View Full Version : Dino tail preserved in amber
QuickStrike
01-12-17, 14:10
It should come as no surprise to paleo-geeks that many of the dinosaurs were feathered, but this IMO cinches it.
The semitranslucent mid-Cretaceous amber sample, roughly the size and shape of a dried apricot, captures one of the earliest moments of differentiation between the feathers of birds of flight and the feathers of dinosaurs. (Learn more about the evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and birds.)
Inside the lump of resin is a 1.4-inch appendage covered in delicate feathers, described as chestnut brown with a pale or white underside.
Picture of feathered dinosaur tail
A micro-CT scan reveals the delicate feathers that cover the dinosaur tail.
CT scans and microscopic analysis of the sample revealed eight vertebrae from the middle or end of a long, thin tail that may have been originally made up of more than 25 vertebrae.
Picutre of scan of dinosaur tail
A scan of the underside of the tail shows the feather arrangement.
Based on the structure of the tail, researchers believe it belongs to a juvenile coelurosaur, part of a group of theropod dinosaurs that includes everything from tyrannosaurs to modern birds.
Feathered, but Could It Fly?
The presence of articulated tail vertebrae in the sample enabled researchers to rule out the possibility that the feathers belonged to a prehistoric bird. Modern birds and their closest Cretaceous ancestors feature a set of fused tail vertebrae called a pygostyle that enables tail feathers to move as a single unit.
"[A pygostyle] is the sort of thing you've seen if you've ever prepared a turkey," says study co-author Ryan McKellar, curator of invertebrate paleontology at Canada's Royal Saskatchewan Museum.
The dinosaur feather structure is open, flexible, and similar to modern ornamental feathers.
The dinosaur feathers feature a poorly defined central shaft (rachis) and appear to keel to either side of the tail. The open, flexible structure of the feathers is more similar to modern ornamental feathers than to flight feathers, which have well-defined central shafts, branches, sub-branches, and hooks that latch the structure together.
In a report in June of this year by the same research team, Cretaceous-era bird wings preserved in amber revealed feathers remarkably similar to the flight feathers of modern birds.
The current study concludes that if the entire length of the dinosaur tail was covered in the type of feathers seen in the sample, the dinosaur "would likely have been incapable of flight." Rather, such feathers may have served a signaling function or played a role in temperature regulation, says McKellar. (Could dinosaurs fly?)
MAYBE WE CAN FIND A COMPLETE DINOSAUR.
LIDA XING PALEONTOLOGIST
The weakly developed tail feathers also suggest that the owner of the Cretaceous tail falls somewhere lower down on the evolutionary tree of theropod dinosaurs, "perhaps a basal [primitive] maniraptoran," Xing suggests, referring to the subgroup of coelurosaurs that includes oviraptorosaurs and therizinosaurs. (See the oviraptorosaur that paleontologists have dubbed the "chicken from hell.")
Destined for Jewelry, but With a Silver Lining
The amber sample—formally called DIP-V-15103 and nicknamed "Eva" in honor of paleobotanist Eva Koppelhus, the wife of co-author Philip Currie—comes from a mine in the Hukawng Valley in Kachin state, northern Myanmar. Amber from this region most likely contains the world's largest variety of animal and plant life from the Cretaceous period.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/feathered-dinosaur-tail-amber-theropod-myanmar-burma-cretaceous/
Pretty cool and much different than the dinos I knew growing up.
InB4 Satan put dat dere
BoringGuy45
01-12-17, 14:26
Way to ruin my Jurassic Park vision of dinosaurs! This is indeed the work of Satan! :mad:;)
QuickStrike
01-12-17, 15:36
Way to ruin my Jurassic Park vision of dinosaurs! This is indeed the work of Satan! :mad:;)
haha, Jurassic Park was probably the #1 movie in my youth. I was in elementary school then, damn!
It should come as no surprise to paleo-geeks that many of the dinosaurs were feathered, but this IMO cinches it.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/feathered-dinosaur-tail-amber-theropod-myanmar-burma-cretaceous/
Pretty cool and much different than the dinos I knew growing up.
InB4 Satan put dat dere
Doesn't really surprise me. Especially when talking about species like raptors, which were much smaller and less terminator like than their portrayal in films. But larger species like allosaurus, T rex and brontosaurus seem less likely to have looked like giant, ferocious chickens.
One of my hopes is that in my lifetime, we will find out for sure what some of these things actually looked like.
Gee, maybe it's just a bird, since the Chinese scientists weren't sure what it is. And it's a sure thing that paleontologists really don't get things wrong....ever.
Way cool.
Now let's hurry up and clone that b*tch so we can realize our desire for theme Parks and the inevitable threat to mankind when life finds away.
I'm dead serious.
Way cool.
Now let's hurry up and clone that b*tch so we can realize our desire for theme Parks and the inevitable threat to mankind when life finds away.
