Origin of birds confirmed by exceptional new dinosaur fossils

_{Mario Lopez

September 26, 2009

Darwinism, Evolution, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Press release issued 25 September 2009

From the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists annual meeting at the University of Bristol, UK

Chinese scientists today reveal the discovery of five remarkable new feathered dinosaur fossils which are significantly older than any previously reported. The new finds are indisputably older than Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, at last providing hard evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Comments

hyperlink code not working (sorry): http://books.google.com/books?id=8QRKV7eSqmIC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=Bird+expert+Alan+Feduccia&source=bl&ots=foV59PdFAf&sig=mkBZq8v7KbNKz7DoIMnvWmAuBfk&hl=en&ei=wIK_StGpLKrl8AbO1uS9AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=falseMario A. Lopez_{September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Here is a good read: Mario A. Lopez_{September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

“ID-friendly scientists will need to identify exactly which genes are responsible for the development of feathers in birds, how these genes differ from their counterparts in reptiles, and what kinds of genetic changes would have been required to get from scales to feathers. If they can establish that the probability of traversing the pathway falls below Dembski’s probability bound, then they’ll have scored another point for ID.” Vjtorley Assuming you could do this calculation - which seems extraordinarily hard - what could you conclude? Consider. 1) Why the probability of feathers? Evolution did not have a target of feathers. It could have drifted into a billion different solutions which gave some kind of fitness advantage. It just happened to hit on feathers. In ID speak - what is the specification: feathers, flight enabling modification of some kind, any kind of fitness advantage? The event - feathers evolved - conforms to all of these and an infinite number of other specifications. 2) What about the probability of the solution given design? Even if you somehow decide on a specification and magically conjure up a calculation - then what? All you have achieved is to show that some of the assumptions about RM+NS are wrong. It is important but it says nothing about design. To establish design you need a design hypothesis and calculate the probability of that hypothesis producing feathers. Then you can compare likelihoods.Mark Frank_{September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

"ID-friendly scientists will need to identify exactly which genes are responsible for the development of feathers in birds, how these genes differ from their counterparts in reptiles, and what kinds of genetic changes would have been required to get from scales to feathers. If they can establish that the probability of traversing the pathway falls below Dembski’s probability bound, then they’ll have scored another point for ID." Sounds like a lucrative area of research to me!ellazimm_{September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

I used to very skeptical of the dino-bird theory, partly because of the temporal paradox mentioned in the article, and partly because the limbs of most dinosaurs are of the wrong proportions for flight. The recent dicovery of Anchiornis huxleyi, described here , has changed my mind. It seems that at least some dinosaurs with feathers and with long forelimbs (required for flight) existed before the first known fossil bird, Archaeopteryx. Thanks to the new discovery, I think the evidence that birds are descended from dinosaurs is about as good as one could reasonably ask for. The reason why I'm persuaded is precisely because I think it very unlikely that feathers, which have a very specific structure, could have evolved independently in two separate lineages (birds and dinosaurs). Anyone who accepts that feathers are complex (and hence improbable) structures, and who also accepts that feathered dinosaurs appeared before birds, would be forced to the same conclusion. ID theorists are distinguished for their ability to think critically about the problem of biological origins, and also for their ability to think "outside the box." Now that the descent of birds from dinosaurs has been established, we should address the real question: precisely how unlikely is the development of feathers, as a result of undirected processes? We need to back up the commonly held intuition that feathers could not have arisen through a combination of blind chance and necessity with some hard numbers. To do that, ID-friendly scientists will need to identify exactly which genes are responsible for the development of feathers in birds, how these genes differ from their counterparts in reptiles, and what kinds of genetic changes would have been required to get from scales to feathers. If they can establish that the probability of traversing the pathway falls below Dembski's probability bound, then they'll have scored another point for ID. Now the fun part begins. Let's see how the numbers pan out.vjtorley_{September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

An apology would be nice for all the times we were told that there was irrefutable evidence that birds evolved from theropods in the cretaceous. Why shouldn't I conclude that this is mickey mouse science when bold statements are quietly setaside for new bold statements that will also be quietly set aside when new data falsifies the old.Andrew Sibley_{September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

