Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaur-Bird Flap Ruffles Feathers
Yahoo!News ^ | October 10, 2005 | E.J. Mundell

Posted on 10/11/2005 4:07:11 AM PDT by mlc9852

MONDAY, Oct. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Head to the American Museum of Natural History's Web site, and you'll see the major draw this fall is a splashy exhibit on dinosaurs.

And not just any dinosaurs, but two-legged carnivorous, feathered "theropods" like the 30-inch-tall Bambiraptor -- somewhat less cuddly than its namesake.

The heyday of the theropods, which included scaly terrors like T. rex and velociraptor, stretched from the late Triassic (220 million years ago) to the late Cretaceous (65 million years ago) periods.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: bambiraptor; cretaceous; dinosaur; dinosaurs; godsgravesglyphs; hitchcock; paleontology; science; theropods; triassic; tyrannasaurusrex; velociraptor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-331 next last
To: newsgatherer
but then again who can keep up with the every changing ‘facts’ of evolution, one day millions, the next day billions, the day after birds from dinosaurs, then it dinosaurs from birds.

Two lies in one sentence. Nice going.

Thank God the Word of God hasn't changed,

So, you still follow the Torah? I didn't know you were Jewish.

we Christians are way to dumb to keep up with the changes the religion of evolution demands of it's servants.

Do you really think that this sort of thing helps your case, or makes you look reasonable, or helps provide a good example of Christian behavior?

21 posted on 10/11/2005 5:16:52 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
"As is usually the case on these threads, what you don't understand about biology would fill volumes. And yet, also as usual, that doesn't stop you from unjustly ridiculing the people who *do* know the field or work in it, and have good reasons (and evidence) for their positions."

The thing is, we DO know people who hold real, laudable, credentials in these fields and other related fields who are very well-able to describe the circular reasoning of sci-politicians and the poli-scientists with regard to the dating of fossils and the strata in which they are found.
22 posted on 10/11/2005 5:18:30 AM PDT by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer

Dinosaur-Bird Flap Ruffles Feathers

By E.J. Mundell
HealthDay Reporter
Mon Oct 10, 7:02 PM ET

MONDAY, Oct. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Head to the American Museum of Natural History's Web site, and you'll see the major draw this fall is a splashy exhibit on dinosaurs.

And not just any dinosaurs, but two-legged carnivorous, feathered "theropods" like the 30-inch-tall Bambiraptor -- somewhat less cuddly than its namesake.

The heyday of the theropods, which included scaly terrors like T. rex and velociraptor, stretched from the late Triassic (220 million years ago) to the late Cretaceous (65 million years ago) periods.

But most authorities on dinosaurs will tell you these creatures' direct descendents strut, screech and squawk among us today -- as birds.

In fact, an entry on theropods from the Web site of the University of California, Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology attests that "recent studies have conclusively shown that birds are actually the descendants of small, non-flying theropods."

However, a study in the October issue of the Journal of Morphology suggests that theory may be, well, for the birds.

Based on evidence ranging from a buried dolphin to differences in a three-fingered hand, the study suggests birds are not the smaller, chirping descents of T. rex's kin, after all.

"Thing just aren't adding up for feathered dinosaurs," said lead researcher, avian evolutionist and paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He described the prevailing theory that birds descended from theropods as paleontological "wish-fulfillment" based on "sloppy science."

Instead, said Feduccia, birds and dinosaurs may be related, but only by a common ancestor stretching back hundreds of millions of years.

The new study first attacks the notion that the reptile fossil record is rife with feathers or what paleontologists call "protofeathers" -- long, filament-like structures observed in fossils like that of the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx. In 1996, scientists in China discovered an even more striking, allegedly "feathered" fossil, Sinosauropteryx.

"It had these little filament-like structures all over it, especially on the back and tail," Feduccia said. He said that because the dinosaurs-begat-birds theory is now "accepted dogma," paleontologists automatically declared these filaments to be feathers without doing the necessary research to back that claim up.

"The whole thing had become circular -- birds are dinosaurs, so whatever we find on dinosaurs that looks like a rudimentary feather has got to represent the origin of feathers," Feduccia said.