I'm dead serious.
^^^This
Way cool.
Now let's hurry up and clone that b*tch so we can realize our desire for theme Parks and the inevitable threat to mankind when life finds away.
I'm dead serious.
Do we have to worry about the peta people when we build the parks and cage em up? I mean, if WE make them, they're ours...Right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doesn't really surprise me. Especially when talking about species like raptors, which were much smaller and less terminator like than their portrayal in films. But larger species like allosaurus, T rex and brontosaurus seem less likely to have looked like giant, ferocious chickens.
.
There's evidence for "feathers" on several dinosaur species that are part of T. rex's family tree, suggesting that Tyrannosaurs in general, including T. rex were in fact at least partially feathered. (Although in these creatures the feathers would more likely resemble the more primitive hairlike feathers seen on flightless birds such as kiwis and cassowaries. More bird-like Theropods such as "raptors" would be more apt to have feathers like that of a modern bird) Tyrannosaurs actually aren't particularly close relatives of other large meat eaters like Allosaurs, as Tyrannosaurids evolved from Coelurosaur ancestors and it's now known that feathers were widespread among Coelurosaurs in general (birds are considered part of this lineage as well)
Interestingly, there is also evidence for featherlike structures in several Ornithischian dinosaurs that are only very distantly related to Coelurosaurs like Dromaeosaurids ("raptors") and T. rex. That such distantly related species exhibit such similar integument suggests that featherlike structures actually evolved very early in the evolutionary history of dinosaurs. It's quite likely that the common ancestor of both the Saurischia (Sauropods and Theropods/birds and Ornithischians - ceratopsians, stegosaurs et ..) was in fact feathered. What that could mean is that feathers are actually the basal condition for the Dinosauria and that those lineages that do not seem to have been covered in feathered lost them during the course of their evolution (much like how big, naked skinned mammals like elephants and rhinos evolved from small, furry creatures)
More interesting still is that Dinosaurs and birds form a group with Pterosaurs (aka "Pterodactyls") called Ornithodira. Pterosaurs also had a filamentous body covering similar to primitive protofeathers, so it's possible that the true origin of feathers can be pushed back in time even further to the common ancestor of the Ornithodirans.
Even more interesting is that Ornithodirans and Crocodilians form a group known as Archosaurs (Yes crocodiles are actually more closely related to birds than they are to lizards and snakes). I'm a bit sketchy on the specifics, but allegedly the genetic markers for feathers may have been found in crocodilian DNA. Even though crocodilians don't have feathers, it's perhaps possible that Proto-crocs may have had some sort of insulatory covering that was lost when they evolved a more aquatic lifestyle (Although all through the Mesozoic there was also a very diverse range of fully terrestrial Crocodilians as well, but they may have been secondarily terrestrial) Certain aspects of croc physiology have led some scientists to suggests that Crocodilians may have evolved from a warm-blooded ancestor and that their current ectothermic metabolic system is also an adaptation for aquatic living.
Do we have to worry about the peta people when we build the parks and cage em up? I mean, if WE make them, they're ours...Right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I imagine irony we'll sort them out just fine. I mean that's how it starts. They free them from the confines of capitalist oppression letting them loose on the world, but their naturally eaten in the process of facilitating the escape.
For anyone who wants to delve farther in to the feathered dinosaur thing, here is a link to something explaining the reasoning behind restoring a T. rex with feathers, it's for an upcoming computer game but it does a better job covering the subject than I can. I'm acquainted with several of the people working on the game.
http://arvalis.deviantart.com/art/Saurian-T-rex-Infographic-556213086
Gee, maybe it's just a bird, since the Chinese scientists weren't sure what it is. And it's a sure thing that paleontologists really don't get things wrong....ever.
Really?
QuickStrike
01-12-17, 18:01
Gee, maybe it's just a bird, since the Chinese scientists weren't sure what it is. And it's a sure thing that paleontologists really don't get things wrong....ever.
That's the redeeming thing about science. They're always trying to prove each other wrong. It's not easy to assign a species just looking at a portion of a tail!
But all isn't lost... This can't be a bird's tail. Or extremely unlikely. Because soon after the split from "proto-bird" lineage like archaeopteryx, the birds started shortening their tails into something called a pygostyle. Puny little stumpy knobs of fused vertebraes. Even the long tailed birds like male peacocks have these stumpy things.
nvm the article already explains it:
The presence of articulated tail vertebrae in the sample enabled researchers to rule out the possibility that the feathers belonged to a prehistoric bird. Modern birds and their closest Cretaceous ancestors feature a set of fused tail vertebrae called a pygostyle that enables tail feathers to move as a single unit.
How shameful, I didn't even read my own link... :jester:
That's the redeeming thing about science. They're always trying to prove each other wrong. It's not easy to assign a species just looking at a portion of a tail!