#2 Am I a bizarre, anti-intellectual, IQ-deprived, science-destroying troglodyte who can’t somehow see The Truth of Darwinism? Not at all - I am sure your IQ is very high :-)Mark Frank_{September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Unfortunate news for evolutionists. Now they have to show how feathers evolved from scales even worse. Would have been easier if feathers evolved from hair. Well, sort of.tragic mishap_{September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Birds evolving from dinosaurs was the old belief before June 2009, when researchers at Oregon State University announced that birds did NOT descend from dinosaurs. After extensive studies of how birds move and breathe the researchers found that dinosaurs' abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. Bye bye birdie! These Chinese researchers must have missed the OSU announcement.TimT_{September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

"The new finds are indisputably older than Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, at last providing hard evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs." unless all the creatures were created in the same week. And since when is a dinosaur with feathers considered a bird? An inference (biased at that) must be made on both sides of that creature -- as there always is.van_{September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Finally there is irrefutable evidence! How many more times must we be tormented with the Darwinian "finality" claim of the absolute and undeniable truth of the creative power of Darwinian incrementalism? The Darwinian claim of finality of truth concerning origins grows very old very quickly, when it is proclaimed ad nauseum. Why is it that we hear weakly (oops, weekly) that "at last hard evidence proves" a "theory" that is as well established as the inverse-square law of gravity? Someone please help me with this. When was the last last time you read an article that exuded with unbridled enthusiasm: "Finally, hard evidence for the theory of gravity"? Am I a bizarre, anti-intellectual, IQ-deprived, science-destroying troglodyte who can't somehow see The Truth of Darwinism? Or, is the Darwinian con job transparently obvious?GilDodgen_{September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

The specimens are not transitional, in any meaningful sense in that they were fully capable of flight,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis The definition evolutionists give is this: Anchiornis means "near bird", and its describers cited it as important in filling a gap in the transition between the body plans of flying avian birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Yet the fossil specimen is describe as fully capable of flight and it is thus the height of deception to claim this as a "near bird-missing link". "A second specimen was reported on September 24, 2009 in the journal Nature. It is catalogued as number LPM - B00 169 in the Liaoning Paleontological Museum. It is much more complete and preserves long wing feathers on the hands, arms, legs and feet," As in other early paravians such as Microraptor, Anchiornis had large wings, made up of pennaceous flight feathers attached to the arm and hand (as in modern birds) as well as flight feathers on the hind legs, forming an arrangement of fore and hind wings. The forewing of Anchiornis was composed of 11 primary feathers and 10 secondary feathers. Unlike Microraptor, the primary feathers in Anchiornis were about as long as the secondaries and formed a more rounded wing, with curved but symmetrical central vanes, a small and thin relative size, and rounded tips, all indicating poorer aerodynamic ability compared to its later relative. In Microraptor and Archaeopteryx, the longest forewing feathers were closest to the tip of the wing, making the wings appear long, narrow, and pointed. However, in Anchiornis, the longest wing feathers anchored near the wrist, making the wing broadest in the middle and tapering near the tip for a more rounded, less flight-adapted profile.[2] The hind wings of Anchiornis were also shorter than those of Microraptor, and were made up of 12–13 flight feathers anchored to the tibia (lower leg) and 10–11 to the metatarsus (upper foot). Also unlike Microraptor, the hind wing feathers were longest closer to the body, with the foot feathers being short and directed downward, almost perpendicular to the foot bones.[2] Unlike any other known Mesozoic dinosaur, the feet of Anchiornis (except for the claws) were completely covered in feathers (much shorter than the ones making up the hind wing).[2] Two types of simpler, downy (plumaceous) feathers covered the rest of the body, as in Sinornithosaurus. Long downy feathers covered almost the entire head and neck, torso, upper legs,and the first half of the tail. The rest of the tail bore pennaceous tail feathers (rectrices).[2] Save for their speculation it could not have flown as well as other flyers I see nothing to persuade.givemeabreak_{September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

but I thought that the differences in air sacs between theropods and birds made that just-so story impossible? oh well, science marches on (without you)..Khan_{September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Did they taste like chicken?MeganC_{September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply