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

Skip to comments.

"Beautiful" Squirrel-Tail Dinosaur Fossil Upends Feather Theory
National Geographic ^ | 7-2-2012 | Christine Dell'Amore

Posted on 07/03/2012 4:40:01 AM PDT by Renfield

A newfound squirrel-tailed specimen is the oldest known meat-eating dinosaur with feathers, according to a new study. The late-Jurassic discovery, study authors say, strikes down the image of dinosaurs as "overgrown lizards."

Unearthed recently from a Bavarian limestone quarry, the "exquisitely preserved" 150-million-year-old fossil has been dubbed Sciurumimus albersdoerferi—"Scirius" being the scientific name for tree squirrels.

Sciurumimus was likely a young megalosaur, a group of large, two-legged meat-eating dinosaurs. The hatchling had a large skull, short hind limbs, and long, hairlike plumage on its midsection, back, and tail....

(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...


TOPICS: History; Society
KEYWORDS: dinosaur; dinosaurs; evolution; feathers; godsgravesglyphs; paleontology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

"Probably all dinosaurs were feathered," scientist concludes.

Photograph courtesy H. Tischlinger, Jura Museum Eichstätt

1 posted on 07/03/2012 4:40:16 AM PDT by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Ping


2 posted on 07/03/2012 4:41:09 AM PDT by Renfield (Turning apples into venison since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

“The hatchling had a large skull, short hind limbs, and long, hairlike plumage on its midsection, back, and tail....”

Norwegian Blue ping.

[I’ve been pining for the Fnords]


3 posted on 07/03/2012 4:47:58 AM PDT by Salamander (I wanna hurt you just to hear you screaming my name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Beautiful plumage!


4 posted on 07/03/2012 4:51:30 AM PDT by 6SJ7 (Meh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 6SJ7

If he weren’t embedded in that rock, why, he’d just fly away.

Fwooooooooooom!


5 posted on 07/03/2012 4:54:50 AM PDT by Salamander (I wanna hurt you just to hear you screaming my name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

I want to see Jurassic Park with feathered dinosaurs.

:-)


6 posted on 07/03/2012 5:05:35 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Marie

And Unicorns!!!

[well, *something* had to have eaten them all]

;D


7 posted on 07/03/2012 5:10:42 AM PDT by Salamander (I wanna hurt you just to hear you screaming my name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Marie
I want to see Jurassic Park with feathered dinosaurs.

That's the sad thing about the Jurassic Park trilogy ...there will come a time when it will be horribly dated, both in terms of the CGI used as well as the information given. On the CGI - there are some movies that I marveled at when I was a kid, and grimaced when I watched them again as an adult. On the information - we saw gray T-Rexs and Velociraptors, when apparently they were feathered and multi-colored.

8 posted on 07/03/2012 5:17:19 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Somebody please post the saber toothed squirrel from Ice Age.


9 posted on 07/03/2012 5:19:51 AM PDT by Mercat (Necessity is the argument of tyrants. John Milton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

How many times are these people going to be completely wrong before it becomes evident that they don’t know what they are talking about?


10 posted on 07/03/2012 5:20:03 AM PDT by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

I don’t know why people assume they were brightly colored. Most birds are shades of white, grey, brown and black. They need to be camouflaged, too. I have a roadrunner who hangs out in the back yard every morning. He’s black, brown and white.

If he weren’t, it’d be much more difficult for him to hunt.

We notice the cardinal because it’s so noticeable. We make a note of it because it’s unusual.

Show me an owl or an eagle with red and blue feathers.

Some may have been, but I can’t see it being the norm.


11 posted on 07/03/2012 5:27:43 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mercat

12 posted on 07/03/2012 5:29:44 AM PDT by Renfield (Turning apples into venison since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax

How many times will someone on FR equate formulation of new theories based on more recent evidence as being “completely wrong”?


13 posted on 07/03/2012 5:36:50 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Renfield; ApplegateRanch; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; ...

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks Renfield. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


14 posted on 07/03/2012 5:36:56 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Renfield

It makes me wonder about Quetzalcoatl, the Aztec “feathered serpent” god.


