Posted on 03/12/2008 5:37:43 PM PDT by blam
Dino-Era Feathers Found Encased in Amber
James Owen
for National Geographic News
March 11, 2008
Seven dino-era feathers found perfectly preserved in amber in western France highlight a crucial stage in feather evolution, scientists report.
The hundred-million-year-old plumage has features of both feather-like fibers found with some two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods and of modern bird feathers, the researchers said.
This means the fossils could fill a key gap in the puzzle of how dinosaurs gave rise to birds, according to a team led by Vincent Perrichot of the Museum für Naturkunde-Berlin in Germany.
The find provides a clear example "of the passage between primitive filamentous down and a modern feather," said team member Didier Néraudeau of the University of Rennes in France.
The study team isn't sure yet whether the feathers belonged to a dino or a bird.
But fossil teeth from two dino families thought to have been feathered were excavated from rocks just above the layer that contained the amber, Perrichot said.
"It is entirely plausible that the feathers come from a dinosaur rather than from a bird," he said.
Perrichot and colleagues described their research last month in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
Downy Plumes
Paleontologists at the University of Rennes found the tiny feathers encased in a lump of amber, a fossilized tree resin, in a quarry in the Poitou-Charentes region of France in 2000.
The feathers' central shafts, or rachis, are primitive and most closely resemble down feathers, the study team noted.
The feather filaments, or barbs, had yet to become fully fused at the base and—similar to modern down—they lacked hooklets known as barbules to hold the filaments together.
Today's birds could not fly with such feathers, the team said.
Studies suggest primitive feathers first evolved in flightless dinosaurs that generated heat internally and so would have benefited from the insulation that down can provide.
Feathers later evolved for use in flight, the theory holds, although experts debate whether birds' immediate ancestors were tree-dwelling, gliding dinosaurs or terrestrial dinos that ran at high speeds and eventually lifted off the ground.
Either way, the amber-encased feathers show for the first time the transition from downy filaments toward an aerodynamic, planar shape that enabled flight, Perrichot said.
"This most critical step in the evolution of feathers" was suggested by evolutionary theories but had never previously been seen in either modern or fossil feathers, he said.
Team member Néraudeau added that this missing link has been "an argument for creationists and others to reject the theropod-birds lineage and to argue in favor of different origins for theropod feathers and bird feathers."
"First Good Look"
Nick Longrich, of the University of Calgary in Canada, said "this could be our first good look at a dinosaur body feather."
The bird-fossil expert, who was not involved in the study, noted that the newfound feathers are around 50 million years younger than the first known flying bird, Archaeopteryx, which lived about 150 million years ago.
(See a picture of an Archaeopteryx fossil that shows the imprints of feathers.)
"Obviously this animal [the feathers came from] isn't directly ancestral to anything except later dinosaurs, but it's quite likely that we are seeing aspects of the ancestral [feather structure]," Longrich said in an email.
"So the animal isn't transitional' but it may preserve a transitional structure."
It's also possible that the simplified structure of the feathers isn't so primitive, he added.
Modern flightless birds such as ostriches and emus have highly simplified feathers, he said.
More samples from the fossil record are needed to settle the issue, so "hopefully this study will cause more people to look for dinosaur feathers in amber," Longrich added.
Very cool! Thanks for posting...
Indeed, very cool!
YEC INTREP
So, in truth, they are just feathers and they have no idea what they were on. It proves nothing except that a feathered creature fot a little to close to the sticky amber.
Sounds like a reasonable summary of what happened.
All the rest is *could have, maybe, plausible, suggest*.....
You and I posted at the same time. Your topic was this and my topic was Eliot Spitzer’s prostitute.
Your post was more important to world history. I have always been fascinated by paleontology.
My post got 1000 hits right away. :-)
Just remember, every time you fill a gap, there are two new gaps on either side. The gaps are winning.
LOL - exactly what I was thinking.....this is hilarious! 100 million years old...right. And could be “dino feathers”....or....it....could....be.....BIRD....feathers!!!!
Duh. Bingo.
They are SOOOO desperate to find the “gap” half dinosaur, half bird creatures that do not exist.....they make fools of themselves.
And we who believe in Creation / Intelligent Design / are said to have the “faith” based view of how animals/plants/people came into being on this earth....
It takes a flying leap of faith to see anything but BIRD FEATHERS here.....
“All the rest is *could have, maybe, plausible, suggest*....”
Yes, but you don’t understand that that’s how we do science in the modern age.
We don’t need no steenkin’ testable results or anything that’s falsifiable. All we need is a bunch of guys (or gals) sitting in a room talking about what would be the most likely outcome to satisfy our predetermined conclusions and voila! it becomes unarguable fact.
Got it?
Unless you have the secret Captain Ancient Decoder Ring that comes in specially marked boxes of Evoats...
On further reflection...better nix that proposal.
Just stay away from frogs.
I’m learning....
Good one blam. I have long had an interest in this subject.
Fascinating.
[[The feather filaments, or barbs, had yet to become fully fused at the base and—similar to modern down—they lacked hooklets known as barbules to hold the filaments together]]
Two possibilities here- one, as the others have said- nothign more than bird feathers stuck in amber- or two, they were infact dinos, but just like all the other dino ‘down’ they lack the structures of feathers, as hte report suggests- To claim that this was a ‘transition’ is being intellectually dishonest as htere are no examples of more ‘evolved’ downy structures on dinos (which incidently turn out to be nothign more than modified scale structures which are entirely different from true bird feathers.) There is no reason to think that some dinos did infact have ‘downy type strucxtures’ meant for nothignm more than insulation that protected them when the climates went through changes- and these downy type structures fall within macroevolutionary paramenters and don’t represent Macroevolution
The lack of ‘hooks’ and other structures not mentioned in the article seperate these from TRUE feathers, and htere have been zero structures that show any ‘evolving’ beyond what is seen on the downy covered dinos.
“But when researchers examined a recently discovered specimen of Sinosauropteryx, also from Liaoning, they came to very different conclusions. When they examined the fossil under a high-powered microscope, the researchers said the two-branched structures, called rachis with barbs, are really the remains of a frill of collagen fibres that ran down the dinosaur’s back from head to tail. “The fibres show a striking similarity to the structure and levels of organisation of dermal collagen,” the kind of tough elastic strands found on the skin of sharks and reptiles today, the investigators say. The fibres have an unusual beaded structure, but this most likely was caused by a natural twisting of these strands, and a clumping together caused by dehydration, when the dinosaur died and its tissues started to dry. The tough fibres could have been either a form of armour to protect the small dinosaur from predators, or perhaps had a structural use, by stiffening its tail.
Lingham-Soliar’s team does not take issue with the theory itself. But they are dismayed by what they see as a reckless leap to the conclusion that Sinosauropteryx had the all-important proto-feathers, even though this dinosaur was phylogenetically far removed from Archaeopteryx.”
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/05/dinosaur-feathers-are-no-such-thing.html
See also: Feathered dinosaur finding won’t fly, say scientists: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/05/23/science-dinosaur-feather.html
“The pervasiveness of the beguiling, yet poorly supported, proposal of protofeathers in Sinosauropteryx has been counterproductive to the important question of the origin of birds,” the authors wrote.
Feathers fly over cornerstone fossil : http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20070523091808579C659855
“There is not a single close-up representation of the integumental structure alleged to be a protofeather,” Lingham-Soliar says.
+ Paleontologists shoot down dinosaur bird theory: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21779480-401,00.html
+
[[Modern flightless birds such as ostriches and emus have highly simplified feathers, he said]]
Which suggests loss of information- not gain. (and just how “Highly simplified” are they anyways? As simplified as Dino Down which lacks true feather features?
[[”Obviously this animal [the feathers came from] isn’t directly ancestral to anything except later dinosaurs,]]
And we know this how? Ah yes, the ever accurate “It’s gotta be 100 million years old” scientific declaration.
[[The feather filaments, or barbs, had yet to become fully fused at the base and—similar to modern down—they lacked hooklets known as barbules to hold the filaments together.]
No kidding? Ya mean they were nothign but uniquely modified scales such as other dinos had, and not feathers after all? Lemme know when ya find ‘feathers’ with relevent features whoing a turn from scales to true feathers such as 1/2 fused bases, hooklets holding the filaments together (in varying stages of ‘evolution)
Until then, call them what they are- Dino insulation.