But he and his colleagues have long thought otherwise. Instead, they counter that these filaments are the fossilized remains of "collagenous fiber meshworks" lying under the dinosaur's skin. To help prove that theory, co-researcher Dr. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar buried a dolphin for one year, then exhumed it and looked at the patterns of decay.

"The fiber-collagen meshwork looked virtually identical to these so-called 'proto-feathers' found in the Chinese dinosaurs," Feduccia said.

The researchers also produced examples of fossils with similar, feather-like markings from another dinosaur, Psittacosaurus. Trouble is, all paleontologists agree that this large non-therapod is in no way a bird ancestor.

Finally, Feduccia's team also contends that the forearm of a small "bird-like" theropod with the avian name of Pelicanimimus was actually covered in scales, not feathers.

Then there's another piece of evidence: the bone structure of the modern bird foot.

Feduccia explained that most primitive vertebrate hand structures were like that of humans: five-fingered. Somewhere in the evolutionary process, both dinosaurs and birds lost two of those digits, leaving three behind.

"The question is, which three? In dinosaurs we know it's the thumb and the next two fingers," he said, something experts call the "1-2-3" morphology. But the study's third author, Dr. Richard Hinchliffe -- a recognized expert in vertebrate limb development -- "points out that there are five different assessments showing that the bird hand has the three middle fingers left," the "2-3-4" morphology, Feduccia said.

All of this suggests that dinosaurs never had feathers, he said, and that birds evolved on a separate track from dinosaurs, although the two may have shared a common, distant ancestor.

Not everyone agrees. Back at the American Museum of Natural History, another paleontologist said Feduccia's bird theory may just be a wild goose chase.

"I don't agree with their argument," said Xing Xu, the museum's resident expert on avian evolution. First of all, he said, looking at the recently decayed remains of a modern animal tells us little about how dinosaur protofeathers might or might not have been preserved in stone tens of millions of years ago.

And, he said, the samples of collagenous filaments Feduccia's team presents as an alternate explanation for protofeathers don't match those seen in the fossil record. "In the paper, these fibers are 0.2, 0.5 millimeters long," Xu said. "That's much tinier than the ones we have in the feathered dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx which are 2, 3 even 5 centimeters long sometimes."

The orientation of Sinosauropteryx's protofeathers also runs perpendicular to the animal's long bones, whereas collagenous fibers from modern animals run roughly parallel to these bones. "It's another problem," Xu said.

John M. Rensberger, former curator of paleontology at the Burke Museum at the University of Washington, Seattle, called Feduccia's paper "the best presentation" he's seen yet of the argument that birds did not descend from theropods. But he agreed with Xu that Feduccia's theory has flaws.

Regarding alleged differences in bird and theropod hand morphology, both he and Wu said scientists are still debating whether birds display the 1-2-3 digit arrangement or the 2-3-4. "It really hasn't been proven one way or the other," he said.

And he said his own research as a specialist in morphology favors the birds-came-from-dinosaurs theory. "All the bones that I've looked at of the more lightly built theropods are indistinguishable [in internal structure] from those of birds," Rensberger said. "And that's a completely unique situation among all vertebrates. It's a strong indication of a very close relationship between birds and theropods."

But Feduccia contends his own evidence is equally strong.

"I think all this takes us back to the drawing board -- we have to start re-looking at where birds come from," he said.

He also believes media and museum hype over "feathered dinosaurs" has done paleontology a disservice.

"There's been way too much hyperbole. To get back to any good science you've got to get away from that and get back to the bench," Feduccia said. "I think the field is ripe for some young scientist who doesn't have any cemented views to come in and look at this and paint it with a brand-new brush."

More information

For more on theropods, check out University of California, Berkeley Museum of Paleontology.


23 posted on 10/11/2005 5:20:00 AM PDT by vannrox (The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer

That reminds me of something I heard years ago but was never able to verify. Maybe someone on FR knows if this is true or not. I heard that of the present day human race, 1:40 humans has the skull skeletal structure of a Neanderthal Man and 1:100 has the structure of a Cro-Mangon Man. This stuck with me cause I thought that I could easily think of several people I knew that this would apply to.