15 posted on 07/03/2012 5:37:27 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
How many times will someone on FR equate formulation of new theories based on more recent evidence as being “completely wrong”?

It's a reaction to the "We now know" phenomenon. By that I mean the media's habit of saying "It was once believed that [X]. However, we now know [Y]." The truth is, everything we once believed was at that time something that, at the time, we now 'knew.' In other words, that thing we now 'know' isn't something we really know... it's just an updated best guess.

16 posted on 07/03/2012 5:43:28 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

If you have a “new theory” that is consistently contradicted by new and existing evidence, it’s not much of a theory.

I’d qualify it as a fantasy.


17 posted on 07/03/2012 5:45:37 AM PDT by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

“Norweigian Blue”


18 posted on 07/03/2012 5:47:00 AM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
How many times will someone on FR equate formulation of new theories based on more recent evidence as being “completely wrong”?

It's a reaction to the "We now know" phenomenon. By that I mean the media's habit of saying "It was once believed that [X]. However, we now know [Y]." The truth is, everything we once believed was at that time something that, at the time, we now 'knew.' In other words, that thing we now 'know' isn't something we really know... it's just an updated best guess.

19 posted on 07/03/2012 5:48:33 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

If it’s a young dinosaur, and they have feathers, wouldn’t this be like the downy fuzz you find on chicks?


20 posted on 07/03/2012 5:48:37 AM PDT by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax

Everyone, especially people writing for newspapers, needs to understand tthe great distinction between a theory and a hypothesis


21 posted on 07/03/2012 5:55:35 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Legalize Freedom!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

When scientists stop finding evidence that proves their grand theory is a fraud. This eliminates the dinosaur to bird evolution supposedly proved by the feathered dinosaur. That fraud has been supposed proof for decades, never mind.

Evolution is the most destructive religion in the history of man.

Pray for America


22 posted on 07/03/2012 5:56:09 AM PDT by bray (Power to We the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax
If you have a “new theory” that is consistently contradicted by new and existing evidence, it’s not much of a theory.

Or an "old theory".

23 posted on 07/03/2012 5:56:22 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mercat
Photobucket
24 posted on 07/03/2012 6:06:45 AM PDT by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
It seems to me that there was a discovery of skin prints in one fossil. No feathers on that one.

“Probably all dinosaurs were feathered,” scientist concludes I don't think so. Just a pandering for research money.

25 posted on 07/03/2012 6:10:53 AM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray; SunkenCiv
When scientists stop finding evidence that proves their grand theory is a fraud. This eliminates the dinosaur to bird evolution supposedly proved by the feathered dinosaur. That fraud has been supposed proof for decades, never mind.

From the article:

Dinosaur-Feather Evolution Still Up in the Air

More interesting, according to Sullivan, is what Sciurumimus means for how dinosaurs evolved feathers.

Scientists had previously thought that feathers evolved in coelurosaurs. But Sciurumimus is “the first clear evidence” that feathers predated those birdlike dinosaurs, Sullivan said.

According to the study authors, this “obviously” suggests that feathered dinosaurs had a common ancestor, which passed the trait on to each branch of the dinosaur family tree.

“I would say that this is an obvious possibility, rather than an obvious conclusion,” Sullivan said.

Although the feathers look similar among different dinosaur groups, it's still possible the trait evolved independently, without a common ancestor.

“We paleontologists are going to need to find more fossils—of things even less closely related to birds than Sciurumimus—to be sure.”

26 posted on 07/03/2012 6:14:09 AM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: baddog 219

last known species run over by a lexus


27 posted on 07/03/2012 6:17:58 AM PDT by damncat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Marie

Birds in a temperate climate filled with deciduous trees tend to be dull-colored, since that’s the best camouflage. But in jungles they blend in by being various bright shades of green, yellow, and red, like their surroundings. It might be reasonable to surmise that dinosaurs often blended with the prevalent colors of their habitat, and in some cases that might have meant bright green with bits of other colors, or mud-color, or the blue and turquoise of water. Look at the way the orange-and-white-and-black tiger blends perfectly with his habitat. It’s interesting to speculate. But you’re right that predators aren’t typically a color that makes them stand out to their prey. And vice versa.


