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 ...
Everyone, especially people writing for newspapers, needs to understand tthe great distinction between a theory and a hypothesis
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
Or an "old theory".
“Probably all dinosaurs were feathered,” scientist concludes I don't think so. Just a pandering for research money.
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.”
last known species run over by a lexus
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.
This be hugh and scirius!
HORSEFEATHERS!
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.
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).
“’es just pining for the fjords.”
“Wot! for a hundred and fifty million years?”
I love that movie. The first one, not the sequels.
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.
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.
So they called it Sciurumimus because it reminds them of modern-day meat-eating tree squirrels with feathers.
Scientists always have to claim the last “true” theory was false, just in order to get their PhD papers published.
On the average, about once per thread.
Odd that the same rule doesn't apply to reinterpretations of religious texts....
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.
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.