But all isn't lost... This can't be a bird's tail. Or extremely unlikely. Because soon after the split from "proto-bird" lineage like archaeopteryx, the birds started shortening their tails into something called a pygostyle. Puny little stumpy knobs of fused vertebraes. Even the long tailed birds like male peacocks have these stumpy things.
nvm the article already explains it:
How shameful, I didn't even read my own link... :jester:
C'mon. It's entirely possible T rex was in actuality a 40 foot rooster, we can't say for sure. We just haven't found those 4 foot fossilized chicken eggs yet.
But answers a question, chicken or the egg...which came first? Obviously it was T Rex chicken.
The KFC potential is incredible. Obviously this is how cave man Adam and Eve survived, giant fried chicken wings.
I mean everything fits if you think about it.
On the ladder of simple to more complex, birds are the next step up from retiles. Without the more advanced 4 chambered heart(bird and primate trait), dinosaurs could not have evolved into the giant creatures that we visualize. If you examine bird legs today, you will see degenerated, faint scales that show a connection to reptilian ancestors.
QuickStrike
01-12-17, 20:07
C'mon. It's entirely possible T rex was in actuality a 40 foot rooster, we can't say for sure. We just haven't found those 4 foot fossilized chicken eggs yet.
But answers a question, chicken or the egg...which came first? Obviously it was T Rex chicken.
The KFC potential is incredible. Obviously this is how cave man Adam and Eve survived, giant fried chicken wings.
I mean everything fits if you think about it.
No doubt at all that it would taste like chicken.
No wonder I've been wanting a big bore DGR lately!
haahaha my thought to :)
cause it HAS to be a dinosaur even though the same team says its just like bird feathers ;) well maybe it was a bird especially given how tiny it was :)
but NO I guess that it was a miniature dino instead :) hahahahahah
maybe a bird died those ants were carrying away a tiny bit of tail and got stuck in the pitch ?
Gee, maybe it's just a bird, since the Chinese scientists weren't sure what it is. And it's a sure thing that paleontologists really don't get things wrong....ever.
Really?
Yeah really. The idea that birds descended from dinosaurs or that these structures are actually feathers is hardly monolithic within the non-creationist world of paleontology. So, yeah, I'm skeptical. It says in the actual article that the scientists aren't sure what they have, so why should I blindly sign off on the latest hip and trendy paleo idea. I've been around enough on this board that you would know that I'm not a Darwinist (particles to man) evolutionist. What really surprises me is that you actually directly engaged me.
Yeah really. The idea that birds descended from dinosaurs or that these structures are actually feathers is hardly monolithic within the non-creationist world of paleontology. So, yeah, I'm skeptical. It says in the actual article that the scientists aren't sure what they have, so why should I blindly sign off on the latest hip and trendy paleo idea. I've been around enough on this board that you would know that I'm not a Darwinist (particles to man) evolutionist. What really surprises me is that you actually directly engaged me.
I may have misread you. I thought you were suggesting all dinosaur species were just birds. No problem with being skeptical, truth survives any scrutiny.
But here is the basic problem when dealing with things on the order of 75 million years old. Typically you have something far less than a complete fossil remnant and you pretty much have to play a guessing game.
I don't think anyone is saying all birds came from dinosaurs. We have fossil remains to suggest both existed in deep pre history and it can prove difficult to determine exactly what you have on your hands, we have found some truly bizarre creatures that don't make a lot of sense when contrasted with what is running around today.
With the extinction event of 65 million years ago it seems birds survived and big lizards did not. It's not completely unlikely that birds have reptilian predecessors, if you go back far enough so do mammals. If you take life all the way back everything comes from single cell organisms so arguing about the exact pecking order is just a matter of classification and nothing more.
QuickStrike
01-13-17, 22:22
This isn't some crazy-ass new; hipster and trendy bullsh!t. The notion started in the 70's with people like John Ostrom and Robert Bakker. They saw animals like the raptors (maniraptors) and noticed striking similarities in anatomy.
Even the ferocious velociraptor (turkey sized and fluffy IRL lol) looked extremely birdlike.
http://www.dinopit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/velociraptor-skeleton.jpg
And there is archaeopteryx:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/7/27/1311784912196/Archaeopteryx-fossil-001.jpg
Who for sure had feathers. Minus the feathers? It looks just like a tiny maniraptor.
You think Satan and his scientist minions planted dem thangs in there rocks and faked the feather impressions?
Those evil bastards must have faked dem thar DNA's too, because of all living animals, crocodilians are the closest genetically to birds.
http://news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html
Guess who's between them? That's right, dinosaurs. Crocodilians and birds are the only surviving archosaurs.
Anyone clinging on to creationism is really ignoring aspects of:
Paleontology & evolution
The Study of DNA/genome/cladistics
Geology (the planet's formation & movement of tectonic plates shaping the land masses over MILLIONS of years)
Cosmology (The universes and earth existed for how long???)
