It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Fossilized Archaeopteryx Supports Idea that Birds are Dinosaurs

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
A well preserved fossilized Archaeopteryx lends more support to the theory that todays birds descended from dinosaurs. It is the feet of the fossil that hold the key in that they are identical to known dinosaur species. The first fossilized Archaeopteryx was found in 1861, just two years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species,
 



news.independent.co.uk
A perfectly preserved fossil of a feathered creature that lived 150 million years ago has provided further evidence to show that modern birds are living dinosaurs.

The fossil is a complete skeleton of an Archaeopteryx and shows it had features common to birds and a group of meat-eating dinosaurs called therapods.

Scientists said the feet of the fossilised Archaeopteryx were anatomically almost identical to those of therapod dinosaurs, which pointed to a common ancestry for both groups. Archaeopteryx had many bird-like features such as feathered wings and a wishbone but it also had distinctly reptilian traits including jaws with teeth, a bony tail and claws on its fingers.

Several fossils excavated in China have shown some dinosaurs also grew feathered wings, which led scientists to suggest that perhaps birds are a living group of specialised meat-eating dinosaurs.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


There has been much debate over this contention in the past and perhaps this latest finding will put the debate to rest. In my mind, it seems illogical that the dinosaurs could have been wiped out completely without some survivors and the birds have always seemed to be likely candidates, given the evidence. It is always comforting to me when science fills in another gap in the long history of planet Earth.




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Another nail in the coffin of the Intelligent Design/Creationism theory.

E-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n, baby!



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I thought the "birds as descendants of dinosaurs" theory was already widely accepted. I mean you can just look at certain dinos and see the uncanny resemblance. I remember reading a while ago that even the T-Rex might have had feathers.

[edit on 12/5/2005 by Flinx]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
I thought the "birds as descendants of dinosaurs" theory was already widely accepted. I mean you can just look at certain dinos and see the uncanny resemblance. I remember reading a while ago that even the T-Rex might have had feathers.

[edit on 12/5/2005 by Flinx]


I don't know about t-rex, but we do have fossils of feathered raptors, with feathers in varying degrees of development.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Another nail in the coffin of the Intelligent Design/Creationism theory.

E-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n, baby!




lol How ya figure? It's hard to tell what all sorts of creatures that GOD created that were destroyed by the flood, but I'd be hardpressed to say this put's "another" nail in the coffin.

I've never understood why a species that is already capable of doing everything it needs to do to survive will just decide to "evolve" into something else. I mean really.

Not only that, but how do you explain fossilized trees that somehow are intact yet go through layers of earth that are considered 50,000, 1 million, 10 million and 50 million years old by archeologist? Are the trees that old? Or is it that the layer theory is wrong? Of course you don't hear much talk about this.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I can't get the link to work.

Irrespective of the link: Without reading the article, how is this news? It appears like there may have been a new finding, which is news, but it's not like archaeopteryx supporting the bird to dinosaur link is 'news' per se. Perhaps the title should reflect this, ie: new achaeopteryx fossil elucidates bird to dino link.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs though.

Good find either way


Anyone got a working link.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
There is a slight problem with the link, here's a working one:

Fossil discovery supports theory that birds are living dinosaurs



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
There is a slight problem with the link, here's a working one:

Fossil discovery supports theory that birds are living dinosaurs

d. thanks.

Though this link wasn't too much more useful. I did manage to look up the original article. The fossil in question is shown below.



It really is a marvelous specimen. I find the outline of the 'feathers' that appears to surround this critter particularly interesting. Wow!

It seems that a the skull of this individual yielded new and useful information.
In addition, apparently this fossil exhibits a hyperextensible second toe.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Sorry about the link. Here are others:

Daily Times

iol.com

Google News



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich34
Not only that, but how do you explain fossilized trees that somehow are intact yet go through layers of earth that are considered 50,000, 1 million, 10 million and 50 million years old by archeologist? Are the trees that old?


The answer to this question is easily found by anyone who has even the slightest interest in knowing, rather than simply believing. Why would you expect to be spoonfed the counter evidence that shows your beloved Kent Hovind to be a fraud?

How many distinct fossil layers (not strata, but fossil layers) are found in the strata you are referring to?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I submitted a story to ATSNN a little while back titled: Therapod Dinosaurs Did Not Evolve Into Birds, that you may be interested in. To quote the smartest guy i know



originally posted by the all-knowing ever-wise Rren

It appears that this widely accepted theory now has some critics outside of the Creationist community. I am no expert, to say the least, but it seems to me that this team raises some valid questions and presents solid evidence that directly contradicts current theory. It's also important to note that the current theory has no evidence "either structural or biological" and the timeline directly contradicts known evidence of Archaeopteryx, which was already a bird, that predates the fossils with the so called "protofeathers" by some 25-80 million years.


Wow that guy's good.
Oh and BTW Jakomo


Originally posted by Jakomo

Another nail in the coffin of the Intelligent Design/Creationism theory.

E-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n, baby!


This find and its possible implications to some sects of Biblical Creationism has nothing what-so-ever to do with Intelligent Design Theory...It's an O-r-i-g-i-n-s theory, baby!.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join