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

Skip to comments.

Prehistoric Birds May Have Used Four Wings To Fly
Smithsonian ^ | 3-14-13

Posted on 03/14/2013 6:43:48 PM PDT by Dysart

Roughly 150 million years ago, birds began to evolve. The winged creatures we see in the skies today descended from a group of dinosaurs called theropods, which included tyrannosaurs, during a 54-million-year chunk of time known as the Jurassic period. Why the ability to fly evolved in some species is a difficult question to answer, but scientists agree that wings came to be because they must have been useful: they might have helped land-based animals leap into the air, or helped gliding creatures who flapped their arms produce thrust.

As researchers continue to probe the origin of flight, studies of fossils have shown that theropods–particularly coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which closely resemble modern birds—had large feathers on both their fore limbs and hind limbs. However, extensive evidence for these leg feathers didn’t exist in the earliest birds. But now, a new examination of fossils reported today in the journal Science reveals several examples of this four-winged anatomy in modern birds’ oldest common ancestors.

Modern birds have two types of feathers: vaned feathers that cover the outside of the body, and the down feathers that grow underneath them.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.smithsonianmag.com ...


TOPICS: Pets/Animals; Science
KEYWORDS: birs; cryptobiology; cryptozoology; dinosaur; dinosaurs; feathers; godsgravesglyphs; paleontology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

A fossil of a prehistoric bird from the enantiornithine genus shows feathers on its hind legs—evidence of an extra pair of wings. Courtesy of Xiaoting Zheng et al/Science

1 posted on 03/14/2013 6:43:48 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dysart

Yeah, sure. This from those who jabber about the world being 150 million years old. While science obviously proves otherwise.


2 posted on 03/14/2013 6:48:30 PM PDT by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

NBA players should be developing wings and feathers any day now to help them leap.


3 posted on 03/14/2013 6:53:37 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
Thanks.

Feathered dinosaur to winged dinosaur with feathers on four limbs to birds with feathers on four limbs to birds withfeathers on two limbs.

Add a little brain development in there to provide the processing systems necessary to control two-winged flight and you've got modern birds.

So, why parrots?

4 posted on 03/14/2013 6:53:52 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

5 posted on 03/14/2013 6:58:50 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Bwahaha...yeah, piece a cake...


6 posted on 03/14/2013 6:59:00 PM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Feathers on four limbs:


7 posted on 03/14/2013 7:02:07 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Who thinks the world is 150 million years old?


8 posted on 03/14/2013 7:05:44 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

I recommend the author simply read Genesis. Evolution ain’t what our “educated” literates crack it up to be. There are no proven instances of macro evolution. None. Zip.


9 posted on 03/14/2013 7:07:13 PM PDT by Tudorfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Why Parrots? Open question there, but I will answer what I think you mean. I see Parrots as I do Mockingbirds. Both mimics but with different diet and thus adaptive beaks. All songs serve the same dual purpose in birds. I think mimics are more evolved. Clearly higher processing is required to replicate other species' songs. We know, or it is believed, that mimic behavior is used to attract mates and communicate territorial claims. Further, it has been shown that Mockingbirds with the best repertoire of songs (esp males) have better breeding success than those more limited. So, I would assume the same would be true with Parrots- although I have studied Mockingbirds as a hobbyist but not Parrots. But in the same way mimic behavior and the higher intelligence required to produce it would be an adaptive advantage, right? ie, the female would select the best and smartest genes to pass along in response to this behavior.
10 posted on 03/14/2013 7:17:21 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

Nobody.


11 posted on 03/14/2013 7:19:01 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

My point exactly.


12 posted on 03/14/2013 7:20:57 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

Yeah but, how many ‘scientists’ believe the earth is only about 4 to 5 thousand years old at most?


13 posted on 03/14/2013 7:35:39 PM PDT by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tudorfly

Indeed. Those “science” bozos are just pulling it out of their butts.


14 posted on 03/14/2013 7:38:01 PM PDT by Psiman (PS I am not a crackpot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

I am unaware of any credible person that subscribes to such nonsense.


15 posted on 03/14/2013 7:45:09 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EEGator; Dysart
Who thinks the world is 150 million years old?

From "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones, we have (based on Moon rocks picked up on the Apollo XI mission) that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

16 posted on 03/14/2013 7:52:31 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

My thought precisely.


17 posted on 03/14/2013 7:55:33 PM PDT by sauropod (I will not comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

I’m in agreement with that. My point was to the original poster stating 150 million. No one thinks that.


18 posted on 03/14/2013 7:58:25 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
What the female is looking for is some sign that the parrot is her kinda' guy ~ not that he has superior genes ~ just the same genes.

His ability to produce the signal that conveys that information is the part that tells her if he's capable of helping feed the chicks.

BTW, all the parrots of the same species have just about the same genes ~ maybe a few differences here and there with methylation ~ but same same!

