Posted on 04/15/2005 6:39:50 AM PDT by doc30
Reproductive Riddle Unscrambled
A pair of fossilized eggs found inside pelvis of dinosaur supports a link with birds
Friday, April 15, 2005 Updated at 8:30 AM EST From Friday's Globe and Mail
Calgary — Scientists have for the first time discovered fossilized eggs inside the body of a dinosaur, which provides concrete clues about ancient reproduction and supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, according to research published today. The pair of hard-shelled eggs about the size of large, long yams were found inside the pelvis of a female oviraptorid, a meat-eating bipedal dinosaur that lived about 80 million years ago.
I was completely stunned," said the University of Calgary's Darla Zelenitsky, an expert in dinosaur reproductive biology, who was brought in to study the specimen found three years ago in China's southern Jiangxi province.
Never before have complete eggs been discovered inside a fossilized dinosaur, but there has been much speculation about whether dinosaurs laid numerous eggs at once like crocodiles or produced one egg at a time like birds.
A report published in today's issue of the journal Science finally puts an end to that debate.
"There's always been two camps among paleontologists: those that believe birds came from dinosaurs and those that believe birds came from other reptiles," Dr. Zelenitsky, the report's co-author, said. "But this provides further evidence that birds are from dinosaurs."
While crocodiles can lay 20 to 60 eggs at a time, it takes a modern-day chicken 25 to 30 hours to produce and lay one egg. That's because both oviducts, or Fallopian tubes, in reptiles produce many eggs at once, but in birds, only one oviduct is operating to produce one egg at a time.
"This specimen showed that these dinosaurs were more like birds in that they were laying one egg at a time," Dr. Zelenitsky said. ". . . but in this dinosaur, both the oviducts were functional like in crocodiles, but each oviduct was only producing one egg."
Previous discoveries of dinosaur nests of eggs or clutches have appeared as though the creatures laid their eggs in pairs but, until now, scientists had no proof that was the case. In fact, many denied the possibility that eggs were laid in pairs.
Renowned dinosaur hunter Philip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alta., pointed out that the only resolution to that dispute was the remote chance of discovering eggs inside a body cavity.
Uncovering this oviraptorid specimen, he said, is essentially like finding the "smoking gun."
Report co-author Tamaki Sato of the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa said scientists finally have some answers about how dinosaurs laid eggs.
"This supports the bird-dinosaur relationship," she added.
The eggs studied are 18 centimetres long and six centimetres in diameter and are covered with ridges and bumps. While protected by a hard shell like bird eggs, rather than a leathery one as in reptiles, these eggs are neither bird-like nor crocodile-like in appearance.
Oviraptorids were toothless, short-beaked creatures that weighed about 40 kilograms and were about two metres long. They were also initially thought to be the egg-stealers of the Upper Cretaceous period.
chaotic placemarker
Describe what you would consider to be a legitimate transitional fossil.
Or science like biology which has proven--since the days of Pasteur--that spontaneous generation DOESN'T EXIST!
As you well know, the TOE does not cover the beginnings of life.
Or the science of physics which has proven through the laws of thermodynamics that things go from order to chaos, not chaos to order.
The Earth is not a closed system.
Please try to learn something about biology before you attempt to make claims about it. You're flat wrong when you say that Punctuated Equilibrium claims that "whole phyla somehow evolved overnight". Where did you "learn" this, a Crackjack Box? Or a creationist site? (But I repeat myself...)
You're also flat wrong when you say that "half say" it's gradual and half say Punctuated Equilibrium, as if they're some sort of opposing camps. THEY ARE NOT. No evolutionary biologist denies that gradual change *and* punctuated equilibrium *both* occur. The only disagreement is over how much each contributes to the totality of evolutionary change. It's a discussion over degree, not kind. Try to keep up.
It’s hilarious how a “theory” that’s been “proven correct” with soooo many “facts” can have two completely different—and mutually exclusive—definitions!
Congratulations, you've revealed gross ignorance on this subject and made several completely false claims. Let me guess -- you've "learned" about science from creationist sources, haven't you? Next time try actually cracking open a *science* book. Heck, even "Origin of Species" would have cleared this up for you (and that's been around since *1859* -- a little behind on your reading?):
I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)This is classic Punctuated Equilibrium -- from Charles Darwin in 1859.But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)
"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
[All quotes from Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"]
That’s a real knee-slapper!
Proverbs 29:9: "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop telling lies.
See post #77 if you're still confused.
Um, no. It's entertaining enough reading just-so stories about how such and such species "almost certainly" evolved from some other species, based in part of common skeletal arrangements, but based in larger part on the need of the Darwinians for it to be so. But to argue that something is going to evolve into something else, when you have no idea about the future selective pressures, population dynamics, genetic mutations, etc., is taking things a bit far.
I know Darwinism is all about blind faith, but that seems to me a bit much even for you guys.
