125 Million-Year old Dinosaur feathers remarkably similar to modern bird feathers

[dlamberth]

With birds having evolved from dinosaur's, this does not surprise me one bit.

"Feathers from modern-day birds have more in common with dinosaur feathers than experts previously thought and have a similar protein composition, a new X-ray analysis reveals. The discovery offers new insight into the evolution of feathers over hundreds of millions of years."

125 million-year-old dinosaur feathers were remarkably similar to modern bird feathers, analysis reveals

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

The discovery offers new insight into the evolution of feathers over hundreds of millions of years.

No, it doesn't. It shows at most that some dinosaurs had feathers. That is all it says.

 

[Occams Barber]

No, it doesn't. It shows at most that some dinosaurs had feathers. That is all it says.

Feathers are fascinating and this discovery adds a significant lump to our knowledge of their evolution and the evolution of feathered animals in general. From the article:

• This new thinking not only shows that proteins can remain preserved in the fossil record for upward of 125 million years but also provides new thinking into the evolution of ancient feathers by "pushing the time scales a lot further than what we thought," Slater said.
• "The chemistry of modern-day feathers is actually a lot more ancient than we previously thought," Slater said. "Our research helps rewrite the narrative and shows that the very basic building blocks that are required for powered flight were present at least 125 million years ago."

We tend to associate feathers with flight but they actually have a variety of uses including insulation, waterproofing, threat and sexual display, gliding, skin protection, short distance travel through fluttering, camouflage, cushioning. This means that different types of feathers can evolve in response to a variety of evolutionary pressures.

Feathers are also made from alpha-keratin, the key structural material making up scales, hair, nails, feathers, horns, claws, hooves, fur, spines and the outer layer of skin among vertebrates (including you).
( Keratin - Wikipedia ).

Did you know that scientists have changed the scales on chicken's feet to feathers by tweaking a single gene?

Scientists changed scales on chicken feet to feathers by tweaking a single gene

By targeting a single gene, scientists successfully turned chickens’ feet from scaly to feathery.

www.livescience.com

Feathers are fabulous.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

With birds having evolved from dinosaur's, this does not surprise me one bit.

"Feathers from modern-day birds have more in common with dinosaur feathers than experts previously thought and have a similar protein composition, a new X-ray analysis reveals. The discovery offers new insight into the evolution of feathers over hundreds of millions of years."

125 million-year-old dinosaur feathers were remarkably similar to modern bird feathers, analysis reveals

Thanks @dlamberth - another fascinating article.

OB

 

[Gene2memE]

No, it doesn't. It shows at most that some dinosaurs had feathers. That is all it says.

Did you read the paper? It shows a lot more than "some dinosaurs had feathers".

Here's the link to the Nature study

It shows:
Feathers on non-avian dinosaurs and early birds from 125 million years ago and feathers other birds 60 million years ago have similar protein structures to feathers on modern birds.
That the protein structures for powered flight existed at least 125 million years ago, pushing back our assessment of when powered flight likely started
It also confirms the feasibility of biomolecular preservation over deep time (at least when it comes to feather proteins), providing potential pathways to further investigate molecular evolution

 

[Landon Caeli]

Convergent evolution.

 

[Occams Barber]

Convergent evolution.

Unlikely.

Convergent evolution is "the repeated evolution of similar traits in multiple lineages which all ancestrally lack the trait".

The particular protein structures we're looking for appear in non-avian dinosaurs and early birds which are part of the ancestral group which predates modern birds. It appears that these early bird-types did not "lack the trait". This in turn suggests that the trait was carried down through successive bird-type generations, as opposed to being reinvented in various generations. In other words, it is unlikely to qualify as "convergent".

OB

 

[Estrid]

Convergent evolution.

Unlikely.

Convergent evolution is "the repeated evolution of similar traits in multiple lineages which all ancestrally lack the trait".

