John
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:51:46 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
JR>http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=49213956&CAT=N
>>atGen&PG=dino/dino-home.html
>
>Or see their home page, http://www.nature.com/.
Thanks for this. Apologies for this late reply. There has been a flurry
of activity with this story:
* National Geographic:
"Dinosaurs Take Wing
New fossil discoveries from China reveal astonishing feathered
creatures that lived more than 120 million years ago and appear to
confirm what scientists have long theorized: Birds are dinosaurs. By
Jennifer Ackerman. Photographs by O. Louis Mazzatenta. Art by
Portia Rollings. Models by Brian Cooley.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/media/ngm/9807/hilights.html#d
* CNN:
"Feathered Fossils Said to Be Evidence for Dinosaur Origin of Birds
AP 24-JUN-98
WASHINGTON (AP) Scientists believe they have found the
strongest evidence yet that birds evolved from dinosaurs: fossils of
two turkey-sized animals with strong legs, stubby arms and down-
covered bodies."
http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=267766
4
&p_section_name=Sci-
Tech&p_art_type=433527&p_subcat=Archeology+%26
+Paleontology&p_category=Sciences
JR>DINOSAURS WITH FEATHERS
>
>Any remaining doubts that birds and dinosaurs have an intimate
>phylogenetic relationship should be laid to rest by a report on p753,
>from Philip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller,
>Alberta, Canada and his colleagues Ji Qiang and Ji Shu-an of the
>National Geological Museum of China, Beijing, China, and Mark
>Norell of the American Museum of Natural History, New York.
I have no problem if birds were created from dinosaurs (indeed my
Mediate Creation model *predicts* it), but my understanding is that
protoarchaeopteryx was a bird, which was contemporaneous with
archaeopteryx, itself not the earliest bird. So to claim it as "a dinosaur
with feathers" is misleading. In a sense *all* birds are "dinosaurs with
feathers"!
JR>They describe two species of theropod dinosaur from China
>dinosaurs with feathers. One creature, Protarchaeopteryx, has
>already been described in a preliminary report: this is the first full-
>length treatment. Similar in many respects to the dinosaur
>Velociraptor, it had a switch of feathers at the end of its tail.
Which makes it taxonomically a bird.
JR>The other creature, named in the paper for the first time, has
>feathers on its tail as well as on its forearms. This animal falls on the
>family tree somewhere between Velociraptor and Protarchaeopteryx
>on the one hand, and the historically important fossil bird
>Archaeopteryx on the other.
Another bird.
JR>It is unlikely that either of the feathered dinosaurs could have
>flown: the function of the feathers will be a matter of lively
>speculation. That aside, the finding demonstrates that the origin of
>feathers preceded the origin of birds and of bird flight. It also
>demonstrates that theropod dinosaurs such as Velociraptor were the
>closest extinct relatives to birds.
I can't see how they can conclude this. Protoarchaeopteryx could just
as easily be a descendant of flying birds and later reverted to a
flighless state, much as rattites like the ostrich and our Australian
emu.
This is in fact what Feduccia believes. Here is a quote of his from the
San Francisco Chronicle (unfortunately I got it second-hand and have
no other reference):
"This is a very interesting find, "Feduccia said yesterday in an
interview, "but these fossils certainly look like flightless birds to me. I
still believe that although birds and dinosaurs may share a common
ancestor, these fossils more closely resemble many other feathered
birds that later lost the ability to fly, like ostriches and emus and
kiwis. These fossils could well be secondary flightless birds, and the
certainly don't have to be dinosaurs."
Here is more in this line from Feduccia:
"Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary biologist at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, said the Chinese discoveries "are very
interesting," but he said they do not provide immediate and final
proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. He said that the new fossils
are dated after those of the first bird. This suggests, he said, that the
fossils could be either feathered dinosaurs or primitive birds that just
happened to resemble dinosaurs. "The age dates for these things are
still unresolved," said Feduccia. He said if the new fossils represent
ancestors of early birds, why are they younger than the early birds."
(http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=26778
52 &p_section_name=Sci-
Tech&p_art_type=433527&p_subcat=Archeology+%26
+Paleontology&p_category=Sciences)
JR>Kevin Padian of the University of California, Berkeley, discusses
>the research in an accompanying News and Views article.
>
>The fossils were unveiled at a press conference at the National
>Geographic Society, 1600 M Street NW, Washington DC, at
10.30am EDT Tuesday 23 June.
I am a bit suspicious of National Geographic. They have been a very
enthusiastic supporter of evolution as a means of selling their glossy
magazine. This sounds to me like it could be another beat up.
