Author
|
Topic: Velociraptor had feathers?
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5930 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
Message 1 of 11 (423268)
09-20-2007 7:29 PM
|
|
|
Bumpy bones suggest Velociraptor had feathers Which of course, updates the Jurassic Park image (which was totally wrong anyway) to look like this:
Wonder what Feduccia article AiG will cite to debunk this one... Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!
|
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3948 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
|
Message 2 of 11 (423272)
09-20-2007 8:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy 09-20-2007 7:29 PM
|
|
we've been talking about raptors with feathers for years...
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by Doddy, posted 09-20-2007 7:29 PM | | Doddy has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 09-20-2007 9:40 PM | | macaroniandcheese has replied | | Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2007 5:51 AM | | macaroniandcheese has not replied |
|
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6032 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: 07-28-2001
|
quote: we've been talking about raptors with feathers for years...
...but only because it made sense based on its placd in the evolutionary tree. Speculation, really. Informed speculation, but speculation. Now they claim to have physical evidence from fossil remains - "quill knobs" on the bones.
|
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3948 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
|
Message 4 of 11 (423279)
09-20-2007 9:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Zhimbo 09-20-2007 9:40 PM
|
|
oh. i see. /me is so confused.
i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 09-20-2007 9:40 PM | | Zhimbo has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 5 of 11 (423287)
09-21-2007 1:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy 09-20-2007 7:29 PM
|
|
Which of course, updates the Jurassic Park image (which was totally wrong anyway) to look like this: It's hardly cut-and-dried. "Fools rush in ...", y'know.
Wonder what Feduccia article AiG will cite to debunk this one... The bit where he claims (and he might be right) that dromaeosaurs are primitive flightless birds. AiG will cut out the bits where he makes it clear that they are primitive, and that birds are archosaurs.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by Doddy, posted 09-20-2007 7:29 PM | | Doddy has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 6 of 11 (423288)
09-21-2007 1:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Zhimbo 09-20-2007 9:40 PM
|
|
...but only because it made sense based on its placd in the evolutionary tree. Speculation, really. Informed speculation, but speculation. No, we've been talking about raptors with feathers for years because we've been digging 'em up for years. This is merely the first indication that Velociraptor in particular might have had feathers.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 09-20-2007 9:40 PM | | Zhimbo has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 7 of 11 (423305)
09-21-2007 5:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Zhimbo 09-20-2007 9:40 PM
|
|
...but only because it made sense based on its placd in the evolutionary tree. Speculation, really. Informed speculation, but speculation. i liked "testable hypothesis" better, myself. and now "confirmed hypothesis." another small victory for evolution.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 09-20-2007 9:40 PM | | Zhimbo has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2007 6:05 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
we've been talking about raptors with feathers for years... archaeopteryx lithographica appears to either be, or be closely related to basal deinonychosaurs. which places it well inside maniraptora, meaning that everything we see with feathers today is a "raptor." the idea about velociraptor mongoliensis having feathers isn't new, by any stretch. greg paul predicted it 20 years ago (in his eyes, every small theropod seems to have had feathers). and because of its close relationship with things like microraptor gui, it's been widely accepted for the last 5-10 years that v. mongoliensis probably had feathers too. still, this is by far the coolest news i've heard in months. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
i liked "testable hypothesis" better, myself. and now "confirmed hypothesis." another small victory for evolution. No. We already knew that there were feathered dromaeosaurs. One more potentially feathered dromaeosaur is neither here nor there.
|
Dr Jack
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: 07-14-2003 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
Message 10 of 11 (423311)
09-21-2007 6:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy 09-20-2007 7:29 PM
|
|
This is merely evidence that dinosaurs are really part of the bird baramin, and thus neatly solves the question of how dinosaurs were dealt with on the Ark.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by Doddy, posted 09-20-2007 7:29 PM | | Doddy has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
No. We already knew that there were feathered dromaeosaurs. One more potentially feathered dromaeosaur is neither here nor there. err, no, what i mean is that they evolutionary relationship (as described above) predict that velociraptor, as a small very bird-like dinosaur, would have feathers. it does. the prediction was made, and confirmed. i agree, it's not THAT significant, but it is another, well, feather in evolution's cap.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2007 6:05 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|