Maybe it was something he found & read on a bus or subway?:
You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you? "Millions"? ROFL! A handful of phyla have eyes. And "genera" is a bogus count, since the various genera inherited their eyes from a common ancestor -- did you throw that in there out of ignorance, or dishonesty?
And they all "evolved" within a 5 million year window!
Wow, you really *are* making this up as you go along!
That's some fast evolution!
It would be if your fantasies were accurate, but they're not.
It would indeed be interesting to study the context of where this animal died. Were there nests nearby? How far was she from her nest site? Did she hunt between laying aggs or did she guard her clutch while a mate rought her food? These are some really interesting questions.
Exactly, science like archeology. I really hate it when Darwinists use their religion to try and explain away the fossil record which contains no transitional fossils (And no, just because you a have jpg that says they're TF, doesn't make it so. No TF have EVER been found.)
Well gosh, that must be true, because *you* say so and stamp your feet!
Um, son... *You're* the one who is "trying to explain away the fossil record" and "explain away science like archeology" when you hold your breath and threaten to turn blue over the fact that ARCHEOLOGISTS keep finding thousands of transitional fossils that you stubbornly claim don't, must not, can't exist.
Nice try.
or any evidence at all of evolution.
ROFL!!! Ooookay... Keep those eyes tightly closed if that makes you feel better.
Or science like biology which has proven--since the days of Pasteur--that spontaneous generation DOESN'T EXIST!
You haven't a clue as to what Pasteur actually demonstrated, have you? Hint: Your description above is laughable.
Or the science of physics which has proven through the laws of thermodynamics that things go from order to chaos, not chaos to order.
No it doesn't, but thanks for playing. Pop quiz: Which is more ordered, a snowflake or a cloud of water vapor? If you were correct (and obviously you are not), then according to you "physics has proven" that snowflakes can't form. You're *so* arrogant in your ignorance...
Which is why when you've exposed to massive amount or mutagens you don't turn into the Hulk or any ubermensch--you die.
Been reading too many comics, eh? Try reading a science book or fifty.
Science has shown that evolution is a fraud,
You've been making the mistake of reading creationist literature instead of actual *science* again, I see. I'm sorry, but trying to "learn" about science from creationist sources is like trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore movies -- and for exactly the same reasons.
but you religious wackos just won't let it go.
Little do you know how little you know. It's sad.
Thank you for the compliment :)
What this obviously shows is not that there is a reason to doubt evolution but rather that we didn't understand the evolutionary mechanism, which is clearly more efficient than we first thought!
When you assume your conclusion, it's so much easier to prove it.
You'd be surprised at the contentiousness of this subject. However, there are now only a small smattering of paleontologists, biologists and ornithologists who don't accept the dino => bird lineage.
"Describe what you would consider to be a legitimate transitional fossil."
An Apeman, a half-dinosaur-half-bird, something like that. A dinosaur with feathers is no more of a TF between dinos and birds than a Venus Flytrap is a transition between algae and Man. The Archaeoptreyx was a TF--until it's sternum was found.
"As you well know, the TOE does not cover the beginnings of life."
Yes it does. Darwinists like to say that NOW in an attempt to cover up one of the biggest failures since the Piltdown Man was exposed--the fact that abiogenis is impossible. Darwinists for years tried to create life in a test tube but failed every time. The best they could do was the Miller-Urey joke. So in typical liberal fashion Darwinists have been trying to rewrite history and say that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis--when in fact the two are inseparable. That's like saying you don't need trees to build a log cabin. Well then where are you going to get the wood? If the building blocks of life can't naturally form and build life, then how could they naturally create higher forms of life?
"The Earth is not a closed system."
Right, and? That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that entropy prevents evolution. And that's a fact. Every mutation in human history, every "positive" mutation in our DNA has always been because of entropy, not evolution. Take the African's immunity to malaria, it came about because their blood cells are deformed and are now at a higher risk of sickle-cell anemia. Take the superbaby in Germany that can lift a hundred pounds over its head at only 8 months--it only has that super power because one of it's glands has failed. All recorded mutations are a result of entropy. No mutations have come about through evolution.
The genetic history of all life on Earth is a history of de-evolution. Our DNA is getting LESS complex, LESS ordered, not more. Thermodynamics has it right, Darwinists have it wrong.
They came from the same place the dinosaurs came from -- early reptiles.
...and, like, *MASSIVE* amounts of independently confirming evidence along dozens of lines of investigation, including comparative DNA studies which can even trace the exact molecular mutations which occurred during the transitions and in what order, and determine common ancestries to near mathematical certainty... But you sort of "forgot" to mention that, eh?
I know Darwinism is all about blind faith
What you "know" is a lie.
Maybe all dinosaurs were not reptiles as we know them in the modern sense. Reptile eggs, as far as I know, are soft and pliable leather-like shells. Birds are solid hard shells. These dinosaur eggs seem to be hard shells more like birds than reptiles. Dinosaur nests that have been preserved are more like ostrich nests than reptile nests......
How does it feel to be an unwitting agent of Satan?
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.