The particular protein structures we're looking for appear in non-avian dinosaurs and early birds which are part of the ancestral group which predates modern birds. It appears that these early bird-types did not "lack the trait". This in turn suggests that the trait was carried down through successive bird-type generations, as opposed to being reinvented in various generations. In other words, it is unlikely to qualify as "convergent".

OB

Actual examples of convergent evolution
still show distinct, deep differences.

Like ichthyosaurs and dolphins.

As anyone knowing more about biology than a
few words would understand.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Actual examples of convergent evolution
still show distinct, deep differences.

Like ichthyosaurs and dolphins.

As anyone knowing more about biology than a
few words would understand.

Of course, of course... I understand that, I just wanted to make sure everyone else does. That's why I brought it up.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Scientists are actually rethinking their presuppositions of evolution.

Do we need a new theory of evolution?

The long read: A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

www.theguardian.com

 

[USincognito]

Scientists are actually rethinking their presuppositions of evolution.

"Presupposition" is not a magic word and that article doesn't mean what you think it does.

Do we need a new theory of evolution?

The long read: A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

www.theguardian.com

This article is predicated on a Royal Society meeting in 2015 which sought to incorporate psychology, and a number of other fields not currently associated with biology into an evolutionary umbrella. It was met with bemusement 18 years ago and is still considered such.

Evolution is NOT a theory in crisis.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it doesn't. It shows at most that some dinosaurs had feathers. That is all it says.

It clearly shows that feathers did not first evolve in birds but were first seen in other dinosaurs. But notice that these feathers are symmetrical, unlike the flight feathers of later dinosaurs such as Archaeopteryx and birds. And while these later feathers of extinct dinosaurs are very close to those of birds, birds have evolved some modifications of those feathers:
Early feathered dinosaurs, such as Archaeopteryx, exhibit asymmetrical feathers that had always been thought to be indistinguishable from those of living birds.

“This is a well-appreciated adaptation that provides aerodynamic stability,” said Feo. “It is clear that these animals were doing something in the air.”

Feo and fellow doctoral candidate Daniel Field decided to take a closer look at feathers representing the evolutionary transition from dinosaurs to modern birds. They found that while the shape of the wing feathers of Archaeopteryx and modern birds are generally similar, their trailing edges differed significantly in the angle where feather branches connected to the central shaft. These structural changes might be important in enabling a coherent wing surface during sustained flight, they said.

Differences in feathers shed light on evolution of flight

The asymmetrical flight feathers of their wings are among the most distinctive features of living birds. But how are these feathers actually constructed, and when did they first appear in evolutionary history?

news.yale.edu

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientists are actually rethinking their presuppositions of evolution.

Sounds interesting. Which of the four points of evolutionary theory do you think have been invalidated? Last time I looked (yesterday) they were still as solidly demonstrated as ever.

Perhaps you don't know what "presuppositions" means. What do you think it means and what "presuppositions" do you think Darwin relied on in his theory?

 

[Chesterton]

Feathers are fabulous.

All my life I've bought into the stereotype that Australian men are a rugged, manly breed. Now I'm picturing you prancing around wearing a feather boa. Crocodile Dundee would be ashamed.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is NOT a theory in crisis.

From a YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I know a chemical biologist (who believes in evolution) who believes that evolution needs a real face lift. His name is Dr. Sy Garte in case you want to ask him yourself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know a chemical biologist (who believes in evolution) who believes that evolution needs a real face lift. His name is Dr. Sy Garte in case you want to ask him yourself.

Good for him.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Good for him.

Not sure what the point of your post is.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Sounds interesting. Which of the four points of evolutionary theory do you think have been invalidated? Last time I looked (yesterday) they were still as solidly demonstrated as ever.

Perhaps you don't know what "presuppositions" means. What do you think it means and what "presuppositions" do you think Darwin relied on in his theory?

That evolution is unguided.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not sure what the point of your post is.

That your guy believes that evolution needs a 'real face lift'. It's good for him that he feels that it needs it.