All of the above have no chance in hell if people ignore basic reading comprehension too. As the article plainly states that the scientist don't know WHICH species of dinosaur it is, but they are sure that it IS a dinosaur.
So this isn't just some new crazy-ass idea that is only validated by a piece of fossilized tree resin. We are pretty damn sure some dinosaurs had feathers and that birds descended from them.
Repent! Obey!
http://galeon.hispavista.com/raptorjesus/img/poster_raptorjesus.jpg
I imagine irony we'll sort them out just fine. I mean that's how it starts. They free them from the confines of capitalist oppression letting them loose on the world, but their naturally eaten in the process of facilitating the escape.
Lol...irony IS a cruel bitch
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This isn't some crazy-ass new; hipster and trendy bullsh!t. The notion started in the 70's with people like John Ostrom and Robert Bakker. They saw animals like the raptors (maniraptors) and noticed striking similarities in anatomy.
Even the ferocious velociraptor (turkey sized and fluffy IRL lol) looked extremely birdlike.
http://www.dinopit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/velociraptor-skeleton.jpg
And there is archaeopteryx:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/7/27/1311784912196/Archaeopteryx-fossil-001.jpg
Who for sure had feathers. Minus the feathers? It looks just like a tiny maniraptor.
You think Satan and his scientist minions planted dem thangs in there rocks and faked the feather impressions?
Those evil bastards must have faked dem thar DNA's too, because of all living animals, crocodilians are the closest genetically to birds.
http://news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html
Guess who's between them? That's right, dinosaurs. Crocodilians and birds are the only surviving archosaurs.
Anyone clinging on to creationism is really ignoring aspects of:
Paleontology & evolution
The Study of DNA/genome/cladistics
Geology (the planet's formation & movement of tectonic plates shaping the land masses over MILLIONS of years)
Cosmology (The universes and earth existed for how long???)
All of the above have no chance in hell if people ignore basic reading comprehension too. As the article plainly states that the scientist don't know WHICH species of dinosaur it is, but they are sure that it IS a dinosaur.
So this isn't just some new crazy-ass idea that is only validated by a piece of fossilized tree resin. We are pretty damn sure some dinosaurs had feathers and that birds descended from them.
Repent! Obey!
http://galeon.hispavista.com/raptorjesus/img/poster_raptorjesus.jpg
Yeah, I knew the first part. Honestly haven't had the luxury of time to keep current. Ever since seeing the dionsaurs at the Smithsonian, I have been absolutely fascinated by all of it.
I
I don't think anyone is saying all birds came from dinosaurs. .
Birds, being a monophyletic group, ARE all descended from dinosaurs. And really, the prevailing understanding of their evolution indicates that rather than being the descendants of dinosaurs, they are in fact dinosaurs themselves in much the same way that bats are still considered mammals.
So technically dinosaurs aren't even extinct, as we have one surviving extant lineage comprising approximately 10,000 species.
I'm not questioning science here...just some of the methods...but weren't coelacanth considered an example of evolution of something going from land animal to fish or something? Until they caught one of the fvckers off the coast of SA?
Even then, they thought it was a "living fossil" and the only type extant, which later also proved untrue....
From wiki...The coelacanth was long considered a "living fossil" because it was believed to be the sole remaining member of a taxon otherwise known only from fossils, with no close relations alive,[5] and to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[1] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than previously thought.
I'm just saying, there are a LOT of assumptions made in this field, and change regularly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This isn't some crazy-ass new; hipster and trendy bullsh!t. The notion started in the 70's with people like John Ostrom and Robert Bakker. They saw animals like the raptors (maniraptors) and noticed striking similarities in anatomy.
Even the ferocious velociraptor (turkey sized and fluffy IRL lol) looked extremely birdlike.
http://www.dinopit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/velociraptor-skeleton.jpg
And there is archaeopteryx:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/7/27/1311784912196/Archaeopteryx-fossil-001.jpg
Who for sure had feathers. Minus the feathers? It looks just like a tiny maniraptor.
You think Satan and his scientist minions planted dem thangs in there rocks and faked the feather impressions?
Those evil bastards must have faked dem thar DNA's too, because of all living animals, crocodilians are the closest genetically to birds.
http://news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html
Guess who's between them? That's right, dinosaurs. Crocodilians and birds are the only surviving archosaurs.
Anyone clinging on to creationism is really ignoring aspects of:
Paleontology & evolution
The Study of DNA/genome/cladistics
Geology (the planet's formation & movement of tectonic plates shaping the land masses over MILLIONS of years)
Cosmology (The universes and earth existed for how long???)
All of the above have no chance in hell if people ignore basic reading comprehension too. As the article plainly states that the scientist don't know WHICH species of dinosaur it is, but they are sure that it IS a dinosaur.