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:51:46 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
JR>http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=49213956&CAT=N
>>atGen&PG=dino/dino-home.html
>
>Or see their home page, http://www.nature.com/.
Thanks for this. Apologies for this late reply. There has been a flurry
of activity with this story:
* National Geographic:
"Dinosaurs Take Wing
New fossil discoveries from China reveal astonishing feathered
creatures that lived more than 120 million years ago and appear to
confirm what scientists have long theorized: Birds are dinosaurs. By
Jennifer Ackerman. Photographs by O. Louis Mazzatenta. Art by
Portia Rollings. Models by Brian Cooley.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/media/ngm/9807/hilights.html#d
* CNN:
"Feathered Fossils Said to Be Evidence for Dinosaur Origin of Birds
AP 24-JUN-98
WASHINGTON (AP) Scientists believe they have found the
strongest evidence yet that birds evolved from dinosaurs: fossils of
two turkey-sized animals with strong legs, stubby arms and down-
covered bodies."
http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=267766
4
&p_section_name=Sci-
Tech&p_art_type=433527&p_subcat=Archeology+%26
+Paleontology&p_category=Sciences
JR>DINOSAURS WITH FEATHERS
>
>Any remaining doubts that birds and dinosaurs have an intimate
>phylogenetic relationship should be laid to rest by a report on p753,
>from Philip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller,
>Alberta, Canada and his colleagues Ji Qiang and Ji Shu-an of the
>National Geological Museum of China, Beijing, China, and Mark
>Norell of the American Museum of Natural History, New York.
I have no problem if birds were created from dinosaurs (indeed my
Mediate Creation model *predicts* it), but my understanding is that
protoarchaeopteryx was a bird, which was contemporaneous with
archaeopteryx, itself not the earliest bird. So to claim it as "a dinosaur
with feathers" is misleading. In a sense *all* birds are "dinosaurs with
feathers"!
JR>They describe two species of theropod dinosaur from China
>dinosaurs with feathers. One creature, Protarchaeopteryx, has
>already been described in a preliminary report: this is the first full-
>length treatment. Similar in many respects to the dinosaur
>Velociraptor, it had a switch of feathers at the end of its tail.
Which makes it taxonomically a bird.
JR>The other creature, named in the paper for the first time, has
>feathers on its tail as well as on its forearms. This animal falls on the
>family tree somewhere between Velociraptor and Protarchaeopteryx
>on the one hand, and the historically important fossil bird
>Archaeopteryx on the other.
Another bird.
JR>It is unlikely that either of the feathered dinosaurs could have
>flown: the function of the feathers will be a matter of lively
>speculation. That aside, the finding demonstrates that the origin of
>feathers preceded the origin of birds and of bird flight. It also
>demonstrates that theropod dinosaurs such as Velociraptor were the
>closest extinct relatives to birds.
I can't see how they can conclude this. Protoarchaeopteryx could just
as easily be a descendant of flying birds and later reverted to a
flighless state, much as rattites like the ostrich and our Australian
emu.
This is in fact what Feduccia believes. Here is a quote of his from the
San Francisco Chronicle (unfortunately I got it second-hand and have
no other reference):
"This is a very interesting find, "Feduccia said yesterday in an
interview, "but these fossils certainly look like flightless birds to me. I
still believe that although birds and dinosaurs may share a common
ancestor, these fossils more closely resemble many other feathered
birds that later lost the ability to fly, like ostriches and emus and
kiwis. These fossils could well be secondary flightless birds, and the
certainly don't have to be dinosaurs."
Here is more in this line from Feduccia:
"Alan Feduccia, an evolutionary biologist at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, said the Chinese discoveries "are very
interesting," but he said they do not provide immediate and final
proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. He said that the new fossils
are dated after those of the first bird. This suggests, he said, that the
fossils could be either feathered dinosaurs or primitive birds that just
happened to resemble dinosaurs. "The age dates for these things are
still unresolved," said Feduccia. He said if the new fossils represent
ancestors of early birds, why are they younger than the early birds."
(http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=26778
52 &p_section_name=Sci-
Tech&p_art_type=433527&p_subcat=Archeology+%26
+Paleontology&p_category=Sciences)
JR>Kevin Padian of the University of California, Berkeley, discusses
>the research in an accompanying News and Views article.
>
>The fossils were unveiled at a press conference at the National
>Geographic Society, 1600 M Street NW, Washington DC, at
10.30am EDT Tuesday 23 June.
I am a bit suspicious of National Geographic. They have been a very
enthusiastic supporter of evolution as a means of selling their glossy
magazine. This sounds to me like it could be another beat up.
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
----------------------------------------------------------------------_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--