Birds require fixed thigh bones which aids in their respitory system whereas dino's had moveable thigh bones. Indeed the research paaper viewed this as fatal for the dino to bird belief.
2020
Seems people here are very precious about their beliefs. people don't like evolution being questioned, even when the whole point of the thread is to show that the current view on dino to bird evolution is not universally accepted.
The origin of birds is a contentious topic within evolutionary biology and has been for many years. A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany. To date, most researchers support the view that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.
However a few oppose this idea, on the grounds that the "hands" of birds and theropods develop quite differently as well as on the basis of cladistic analyses.
The ongoing discovery of feathered dinosaur fossils in the Liaoning Province of China has shed new light on the subject for both specialists and the general public.
, but I happily take Carl Sagan's word for it - i.e. that "the molecules of life spontaneously self-assemble" - Sagan reckons about 50% at least probability, given the eons of time available... (drake equation etc):-
...For example, a seventeenth century recipe for the spontaneous production of mice required placing sweaty underwear and husks of wheat in an open-mouthed jar, then waiting for about 21 days, during which time it was alleged that the sweat from the underwear would penetrate the husks of wheat, changing them into mice.
ok ok - back to the (yawn) thread then ...
even wikipedia agrees with you !!!
your theory of a "cover-up" - pagan or otherwise - or whatever you're really trying to say - doesn't sound too contentious kt!.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
.1. Archaeopteryx fossil bought by Owen.
2. Charles Darwin published Origin of Species 1859 in which he claimed animal species were descended from one another.
3. Richard Owen on the other hand proposed God made archetypes one by one (similar to Book of Genesis) - then God tweeked those archetypes to change details - he claimed Archaeopteryx was a bird.
4. but Owen was embarrassed to end up with evidence in his museum to the contrary , that Archaeopteryx was half reptile half bird - - proof of a theory he himself didn't accept
He goes on to discuss the recent Chinese fossils. (7m 40s)Archaeopteryx: David Attenborough recounts the remarkable story of a feather like any other feather from a bird only, at 150 million years old, before birds evolved. So which creature did it come from?
This was originally broadcast on Fri, 24 July 2009, on BBC Radio 4. All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the BBC Podcasts shall remain the property of the BBC or third parties.
Category: Education
now in Natural History MuseumArchaeopteryx, surely the most astonishing proof of [cross-species = reptile to bird] evolution you could ever get - on a couple of feet of roofing tile
...
don't really know what to say spooly, lol
we talking British underwear? or Aussie underwear?
2020
Seems people here are very precious about their beliefs. people don't like evolution being questioned, even when the whole point of the thread is to show that the current view on dino to bird evolution is not universally accepted.
Let me spell it out, -
THIS THREAD IS NOT AN ATTACK ON EVOLUTION this is a look at conflicting aspects on one view.
Get over it people!!!
spooly74 = 2 posts back said:Here is an image of some skeletal structures.
Seems that as the femur shifts towards the horizontal, the centre of gravity moves back as the tail disappears.
From the assumptions made in the paper, this would mean that Archaeopteryx didn't have bird lungs and couldn't fly!
ktrianta, penny for your thoughts?
Righteous brother ... righteous. (as in Bill and Teds excellent adventure) You GO girlfriend !
btw, (an aside) - Anyone see a recent TV documentary on how Raptors (Velociraptor) struck, using their claws as weapons - not unlike how an eagle uses its talons. (?) ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor
The "Fighting Dinosaurs" specimen, found in 1971, preserves a Velociraptor mongoliensis and Protoceratops andrewsi in combat and provides direct evidence of predatory behavior. When originally reported, it was hypothesized that the two animals drowned.[11] However, as the animals were preserved in ancient sand dune deposits, it is now thought that the animals were buried in sand, either from a collapsing dune or in a sandstorm. Burial must have been extremely fast, judging from the lifelike poses in which the animals were preserved. Both forelimbs and one hindlimb of the Protoceratops are missing, which has been seen as evidence of scavenging by other animals.[23]
The distinctive claw, on the second digit of dromaeosaurids, has traditionally been depicted as a slashing weapon; its assumed use being to cut and disembowel prey.[24] In the "Fighting Dinosaurs" specimen, the Velociraptor lies underneath, with one of its sickle claws apparently embedded in the throat of its prey, while the beak of Protoceratops is clamped down upon the right forelimb of its attacker. This suggests Velociraptor may have used its sickle claw to pierce vital organs of the throat, such as the jugular vein, carotid artery, or trachea (windpipe), rather than slashing the abdomen. The inside edge of the claw was rounded and not unusually sharp, which may have precluded any sort of cutting or slashing action, although only the bony core of the claw is known. The thick abdominal wall of skin and muscle of large prey species would have been difficult to slash without a specialized cutting surface.[23]
The slashing hypothesis was tested during a 2005 BBC documentary, The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs. The producers of the program created an artificial Velociraptor leg with a sickle claw and used a pork belly to simulate the dinosaur's prey. Though the sickle claw did penetrate the abdominal wall, it was unable to tear it open, indicating that the claw was not used to disembowel prey. However, this experiment has not been published or repeated by other scientists, so its results cannot be confirmed.
PS Raptor using small wings as stabilisers :-
Wow great picture. Do you know who took it and how long ago
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?