So this isn't just some new crazy-ass idea that is only validated by a piece of fossilized tree resin. We are pretty damn sure some dinosaurs had feathers and that birds descended from them.
Repent! Obey!
http://galeon.hispavista.com/raptorjesus/img/poster_raptorjesus.jpg
What a load.
QuickStrike
01-14-17, 12:30
I'm not questioning science here...just some of the methods...but weren't coelacanth considered an example of evolution of something going from land animal to fish or something? Until they caught one of the fvckers off the coast of SA?
Even then, they thought it was a "living fossil" and the only type extant, which later also proved untrue....
From wiki...The coelacanth was long considered a "living fossil" because it was believed to be the sole remaining member of a taxon otherwise known only from fossils, with no close relations alive,[5] and to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[1] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than previously thought.
I'm just saying, there are a LOT of assumptions made in this field, and change regularly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The term "living fossil" is kind of a confusing. They just mean any surviving species that have remained mostly unchanged through time. You can call lots of animals "living fossils". Many animals like sharks, crocodilians, many arthropods, etc, are very successful in their niches and didn't have to change much to survive.
What made the coelacanth a special sauce discovery was because there aren't any other living lobed finned fishes known to survive to today (may have discovered others, I don't follow fish that much).
Their wee fins had become fleshy and the invidual fin rays would eventually consolidate into sturdier ones, becoming hand and finger bones.
Crazy sh!t:
The pectoral and ventral fins in fish are analogous to our arms and legs.
And the first legged fishy-amphibians like acanthostega had up to 8 digits on some of their limbs.
And now for a different interpretation, one from those really really unscientific creationists.
http://creation.com/feathered-forerunner-or-flight-of-fancy
This paper doesn't really go into all the the assumptions related to atheistic "scientific" dating or the geological column, but it's does give me a "REALLY" big reason to be skeptical of the article in National Geographic. You know the rag that promotes "transgenderism".
The real slam against this creationists view of course is that it hasn't been peer reviewed by the real scientists, you know the "atheist" ones. Who without a doubt aren't biased at all like the loopy Christian creationist pseudo scientists. It's amazing that any real science got done in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries with all those really famous God believing pioneers of science back then.
As a side note....is there anyone with half a mind out there that thinks that climate science is set in stone, that 99 and 1/4 scientists think that the world is doomed because of green house gases causing, not really global warming, but now the scary "climate change"? Just when "scientists" think they have the truth, dang if doesn't slip through their fingers, and the chase goes on. Is science just another way to propagandize the masses into hopelessness?
QuickStrike
01-14-17, 16:23
Haha, where else but a creationist site? Why not a evolutionist site?
Oh yeah. That's just called science. Only creationists use the term "evolutionist".
Anyway, the author believes that both the little fluffy things he googled up are early birds, and they has teh long tailz, and in that stupid & upsetting piece of amber can be just a tail of a similar species of bird, like archaeopteryx. Casting much doubt and fear amongst "evolutionists" that this thing may not be a dinosaur tail after all. Maybe we should have faked the head part instead....
Well, he didn't do jacksh!t and we aint even scared.
Because both those little birdies he managed to cobble up as evidence have massive ass claws and teeth, and are in fact, firmly within the therapod family and are pretty closely related to maniraptors. Their basic body plan bear an uncanny resemblance to the pic of the wee velociraptor I posted earlier, note their clawed fingers and teeth.
And the velociraptor in turn look much like any other therapod dinosaur such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The difference in morphology between them being well within the range found in different carnivorous mammals adapted to different lifestyles. For example, a cat, a primate, a bat, etc...
So he is right. They are birds, and birds are dinosaurs. The lines are truely blurred between them. Too many traits shared to be explained away as convergent evolution (do it, I dare ya! That's admitting to evolution haha).
They share:
claws
teeth
feathers
general body plan
scales on feet
hollowed bones- which also led to birdlike lung system in some
ankles structure
etc..
Ain't no other possible ancestor, if this was a paternity test on Maury, dinos won't be dancing. Chaaad support fo sho!
That amber tail is just a nice finishing touch; ice on dah chain, feather in dah hat.
We already parful with feather impressions and DNA.
It is true that the "first birds" are actually older than this specimen, but I don't think anyone is trying to claim that the creature whose tail is in the amber is a bird ancestor and it may or may not even be a maniraptoran. The dinosaur ancestry of birds is quite broadly accepted by science, so really the significance of this specimen is that it shows yet another NON-bird dinosaur with feathers, giving further credence to the notion that feathers, or featherlike structures, were widespread among dinosaurs in general and may be the ancestral condition to the group as a whole. Considering the diversity of species already found to sport feathers including large theropods like T. rex relative Yutyrannus and non-theropods like Tianyulong, or that possess clear adaptations for them ("quill knobs" on the forelimbs of velociraptor for instance) it's already pretty obvious, but finds like the tail in amber certainly help provide a clearer picture.
