Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giant fossil shows huge birds lived among dinosaurs
BBC News ^ | 8-10-2011

Posted on 08/10/2011 5:21:06 PM PDT by Renfield

An enormous jawbone found in Kazakhstan is further evidence that giant birds roamed - or flew above - the Earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Writing in Biology Letters, researchers say the new species, Samrukia nessovi, had a skull some 30cm long.

If flightless, the bird would have been 2-3m tall; if it flew, it may have had a wingspan of 4m.

The find is only the second bird of such a size in the Cretaceous geologic period, and the first in Asia.

The only other evidence of a bird of such a size during the period was a fossilised spinal bone found in France and reported in a 1995 paper in Nature. Sharing space

An overwhelming majority of the birds known from the period would have been about crow-sized, but Dr Darren Naish of the University of Portsmouth said that a second find of an evidently different species suggests that large birds were common at the time....

(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: History; Science
KEYWORDS: birds; dinosaur; dinosaurs; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; paleontology

The fossilised jawbone is nearly twice the length of that of an ostrich, the largest bird found on Earth today

1 posted on 08/10/2011 5:21:14 PM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Dino-ping...


2 posted on 08/10/2011 5:22:04 PM PDT by Renfield (Turning apples into venison since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Make a wish...


3 posted on 08/10/2011 5:22:33 PM PDT by null and void (Day 930. When your only tools are a Hammer & Sickle, everything looks like a Capitalist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Do you see what I see?? It looks like.....”Oh, no...I’m a lesbian”.


4 posted on 08/10/2011 5:25:15 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

I’d consider living among dinosaurs, if I were a huge bird.


5 posted on 08/10/2011 5:27:55 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

I’d consider living ABOVE them.


6 posted on 08/10/2011 5:29:52 PM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

“huge birds lived among dinosaurs”

That doesn’t shock me, since in modern times, we have moslems living among humans.


7 posted on 08/10/2011 5:32:35 PM PDT by LyinLibs (All moslems are somewhere on the killing-you spectrum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Wing night at the Bedrock Pub


8 posted on 08/10/2011 5:34:18 PM PDT by NativeSon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
I thought birds came from dinosaurs, or was that just chickens?
9 posted on 08/10/2011 5:34:58 PM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R

There was one branch of the dino family that became birds. Other branches didn’t. The bird branch was the one that survived whatever killed off the other dinos.


10 posted on 08/10/2011 5:37:14 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (When you've only heard lies your entire life, the truth sounds insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NativeSon
Wing night at the Bedrock Pub

Mmmmm...Samrukia nessovi wings, and brontosaurus ribs. If they put the wings on the passenger side, the car won't tip over.
11 posted on 08/10/2011 5:39:31 PM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
There was one branch of the dino family that became birds. Other branches didn’t. The bird branch was the one that survived whatever killed off the other dinos.

I see. The one branch took to the sky, and the rest stayed on the ground and ate each other to extinction.
12 posted on 08/10/2011 5:44:41 PM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
... and mated with wooly mammoths ...


13 posted on 08/10/2011 5:46:32 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; ...

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks Renfield. 'Tastes like chicken' ping.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


14 posted on 08/10/2011 7:51:29 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Yes, as a matter of fact, it is that time again -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau; SunkenCiv; TheOldLady; null and void; Renfield
Do you see what I see??

Yeah. The reason people with dentures don't chew Bubbleyum.

Oh, no...I’m a lesbian

One date with the bighead otta cure ya of that...

15 posted on 08/10/2011 8:07:31 PM PDT by bigheadfred ("I consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625; SunkenCiv; All

There were some really large aggressive land birds in the Paleocene, perhaps this line survived in enough quantity to reproduce rapidly. My theory is that after all the other bad stuff from the boloid extinction, another problem was that the ozone layer was severly damaged or gone for a while. Anything with feathers, nocturnal habits, living underground, hibernating in the mud, etc. had a better chance of surviving. Thus we have birds, mammals, snakes, frogs, turtles, alligators, etc., but adios dinosaurs.


16 posted on 08/10/2011 9:40:24 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R; PapaBear3625; SunkenCiv; All

I decided to Google the big bird issue and found this interesting link regarding the shift from few carnivorous mammals to higher numbers after the KT extinction. Also the large bird I mentioned was Gastornis in the Palecene, followed by equally large Miatryma in the early Eocene (illustrated). SC this is a nice link and might deserve a separate ping post.

http://www.paleocene-mammals.de/predators.htm


17 posted on 08/10/2011 9:50:56 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625; ZX12R

If you’ve got an enormously long time horizon, enough branches (harshly pruned or nimbly grafted as needed) and are comfortable with flexibly interpreted morphogenesis and physiogeny, presto you can ‘evolve’ anything.

You could also simply repeat “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” a thousand times and then just turn your brain off.


18 posted on 08/11/2011 5:41:43 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
If you’ve got an enormously long time horizon, enough branches (harshly pruned or nimbly grafted as needed) and are comfortable with flexibly interpreted morphogenesis and physiogeny, presto you can ‘evolve’ anything. You could also simply repeat “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” a thousand times and then just turn your brain off.

Reading your post, made my brain shut off. Is it possible to put that in layman's term?
19 posted on 08/11/2011 6:15:12 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

The line is from the “Everyone Loves Raymond” show


20 posted on 08/11/2011 6:18:42 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Renfield; SunkenCiv

Vincent Ricardo: They have tse-tse flies the size of eagles...in the evening you could see them flying away with little babies in their mouths.

