First birds were poor flyers

First birds were poor flyers

www.newsdaily.com

The earliest birds did not have strong enough feathers to take to the air by flapping their wings and were gliders at best, researchers said Thursday.

While modern birds have feathers with a strong central shaft that is hollow to reduce weight, the earliest-known bird Archaeopteryx and another ancient ancestor had feathers that were much thinner and weaker.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
abcnews.go.com
news.sciencemag.org

I'm nominating this for the ATS Stoopid News of the Day Award that should have it's own forum.

I love science and especially when it's applied to history. So when read the opening paragraphs of this breaking news...I was disappointed and then smiling.

The backbone of natural history is the Theory of Evolution right? Perpetual change and adaptations through natural selection is a familiar theme of evolution to most anyone with an education (formal or otherwise).

So at what point did it become a surprise to find early birds were weaker flyers than the ones we know now? Was there ever likely to be early birds that were already great flyers? Really?!

This is a study that should gain the attention of the Ig Nobel Awards site. As I understand it, the next study is actually suggesting T-Rex was descended from smaller, less sophisticated creatures. Whatever next?

www.newsdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Kandinsky

The earliest birds did not have strong enough feathers to take to the air by flapping their wings and were gliders at best, researchers said Thursday.

Hey Kandinsky
How is this new news? I remember hearing about them flopping around and jump gliding from tree to tree in a documentary on this topic back in the 80s?
Sometimes I feel things like this get released on purpose. Isn't anybody in the Academic circles research anything original?



I don't get it?

reply to post by Kandinsky


When I noticed this thread that you had started and then saw that Slayer had replied I thought this could be interesting.

Then I read the OP and I thought Kandinsky, you are so much better than this, wtf, has happened to you, this is one of the most obvious and unworthy topics I have ever noticed on ATS.

The well used cliche, 'No # Sherlock' immediately sprang to mind.

I was very relieved when I read your next post in which you correctly ridiculed the article etc.

What worries me is that somebody must be funding this research.
I bet the academic involved in the study etc received quite a handsome amount for conducting this most blatantly obvious piece of research.
It such a useless and stupid piece of work that it must have been publicly funded.

I'm truly amazed.

reply to post by SLAYER69
It's just dumb imo. It does seem old, but it's out there as news on the websites as a statement of the frickin obvious

I'm gonna apply for a grant to prove mighty trees grow from small acorns and do my research somewhere near a beach...or prove a link between fine whiskey and hangovers.

reply to post by Freeborn
Total agreement. It's a slow news day for Science Daily

(not my proudest thread moment either...just in a good mood)