28 posted on 07/03/2012 6:38:08 AM PDT by ottbmare (The OTTB Mare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

This be hugh and scirius!


29 posted on 07/03/2012 6:39:31 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (If you believe what you're saying, quit making taxable income. Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

HORSEFEATHERS!

30 posted on 07/03/2012 7:02:04 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (what?? Who knew?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marie
I don’t know why people assume they were brightly colored. Most birds are shades of white, grey, brown and black. They need to be camouflaged, too. I have a roadrunner who hangs out in the back yard every morning. He’s black, brown and white. If he weren’t, it’d be much more difficult for him to hunt. We notice the cardinal because it’s so noticeable. We make a note of it because it’s unusual.

Good points. I was basing my post on an article I read that had pictures of feathered and brightly-colored dinosaurs. I believe for the velociraptor it was to be used as a form of color display (similar to how males of certain species use color for various forms of display e.g. threat displays and mating displays). The article stated that the way the scientists knew about the colors was via Melanosomes. "Melanosomes are colour-bearing organelles buried within the structure of feathers and hair in modern birds and mammals, giving black, grey, and rufous tones such as orange and brown. Because melanosomes are an integral part of the tough protein structure of the feather, they survive when a feather survives, even for hundreds of millions of years."

I also believe camouflage can work in different ways. For some it is about blending in as closely as possible (e.g. the mottled browns of a Puff Adder, or for that matter the earthly brown of a Lion that makes it blend quite well in the Savannah); for others it is breaking up the outline and giving forth a shape that is not readily identifiable as 'target' or 'predator' (e.g. the bright stripes of a tiger breaking up its shape, or even better yet the crazy and bright pattern of the Rhinocerous Viper that is found in my country of birth, Kenya); and for others it is simply to confuse (e.g. the effect of the stripes on a zebra when all the zebra are running together ...allegedly it confuses and throws off a lion that may have targeted one particular individual).

Show me an owl or an eagle with red and blue feathers.

That one is easy ...my favorite bird. The Bateleur Eagle is a large and amazingly colored Raptor that is also found in my birth country. Its plumage includes vivid colors, including reds and blues.


31 posted on 07/03/2012 7:09:25 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare

I should have copied you in my post 31 as well. What you say is true ...as you move into tropical zones colors tend to get more vivid. Also, crazy bright colors are just as effective for both predators and prey as muted tuned-down coloring (e.g. compare the coloring of the Rhinocerous viper and that of the Puff Adder ....one is brightly colored, the other the color of earth, and both are virtually invisible in their respective environments until it is too late. Or, say, a comparison between a Lion’s coloring and a tiger’s. The animals are basically almost the same if you take out the skin ...they can even get fertile offspring ...but have totally different approaches to camouflage).


32 posted on 07/03/2012 7:14:35 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

“’es just pining for the fjords.”
“Wot! for a hundred and fifty million years?”


33 posted on 07/03/2012 7:21:02 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: baddog 219

I love that movie. The first one, not the sequels.


34 posted on 07/03/2012 7:31:23 AM PDT by Mercat (Necessity is the argument of tyrants. John Milton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax

You miss the point.

By insisting on constancy and certainty you close your mind to new information. The fact there might be conflict between information raised by different fossils does not preclude an irreconcilable difference of the available information. The facts of the fossils are different. The theories can and should be also uncertain, ie not identical. There is far more unknown than there is known.

By harping on the concept of theory not having absolute validity and clinging to myth drawn from thin air as certainty, there is a lot of vacant intellectual ground.


35 posted on 07/03/2012 8:00:13 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bert

I agree with you completely. However, these “scientists” clinging to their “myth drawn from thin air” insist on leaving a log of vacant intellectual ground.

At what point does their “theory” get discarded? In other words, is it falsifiable? They are dancing as hard as they can trying to come up with new scenarios to try to avoid the fact that their ideas aren’t working out too well.


36 posted on 07/03/2012 8:05:50 AM PDT by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
A newfound squirrel-tailed dinosaur is the oldest known meat-eating dinosaur with feathers...

So they called it Sciurumimus because it reminds them of modern-day meat-eating tree squirrels with feathers.