Sheldon: That must have been something.


21 posted on 08/11/2011 8:31:43 AM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

Well, I was stumped. :’)

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0018776/quotes


22 posted on 08/11/2011 6:56:48 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Yes, as a matter of fact, it is that time again -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R

For a long time ‘scientists’ have told us that dinosaurs evolved into birds. This article states that ‘some’ birds are their own branch and that other birds are descended from dinosaurs, not these ones.

Evolution cannot be falsified and therefore isn’t a science. Every contradiction simply results in the rewriting of the theory to accept the new ‘fact’.


23 posted on 08/11/2011 7:13:01 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Stumped? Oh, you mean you wanted to know what is Plan B?

There is no plan B.


24 posted on 08/11/2011 7:59:34 PM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Every contradiction simply results in the rewriting of the theory to accept the new ‘fact’.

As far as I know, scientific theories have always needed to be changed to accommodate new facts or information that comes along through experimentation or discovery. Whether by the testing of new ideas derived from guess work, mathematics, intellectual insight, or serendipity. Is that not how modern science progresses?

By the way, I don't support the idea that evolution theory was born complete. I think there has to be things missing, which if discovered, would explain the diversity of life and speciation to a greater, more sensible level, i.e., giving evolution more tools than just time and random mutation.

But the notions that there is nothing at all to evolution theory, and the earth is only thousands of years old, are seen as preposterous to anyone that looks at the evidence and is truthful with themselves.
25 posted on 08/11/2011 8:06:21 PM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

:’)

More generally, if Plan A is so freakin’ good, why even have a Plan B? In fact, in that case, why not just call Plan A “the plan”? ;’)


26 posted on 08/11/2011 8:14:11 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Yes, as a matter of fact, it is that time again -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
But the notions that there is nothing at all to evolution theory, and the earth is only thousands of years old, are seen as preposterous to anyone that looks at the evidence and is truthful with themselves.

Agreed, but how would you falsify the theory if every new discovery simply reinforces the theory of evolution? That's not science.

The theory of evolution really states that a rock, under specific, though unknown, circumstances, can come to life. What many people, perhaps you as well, are confused with is natural selection. Natural selection is a real and observable process.

Natural selection isn't evolution, though evolution wholly depends on natural selection. Promulgators of the theory of evolution have muddied the waters by discussing micro-evolution (natural selection, not evolution at all) with macro-evolution (the theory of evolution). Creation must have some cause and atheists use the theory of evolution to remove God from creation. It is not a scientific theory, but a religious one - the religion of atheism.

27 posted on 08/12/2011 5:10:29 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Agreed, but how would you falsify the theory if every new discovery simply reinforces the theory of evolution? That's not science.

I think it is science, just not to everyone's liking. It just is not a science like say, physics, or chemisrty.

The theory of evolution really states that a rock, under specific, though unknown, circumstances, can come to life. What many people, perhaps you as well, are confused with is natural selection. Natural selection is a real and observable process.

I don't think anyone, who's opinion would be of any consequence, thinks a rock can come to life. And I agree that natural selection is an actual observable process, so much so, that to deny it, immediately destroys your credibility and brings your sanity into question.

Natural selection isn't evolution, though evolution wholly depends on natural selection. Promulgators of the theory of evolution have muddied the waters by discussing micro-evolution (natural selection, not evolution at all) with macro-evolution (the theory of evolution). Creation must have some cause and atheists use the theory of evolution to remove God from creation. It is not a scientific theory, but a religious one - the religion of atheism.

I've already stated that in my opinion, things are missing, and current evolution theory is incomplete. And I think no one knows what those things are, but science may find a mechanism that allows for spontaneous creation of life, or perhaps spontaneous creation of radically new body forms, I don't know.

I'm not an atheist, and I have no particular axe to grind for or against any particular agenda. To me, things simply are what they are, and science works to illuminate how things are. Science is not evil, and there are plenty of religious scientists in every scientific field.
28 posted on 08/12/2011 5:41:11 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Even better, call it Plan 6 or F to misdirect your enemies.


29 posted on 08/12/2011 7:14:04 AM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
The theory of evolution really states that a rock, under specific, though unknown, circumstances, can come to life.

The Bible states the same thing, however, the known circumstance is the command of God.

30 posted on 08/12/2011 7:29:52 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Why did you post this, and why did you post it on Free Republic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
I think it is science, just not to everyone's liking. It just is not a science like say, physics, or chemistry.

You're correct. It isn't a science like physics or chemistry because it cannot be falsified.

I don't think anyone, who's opinion would be of any consequence, thinks a rock can come to life. And I agree that natural selection is an actual observable process, so much so, that to deny it, immediately destroys your credibility and brings your sanity into question.

Agreed.

I've already stated that in my opinion, things are missing, and current evolution theory is incomplete. And I think no one knows what those things are, but science may find a mechanism that allows for spontaneous creation of life, or perhaps spontaneous creation of radically new body forms, I don't know.

I'm not an atheist, and I have no particular axe to grind for or against any particular agenda. To me, things simply are what they are, and science works to illuminate how things are. Science is not evil, and there are plenty of religious scientists in every scientific field.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I like science and use it every day. Just noting that the Theory of Evolution is non-science aka nonsense.

31 posted on 08/13/2011 11:27:55 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Adam from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib. So men are made from dirt and women from men?


32 posted on 08/13/2011 11:29:10 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson