Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
[IMG]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/800000/images/_802009_***300.jpg[/IMG] The features look like feathers
A small, lizard-like creature that lived 220 million years ago has re-ignited the debate about the evolution of birds by seriously questioning whether they evolved from dinosaurs. Researchers studying the fossil remains say the animal, Longisquama insignis, had elongated structures on its back and arms that look very much like the feathers of modern birds. This suggests an evolutionary link between the two. But Longisquama, the scientists say, was not a dinosaur, and in any case was around when the great reptiles had only just begun to walk the Earth. And they argue that it is unlikely that features as complex and specialised as feathers evolved more than once. Entrenched view "These are some amazing fossils, and at the very least they prove that feathers did not evolve in dinosaurs," said Professor John Ruben, of Oregon State University and one of the scientists investigating Longisquama. "The supposed link between dinosaurs and birds is pretty entrenched in palaeontology, but it's not as solid as the public has been led to believe."
Longisquama insignis appeared 75 million years before Archeopteryx
He added: "Feathers are a very complicated structure. The odds of them evolving first in Longisquama and then separately at some later point in dinosaurs or any other group of animals would have been astronomically small." The OSU researchers, and colleagues, report their analysis of the fossils in the journal Science. Old specimen The Longisquama specimen was actually discovered three decades ago in central Asia by a Russian palaeontologist who specialised in insects. When the scientist published the first report of the fossil in 1970, he described a row of long narrow appendages down the animal's back, interpreting them as a frill of extremely long scales.
The feathers would have evolved for flight rather than insulation
The Science authors, who have pored over every detail of the fossils, which include most of the skeleton except for the hind part, have now challenged this view. They think the appendages show some of the most recognisable features of a modern-day feather. Developing feather They have identified a long, thin tube called a "shaft" running down the centre of each appendage. A short distance from the base, a dense row of fine strands called "pinnae" project from either side. Neither the shaft nor the pinnae are typically thought to be features of reptilian scales. The shaft also comes to a point at the base and appears to poke into a follicle in the skin. These and other clues point feathers as the only logical explanation for the features, the scientists say. The pinnae of modern feathers first develop inside a tube called a feather sheath and then unfurl as the feather grows. The Longisquama fossil shows a new feather that seems to be developing in just the same manner. Flight not warmth "We can identify certain structures in these fossils that you only find in feathers and just don't see anywhere else," said Terry Jones, also an OSU palaeontologist and a co-author of the study. "So we're quite sure we're looking at the earliest feather. But beyond that, this animal looks like an ancestral bird even if you ignore the feathers. The teeth, pectoral structure, neck, and skull are just like those of birds." The researchers think the feathers evolved for flight rather than insulation. Providing warmth is the more likely function of the downy feathers sported by some much later dinosaurs. Longisquama probably glided, rather than flew, using its long aerodynamic forelimbs for steering. Dr Alan Feduccia, a co-author from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who in 1979 proved for the first time that Archeopteryx, the earliest recognisable bird, could fly, said: "These are the earliest structures in the fossil record that can be called feathers. "They pre-date the so-called 'fuzzy dinosaurs' from China by at least 100 million years. Here we show unequivocally that the earliest known feathers evolved in the context of flight and not thermo-regulation."
Today a young man [deleted] realized that all matter is merely energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.
- Bill Hicks
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
The past if spititual as well as physical changes that. The genes were fine. Hec we lived just under 1000 years.
Quite the Contrary. Even the Bible Refutes that.
No, not at all. If there was hyper evolution in that different past. One kind can make oodles of species. This neuters your logic.
In a Case of Hyper-Evolution, It’d actually make my Logic more sound. The Earth could not possibly Survive such a state of Rapid Evolutionary Chaos.
Because the tigers all evolved from the one pair on the ark.
But didn’t the Ark come After the Garden of Eden? By your Logic, their would still had been a Tiger (in some Form or another) found somewhere in the same Fossil Record.
True, which is why you can't prove the past was physical only, as is the present. That yells to me.
You’re making an Extreme Assumption. To Assume the Earth actually had a different Set of Laws of Reality actually proves that you have no clue.
I am just taking God's word for it, and no science says otherwise, so why not?
The Problem with that is that God never Told me any such thing. In fact, he Tells me something quite Different.
There was a great dying. The permian termination.
And How were the Buried under Hundreds of Millions of Tons and Rock and Sand? Did we hold a Huge Funeral for them? Why wasn’t I invited?
But since it's true, I need not go there.
What’s True? That Genesis was a Metaphor? Alright, I’ll agree with you there.
Only if we don't get His help. If we do, it's just a read away, and a prayer away.
Until someone Misinterprets him again and we get into another big Pointless Argument.
Well, kids, my advice is question what you are taught if it goes against the bible, then!
And My Advise is to Question everything your Taught, Including the Bible. Then, you’re all set to Discover the whole truth, instead of just what “agrees with the Bible.”
P.S. To the others of this Board, I appolgise for starting this Fella again. I did not know who he was until after I had Posted the Above posts but I had now read some of his Other Posts and …….. I’m SOOO Sorry!
That's funny, the lifespans for many are given, exactly how long they lived. Try to have some basis for comments if possible.
In a Case of Hyper-Evolution, It’d actually make my Logic more sound. The Earth could not possibly Survive such a state of Rapid Evolutionary Chaos.
You have no case to make sound to begin with. There was no chaos, but a well designed adaptability in a past where it could happen very quickly.
But didn’t the Ark come After the Garden of Eden? By your Logic, their would still had been a Tiger (in some Form or another) found somewhere in the same Fossil Record.
Good point. A few possiblities here, are that our fossil record isn't complete, or all cats came from the one created original pair, and adapted into species after the flood.
You’re making an Extreme Assumption. To Assume the Earth actually had a different Set of Laws of Reality actually proves that you have no clue.
If you have the clue you pretend to have, prove the earth was the same. It was spiritual and physical, but you haven't the wherwithal to prove or disprove it, being so limited to only the physical knowledge.
The Problem with that is that God never Told me any such thing. In fact, he Tells me something quite Different.
The bible does give the timeframe. It is really a matter of accepting it or not. But you can't say we don't know. It brings us right up to recorded history from Eden, within a small margin of possible interpretation.
And How were the Buried under Hundreds of Millions of Tons and Rock and Sand? Did we hold a Huge Funeral for them? Why wasn’t I invited?
Because the past was very different from the physical only world present. For example, trees grew in days. Water came up from the subteranean, and there was water above the earth that later came down in a flood, and likely not even gravity as we know it. In fact Adam would have lived forever, something else not possible in a physical only world, or universe for that matter. Also there was no universal radioactive decay, so hopefully you see how different we are talking here.
What’s True? That Genesis was a Metaphor? Alright, I’ll agree with you there.
No, the bible is true, and Adam and the flood wtc were real.
Until someone Misinterprets him again and we get into another big Pointless Argument.
That will always happen, best bet is to form an opinion for yourself, based on the bible, and ask God for help.
And My Advise is to Question everything your Taught, Including the Bible. Then, you’re all set to Discover the whole truth, instead of just what “agrees with the Bible.”
Your suggestion of throwing out the key to try to open the door doesn't work. Just look at the kind of stuff they serve up in the places of learning that have become fantasy factories!
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
...the lifespans for many are given, exactly how long they lived. Try to have some basis for comments if possible.
We have many fossilized remains of humans who lived thousands of years ago. If humans actually lived for centuries there would be evidence of these long lives in the fossil record. Why isn't there?
Originally Posted by dad
A few possiblities here, are that our fossil record isn't complete, or all cats came from the one created original pair, and adapted into species after the flood.
Hilarious.
Originally Posted by dad
If you have the clue you pretend to have, prove the earth was the same. It was spiritual and physical, but you haven't the wherwithal to prove or disprove it, being so limited to only the physical knowledge.
You never actually did prove there was even oxygen in the past from a previous question.
...For example, trees grew in days. Water came up from the subteranean, and there was water above the earth that later came down in a flood, and likely not even gravity as we know it. In fact Adam would have lived forever, something else not possible in a physical only world, or universe for that matter. Also there was no universal radioactive decay...
Isn't nuclear fusion a form of radioactive decay? If there were no decay, then all the stars would stop producing light and heat. Please explain.
So, Essentially, You're whole Argument comes down to "There was no such thing as the accepted Laws of Science, Everything was the complete Opposite of what it is today, The Natural Laws of Science Cannot Possibly explain you're Absurd Theories Thus God's Will is the Only Possible Answer, and Because you don't Know the truth, that automatically proves you're Right and Knowing Nothing Means you know everything."
Alright. You've made your point perfectly clear. I'm not up to Arguing with a Total Loon.
Linear Mode
