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 ...
Yes. I am clear on that, but thanks...
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.
They had to. There was no bacon then and hot wings were in much higher demand.
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
That might be the most scientifically accurate post in the whole thread. :)
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.
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.
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.
Later they evolved to "four wings good, two wings better!"
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"
Exactly. Most science is just made up anyway.
Dinosaur? Yes, it’s the elusive Juggsasaurus Maximus, indigenous to the Miami Beach area, I believe. Needs further study.
I am so glad to be living in the Baconsonian Inter-Glacial era.
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.
Those poor ladies can barely stand up straight or breath!
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.
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.