24 posted on 10/11/2005 5:24:05 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Give it up, Ichneumon. This one is beyond your reach. I don't even think he realizes that his posts sound like they were written by an evolutionary biologist with a wicked sense of humor who's trying to discredit the ID movement. I mean, honestly, the only people with whom such logic- and fact-challenged pronouncements could possibly resonate are those who share the same echo-chamber of scientific illiteracy and dogmatic bull-headedness.


25 posted on 10/11/2005 5:24:24 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Free Baptist
The thing is, we DO know people who hold real, laudable, credentials in these fields and other related fields who are very well-able to describe the circular reasoning of sci-politicians and the poli-scientists with regard to the dating of fossils and the strata in which they are found.

A shame none of them ever show up here.

26 posted on 10/11/2005 5:26:46 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer

It is entertaining - lol.


27 posted on 10/11/2005 5:27:56 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
newsgatherer, your Christian faith reminds me of Alice in Wonderland, where the Red Queen tells Alice that she can believe in impossible things if she would only try, that she herself has believed in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Biblical literalism/inerrancy used to be what I believed, including young-Earth creationism (YEC). Then I learned something about evolution and geology, and I reached the dreadful position of realizing that my simple teenaged faith was wrong. I stopped being a Christian for many years. I realize now that YEC is a stumbling block for millions of well-educated people's faith, who equate belief in YEC with faith in Christ -- thanks to the efforts of you and your kindred.

Now I am a Christian again. I have felt the power of the Holy Spirit in my life, leading me away from sin and towards wholesome things. Evolution is not a threat to my faith, science is not a threat to my faith, and it shouldn't threaten yours either.

I might mention an experience I had many years ago. I was a freshman in college when I attended a debate between Dr. Duane Gish and a biology professor from my college. Gish had a slick and entertaining presentation, with professionally produced color slides and folksy stories. The biology professor spent 40 minutes carefully explaining, using logarithms, how radiometric dating works. The biology professor knew that if he proved the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, YEC is disproved. I have no doubt the audience thought that Gish demolished the college prof: as a math teacher I can guarantee to you very few people know how logarithms work. But I was a physics major and I already knew calculus. So I understood the biology professor's argument and it was convincing. After the debate, I approached Gish to ask him a question: How can we see the Andromeda Galaxy if it is two million light years away? (One light year = the distance light travels in one year.) His answer: He didn't know anything about astronomy, but God tells us in Genesis that he created the lights in the sky to instruct men, so he must have created the light in transit. At that point, it was abundantly clear that not only is YEC wrong, but its proponents were foolish.

28 posted on 10/11/2005 5:28:13 AM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tamalejoe
There's no plausible way for something which can't fly to evolve into something that does.

Gee, really? Little do you know how little you know.

Evolution predicted that transitional forms once existed between dinosaurian forelimbs and bird wings. Creationists predicted that "half a wing" would be unworkable and useless. Guess whose predictions were found to be right?

Theropod dinosaur to bird evolutionary transition:

The cladogram for the evolution of flight looks like this:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

(Note -- each name along the top is a known transitional fossil; and those aren't all that have been discovered.) Here's a more detailed look at the middle section:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Fossils discovered in the past ten years in China have answered most of the "which came first" questions about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

We now know that downy feathers came first, as seen in this fossil of Sinosauropteryx:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

That's a close-up of downy plumage along the backbone. Here's a shot of an entire fossil

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Sinosauropteryx was reptilian in every way, not counting the feathers. It had short forelimbs, and the feathers were all the same size. Presumably, the downy feathers evolved from scales driven by a need for bodily insulation.

Next came Protarchaeopteryx:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

It had long arms, broad "hands", and long claws:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Apparently this species was driven by selection to develop more efficient limbs for grasping prey. One of the interesting things about this species is that the structure of the forelimb has been refined to be quite efficient at sweeping out quickly to grab prey, snap the hands together, then draw them back towards the body (mouth?). The specific structures in question are the semilunate carpal (a wrist bone), that moves with the hand in a broad, flat, 190 degree arc, heavy chest muscles, bones of the arm which link together with the wrist so as to force the grasping hands to spread out toward the prey during the forestroke and fold in on the prey during the upstroke. Not only is this a marvelously efficient prey-grabbing mechanism, but the same mechanism is at the root of the wing flight-stroke of modern birds. Evolution often ends up developing a structure to serve one need, then finds it suitable for adaptation to another. Here, a prey-grasping motion similar in concept to the strike of a praying mantis in a reptile becomes suitable for modifying into a flapping flight motion.

Additionally, the feathers on the hands and tail have elongated, becoming better suited for helping to sweep prey into the hands.

Next is Caudipteryx:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

This species had hand and tail feathers even more developed than the previous species, and longer feathers, more like that of modern birds:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

However, it is clear that this was still not a free-flying animal yet, because the forelimbs were too short and the feathers not long enough to support its weight, and the feathers were symmetrical (equal sized "fins" on each side of the central quill). It also had very reduced teeth compared to earlier specimens and a stubby beak:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

But the elongation of the feathers indicates some aerodynamic purpose, presumably gliding after leaping (or falling) from trees which it had climbed with its clawed limbs, in the manner of a flying squirrel. Feathers which were developed "for" heat retention and then pressed into service to help scoop prey were now "found" to be useful for breaking falls or gliding to cover distance (or swooping down on prey?).

Next is Sinornithosaurus:

Similar to the preceding species, except that the pubis bone has now shifted to point to the back instead of the front, a key feature in modern birds (when compared to the forward-facing publis bone in reptiles). Here are some of the forearm feathers in detail:

Long feathers in detail:

Artists' reconstruction:

Next is Archaeopteryx:

The transition to flight is now well underway. Archaeopteryx has the reversed hallux (thumb) characteristic of modern birds, and fully developed feathers of the type used for flight (long, aligned with each other, and assymetrical indicating that the feathers have been refined to function aerodynamically). The feathers and limbs are easily long enough to support the weight of this species in flight. However, it lacks some structures which would make endurance flying more practical (such as a keeled sternum for efficient anchoring of the pectoral muscles which power the downstroke) and fused chest vertebrae. Archaeopteryx also retains a number of clearly reptilian features still, including a clawed "hand" emerging from the wings, small reptilian teeth, and a long bony tail. After the previous species' gliding abilities gave it an advantage, evolution would have strongly selected for more improvements in "flying" ability, pushing the species towards something more resembling sustained powered flight.

Next is Confuciusornis:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

This species had a nearly modern flight apparatus. It also displays transitional traits between a reptilian grasping "hand" and a fully formed wing as in modern birds -- the outer two digits (the earlier species had three-fingered "hands") in Confuciusornis are still free, but the center digit has now formed flat, broad bones as seen in the wings of modern birds.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Additionally, the foot is now well on its way towards being a perching foot as in modern birds:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

It also has a keeled sternum better suited for long flight, and a reduced number of vertebrae in the tail, on its way towards becoming the truncated tail of modern birds (which while prominent, is a small flap of muscle made to look large only because of the long feathers attached).

From this species it's only a small number of minor changes to finish the transition into the modern bird family.

(Hey, who said there are no transitional fossils? Oh, right, a lot of dishonest creationists. And there are a lot more than this, I've just posted some of the more significant milestones.)

There's been a very recent fossil find along this same lineage, too new for me to have found any online images to include in this article. And analysis is still underway to determine exactly where it fits into the above lineage. But it has well-formed feathers, which extend out from both the "arms" and the legs. Although it wasn't advanced enough to fully fly, the balanced feathering on the front and back would have made it ideally suited for gliding like a flying squirrel, and it may be another link between the stage where feathers had not yet been pressed into service as aerodynamic aids, and the time when they began to be used more and more to catch the air and developing towards a "forelimbs as wings" specialization.

So in short, to answer your question about how flight could have developed in birds, the progression is most likely some minor refinement on the following:

1. Scales modified into downy feathers for heat retention.
2. Downy feathers modified into "straight" feathers for better heat retention (modern birds still use their body "contour feathers" in this fashion).
3. Straight feathers modified into a "grasping basket" on the hands (with an accompanying increase in reach for the same purpose).
4. Long limbs with long feathers refined to better survive falls to the ground.
5. "Parachute" feathers refined for better control, leading to gliding.
6. Gliding refined into better controlled, longer gliding.
7. Long gliding refined into short powered "hops".
8. Short powered flight refined into longer powered flight.
9. Longer powered flight refined into long-distance flying.

Note that in each stage, the current configuration has already set the stage for natural selection to "prefer" individuals which better meet the requirements of the next stage. Evolution most often works like this; by taking some pre-existing ability or structure, and finding a better use for it or a better way to make it perform its current use.

It would have been observed in recorded history if it was possible.

Don't be ridiculous. "Recorded history" is no more than 10,000 years long. Changes of this type take several million years. Your comment is as ridiculous as expecting the rise of new mountains to be observable in a weekend trip.

If you mean that we should expect to see other species in the middle of a transition towards actual flight, well then:

Happy now?

Similarly with fish developing legs and feet and walking.

There is a huge amount of fossil and DNA evidence for exactly that. Game, set, match.

With all the tens of millions of fish we pull out of the ocean every year, if that could happen, we'd see it.

What exactly would you ignorantly expect to see -- a foot to grow out of a fish in the net just as you pull it out of the water? Don't be stupid.

If you meant we should find other fish species in the middle of the process of evolving towards "developing legs and feet and walking", I guess you're really ignorant of biology then, because you're obviously totally unfamiliar with the mudskipper (or any of a number of other land-adapted fish):

Evolution in action, Joe.

Darwinism demands that this stuff be happening all the time, everywhere, and not just once upon a time, every fifty million years or so.

Yup. And it does. Thanks for admitting that this confirms evolutionary biology.

29 posted on 10/11/2005 5:30:30 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
And I believe you tbat this event actually happened.










I win.
30 posted on 10/11/2005 5:30:39 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tamalejoe

Why on Earth would something develop wings to fly? It's not like there would have been anything in the environment that necessitated that for survival. I'm also curious about the development of lungs. They would need to be a minimum size for a creature to depend on them for survival. How could they have developed slowly when they weren't even useful at first. There'd be no purpose for them.


31 posted on 10/11/2005 5:30:57 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Free Baptist
The thing is, we DO know people who hold real, laudable, credentials in these fields and other related fields who are very well-able to describe the circular reasoning of sci-politicians and the poli-scientists with regard to the dating of fossils and the strata in which they are found.

Uh huh. Sure. Of course you do. Here's a cookie.

Look, son, I'm sure you believe that, because the creationist propaganda factories produce that lie over and over again, and you made the mistake of believing it. But it's not true. And while there may be a few confused idiots in with "credentials" who have bought into the same lies, it quite simply is not true. Read any ACTUAL science journals in the field, and you'll quickly learn the scores of different ways in which dating is performed in NONcircular ways. No amount of foot-stomping and declaring "is so, is so!" by creationist liars will make that fact disappear. So stop following the people who are lying to you, and learn to think for yourself for a change, start to learn the field yourself instead of relying on the falsehoods of others. In short, stop acting like an empty-headed Michael Moore groupie who swallows any crap he's fed, and rejects any and all evidence to the contrary out of hand because he "knows" that his hero is right...

The creationists have lied to you. A lot. It's not hard for you to look around at actual science journals and discover that they contain material that the creationists have dishonestly claimed doesn't exist. All you need do is look, and be honest with yourself. If not, well -- complete this sentence: "There are none so blind..."

32 posted on 10/11/2005 5:36:42 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
Give it up, Ichneumon. This one is beyond your reach.

I know he's beyond reach. I'm just making sure that he doesn't poison anyone else's mind with his lies.

33 posted on 10/11/2005 5:38:39 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: metmom; tamalejoe
Why on Earth would something develop wings to fly? It's not like there would have been anything in the environment that necessitated that for survival.

Evolution is driven not by what is "necessitated", but by what is an advantage. As for the selective pressures which would drive it, see my earlier post (the one with all the bird transitional fossil pictures.

