Skip to comments.Prehistoric Birds May Have Used Four Wings To Fly
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 theropodsparticularly coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which closely resemble modern birdshad large feathers on both their fore limbs and hind limbs. However, extensive evidence for these leg feathers didnt 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 ...
That idea has been laid to rest ~
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?
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?
The genes failed to respond appropriately and did their own thing for their own purposes whatever they were.
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:
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!
And you know how the Torah isn't a work of fiction, how?
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
You came around for the large breasts, did you not? It wasn’t really the the wings. Fess up.
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.