I mean, fur impressions have never been found with the fossilized remains of sabertooth cats but nobody seems to take issue with them being depicted as furred.
Haha, where else but a creationist site? Why not a evolutionist site?
Oh yeah. That's just called science. Only creationists use the term "evolutionist".
Anyway, the author believes that both the little fluffy things he googled up are early birds, and they has teh long tailz, and in that stupid & upsetting piece of amber can be just a tail of a similar species of bird, like archaeopteryx. Casting much doubt and fear amongst "evolutionists" that this thing may not be a dinosaur tail after all. Maybe we should have faked the head part instead....
Well, he didn't do jacksh!t and we aint even scared.
Because both those little birdies he managed to cobble up as evidence have massive ass claws and teeth, and are in fact, firmly within the therapod family and are pretty closely related to maniraptors. Their basic body plan bear an uncanny resemblance to the pic of the wee velociraptor I posted earlier, note their clawed fingers and teeth.
And the velociraptor in turn look much like any other therapod dinosaur such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The difference in morphology between them being well within the range found in different carnivorous mammals adapted to different lifestyles. For example, a cat, a primate, a bat, etc...
So he is right. They are birds, and birds are dinosaurs. The lines are truely blurred between them. Too many traits shared to be explained away as convergent evolution (do it, I dare ya! That's admitting to evolution haha).
They share:
claws
teeth
feathers
general body plan
scales on feet
hollowed bones- which also led to birdlike lung system in some
ankles structure
etc..
Ain't no other possible ancestor, if this was a paternity test on Maury, dinos won't be dancing. Chaaad support fo sho!
That amber tail is just a nice finishing touch; ice on dah chain, feather in dah hat.
We already parful with feather impressions and DNA.
Of course I referenced a creationist site.....I'm a Christian. I don't put any real trust in atheist anything. And isn't that the issue.....you don't trust Christian scientists and I don't trust atheistic scientists. And since we're not dealing with observational science, but historic science...it's all in the interpretation of the same facts. And speaking of DNA, how did that first DNA molecule come about? Or that first single cell organism?
Of course I referenced a creationist site.....I'm a Christian. I don't put any real trust in atheist anything. And isn't that the issue.....you don't trust Christian scientists and I don't trust atheistic scientists. And since we're not dealing with observational science, but historic science...it's all in the interpretation of the same facts. And speaking of DNA, how did that first DNA molecule come about? Or that first single cell organism?
Depends who you ask.
Science - We really don't know. We only really know what happened afterwards and even that is somewhat incomplete.
Religion - God.
But all religion does is ask a new question. Where did God come from? If everything requires a creator, who created the creator? That would be the new original life form. And if God is eternal or has "always been" then why can't that be true for the entire universe and the origin of life?
I personally suspect life happens everywhere it is sustainable and some form of cosmic seeding is at work. But again, that just relocates the question, it still doesn't answer where did the FIRST life form come from. And based upon evidence, we have no idea. More importantly when you go that far back into prehistory we will probably never know because of processes like plate tectonics which remove most of the evidence during subduction.
Also pretty sure Newton was a scientist and his work is completely accepted by the scientific community despite being christian. Kepler was also a christian and did some very important work, even if it was later discovered that he got a few things wrong.
Science isn't anti religion, it just isn't dogmatic (or at least it shouldn't be). Sadly a lot of what is offered as science today isn't even qualifying theory but educated conjecture that borders on something that would have to be considered "scientific philosophy" at best. Actual science is nothing more than what we know for sure (evidence based fact) , what we think is correct based upon what we know for sure (scientific theory) and what might be true if everything else is correct (scientific hypothesis).
If God or Jesus or Flying Spaghetti Monster showed up tomorrow and proved their existence beyond a shadow of a doubt, religion would suddenly become science. But so far that hasn't happened. So we are back to what we know, what we think we know and what might be true.
And I'm sure there are circles within both communities (science and religion) with a predetermined bias and agenda to discredit one another. But that certainly isn't the purpose of pure science and I'm assuming genuinely religious people also have more important things to do.
Funny thing, my father was a doctor and among other things a teacher of evolutionary biology and his brother, my uncle is a deacon in his church who during a life saving procedure years ago says he met Jesus and was sent back, he didn't become religious until after that event. But nothing my father ever taught proved God doesn't exist, and nothing my uncle believed proved evolution never happened. In fact it is one subject where they never had any real conflict at all.
But my grandmother on the other hand, she could argue the subject with either of them.
