MrDarwin

This should generate some interesting discussion:

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020214/sc_nm/science_birds_dc_1&cid=585" target="_blank">Fossil Strengthens Dinosaur-Bird Link</a>

<a href="http://www.fieldmuseum.org/museum_info/press/press_sinovenator.htm" target="_blank">New species clarifies bird-dinosaur link </a>

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Quetzal

Great catch, Mr. D! I can't wait to hear how the cretinists explain this one.

Oolon Colluphid

Not that it says much more than those links, but here's the abstract from Nature (oh for a subscription so we could see the full article -- I though science was about sharing information! )

Cheers, Oolon

MrDarwin

I predict it won't phase them one bit. They'll either say, "it's just an odd dinosaur", or "it's just an odd bird". Hey, these things all lived together at the same time anyway, so one can't possibly be the ancestor of the other, right?? Right??

It should be much more interesting to hear what Martin and Feduccia, have to say about it.

MrDarwin

Here's another article, although they all say basically the same thing:

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020214080242.htm" target="_blank">New Species Clarifies Bird-Dinosaur Link </a>

One reason why this discovery is so interesting is that it shows that bird-like dinosaurs were living at about the same time as Archaeopteryx. One previous weakness of the birds-from-dinosaurs hypothesis was that the most birdlike dinosaurs were much younger fossils than those of the oldest bird (Archaeopteryx).

Now, for those creationists who keep claiming evolutionary theory "isn't science", it again shows the predictive value and testability of evolutionary theory, two of the most basic elements of a scientific idea. A scientific hypothesis not only explains something, it makes predictions as well. Then you go out and test those predictions. The birds-from-dinosaurs hypothesis predicted that we should (a) find birdlike dinosaurs and (b) some of them should be least as old as the oldest bird fossils. And lo and behold, both predictions have been borne out.

Valentine Pontifex

I am disappointed that there were no pictures (sorry artist conceptions don't really count) in the stories. I would like to see what the fossil really looks like. Artists illustrations are nice, but lets put the horse before the cart and start with the evidence and not the interpretation. I know this is almost certainly not the fault of the scientific paper, but of the media people. But it still annoys me.

I am also a bit scared of them assuming it had feathers. I hope that is a press release fault.
Now if they can so a good cladistic analysis
that strongly roots this fossil as being on the clade with feathers then it will be justified. (Though it would still be possible that the fossil could be descended from animals that lost their feathers.)

=============

I just wonder how much more we would know about evolution today if the Mao and the Maoists had cared about science. We lost a good half century of such spectacular finds. Yet another reason why the commies sucked: they cared as much about science as the Fundies in America do.

Children of Raven

Feathers? How are they going to prove it had feathers? I thought something as delicate as feathers would have been lost to the sands of time while the rest of the body was being preserved in the fossilization process..someone care to explain??
Thanks from the confused pagan....

Coragyps

Bunches of feathered (or nearly-what-we'd-call-a-feather'd) fossils have been recovered recently, lots of them in China. The beds they are coming from are apparently real good at preserving detail, and feathers aren't all that biodegradable anyway.