Skip to comments.Fossil Solves Mystery of Dinosaur Finger Evolution
Posted on 06/17/2009 2:31:39 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Bird wings clearly share ancestry with dinosaur "hands" or forelimbs. A school kid can see it in the bones. But paleontologists have long struggled to explain the so-called digit dilemma.
Here's the problem: The most primitive dinosaurs in the famous theropod group (that later included Tyrannosaurus rex) had five "fingers." Later theropods had three, just like the birds that evolved from them. But which digits? The theropod and bird digits failed to match up if you number the digits from 1 to 5 starting with the thumb. Theropods looked like they had digits 1, 2 and 3, while birds have digits 2, 3 and 4.
That mismatch failed to support the widely accepted evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.
Now, newly described fossilized hands from a beaked, plant-eating dinosaur, called Limusaurus inextricabilis, reveal a transitional step in the evolution of modern wings from dino digits. The finding could resolve a debate over which fingers ultimately became embedded in the wing.
"Limusaurus is another one of those discoveries that makes one excited to be a paleontologist," said Matthew Lamanna of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, .. "The discovery of a toothless, plant-eating Jurassic ceratosaur, from Asia of all places, is something that nobody in our field ever expected."
The remains of the dinosaur were discovered in the Junggar Basin of Xinjiang, in northwestern China. The deposits date back some 159 million years.
"This new animal is fascinating in and of itself, and when placed into an evolutionary context it offers intriguing evidence about how the hand of birds evolved," said James Clark of George Washington University. ..
Jack Conrad, vertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, calls the finding a "spectacular discovery." Conrad was not involved in this current research.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The newly identified dinosaur, Limusaurus inextricabilis, may have used its three-fingered hands to help it stand upright from a lying position. (Note that there is no direct evidence of feather-like structures.) Credit: Portia Sloan
It's only a mystery if one believes in such nonsense.
Did the evolutionists just give the skeptics the finger?
No, evolutionists doesn’t give the skeptics anything more than lies with which to justify their deviant nature.
The bible, the word of god - is pretty clear on this issue.
Are the geologists and astrophysicists deviants, too?
“The newly identified dinosaur, Limusaurus
I don’t know what it did with it’s little appendages,
but I promise you that thing could never fly!
Of course, after thousands of those things died because
they didn’t have the power of flight, the rest held a
council and determined they would have to change.
After a lot of discussion, they decided to grow wings
through selective breeding. Fortunately, they had billions
of years to accomplish the transition...
An artist’s rendition of a theory doth not a fossil record make.
I think pretty much everyone knows that.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
uh-oh... just posted it from NatGeo...
Looks like something out of The Dark Crystal...
You have mail...
Tastes like the winged hairy apeterix.
“The bible, the word of god - is pretty clear on this issue.”
It is. I’m sure that you also buy your slaves from the nations around you (Leviticus 25:44-45).
"The inner or second of the three toes is fitted with a long, straight, murderous nail which can sever an arm or eviscerate an abdomen with ease. There are many records of natives being killed by this bird."
Just to do the jobs that Americans won't do.
The Limusaurus fossil sits among small crocodile fossils
mine's bigger than yours...
You win! That’s HUGE.
You may enjoy this:
That indeed is very cool.
Yes, as is anyone who uses electricity.
If they participate in this fraud, then yes, they are.
A fancy degree does not make a person godly. Godly acts, godly thoughts, make a person godly.
When Jesus calls us home, I know there won’t be any darwinists with me on that narrow road.
These are “deviants” participating in a “fraud”. Shouldn’t there be laws against that?
“Godly acts, godly thoughts, make a person godly.”
Who decides what is godly—other than God himself, that is?
No. Its nonesense when facts stare yoou in the face and you insist on using a personal distorted view of a theological and philosophical document as a science text.
The Inquisition made the same mistake with Galileo about the Geocentric versus Heliocentric Universe theories.
Religion and science are separate disciplines and one should not intrude upon the other.
So people who accept evolution are “deviants”?
I guess follwoing the same logic, people who believe the earth revolves around the sun instead of vice-versa, are also deviants since the Bible clearly states the sun revolves around the earth.