My concern with parrots is they have more advanced brains ~ and yet they don't do very much different from other birds ~ in fact, my son prove that you can call a parrot down from a tree to sit on your shoulder just as you might a crow or a duck. Surprised his girlfriend I'll tell you that, but not me ~ or our other relatives.

Seriously, being a bird is not a mentally challenging occupation

19 posted on 03/14/2013 8:00:21 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

You dont think the female Parrot or Mockingbird chooses the best possible mate conveyed by superior songs, and some other display behavior among her suitors of the same species? Surely not.


20 posted on 03/14/2013 8:13:01 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Yes. I am clear on that, but thanks...


21 posted on 03/14/2013 8:14:03 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
of course not ~ those birds don't know genes from spleens. all they're looking for is an ID, and if the dude doesn't deliver he doesn't get any.
22 posted on 03/14/2013 8:36:13 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

but that does not compute: we know sexual selection is largely determined by competition which implies choice propelled by desire to pass along their own genes. this is brought abt by passing along the fittest (expression) genes in the next generation and its all instintctual; so in that way they do actually recognize sucesssful genes when they see them expressed.


23 posted on 03/14/2013 8:53:33 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
Prehistoric Birds May Have Used Four Wings To Fly

They had to. There was no bacon then and hot wings were in much higher demand.

24 posted on 03/14/2013 9:07:59 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

Sexual selection would be searching for healthier genes if and only if genes mutated at a phenomenal rate ~ which they don’t. I think sexual selection has been pretty well debunked with the discovery that breast size, hair thickness and number of sweat glands and shape of teeth are under the control of a single gene ~ (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/science/studying-recent-human-evolution-at-the-genetic-level.html?_r=1&; ) ~ you’ll want to read that piece ~ same gene in mice as in men! The thing has GEOLOGICAL AGE STABILITY


25 posted on 03/15/2013 5:09:47 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
There was no bacon then and hot wings were in much higher demand.

That might be the most scientifically accurate post in the whole thread. :)

26 posted on 03/15/2013 8:27:44 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I won’t try to disabuse you of the your hypothesis that “natural selection has been debunked” but the NYT article you cited, and with which I’m familiar, does not support your assertion.


27 posted on 03/15/2013 8:54:47 AM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
Some scientists, quite a few actually, say those are not feathers but another substance. At any rate I refuse to believe that dinos grew wings simply because they waved their arms in the air while catching bugs, which is the theory that some scientists put forth to explain the growth of wings and feathers.

If Dinos were going to evolve into birds don't you think the logical candidate for this would have been the Pterodactyl family? They could already fly and already had wings, yet the ground based two legged theropods are the ones scientists picked to be the "ancestors" of birds. BTW, I am not religious nor a young earther. I just use common sense when it comes to evolution, it is BS, and anyone with half a brain can see most of the theories are simply that, BS.

No evidence exits which actually proves evolution, or creation for that matter.

28 posted on 03/15/2013 9:07:39 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
Some scientists, quite a few actually, say those are not feathers but another substance. At any rate I refuse to believe that dinos grew wings simply because they waved their arms in the air while catching bugs, which is the theory that some scientists put forth to explain the growth of wings and feathers.

If Dinos were going to evolve into birds don't you think the logical candidate for this would have been the Pterodactyl family? They could already fly and already had wings, yet the ground based two legged theropods are the ones scientists picked to be the "ancestors" of birds. BTW, I am not religious nor a young earther. I just use common sense when it comes to evolution, it is BS, and anyone with half a brain can see most of the theories are simply that, BS.

No evidence exits which actually proves evolution, or creation for that matter.

It isn't just about birds developing wings and feathers, it is about the whole respiratory system changing, how did that happen gradually over a period of millions of years and why? Nope, evolution doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and it doesn't take much scrutiny to tear it down. People who believe in it are just as naive as people who believe in religion and Gods.

29 posted on 03/15/2013 9:10:54 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

30 posted on 03/15/2013 9:14:21 AM PDT by eartrumpet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
It was a proto-avian Animal Farm: "two wings bad, four wings good!"

Later they evolved to "four wings good, two wings better!"

31 posted on 03/15/2013 9:40:19 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

SEXUAL SELECTION ~ not ‘natural selection’ per se ~ whatever demigod that might be. Currently all the fanciful stories are on hold while real science tries to figure out what epigenetics is up to.


32 posted on 03/15/2013 9:57:54 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
SEXUAL SELECTION ~ not 'natural selection' per se ~ whatever demigod that might be. Currently all the fanciful stories are on hold while real science tries to figure out what epigenetics is up to.

Lest someone else think I said something I did not say, here's the money quote:

"I think sexual selection has been pretty well debunked with the discovery that breast size, hair thickness and number of sweat glands and shape of teeth are under the control of a single gene"

33 posted on 03/15/2013 10:01:40 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Psiman

Exactly. Most science is just made up anyway.


