New Feathers Found: Rare Dinosaur-Era Bird Wings Found Trapped in Amber

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others


Rare Dinosaur-Era Bird Wings Found Trapped in Amber
Bone, tissue, and feathers show the almost 100-million-year-old wings are remarkably similar to those on modern birds.
NEWS.NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM

99-Million-Year-Old Bird Wings Found Encased in Amber - Smithsonian
As another said best:

Finding things trapped in amber is far from a rare occurrence: lizards, bugs, flowers and more are regularly found encased in hardened lumps of the tree resin. But when a group of researchers digging through amber mined in Burma uncovered a sample with a pair of tiny bird-like wings frozen inside, they knew they had something special. At around 99 million years old, these wings are some of the most pristine fossilized feathers ever found.

"It gives us all the details we could hope for," Ryan McKellar, curator of invertebrate paleontology at Canada’s Royal Saskatchewan Museum tells Sarah Kaplan for the Washington Post. "It's the next best thing to having the animal in your hand."

While birds and dinosaurs are related, the giant lizards didn’t directly evolve into modern birds. The first ancient birds began appearing during the Late Jurassic Period about 150 million years ago and then spent millions of years flapping in the shadows of their larger cousins. While scientists have uncovered many ancient bird fossils over the years, they are rarely very clear because their feathers and hollow bones don’t hold up nearly as well to the fossilization process as mammals, lizards, and the like, Kristin Romey reports for National Geographic. For the most part, researchers have had to make do with faint imprints of wings left behind in rock and amber.

"The biggest problem we face with feathers in amber is that we usually get small fragments or isolated feathers, and we’re never quite sure who produced [them]," McKellar tells Romey. "We don’t get something like this. It’s mind-blowingly cool."

For anyone interested, here is an explanation for Jurassic World's featherless dinosaurs. http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-academy-award-for-best-costuming.html

feathers.jpg







maxresdefault.jpg


1744379_orig.jpg
4
 
Last edited:

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,219
3,838
45
✟926,226.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
I love when people draw versions of the T Rex or Raptors with feathers, but think they probably get the colours wrong.

These are stalkers and predators, they probably had some level of camouflage, mottled browns and greys. (I guess green would be okay as well).
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
32
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
These are stalkers and predators, they probably had some level of camouflage, mottled browns and greys. (I guess green would be okay as well).

While you're probably right, I just can't get this image out of my head when I think of a T. rex trying to disguise itself as literally anything that isn't a T. rex.

I-Am-A-Flower.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,645
9,618
✟240,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
While birds and dinosaurs are related, the giant lizards didn’t directly evolve into modern birds.
Thank you for the interesting information, however one correction: dinosaurs are not lizards.
 
Upvote 0

Standing_Ultraviolet

Dunkleosteus
Jul 29, 2010
2,798
132
32
North Carolina
✟4,331.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Thank you for the interesting information, however one correction: dinosaurs are not lizards.

Honestly, that article's not the greatest on scientific information in general. Dinosaurs weren't lizards, not all dinosaurs were large (most of them wouldn't be astoundingly huge if they existed in the modern world), and birds aren't a cousin to dinosaurs like I feel the article is suggesting. They are dinosaurs, and if non-avian dinosaurs were alive today, we would probably have a very different concept of what exactly constitutes a bird as compared to their close relatives, the dromaeosaurs. Even now, the relationship is fairly complicated, and it's not impossible that the dromaeosaurs are descended from basal birds.
 
Upvote 0

BrianJK

Abdul Masih
Aug 21, 2013
2,292
685
40
Seaside, CA
✟20,934.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Honestly, that article's not the greatest on scientific information in general. Dinosaurs weren't lizards, not all dinosaurs were large (most of them wouldn't be astoundingly huge if they existed in the modern world), and birds aren't a cousin to dinosaurs like I feel the article is suggesting. They are dinosaurs, and if non-avian dinosaurs were alive today, we would probably have a very different concept of what exactly constitutes a bird as compared to their close relatives, the dromaeosaurs. Even now, the relationship is fairly complicated, and it's not impossible that the dromaeosaurs are descended from basal birds.

I think the assumed label of "lizard" is understandable, given popular depictions as well as the fact that the Latin word "sauros" just means "lizard".
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,645
9,618
✟240,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I think the assumed label of "lizard" is understandable, given popular depictions as well as the fact that the Latin word "sauros" just means "lizard".
Yes and No. I am routinely disappointed in the standard of much science journalism that perpetuates fallacies, confuses issues and generally offers a most unscientific treatment of scientific results. I am not against seeking to convey the excitement of many scientific discoveries, but accuracy and balance should not be victims in the effort to dramatise.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...k-age-dinosaurs-found-frozen-amber-180959599/

"Though these ancient birds had teeth and clawed wings, they otherwise looked very similar to most birds living today. However, they had one big difference: unlike most modern bird hatchlings, these creatures were born almost fully developed."

