skip to comments.
Living dinosaurs
abc.net.au ^
| 9/30/2002
Posted on 10/01/2002 8:32:43 AM PDT by 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]
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
TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: birds; crevolist; dinosaurs; evolution; paleontology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580 ... 601-602 next last
To: All
D. Axelrod, Science 128:7-
"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence
of diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all
the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age."
"their absence in rocks of 'greater' age."
The 'greater' age in layers exists if you think the layers formed from the top!
To: f.Christian
jibber---jabber...
twiddle---twaddle...
fiddle---faddle...
barker---placemarker!
542
posted on
10/05/2002 12:46:42 AM PDT
by
jennyp
To: AndrewC
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer
for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
I LOVE the new font! You must stick with this one. It's so...you!
543
posted on
10/05/2002 12:50:53 AM PDT
by
jennyp
To: Doctor Stochastic
Chompsky seems more like a theoretical Stalinist without the loyalty to Mother Russia. He's a big fan of Castro -- got rid of prostitution, and all that. Except, of course, for those who are more equal.
544
posted on
10/05/2002 12:56:55 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: AndrewC
This is a new high in your search for lucidity.
545
posted on
10/05/2002 12:58:57 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: PatrickHenry
Placemarker.
To: All
. Axelrod, Science 128:7-
"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age."
"their absence in rocks of 'greater' age."
The 'greater' age in layers exists if you think the layers formed from the top!
At one pt. the whole of the Earth was hot cooling from the surface in successive layers from below---outward!
Nothing missing in those layers---no mystery!
These invertebrates can only exist above ground level...in water/air---not underground!
To: All
Geologic columns/dating...what about the massive canyon on mars---no water/erosion!
The size---circumference of the Earth has gotten smaller(although at certain pts. it could have been changing/variable).
During initial collapse(center heating/condensing) large ridges---mountains(large rocky...vast/fast soil erosion) would protrude upwards!
Land wouldn't form evenly...continents would remain at higher levels above water level then plates would dry out(releasing water/moisture/rain)---shrink producing cracks/fissures---then layered-canyons/basins/ravines...via cooled and hot sediments would form(rise/uplift) as the shrink/sink-ing would continue...producing more mountains/hills(slight-no erosion)--'volcanoes' continously---to fill the receding excessive gaps/holes!
At the Grand Canyon older sedimentary levels are at the top and the fresher/newer ones below...those straight up 'buttes' came out of hole--soft spots in the plates like cake decorations---Ayre's Rock like a bubble in a blown tire.
All that erosion/sedimentary crap old age of the Earth is hooie-dooie!
There is not enough dust on the moon to support an old earth dating system!
To: Phaedrus
My take on the Dawkins/Gould Evolutionist position after lo these many threads and years is that there is a ferocious gut level animus toward Christianity at work among adherents. They love to bash Creationists at every opportunity. Ann Coulter desribes this "Atheist Left" (her phrase but wish it were mine)-inspired animus toward Christianity beautifully in Slander (buy it). The Great Satan is the constantly morphing "religious right" and she aptly compares it to George Orwell's one-size-fits-all demon, Emmanuel Goldstein.
Ask an Evolutionist why the Universe is orderly, why science has been so successful, and the best answer you'll get is "It just is" (I know, I've asked.) Well, right, but that's the whole point, isn't it? Order does not arise out of chaos without some impetus. It can be argued around, denied or ignored, but there it is. And there it will stay.
So what's your problem, Evolutionists? Do you not have the courage of your convictions? Will your theory not withstand scrutiny? If you attempt to stifle criticism, that's not science.
Darwinism is dead, Evols. It doesn't know it so we just have to keep beating it until it stops moving.
Now before some newbie instantly labels me a "creationist", as though that were pejorative, let me repeat that I am not a literal Biblical creationist. It is quite clear to me, though, that God is a most intimate and relevant reality, THE most intimate and relevant reality. It's a medium-long discussion but the Bible is not required to get you there.
183 posted on 10/4/02 5:59 PM Pacific by Phaedrus
To: js1138
He's a big fan of Castro.That's why Chomsky would have this to say of Castro's regime:
"Personally, I'd like to see the regime ["it's a dictatorship, often brutal"] overthrown by an internal libertarian revolution..."
To: All
Start next 50 placemarker.
To: AndrewC
Bloody peasant. More fun from the "Half Dozen Immaculate Anarchists"
To: AndrewC
Gee, did I strike a nerve there?
Are you an ID/IOT advocate as well?
To: balrog666
Are you an ID/IOT advocate as well? Well STUPID, have a guess?
554
posted on
10/05/2002 4:06:09 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
555
To: f.Christian
556 is 14 pin dual 555.
556
posted on
10/05/2002 4:36:28 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: balrog666; VadeRetro; Junior; jennyp; general_re; Piltdown_Woman
Hey hey ... neat website (name is a play on AIG?) with lots of great links:
Answers in Science.
To: PatrickHenry
ASCII Bat-free zone placemarker
To: longshadow
Slime-free zone.
To: All
"No one doubts the improbability of events. Your existence is highly improbable. So is mine. Think of all the events in just the past 100 generations which could have caused any of our ancestors to behave differently than they did. Yet all the past events happened, naturally, step by step, and here we are, so mere improbability is not much of an issue."
"The facts upon which evolution theory is based are rather well established. Mutations happen. They really do. And new species appear over time, really. And they appear in form and DNA to be related to pre-existing species. No joke, that's the evidence. In every generation, those best suited for the game of life are most likely to breed the next generation. Mutation and natural selection. And time, lots of time. They're the stuff of evolution."
"The results are always going to be seen as improbable in retrospect, but that's how things happen. It's such a reasonable explanation that there's no need to wave it all away and grasp instead for an external "designer" for whom there is no evidence at all.
"So I don't see ID as an "honest attempt" to deal with improbability. Rather, it's a clever attempt to confuse the poorly trained public with slick (but unscientific) patter."
353 posted on 9/19/02 2:24 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry
"Mutation and natural selection. And time, lots of time. They're the stuff of evolution."
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540, 541-560, 561-580 ... 601-602 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