You are aware that those links you provide just go to different versions of the same story, right? And that the full version of the story says, “The birds-from-dinos theory is based on the idea that [explanation of theory] .... Lingham-Soliar’s team do not take issue with the theory itself”? So that they are just challenging exactly what a particular fossil exemplifies about that evolution, not whether the evolution happened or not?
[[“The birds-from-dinos theory is based on the idea that [explanation of theory] .... Lingham-Soliar’s team do not take issue with the theory itself”?]
Actually no- I wasn’t aware they were same story- just quick skimmed them and took quotes out that were relevent ot the idea that they aren’;t true feathers. As to their opinions on ‘dino to bird’ I am not concerned with hteir opinions- the facts are all that are relevent. The ‘feathers’ lack TRUE features of TRUE feathers, and are nothign more thna dino insulation from collagen modified structures, which we know dinos indeed did have. Also of note is hte fact that dinos with such insulating ‘down’ lacked any features unique to bird flight, such as lungs, breathing systems, arm muscles unique to flight, TRUE feathers, etc- A post such as this thread might get some excited abotu ‘more eivdnece’ supporting the ‘dino-to-bird’ hypothesis, BUT dinos have a LONG LONG way to go before they can becoem birds- Dinos were reptilian, not avian, and hte ‘discovery’ of feathers in amber do nothign to move the idea of ‘dino-to-bird’ any closer to actuality. The scientist’s opinions are irrelevent to the facts.
Does this mean that “Jurassic Park” wasn’t so far fetched? LOL!
And your unlearned opinions are relevant?
What a joke!
*LOL* Isn't that the very definition of quote-mining?
no- quote mining is picking comments out of context and presentign them as meaning somethign other than they truly mean in the full context
[[And your unlearned opinions are relevant?
What a joke!]]
Since you can’t seem to follow a conversation Coyote- I’ll explain this REAAAAALY slowly for you- I didn’t present opinions- I presented FACTS- somehtign you seem oblivious to, and loathe to cede whenver those FACTS refute your claims! Next time why not pay attention instead of blatting about somethign that is irrelevent ot the conversation. If you can refute the FACTS Coyote- IF you can show they are infact feathers or heck- even protofeathers for that matter- then fine- do so- but try a little maturity instead of posting ignorant childish comments irrelevent ot hte issues being dicussed! How old are you anyways? You act liek a third grader!
:)
[[:)]]
Isn’t that cute? Two little kids tee-heeing
So when you said
The ‘feathers’...are nothign more thna dino insulation from collagen modified structures, which we know dinos indeed did have.
Is that a fact or your opinion? If you claim it's a fact, how do you know? Apart from how do you know it was collagen, how do you know it was for insulation? Aren't you subject to the same restrictions you always claim scientists are, that you didn't observe it and can't replicate it? And as far as I can tell, the person who claims that the featherlike structures on dinosaurs is really collagen is the same person--Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal--who is claiming this down in amber isn't really a feather. You've managed to find one scientist studying this stuff who doesn't buy the feather story, and you claim what he says is fact. But to be consistent with the other things you've said about scientific theories, wouldn't you have to say it was just his opinion?
[[how do you know it was for insulation?]]
Wasn’t for flossing hteir teeth after meals.
[[Is that a fact or your opinion? If you claim it’s a fact, how do you know?]
Studying feather structures tells you it is fact
[[Aren’t you subject to the same restrictions you always claim scientists are, that you didn’t observe it and can’t replicate it?]]
Yup.
[[You’ve managed to find one scientist studying this stuff who doesn’t buy the feather story, and you claim what he says is fact.]]
Oh there’s more- scientific facts don’t lie.
[[But to be consistent with the other things you’ve said about scientific theories, wouldn’t you have to say it was just his opinion?]]
No- a study of feathers and collagen will clear this up
Seems to me, I can give a smile, ‘hello’, to Coyoteman, if I chose..your ‘two little kids tee-heeing’, conjecture, is of course, irrelevant.....
mmm yes, I’m sure it was just a ‘helo coyote- nice to see ya’ message that you had in mind and not a ‘here’s a slap on the back for givin hte Christian a childish cyberspace insult- right- whatever- seems to me you’re feigning innocence.
