As I said, the magazine will have more info.
Guess one of us will have to buy a copy.
Something that must be said: Some bird-like dinosaurs CO-EXISTED with dinosaur-like birds. Did you notice they said it was possible that Tyrannosaurus rex had feathers? (My mind reeled with that one…) And T-rex was one of the last great carnivores. It co-existed with the velociraptor.
(It’s also possible, I guess, that not all dinosaur species had feathers, or they had very few feathers. Not all mammals are hairy. Ever see a manatee?)
The Argentinian fossils are considered to be 90,000,000 years old.
You have your order reversed. First came Archaeopteryx, at 150M B.C.E., then came the raptors at 90M B.C.E. That’s a 60M year time span. (BTW, whether these creatures could fly or not is irrelevant. Ostriches don’t fly and neither do emus, and they are most definitely birds.)
A bat is NOT a bird-like mammal. A bat has no feathers.
“Bird-like mammal…?”
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
Jab, my point is that these fossils, while pretty cool, do not prove anything. To imply that this discovery offers incontrovertible proof that birds evolved from dinos is specious at best.
Hell, it’s even possible that there was a dead-end line of feathered reptiles. Stranger things have happened. (Egg-laying mammals, anyone?) Still doesn’t mean that these fossils are of birds’ ancestors.
Two people are on a train taking their first trip to Scotland. They spy a black sheep on the heath. One remarks, “look, all sheep in Scotland are black.” The other replies, “At least one sheep in Scotland is black on at least one side at least some of the time.”
-andros-
At least some of what I say is false at least some of the time.
And I would say, “Look, a black sheep! That proves there’s at least one black sheep in Scotland. And it’s VERY likely it had at least one ancestor that was also black.”
I see that fossil and I say, “Look, some dinosaurs had feathers. BIRDS have feathers. Dinosaurs lived long before modern birds do. And we have found no other species that had or has feathers. ERGO, dinosaurs are probably the ancestors of birds.”
In the absence of any contradictory evidence, that’s what I’m going to go by.
(The word “probably” does not invalidate the theory that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. There’s always room for doubt, but that room’s getting smaller, IMO. Used to be like the Superdome; now it’s more like a closet.)
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
Why isn’t a bat a bird-like mammal, jab1? They both:
(1) have wings
(2) are warm-blooded
(3) like to sit in trees
(4) fly a lot
(5) have spinal chords
So they are alike in four ways at least. If bats had feathers and lacked fur and mammaries, then I suppose they would be birds, and it would be redundant to point out that they are bird-like.
Yes, I’m being obtuse for satirical purposes. I just think it’s important to note that “like” and “identical to” are not synonyms.
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
Great. Your opinion, welcome to it. But you do accept the fact that it’s not enough proof for everyone, right? And that they’re not necessarily idiots?
As the body of evidence to support the theory of evolution grows, more people will believe it. But these fossils alone do not end the dialogue.
>>>Because we are looking at small populations adapting rather quickly (in geological time) the chances of us finding a fossil from the split off population are very slim.<<<
So the evidence for this theory is that there is no evidence for this theory, right?
:o)
LONESOME POLECAT
+++++++++++++
When the pin is pulled,
Mr. Grenade is no longer
our friend.
The Chinese finds clearly show that modern birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than to any other group of animals. We’ve pretty much known that since Archy was first described, but it is nice to have some specimens which exhibit the essential shared derived features along the whole spectrum from flightless shaggy dinosaur to flying bird.
The new finds are almost certainly not directly ancestral to modern birds. They do show that viable populations of “proto-birds” existed. They are therefore “transitional” in the same sense that the Dermoptera are “transitional” between primates and fruit bats. It is still very good that one of the predictions of the theory has been bourne out so well.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
How odd, Polecat. I seem to have written something very much like that IN ANOTHER THREAD. Please, us old folks get confuzzled enough without you whippersnappers swapping things around and rearranging the furniture on us…
The evidence that changes in a population happen to small groups separated from the central range comes from studies of real live creatures in real live environments. Eldridge and Gould first pointed out that what we know about living populations gives us a valuable insight into the appearance of fossil organisms in the geological column. Very elegant and obvious in hindsight.
What are Dermoptera? Skin-wings… I mean, is this an extinct taxon, or is it just the Latin for something I might have heard of? Flying squirrels? Flying falangers? Flying Phalangists?
You’re absolutely correct, Dr. F. It’s very exciting to see evidence beyond Archaeopteryx.
Jab, I personally agree completely with the Good Doctor and yourself. But I took unnecessary exception to your assumption that the China finds should be absolutely convincing. Apologies if I offended.
Andros, it’s okay. It can be more difficult to influence the opinion of a genius than one of a moron. In fact, intelligence isn’t the deciding factor. I think it’s trust.
If I may get a bit off-topic here, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, went to his grave believing the dead could communicate with the living; that two little girls shot authentic photographs of real, live fairies; and that Houdini did his escapes by utilizing supernatural forces. Why did such a brilliant man believe such things? Because the beliefs comforted him. He’d lost many of his loved ones in his long life and he needed comfort. He needed life to make sense.
We all do. For some of us, the world makes more sense without a god than with one.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion…
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
My apologies to Dr. Fidelius. This was a reply to a post in the Neo-Darwinism topic which I placed in this topic by mistake. Patience, please, I’m a newbie here!
LONESOME POLECAT
+++++++++++++
When the pin is pulled,
Mr. Grenade is no longer
our friend.
We already had one promising thread sidetracked into a discussion of brewing, Dr. F. No fair doing it twice!
I thought colugos (“flying lemurs”) were Malaysian/Indonesian critters. Other than that, I’m fascinated by the trend this thread is taking. The new fossil birds are narrowing the gap between archosaurs (probably dino- but definitely the larger taxon) and Archy on the one hand, and between Archy and modern birdlife on the other.
Boris, would a flying Phalangist be a Spanish aviator of the 1930s who supported Franco?