"They were coming out of the egg with feathers that looked like flight feathers, claws at the end of their wing," 'McKellar tells Kaplan.' "It basically implies they were able to function without their parents early on...modern birds are lucky if they're born with their eyes open."


Wait, I thought Darwinian evolution claims that the process of evolution is causing creatures to become stronger and more advanced. How does this statement fit in with that? If millions of years ago birds truly did hatch nearly fully developed and independent, why have they evolved to become less developed, helpless and dependent? How does that fit in with "survival of the fittest" and the idea that species become stronger and more advanced over time and through "natural selection"?

I don't think they realize they are contradicting themselves with this statement.

Not to mention, that making such broad leaps and inferences based on a single pair of wings encased in amber is highly disingenuous. How can they know just by looking at these wings that birds DID in fact hatch nearly fully developed? These wings do not support such claims. If they want to say such things they need to find the fossil evidence to back that up. They cannot, for instance, prove that these wings were from a newly hatched bird, rather than a fully mature one. They are making all kinds of bizarre and unfounded suppositions here. This is not true science and it is not honest in any way.

"Even if the way birds develop has changed over millions of years, these fossils suggest that their feathers, at least, haven't. The fossils spotted inside the amber indicate that their former owner's plumage was very similar to that of modern birds. Though the world has changed dramatically since the time of the dinosaurs, it appears that birds are still flying using similar equipment as their ancestors."

Maybe these people should just be honest and admit that birds actually HAVEN'T changed as much as they'd like to believe. But of course, they refuse to admit that. Instead, they will make all kinds of nonsensical claims to support their earlier statements regarding evolution and how birds were once dinosaurs. (And they have no adequate fossil evidence to back up their claims)

Highly dishonest.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...k-age-dinosaurs-found-frozen-amber-180959599/

"Though these ancient birds had teeth and clawed wings, they otherwise looked very similar to most birds living today. However, they had one big difference: unlike most modern bird hatchlings, these creatures were born almost fully developed."

"They were coming out of the egg with feathers that looked like flight feathers, claws at the end of their wing," 'McKellar tells Kaplan.' "It basically implies they were able to function without their parents early on...modern birds are lucky if they're born with their eyes open."


Wait, I thought Darwinian evolution claims that the process of evolution is causing creatures to become stronger and more advanced.
Who told you that?
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,219
3,838
45
✟926,226.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...k-age-dinosaurs-found-frozen-amber-180959599/

"Though these ancient birds had teeth and clawed wings, they otherwise looked very similar to most birds living today. However, they had one big difference: unlike most modern bird hatchlings, these creatures were born almost fully developed."

"They were coming out of the egg with feathers that looked like flight feathers, claws at the end of their wing," 'McKellar tells Kaplan.' "It basically implies they were able to function without their parents early on...modern birds are lucky if they're born with their eyes open."


Wait, I thought Darwinian evolution claims that the process of evolution is causing creatures to become stronger and more advanced. How does this statement fit in with that? If millions of years ago birds truly did hatch nearly fully developed and independent, why have they evolved to become less developed, helpless and dependent? How does that fit in with "survival of the fittest" and the idea that species become stronger and more advanced over time and through "natural selection"?

I don't think they realize they are contradicting themselves with this statement.

Not to mention, that making such broad leaps and inferences based on a single pair of wings encased in amber is highly disingenuous. How can they know just by looking at these wings that birds DID in fact hatch nearly fully developed? These wings do not support such claims. If they want to say such things they need to find the fossil evidence to back that up. They cannot, for instance, prove that these wings were from a newly hatched bird, rather than a fully mature one. They are making all kinds of bizarre and unfounded suppositions here. This is not true science and it is not honest in any way.

"Even if the way birds develop has changed over millions of years, these fossils suggest that their feathers, at least, haven't. The fossils spotted inside the amber indicate that their former owner's plumage was very similar to that of modern birds. Though the world has changed dramatically since the time of the dinosaurs, it appears that birds are still flying using similar equipment as their ancestors."

Maybe these people should just be honest and admit that birds actually HAVEN'T changed as much as they'd like to believe. But of course, they refuse to admit that. Instead, they will make all kinds of nonsensical claims to support their earlier statements regarding evolution and how birds were once dinosaurs. (And they have no adequate fossil evidence to back up their claims)

Highly dishonest.
Evolution of about adapting to an environment over all, not every single attribute improving.

If a creature has a new negative, but it's out weighed by the positives then it's still a success and will be passed on.

For example Europeans have pale skin which helped them with vitamins in the long dark winters... but it also weakens their immune system and makes them more susceptible to sun burn and skin cancer in brighter environments. Turns out that rickets is a bigger problem then cancer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Who told you that?

Survival of the Fittest

"the continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution."