Your post is nothing but more mere conjectures, and therefore, irrelevant...
I think this embarrassing episode is just an example of what happens when you outsource the production of fossils to the Chinese.
The Germans did it much better — so well in fact that Archaeopteryx is accepted by creationists as a bird.
Peter Jackson is doing well with the production of Hobbits, but with NewLine going belly up, we may not see any more of them.
[[Peter Jackson is doing well with the production of Hobbits, but with NewLine going belly up, we may not see any more of them.]]
I think it has resurfaced- some htought they were microcephaly (sp?) folks, but apparently, there is now some dissagreement due to hte size of skulls being a bit bigger (or smaller- can’t remember)
[[Your post is nothing but more mere conjectures, and therefore, irrelevant...]]
mmm yes- keep feigning- whatever
Irrelevant...
That's probably right. The specs called for a "transitional feather," and they came up with something that looks like a primitive feather.
Hey, wait a minute...
So I’ve started wondering: you put a lot of effort into denying that dinosaurs had feathers of any sort. Rather than down, you insist that they had some kind of external tissue that looked like down and functioned like down, but no way no how was related to feathers. Why does it matter? You’ve made it clear that you don’t think common morphology or common DNA proves anything about common descent, and we’re told over and over that the reason animals have characteristics in common is that God reuses parts. So wouldn’t it be simpler to just stipulate that God gave some dinosaurs feathers, since they worked so well on birds? I mean, here you are arguing that some dinosaurs had a feature that as far as I can find, no other animal has (a “collagen frill”). Why do you find that more plausible than feathered dinosaurs?—it’s not like any other similarity across species has convinced you they’re related. Think of all the time you’d save.
[[So I’ve started wondering: you put a lot of effort into denying that dinosaurs had feathers of any sort]
It wasn’t me who put hte effort in- but rather scientists- there are even macroevolutionist scientists who dispute hte claims
[[Rather than down, you insist that they had some kind of external tissue that looked like down and functioned like down, but no way no how was related to feathers.]]
No- that’s not what I said- I said it has been proved that the ‘down’ on the chinese dinos in the past shows it to be modified collagen
[[You’ve made it clear that you don’t think common morphology or common DNA proves anything about common descent,]]
True. Morel iek common design (and just for hte record- even htough sdome species are ‘similar’ in their gentics, there are still billions of differences between even the ‘closest’ of dissimilar kinds)
[[and we’re told over and over that the reason animals have characteristics in common is that God reuses parts.]]
Well close- not that He reused, but that He used the same design features in many pseices.
[[So wouldn’t it be simpler to just stipulate that God gave some dinosaurs feathers, since they worked so well on birds?]]
Here’s somethign that may surprise you- ‘Creationists’ are not opposed to the idea that Dinos could have had feathers- the simple scientific fact htough is that there simply is no evidence for it- modified collagen is a far cry from feathers and the differences between the ‘down’ of dinos and the TRUE feathers of birds is a matter of scientific fact- not opinion. Science has no evidence that collagen could ‘turn into’ feathers- the two materials are entirely different.
[[Think of all the time you’d save]]
Not looking to save time, just getting the facts out there, regardless of if they refute popular opinion or not. The onyl thing I see in the fossil record are down-like covered dinos, not feathered dinos. The other hting I see though is a whole bunch of hope in a hypothesis of dino to bird, and a bunch of scientifically unsupported claims concernign ‘feathers’ on dinos. The whole dino to bird hypothesis seems to be the one great hope for the TOE, but it falls flat scientifically unfortunately.
[[Why do you find that more plausible than feathered dinosaurs?—]]
See above.
[[it’s not like any other similarity across species has convinced you they’re related]
They’re not- but it sure is heavily touted that they are related- despite the lack of evidence. Got some nephews and neieces in gradeschool, and they coem to our house discussing evolution, and I state that dinos didn’t turn into birds, and they say “That’s not true, our teachers said they did.” What the heck kind of teaching is that? It certainly isn’t based on scientific fact!
h, real irrelevent:
“And here we have one of FR’s most hysterical posters, in full rant mode, unable to spell and unable to make any sense at all..Cottshop is always great for a full blown laugh, when he/she gets into these ranting modes, which is generally most of the time..