And what is more likely? That mindless atoms somehow arranged themselves into almost inconceivably complex bio-machines or an eternal mind (sort of like our own) a mind so powerful, and infinite that we can scarcely understand it, created it? The main problem I have with evolution is that the whole program can't even get off the ground. The information I've seen concerning the science of probability says that it is literally impossible for abiogenesis to occur, even non religious scientists have said as much. I remember somewhere from the past that the popular "scientist" Carl Sagan said that life from non-life had a probability of happening on the order 1 chance in 1 X 10 to the 2 billionth power of happening. That's a 1 followed by 2,000,000,000 zeros for emphasis. Anything above 1 X 10 to 50th power is considered impossible. Don't evolutionists take it by faith that abiogenesis actually took place?
In you're sig line you say you miss Chuck, do you hope he is still alive? I believe he is alive. To all you atheists and agnostics......do you hope there IS a God?
QuickStrike
01-14-17, 22:48
you don't trust Christian scientists and I don't trust atheistic scientists. And since we're not dealing with observational science, but historic science...it's all in the interpretation of the same facts. And speaking of DNA, how did that first DNA molecule come about? Or that first single cell organism?
That's an oxymoron if the scientists in question are in the field of biology and/or paleontology.
One side looks back into a 2000+ year old book to try and find vague ass passages and intrepret them to fit their views (behemoth = hella big = dinosaurs = bible knoes everything!), with no real peer reviews from even other creationists.
While the other side continuously explores the entire world for discoveries and tear each other's hypothesis apart and compete against each other for funding, street cred, etc..
The "Bone Wars" back in the day for example was viscious.
Not even a contest which one a sane person would consider.
At least real scientists are honest about their limited knowledge. Vs. Explaining everything away with "cuz god lol".
Real science update the knowledge base continuously.
To accept one source as the absolute undeniable truth despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary is insane. It is intellectually and also spiritually lazy as f@k to accept anything without question and without further thought.
How do we know the CHRISTIAN creationism is the right one amongst the other magical faerie tales made up to explain what people could not?
Maybe the entire universe exists only as a dream of supreme god Vishnu while he sleeps? Sounds hella cool and trippy. Better than the whole imbreeding thing with the Ark animals and those two naked people in that one garden.
Hell Tolkien had his gods and angel beings form some sort of Holy Band. They made sweet funky music and thus formed the physical world known as middle earth. Also much cooler imo, you should consider changing denominations.
That's an oxymoron if the scientists in question are in the field of biology and/or paleontology.
One side looks back into a 2000+ year old book to try and find vague ass passages and intrepret them to fit their views (behemoth = hella big = dinosaurs = bible knoes everything!), with no real peer reviews from even other creationists.
While the other side continuously explores the entire world for discoveries and tear each other's hypothesis apart and compete against each other for funding, street cred, etc..
The "Bone Wars" back in the day for example was viscious.
Not even a contest which one a sane person would consider.
At least real scientists are honest about their limited knowledge. Vs. Explaining everything away with "cuz god lol".
Real science update the knowledge base continuously.
To accept one source as the absolute undeniable truth despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary is insane. It is intellectually and also spiritually lazy as f@k to accept anything without question and without further thought.
How do we know the CHRISTIAN creationism is the right one amongst the other magical faerie tales made up to explain what people could not?
Maybe the entire universe exists only as a dream of supreme god Vishnu while he sleeps? Sounds hella cool and trippy. Better than the whole imbreeding thing with the Ark animals and those two naked people in that one garden.
Hell Tolkien had his gods and angel beings form some sort of Holy Band. They made sweet funky music and thus formed the physical world known as middle earth. Also much cooler imo, you should consider changing denominations.
And there you go.......science can't be done by Christians. Only atheists can be scientist.
QuickStrike
01-14-17, 23:16
And there you go.......science can't be done by Christians. Only atheists can be scientist.
Darwin bless you! There you go with your amazing reading skillz.
Join our Church of Evolution.
another man made global warming believer hahahahaha
I should know better than to step in a religious argument but.....
I consider myself a Zen Christian. I did not come to this religious epiphany lightly or quickly. It took a while.
If we assume there is a God, we must further accept that some things are not easily explained.
All we can control is how we accept or deal with what may come. We know that the light from the stars take a long time to reach us, that the universe is quite vast, and there were things in existence long before history was recorded. If you study, you'll find a lot of human history is undocumented. I think including the oldest of human record only 30% of all human history is known.
Fossil fuels are a thing. Mighty beasts walked the Earth.
Now they don't. We should avoid being so cultish. Cultism is not Devotion.
FWIW the gold standard of a lot of science (and educationas a whole) came from the Church. Hence why a lot of scientific, medical, and legal terms are in Latin.
I don't know why you are so upset. Current findings are current findings. It is what it is. Nothing you nor I can do about it.
I believe if dinosaurs were meant to be here they would be.
A differing theological stance or a proposed theory is not a challenge to one's manhood or dignity.
It personally didnt kill me to read Origin of the Species....in Christian school.....as assigned reading. :o
So....I don't understand why people are getting agitated.