I'm also curious about the development of lungs. They would need to be a minimum size for a creature to depend on them for survival. How could they have developed slowly when they weren't even useful at first. There'd be no purpose for them.

You shifted gears in the middle of your paragraph, and didn't even notice. Yes, they would need to be a minimum size (or more accurately, functionality) for a creature to DEPEND on them. However, in your next sentence you claim they wouldn't "even be useful" -- this is a shift. Proto lungs would be *useful*, even if they were not yet sufficient to fully *depend* on yet (as a sole means of acquiring oxygen.

The answer was actually provided by Darwin in his 1859 book (and was based on yet still earlier evidence), and has been confirmed and reconfirmed by fossil and DNA research since then.

The answer is that early lungs developed in animals that already were relying on some *other* primary means of acquiring oxygen. Lungs developed in some lineages of early fish, as an *auxiliary* to the gills which were the primary oxygen system. So there's the answer to your puzzle -- early lungs were an *assist* to the gills, not a system that had to develop entirely from scratch all the way to full functionality before the animal could breath in the first place. So even a barely functional proto-lung would still be useful, and the animal would still be able to survive (because it didn't *depend* solely on its lungs for its survival).

The fish lineage which eventually evolved into amphibians evolved the ability to store fresh air in its swim bladder (which was already an air sac used for floation) in the manner of a "scuba tank", which would allow it to have a source of oxygen even when venturing into brackish water where the gills began to have trouble getting enough oxygen. The "lungs" were a supplement. Over time, they became more sophisticated and capable in this function, and their ability to exchange the oxygen they contained with the bloodstream grew in efficiency, until eventually the "lungs" became worthy of their name, and became something which the animal could use on its own even when the gills were unable to carry on (as in totally brackish water, or when crawling across land in search of new bodies of water, as in modern mudskippers or lungfish).

The mistake that many people make when trying to picture evolutionary developments of modern organs or systems is that they try to picture they arising *in* modern organisms (you probably tried to imagine lungs appearing in an early mammal or somesuch, right?) Instead, it's often the case that modern organs evolved in very different animals or different circumstances, when other systems or environments were "carrying the load" that the organ *eventually* (but not in the beginning) became the primary carrier of.

34 posted on 10/11/2005 5:53:52 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
Dinosaur = Bird = Chicken. ...Fried Chicken Dinosaur Tonite :)


_______________TASTES LIKE CHICKEN

35 posted on 10/11/2005 6:04:09 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Psalm 73)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Maybe someone on FR knows if this is true or not. I heard that of the present day human race, 1:40 humans has the skull skeletal structure of a Neanderthal Man and 1:100 has the structure of a Cro-Mangon Man. This stuck with me cause I thought that I could easily think of several people I knew that this would apply to.

It's not true.

Neandertals were so significantly different from modern man that it would be surprising if *any* modern humans actually had the skull structure of a Neandertal. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) write:

"Rare individuals among modern humans may share one, or even a few, of the anatomical characteristics of Neandertals, but not one human - much less any population - can be found that possesses the entire constellation of traits that define Neandertals" (p 412).

And on the other hand, you say that "1:100" would match Cro-Magnon man, but that's far too few. Almost *all* would, because "Cro-Magnon" is the name given to the anatomically *modern* humans who first colonized Europe. It's a designation of the (modern) peoples in a given time and place (Europe 35,000 to 10,000 years ago), *not* a designation of a species or subspecies of human "different" from our own, which is the case with Neandertal.

36 posted on 10/11/2005 6:08:38 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
These evolution/creation threads are sooooo much fun to read. /sarc
37 posted on 10/11/2005 6:09:34 AM PDT by manwiththehands ( "France and chicken, somehow it just goes together.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Bearing false witness is a sin.

I think in some cases mental deficiency will mitigate.

38 posted on 10/11/2005 6:09:55 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Junior
Thanks for the pings. This is obviously not a thread for the evolution list.

Junior, for the catalog.

39 posted on 10/11/2005 6:17:18 AM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer

"claiming them to be the “missing link” racist bastards.
"

Aborigines were racist bastards? First I've heard about that.


40 posted on 10/11/2005 6:19:07 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-331 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson