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

[drlevy88]

Dinosaur Song

[Gumlegs]

And I thought your Bogie was good!

[Junior]

placemarker

[balrog666]

End-of-thread marker. Go ahead, prove me wrong!

[Gumlegs]

Thphbhth!

[PatrickHenry]

By the authority vested in me by me, I declare this thread closed.

[AndrewC]

[Gumlegs]

Doesn't look like a thread ...

[f.Christian]

I'll take my time. I'm no Physicist, but understanding the basic principles is a satisfaction unto itself.

Too bad so many folks can accept physics and say "Yeah, that's science" and look at evolution theory and say "Nope, the Bible says."

Regards

Do you think evolution is in the constitution...the law of the land?

[Northeast]

Do you think evolution is in the constitution...the law of the land?

Why no! Like every science it is open to exploration!

Let me ask you a question: Do you think the Bible, your Religion is the constitution, the law of the land, and that all Science is bunk?

I get to do a f poem now! Woo Hoo!

Minds in control -- CLOSED!

No care for what we are ..... Outrageous!

We were born in caves ....

Then Science took us out --- HOW DARE Science!

Caves were nice. We painted stuff.

I refuse to leave my cave --- Evolutionists!

[f.Christian]

Let me ask you a question: Do you think the Bible, your Religion is the constitution, the law of the land, and that all Science is bunk?

Evolution---social engineering is bunk---EVIL!

Science---God is great---good...no problem!

Is ludderville your home---CAVE/hole?

[Northeast]

Wow. What an amzing reply. Gee, what an amazing argument you present, I am in awe of your debating skills!

I have converted to dumping Science because of your insight:

Evolution---social engineering is bunk---EVIL!
Science---God is great---good...no problem!

NOTE TO NORMAL FOLKS: I'm just kidding.

[f.Christian]

I have converted to dumping Science because of your insight:

And you think evolution is science--normal?

[f.Christian]

To: Dimensio

As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

[balrog666]

And you think evolution is science--normal?

As opposed to science--abnormal? Or science--supranormal? Or science--just science???

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Maybe some of these evolved into chupacabras too... :-)

[f.Christian]

"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."

[Calvin Locke]

My second thought. First was The Kleagle.