My initial thought from this thread was "oh groovy just like Jurassic Park"
mkmckinley
01-14-17, 23:37
Just when "scientists" think they have the truth, dang if doesn't slip through their fingers, and the chase goes on. Is science just another way to propagandize the masses into hopelessness?
You seem to misunderstand the scientific method at a basic level. Also, most scientists aren't atheists, not that it matters. Know that you're talking out your ass.
Aaaaaaaah yes, NatGeo.
When they aren't busy pushing the wonders of mass Muslim invasion and white genocide, they have time for some inconsequential stories about dinosaurs from millions of years ago.
http://whitegenocideproject.com/wp-content/uploads/new-europeans.jpg
I want to see the next issue be closer to reality:
https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14469442_1292539427422980_6452612180277257051_n.jpg?oh=47e3d009c83bc69911aff7bea3d22df2&oe=5883FADF
And what is more likely? That mindless atoms somehow arranged themselves into almost inconceivably complex bio-machines or an eternal mind (sort of like our own) a mind so powerful, and infinite that we can scarcely understand it, created it? The main problem I have with evolution is that the whole program can't even get off the ground. The information I've seen concerning the science of probability says that it is literally impossible for abiogenesis to occur, even non religious scientists have said as much. I remember somewhere from the past that the popular "scientist" Carl Sagan said that life from non-life had a probability of happening on the order 1 chance in 1 X 10 to the 2 billionth power of happening. That's a 1 followed by 2,000,000,000 zeros for emphasis. Anything above 1 X 10 to 50th power is considered impossible. Don't evolutionists take it by faith that abiogenesis actually took place?
Well if the choice is a "creator" that appeared from nothing or is somehow eternal or some natural process that appeared from nothing or is somehow eternal, then honestly the latter is more likely. But again, we don't know. Lacking evidence to know for sure, I have to be content with "we don't know."
In you're sig line you say you miss Chuck, do you hope he is still alive? I believe he is alive. To all you atheists and agnostics......do you hope there IS a God?
I miss Chuck (though I never met him), I miss lots of people. I'd like to believe there is something else because if our entire existence is random happenstance that would be kind of sad. But if it turns out that the creator of everything is Yahweh, and the only reason we exist is to satisfy his need to be worshiped, I personally would be disappointed and would at some point prefer not to exist at all. I suspect eternity with the flawed creator described in the Hebrew religion would get old quickly.
I'd love to believe there is some meaning to existence and that somehow we do go on, but I have seen no compelling evidence for that from any religion and I don't think we as a species are so significant in the grand scheme of everything to warrant such special attention.
I believe we exist, then we don't. But obviously that is just a personal opinion since there is no evidence of any kind to support either position. I wish I believed otherwise, existentialism can be a bleak philosophy.
You seem to misunderstand the scientific method at a basic level. Also, most scientists aren't atheists, not that it matters. Know that you're talking out your ass.
I never said most scientists are atheists, but a lot of them are. But maybe you can tell me what most scientists believe. Or maybe you're just talking out of your ass.
Yes I understand the scientific method, but can evolution be falsified?
Yes I understand the scientific method, but can evolution be falsified?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution
Aaaaaaaah yes, NatGeo.
When they aren't busy pushing the wonders of mass Muslim invasion and white genocide, they have time for some inconsequential stories about dinosaurs from millions of years ago.
http://whitegenocideproject.com/wp-content/uploads/new-europeans.jpg
I want to see the next issue be closer to reality:
https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14469442_1292539427422980_6452612180277257051_n.jpg?oh=47e3d009c83bc69911aff7bea3d22df2&oe=5883FADF
Funny you mention this, part of the reason I stopped interacting with my associates in the paleontological realm were their unabashedly pro Islamic migrant sentiments.
Back when the Paris attacks happened many of them started the evening with "We don't know it's Muslims yet". Once it became clear that, duh, of course it was Muslims, they changed their tune to one of agonizing about the attacks potentially leading to a backlash against Muslims and helping right wing political parties gain more of a foothold in Europe.
I think a more interesting question than "can Christians make decent scientists?" might be "why are so many people in the scientific community leftists?" Because while being religious poses some obvious conflicts for someone seeking a career in the sciences, political alignment really shouldn't.
QuickStrike
01-15-17, 09:51
another man made global warming believer hahahahaha
Who u talkin' bout Brainiac?
The temp waves come in cycles and humans sometimes overstate their influence on the earth. We will all survive, thanks 2 evolution.
Not sure what will come of things like China's lack of foresight with the environment, polluting your own pond is generally a bad idea..
It is interesting that, even though some of ya'll dont believe in it, humans are now a major source of natural selection and we are affecting evolution all the same anyway.
Voodoochild
01-15-17, 11:27
Thread closed due to people's inability to act like adults.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.