"'Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations."

https://www.britannica.com/science/survival-of-the-fittest

"...natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up the beneficial mutations and rejecting the bad ones. "Mutations are random, but selection for them is not random..."

http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

And Darwinian evolution claims the same things about mankind's shared ancestor. Humans have apparently evolved over time and become more intelligent and more capable.

Under survival of the fittest and natural selection only "beneficial" traits are passed down genetically, with traits of little to no value increasingly being phased out, as it were.

That theory does not fit in with the claims these scientists are making. The claim that birds used to hatch fully developed and independent, and now for some reason they hatch nearly helpless doesn't make sense in regard to Darwinian evolution. Why would this be the case if Darwinian evolution was true? Surely it's more beneficial for birds to hatch fully developed than nearly naked and with closed eyes, or at best with fluffy down, but still completely vulnerable.

If birds ever did hatch fully developed, then under Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection etc., they would have continued to hatch that way because if a bird hatched fully developed as opposed to completely helpless and vulnerable, it would be MORE likely to survive than its helpless counterpart, thereby ensuring it would be the one to pass on its genes.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Evolution of about adapting to an environment over all, not every single attribute improving.

If a creature has a new negative, but it's out weighed by the positives then it's still a success and will be passed on.

For example Europeans have pale skin which helped them with vitamins in the long dark winters... but it also weakens their immune system and makes them more susceptible to sun burn and skin cancer in brighter environments. Turns out that rickets is a bigger problem then cancer.

Birds that hatch fully developed and independant would be better adapted to their environment, and therefore better able to survive and pass on their genes to successive generations than birds that hatch nearly naked and completely helpless and vulnerable.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Survival of the Fittest

"the continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution."

"'Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations."

https://www.britannica.com/science/survival-of-the-fittest

"...natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up the beneficial mutations and rejecting the bad ones. "Mutations are random, but selection for them is not random..."

http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
Hmm...doesn't say stronger or more advanced.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Hmm...doesn't say stronger or more advanced.

Call it "beneficial" then. The point is the same. Only "beneficial" traits are passed on, according to Darwinian evolution, so why would birds go from having more beneficial traits that better ensure their survival, to less beneficial traits that make them more vulnerable and less likely to survive?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
Call it "beneficial" then. The point is the same. Only "beneficial" traits are passed on, so why would birds go from having more beneficial traits that better ensure their survival, to less beneficial traits that make them more vulnerable and less like to survive?
Lots of neutral neutral traits are passed on as well, something you don't seem to understand in light of your prior post.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Lots of neutral neutral traits are passed on as well, something you don't seem to understand in light of your prior post.

I'm not referring to "neutral" traits. I am referring to the suggestion that somehow birds passed on less beneficial traits, culminating in them becoming less well adapted to their environment and less likely to survive. This contradicts Darwinian evolution and survival of the fittest.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
I'm not referring to "neutral" traits. I am referring to the suggestion that somehow birds passed on less beneficial traits, culminating in them becoming less well adapted to their environment and less likely to survive. This contradicts Darwinian evolution and survival of the fittest.
Less beneficial? They seem to be reproducing just fine.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Less beneficial? They seem to be reproducing just fine.

That isn't the point here. A bird hatched fully feathered is more adapted to its environment for several reasons. First of all, it is not left helpless and unable to fend for itself in a nest. It would instead be able to fly and look after itself. Also, a bird hatched fully feathered would be able to regulate its body temperature, once again allowing it to be better adapted to its environment. It wouldn't, for instance, be at the mercy of fluctuating temperatures and inclement weather the way baby birds clearly are today.

And I know the vulnerabilities birds face in this way first hand. I have hatched and raised countless birds myself over the years and I know from personal experience how vulnerable they truly are. If, as these scientists suggest, birds once hatched fully featured and independant, pretty much all of these vulnerabilities would not be an issue.

The point is, if Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest and natural selection are true, then the traits allowing birds to be best adapted to their environment would have indeed been passed on. Which means, birds would still hatch fully feathered, not nearly naked, blind and helpless or simply covered in some fluffy down.

The rest of the point is that scientists also have no sufficient evidence to show that birds ever DID hatch fully feathered in the first place. More than likely, they always hatched precisely as they do now.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
That's exactly the point. They have a trait that allows them to reproduce in this environment.

No, the point is, they do not, by Darwinian evolutionary standards, have the "most beneficial" traits. These scientists have claimed they somehow know that birds once hatched fully feathered. As I said, if that is true, a bird hatched fully feathered is far more adapted to its environment than one hatched completely helpless and vulnerable. It's about the most beneficial traits leading to the best adaptation to environment remember?

As such, if Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest and natural selection were true, and if scientists were right about birds hatching fully feathered at one time, as these particular scientists have claimed, we could expect birds to hatch fully feathered to this day, not completely vulnerable and helpless.

They have contradicted themselves by making claims to the contrary.
 
Upvote 0