37 posted on 07/03/2012 8:27:28 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax

Scientists always have to claim the last “true” theory was false, just in order to get their PhD papers published.


38 posted on 07/03/2012 8:28:48 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
How many times will someone on FR equate formulation of new theories based on more recent evidence as being “completely wrong”?

On the average, about once per thread.

Odd that the same rule doesn't apply to reinterpretations of religious texts....

39 posted on 07/03/2012 8:55:59 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1259 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Heroes aren't made Frank, they're cornered...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

There’ll be remakes of the movies. And remakes of the theories as well.

Heck, I’m waiting for it to be decided that all dinos were furry. Then, for it to be decided that all the feathers and fur was decided wrongly because of some strange anomaly in the fossilizing process of a few dinos.

Then, living dinos to be discovered on a high plateau in the amazon, who are a mix of bald, feathered and furry.


40 posted on 07/03/2012 9:33:31 AM PDT by Grimmy (equivocation is but the first step along the road to capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
No, seriesly...my granddaddy was a T-Rex!

Photobucket

41 posted on 07/03/2012 12:47:30 PM PDT by TrueKnightGalahad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax

“If you have a “new theory” that is consistently contradicted by new and existing evidence, it’s not much of a theory.

I’d qualify it as a fantasy.”

Does that mean that Obamacare won’t really reduce the costs of health care or provide better care at less cost?


42 posted on 07/03/2012 1:54:43 PM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Good point.


43 posted on 07/03/2012 9:08:41 PM PDT by Pelham (John Roberts: the cherry on top of judicial tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

“That doesn’t look very scary; more like a [insert height] turkey.”


44 posted on 07/03/2012 10:05:50 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax
If you have a “new theory” that is consistently contradicted by new and existing evidence,

The idea that between 230 and 65 million years ago, the Earth was home to reptiles of various sizes and shapes, at least some of which had feathers, and which are the ancestors of today's birds, is hardly "contradicted" by the idea that they may have all had feathers.

45 posted on 07/04/2012 12:06:53 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

I have hardly read a more controversial statement. I don’t believe there is anything in it that is true.


46 posted on 07/04/2012 7:14:26 AM PDT by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax

I’m not concerned with whether you believe it or not. My experience has been that people who don’t believe that statement aren’t particularly open to persuasion about it. But even so, you should be able to appreciate that the new discovery doesn’t contradict the theory in any meaningful way.


47 posted on 07/04/2012 2:27:36 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

My experience has been that people who believe the statement you made aren’t open to persuation about it’s lack of merit. They have an almost fanatical faith about it. And alas, it’s not a valid scientific theory if it’s not falsifiable.


48 posted on 07/05/2012 7:47:52 AM PDT by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax

If by “fanatical faith” you mean “unwillingness to abandon the theory on the basis of some combination of pseudoscience and religious belief,” then I agree with you. And, of course, the theory is completely falsifiable.

But like I said, I don’t expect to persuade you of that. Still, whether you accept the theory or not, you should be able to see that the new discovery doesn’t contradict it in any significant way. If you can’t see or won’t admit that, that sort of rules your opinion on the merits of the theory unworthy of consideration.


49 posted on 07/05/2012 10:58:41 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax
The idea that between 230 and 65 million years ago, the Earth was home to reptiles of various sizes and shapes, at least some of which had feathers, and which are the ancestors of today's birds, is hardly "contradicted" by the idea that they may have all had feathers.

I have hardly read a more controversial statement. I don’t believe there is anything in it that is true.

Hm. You are therefore stating that:

a) The Earth is did not exist 230 to 65 million years ago,
b) The Earth was not home to reptiles of various sizes and shapes,
c) those reptiles were not ancestors of today's birds, and
d) Some of them had feathers.

By definition, all creationists would stand by (c) and while almost unbelievable, there are still some creationists who have issue with (a), but I've not yet heard from anyone who would disagree with (b) and (d).

So congratulations on that. I am, as always, curious though as to why the Deity of your choosing decided to deceive us with such ample evidence across many fields of study supporting (a) and (b) and more than enough to support (c) and (d).
50 posted on 07/05/2012 1:21:11 PM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

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