The Early Bird: Fossils Depict Aquatic Origins of Near-Modern Birds 115 Million Years Ago

University of Pennsylvania ^ | 15 June 2006 | Staff

[ahayes]

If you want to debate their phylogenies, why don't you email them.

[ahayes]

Getting the hang of the jargon. Plesiomorphic is a primitive characteristic. Here are some notable differences:

• The caudal cervical and 10 thoracic vertebrae of Gansus are plesiomorphically not heterocoelous.
• The strutlike, plesiomorphically apneumatic coracoid possesses well-developed procoracoid and lateral processes (Fig. 2E and fig. S2), a deep circular scapular cotyle, and a humeral articular facet situated well ventral to the acrocoracoid process.
• The proximal end of the plesiomorphically apneumatic humerus exhibits a ventral tubercle, capital incisure, and domed articular condyle.
• A tibiotarsal extensor canal is present as an emarginate groove that plesiomorphically lacks a supratendinal pons.

Hai-lu You, Matthew C. Lamanna, Jerald D. Harris, Luis M. Chiappe, Jingmai O'Connor, Shu-an Ji, Jun-chang Lü, Chong-xi Yuan, Da-qing Li, Xing Zhang, Kenneth J. Lacovara, Peter Dodson, Qiang Ji. "A Nearly Modern Amphibious Bird from the Early Cretaceous of Northwestern China." Science. 2006, 312, 1640-1643.

[2nsdammit]

Here, let me finish the sentence for you:

"How you take doesn't make one bit of difference to me...."
"....since I'm really just here to troll, not to actually contribute anything to the discussion."

[2nsdammit]

And your reply is exactly what I predicted.

You trolls are SOOOOO predictable.

[KMJames]

Getting the hang of the jargon. Plesiomorphic is a primitive characteristic...

I get it, use the word "plesiomorphic" when describing the features of allegedly gabillion-year-old specimens.

I wonder if the 11 million year old "extinct" Laotian rock rat, recently found in a meat market and other places, has any "plesiomorphic" features.

[kralcmot]

here is a picture posted on the net (CTV) of some of the bones

[kralcmot]

another one here

(but i cannot get the source to transmit the photo)

http://www.geotimes.org/current/WebExtra061506.html

interesting that these photos show the almost entire skeleton....together, not scattered (as i had conjectured)...

[ahayes]

*sigh* No, you don't get it. Plesiomorphic refers to traits not found in a more derived group. You can't describe this bird as a duck because it has traits that no duck has.

[webstersII]

"You will find what you are looking for. When you know what the results are you need, there are many examples of otherwise good scientists who manage to FIND those results, whether they are correct or not. Just human nature."

The power of perception is a fascinating topic. Humans are way more subject to it than most people even realize.

I have an article somewhere (can't find it right now) which discusses a research project where they took 50+ wine experts and gave them a test. They mixed white wine with red food coloring and put it in a bottle with a red wine label. About 80% of the experts said that it was red wine and they said that it even had the different constituent flavors found in red wine.

These experts were convinced because of their prior perceptions, not because of the current reality. I'm sure this would never happen in science, though. </sarcasm>

[ahayes]

These experts were convinced because of their prior perceptions, not because of the current reality. I'm sure this would never happen in science, though.

Likewise I'm sure it never happens in matters people consider of great import to their religion. [/sarcasm]

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I wonder if the 11 million year old "extinct" Laotian rock rat, recently found in a meat market and other places, has any "plesiomorphic" features."

That species is actually not 11 million years old; it's the family it belongs to that was thought to have died out 11 million years ago. That was incorrect; obviously some members of that rodent family did survive.

[webstersII]

"Likewise I'm sure it never happens in matters people consider of great import to their religion. "

On the contrary, it applies to all people. Religious people definitely exhibit this behavior.

My observation from these threads is that scientists consider themselves immune from such influences, and that's where I believe they deceive themselves.

[flevit]

I used the term waterfowl, and significant difference (somewhat subjective noted) but seems well with-in the physiological variety and differences in contemporary waterfowl such as coots,mergansers,anhingas,grebes,loons...

suggesting only this is an extinct waterfowl with no known representatives alive today. no more or less primitive, just un-lucky.

the vertebrae is interesting, are all birds today, solely heteroceolous?

[ahayes]

suggesting only this is an extinct waterfowl with no known representatives alive today. no more or less primitive, just un-lucky.

Yes, understandably creationists would object to any such words as "primitive" and "derived." I think your approach is the most honest one. There is another article posted saying that there is nothing unusual about this bird and it is just a duck exactly like modern ducks. This is definitely dishonest if we examine the skeletal data.

the vertebrae is interesting, are all birds today, solely heteroceolous?

It appears that this is a necessary but not sufficient trait to be classified as a modern bird.

[Dimensio]

Evolution would suggest that animals could exist without skulls or heads.

Why would the theory of evolution suggest this?

[CharlesWayneCT]

I shouldn't post to these threads in the middle of the night, I get to esoteric and apparently beyond the target audience.

If any of you care, and I'm sure you don't, check out this link: ŚaṃkaraÂ’s Principle and Two Ontomystical Arguments

Excerpt:
We thus have to characterize the sort of seeming to which the principle applies while avoiding the problem of possible misidentification of oneÂ’s experience. Consider another more difficult case. Suppose that it is an essential property of living elephants to be have heads, but that it appears to me that I am faced with a living headless elephant. If ŚaṃkaraÂ’s principle applies, it would follow that headless living elephants are possible, which is false. To take care of this, we introduce the more technical locution “really seems”. “An x really seems to s” is true if and only if s would be correctly identifying the content of a single phenomenal experience of hers if she were identifying it to be an x. In the case of the apparent perception of a living headless elephant, I am presumably misidentifying the object of my experience as an elephant, since anything that is living and headless cannot be an elephant and anything that appears living and headless should not be identified as an elephant. I am making a mistake about what it is that I seem to perceive. I should instead say “An elephant-like living headless animal really seems to me”, and of course an elephant-like living headless animal is possible.

[colorado tanker]

My Cajun friend "seasoned" his gravy with lots of some clear stuff from a fruitjar; by the time the meal was over, he was enjoying everything... '-)

LOL! Cajun can be some mighty good eatin'.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Because evolution suggests that anything is possible, if the appropriate mutations occur and if the result is viable and has an opportunity to succeed in breeding within the population.

Surely, a theory that says that land creatures could eventually live under water, and water creatures could walk on land, can support the postulate that some species may find advantage in not having heads.

Maybe the shock is that there is so little diversity in the structure of living creatures, given the time frames involved and the tremendous changes observed in life over that time. A one-celled organism became a creature with a head, and you think it odd to postulate that a headless creature might evolve?

But in truth, see my other recent post. I've no real time for any further attempts at opening minds to the infinite possibilities of non-designed life.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Because evolution suggests that anything is possible,..."

No it doesn't.

[2nsdammit]

There most certainly are headless creatures. Molluscs and sponges are examples.