34 posted on 03/15/2013 10:16:41 AM PDT by Eddeche
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: eartrumpet

Dinosaur? Yes, it’s the elusive Juggsasaurus Maximus, indigenous to the Miami Beach area, I believe. Needs further study.


35 posted on 03/15/2013 10:28:41 AM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Okay, sexual selection it is that you push aside. Seems integral to the whole theory to me. Natural selection directs will to survive as sexual selection drives the need to reproduce. Proper selection is vital for both, or they fail. You appear to be saying so long as one mate can find another of its kind any will do. But that is not what is observed in nature. It doesn't make sense on the face of it.
36 posted on 03/15/2013 10:40:59 AM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
I do strive for that scientifical accuracy! :)

I am so glad to be living in the Baconsonian Inter-Glacial era.

37 posted on 03/15/2013 1:31:09 PM PDT by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
Chimpanzees ~ a bunch of guys gets together and they all do it with any available female.

The concept of sexual selection is just out the window with that sort of thing.

Someone wanted to figure out why male birds have flashier plummage than the females. Territorial challenge can account for that but they came up with sexual selection.

38 posted on 03/15/2013 5:21:24 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: eartrumpet

Those poor ladies can barely stand up straight or breath!


39 posted on 03/15/2013 5:23:02 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
It has been suggested that the polyamorous chimps and bonobos employ promiscuity to promote group bonding- and if you think about it that should pretty well do it. When it comes actual reproduction purposes selection still applies. Alpha male and all that. This is my understanding but that is as far as it goes. I am not a scientist and have not studied primates. I have stayed at a Holiday Inn recently I should warn you, though.

I will be stcking with sexual selection as valid until overwhelming contridicting evidence presents...could happen but wont be holding my breath. Is there published work by someone who otherwise agrees with evolutionary theory but agrees with your position? Dont knock yourself out, but id like to give it a gander if it exists.

40 posted on 03/15/2013 5:45:07 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
We just discussed the sweat gland, thick hair, toothshaped, breast size gene ~ it's not particularly different in mice! However, there are a gazillion Dr. Feelgood stories out there about how evolution through the mechanism of sexual selection selected for women with large breasts ~

That idea has been laid to rest ~

41 posted on 03/15/2013 5:50:19 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Let us forget large breasts for a minute. If that be a dead end it means some scientists’ thinking on that line of thought turned out to be wrong in that instance. Not that sexual selection theory on the whole has been shattered. Someone took a wrong turn- maybe. Happens all the time. Still waiting to read of a qualified scientist who explicitly agrees with you. Is there one you can point to?


42 posted on 03/15/2013 6:03:04 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Perhaps the better question is: why -not- parrots?

And maybe the answer to two wings instead of four was just because two was all it took?


43 posted on 03/15/2013 6:17:25 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
We have the scientific reports on the tooth/breast/sweat/hair gene before us. We don't need to call in additional experts to make notice of the obvious ~ when an exceedingly stable gene controls those factors, and the only serious mutation among humans resulted in flatter teeth, smaller breasts, more sweat and thick stiff hair, the whole idea Darwin advanced about large brests attracting the healthiest males is just bizarre!

The genes failed to respond appropriately and did their own thing for their own purposes whatever they were.

44 posted on 03/15/2013 6:28:10 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I have uncovered a certain Joan Roughgarden who attacks sexual selection in a 2004 book, but her premise is awful weak and narrow. And she has not appeared to set the scientific community abuzz with her views. Maybe in time her views will be accepted, but that isnt the case yet.

But also, this from someone who agrees with her fwiw:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-adair-gowaty/was-darwin-wrong-about-se_b_2672827.html


45 posted on 03/15/2013 6:47:45 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Btw, this Roughgarden while disavows creation science and ID, she does posit a role for God in evolution. She is interesting, I will say that.
46 posted on 03/15/2013 6:52:33 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
Way back when I was but a mere chil' they were still making up 'jus' so' stories ~ and today that field is pretty empty. There are no major geneticists out there dwelling on sexual selection.

Did I tell you about Darwin's trip to the Gallapagos islands? Alone in his cabin, at sea for months, nothing to do but think about.......... well, sexual selection was one of his first topics .......... BTW, he didn't know about DNA!

47 posted on 03/15/2013 6:56:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Well, I do agree in principal that scientific theories should forever be tested and refined as appropriate wherever it leads.
48 posted on 03/15/2013 7:01:38 PM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Tudorfly
I recommend the author simply read Genesis. Evolution ain’t what our “educated” literates crack it up to be. There are no proven instances of macro evolution. None. Zip.

And you know how the Torah isn't a work of fiction, how?

49 posted on 03/15/2013 7:44:39 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks Dysart.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

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


50 posted on 03/15/2013 9:25:22 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


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