The Bible is pretty clear on theological issues. If you want scientific facts, you look at scientific research. If you believe a religious text holds the answer to every question, you have a lot in common with the Ayatollahs and the Inquisition.
Because I don't accept YOUR version of creation doesn't make me an atheist any more than your narrow view of the Bible makes you an accomplished theologian.
Chapter and verse, please?
Sez who? Since your statement is not a statement of science, but rather a philosophical statement about science, by what authority do you impose this epistemological obligation?
Who said anything about religion? I really don't know what you know about science, but my degrees are in science. (macro) "Evolution" is hardly science. You evolution folks are the ones who "believe" and your belief is, IMHO, just a bit more fantastic that the one held by the Genesis crowd.
That certainly is an objective, unbiased attitude. Why not read the whole argument to see if there is anything of value before you make a decision?
Check this site out. It was not easy to find. But ti appears to lay out the scriptural verses cited by the Medieval Chirch’s opposition to the Copernican and Galilean heliocentric theories.
Science is concerned with what can be concluded by examining physical evidence and conducting experiments. Faith has no place.
Religion is based on faith and the scriptures and one’s interpretation of scripture. If Christian scripture was so clear and obvious, you wouldn’t have so many different Christian sects claiming their own interpretation of scripture was the only true version.
I find it puzzling to have to define the diference between Theology and Science.
But then perhaps that explains the obtuseness of the anti-evolutionary mind.
I have two degrees in zoology. I think I know the reasonableness of evolution as a scientific “theory”.
I am also a self-confessed Christian who basically believes in the Bible as a soiurce of religious and moral dogma. I have no problem reconciling my faith with scientific fact.
Its unfortunate some other individuals’ faith is so shallow they need to reject scientific facts to confirm their religious beliefs.
An “argument” that starts by claiming science claims we are eating chicken fried dinosaurs is too puerile too be worth my time.
Or perhaps someone has lost his sense of humor!
So, can you make a testable prediction based upon this theory?
Can you even tell me what the theory is? Is it based in any way upon what Darwin wrote in Origin of Species? What text best explains this theory to students?
I have several texts that supposedly deal with evolution. E.g. I have Freeman and Herron's Evolutionary Analysis 3rd Edition at hand; 802 pages. It has one chapter on speciation, which is all we're talking about here. The chapter begins on page 583. It runs on to page 614. The rest is primarily fluff, not very different from the stuff in Genesis where Jacob breeds spotted goats. The index references to speciation are: 37, 102-3, 574, 583-614. In other words a book on evolution has 36 pages out of 802 pages which even attempt to touch on the topic. I haven't looked at the speciation chapter recently but my recollection is that it doesn't do much to explain how a new animal species might arise; and answers no questions that I might raise. If you think this is science, you should return your degrees.
"The message here is, I think, obvious. The Bible is the literal truth only when it's convenient and doesn't conflict with overwhelming evidence. In my view, this invalidates the core of the anti-evolutionary movement in its entirety. If the Bible is open to interpretation from time to time, then it is open to interpretation at any time. If the Bible is occasionally poetic, then it is possibly poetic at any time -- even on the first page, even on the last page, even on every page."
He doesn't cite any source to substantiate his cartoon caricature of Biblical hermeneutics and scholarship. However, his his own rule of interpretation apparently requires one to ignore the context and type of the literature in question when necessary to maintain the pretense that the Bible doesn't make sense or is inaccurate in some scientific way. His logic is that because some of the Bible is poetic all of it can possibly be poetic, with the exception that Hebrew poetic literature should not be interpreted as poetry, and ordinary phenomenological language and idiomatic expressions ought always be interpreted anachronistically in a modern, "progressive" Western, hyper-literal sense where such interpretations are useful for discrediting the Bible. Thus:
means that "sunrise" and "sunset" are proof that the Bible is inaccurate scientifically.
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
Mr. Elert has apparently never heard of phenomenological language:
Key: T = Trace of precipitation; MM = data not available
June 18, 2009 Normal high: 86° Record high: 100° (1953) Normal low: 67° Record low: 52° (1961) Sunrise : 5:35 AM Moon Rise: 1:53 AM Sunset: 8:28 PM Moon Set: 4:09 PM Complete weather almanac Detailed History and Climate
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.