Free Republic
Browse · Search
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 ...

TOPICS: Pets/Animals; Science
KEYWORDS: birs; cryptobiology; cryptozoology; dinosaur; dinosaurs; feathers; godsgravesglyphs; paleontology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
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:

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]

To: SunkenCiv

You came around for the large breasts, did you not? It wasn’t really the the wings. Fess up.

51 posted on 03/16/2013 8:22:06 AM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 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
Topics · Post Article

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