Posted on 11/28/2017 9:08:17 PM PST by mairdie
It looks like a rather cute fluffy toy.
But, in fact, this is an artist's impression of a dinosaur that lived 160 million years ago.
Latest research suggests the crow-sized dinosaur Anchiornis had feathers on its four wings that fluffed up rather than lying flat like those of modern birds.
The primitive feathers may have actually hampered in its early attempts at flight.
They would probably have caused drag when the creature tried to glide between trees, say scientists.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“The primitive feathers ... would probably have caused drag.”
Yeah, but the female Anchiornises really dug them.
It looks similar to a sloth.
Looks like it tastes like chicken.
Looks like it might outfly a flying squirrel.
You’re terrible.
But funny.
Sloth crossed with Emu...
I’ve been kind of interested in the discussion of ‘birds are dinosaurs/birds are not dinosaurs’:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-birds-are-not-dinosaurs-movement/
I never knew about that argument.
It’s been going on a while; I’m not expert enough to ‘take a stand’, but it’s interesting.
Absolutely. I just heard about the standard theory. Alternate theories are always fascinating.
I’ve never seen a Sloth in a feather outfit. Well, you see something new every day.
>I’ve been kind of interested in the discussion of ‘birds are dinosaurs/birds are not dinosaurs’:
The correct answer is most dinosaurs were birds. Birds didn’t develop from them, they were just a variety of bird. The few samples of dinosaurs skin we have all resemble chicken skin, not reptile scales. They were warm-blooded, had feathers, and probably had hollow bones.
Here’s another article; the ‘not dinosaur’ theory is that of a small minority. (But I’m one of those who believe the Ivory Billed Woodpecker may still be around, so I guess I’m a sucker for ‘alternate’ ideas ;-)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
It looks like something out of Harry Potter. Sort of adorable.
Artist's impression means it's wildly inaccurate.
Agreed, unfortunately. But if they can find one to get DNA from....
That’s interesting. Another article, regarding how they breathed:
https://www.livescience.com/306-dinosaurs-breathed-birds.html
basically the creation side points out that the creature is more bird, and points out the reasons why (lighter bones than dinos, scaled feet like birds, ‘feathers’ are not actual feathers (evos claim they are proto feathers- but in reality they are far from being true feathers) and showing that the arms were positioned such that it was birdlike and not dino like- meaning they were in right position for flight- and more- The article on hte scientific american site is just a nasty dig at the creation arguments- the creationists do not say ‘well it can’t be a dino because, well, it just can’t’ The article was an immature dig at creationists- They also leave out the fact that even scientists who are not creationists don’t think they are dinos- The article tries to make out like everyone who isn’t a creationist thinks birds evolved from dinos- but that isn’t so- The din to bird theory has had fierce debate for a long time now in the scientific community- and also between creationists and those that hold to the evo ideology-
Thank you. Try the pterodactyl and don’t forget to tip your waitress.
I remember the first article I read focused somehow on the skeletal structure and breathing, which indicated to the author that birds were not related to dinosaurs.
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.