To: Coyoteman
[[And your unlearned opinions are relevant?
What a joke!]]
Since you can’t seem to follow a conversation Coyote- I’ll explain this REAAAAALY slowly for you- I didn’t present opinions- I presented FACTS- somehtign you seem oblivious to, and loathe to cede whenver those FACTS refute your claims! Next time why not pay attention instead of blatting about somethign that is irrelevent ot the conversation. If you can refute the FACTS Coyote- IF you can show they are infact feathers or heck- even protofeathers for that matter- then fine- do so- but try a little maturity instead of posting ignorant childish comments irrelevent ot hte issues being dicussed! How old are you anyways? You act liek a third grader!
30 posted on 03/13/2008 1:49:53 PM PDT by CottShop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-new ... page=30#30
It is obviously Cottshop, who is acting like a third grader, well let us say a first grader, while hysterical and having a temper tantrum...”
Posted on Darwin Central
[[I sent you a smilie face on that FR thread...poor Cottshop wont know what to make of it...was I smiling in agreement with what you said?...was I laughing at you?...poor old Cottshop, will have to scratch his brain a bit to try to figure out, who I am and if I support evolution....]]
(also posted at DC- Which is supposed to be a site where scientists hang out- but the above is pretty common rhettoric for what passes as ‘science’ there I guess)
Oh- Cottshop knew full well what to make of it Andy- As I said- you can feign all you want but noone is falling for your crap.
thoise posts look familiar to you Andy? They aught to- they were posted by you over on DC for hte sole purpose of ridiculing and maligning. It seems hwne folks like you can’t answer quesitons here on FR you go runnign back to the safety of DC where you all sit aroudn throwing insults around as though it’;s some sort of what? Victory? Security? Instead of stickign ot hte issues, answerign hte questions, You folks seem to get your kicks monitoring FR looking for anythign with which to insult those you dissagree with. Someone asked awhile ago why some of the ‘scientists left FR’, and now I think we have our answer- they didn’t constantly like having hteir pet hypothesis exposed as unsupported assumptions, and htey preferred a place where they could run everyone into the ground when the issues were too difficult.
Yeah- I’m scratchign my head Andy- wondering how a bunch of scinetists can sink to the levels soem of you folks do on DC
Looks like Morgellons to me.
Thanks for posting my posts...now we all know where you yourself spend your time...excellent...
And my name is not Andy...perhaps you should try to figure that out for yourself, tho it is quite obvious...
Your opinions about evolution, are irrelevant, to me at least...any discussions that attempt to discuss evolution with you, wind up in Bible lectures from you...it was that way months ago, when I once tried to engage you in meaningful discussion, and it appears that it is that way now...
And that is why I say ‘irrelevant’ because I do find all of your posts concerning evolution to be irrelevant...
And all of this, because I smiled at Coyote...how strange...
And do figure out, that I am not Andy...it is really very easy to do...
Dragon bone is classified as sweet, astringent, and mild in nature. It is taken internally to tranquilize nervousness, calm the mind, and astringe sweating; topically it is used to promote tissue regeneration and astringe boils. In modern Chinese clinical practice, dragon bone is most frequently used to "settle uprising yang." This syndrome can contribute to hypertension, stroke, menopausal hot flashes, and various mental disorders. Dragon tooth is classified as astringent and cool. It is taken to stop palpitation, calm the mind, clear away fever accompanied by restlessness, and treat epilepsy. Dragon bone and tooth materials are not recommended for use in cases of heat accumulation due to excess-syndrome. Yang Yifan explained the differentiation of dragon bone and dragon tooth this way (8): "Dragon tooth is heavier than dragon bone and its descending property is stronger and quicker than that of dragon bone. Dragon tooth is very effective for sedating the heart spirit and calming the mind and is used to treat manic-depressive psychosis, hysteria, anxiety, irritability, and insomnia. Dragon bone has two functions that dragon tooth does not. First, it can anchor the liver yang to treat liver yang rising, which manifests as dizziness, tinnitus, headache, and dream-disturbed sleep. Second, it can stabilize the leakage of the essence and body fluids."
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.