Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dinosaur feathers found preserved in amber

page: 4
69
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I don't think that anyone said that ALL dinosaurs had feathers, but some dinosaurs did have feathers:


more than twenty genera of dinosaurs, mostly theropods, have been discovered to have been feathered.


Link

I do think they were all warm blooded though, and some of their descendants are still here.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
I've made many a remark here on ATS that dinos are not extinct, usually I'm just ignored as a heated evo-vs creationist debate is going on.


Correct Mokele Mbembe in Africa is a perfect specimen in modern times (although TPTB cover it up extensively). It's a typical sauropod.

All of the villagers have drawn pictures of it and it has no feathers, it is a pure reptile like creature. There are no reports of feathers, and no reports of hair. It has however been reported to have a frill on the back of it's head like a male chicken does.

I have not ignored you, I believe you are factually correct. (Oh and Loch Ness, Champ, etc, are Pleisosaurs).

There is significant circumstantial and partial evidence that supports these claims, with tens of thousands of eyewitness accounts to support that evidence.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
According to this warm blooded/cold blooded is old world thinking. Dinosaurs could have been a combination of both...
endothermy



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I don't think that anyone said that ALL dinosaurs had feathers, but some dinosaurs did have feathers:


more than twenty genera of dinosaurs, mostly theropods, have been discovered to have been feathered.


Link

I do think they were all warm blooded though, and some of their descendants are still here.


I won't argue against the warm-blooded claim, it makes perfect sense I agree.

And yes you are correct sir, about 20 of them were shown to have feathers, it was the transitional specimens as outlined in my prior post.

I was not yelling at you sorry, I was yelling at the guy who said that all of them had feathers. So I apologize for getting hot headed and not being more specific in my direction of that post. It was meant to debate with that one guy in particular, and I did not pick a fight with you for obvious reasons because you actually are doing research.

People are taking your OP out of context though, you have to admit. (This is due to pre-conceived notions getting in the way). There is also a lot of this "they all had feathers" going around lately and it's simply a half-truth at best. Only the transitional specimens begin to show this.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatScot
Try watch the new BBC documentary about dinosours they say that without doubt they are the birds of the past and that when you look in your garden you are looking at modern dinosour relations other wise known to us as birds.


See this is the stuff that's misconstrued.

"The birds of the past"?

More like the massive reptiles of the past, which turned into what we consider to be modern birds over a transitional period of thousands and thousands of species that gradually began to show a few feathers, then many feathers, then eventually fully covered in feathers.
edit on 16-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haxsaw
nice find, but all the evolution crap is just nonsense, you have to have more faith than a creationist to believe in evolution in its entirity.


You are entitled to your opinion and religious beliefs. But what is the difference between creationism and the study of evolution?

To be a creationist, you have to have faith.

To be a evolutionist, you have to do meticulous and hard work at the university level. Any paper you try to publish will be ruthlessly analyzed by your peers and can make or break your career.

Maybe "God" is showing us the complexity of life on earth? People who seek out this complexity and the inter-relationships between life, past and present, become evolutionists or biologists. I still think anyone can believe in God while at the same time exploring the complexity of life in an analytical way.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

The defination of dinosaurs as being reptiles is being over turned by recent data.


Please learn what theropods, abelisaurids, and ceratosaurs are.

Then you will realize how wrong you are.

It's a transition from one (reptile) to the other (bird). Please review the data in depth.

Google those 3 keywords.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 


You have to admit there is half a dozen comments of people claiming that 'all' dinosaurs were entirely bird like and feather covered...
edit on 16-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


This is the fault of modern TV shows trying to pitch half-truths and misconstrue them. I have seen many of these shows they have become popular in the last few years.

The accurate ones will show it is transitional, but some of them are showing them as fully bird like and it's very disheartening.
edit on 16-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Greetings Dino seekers,

This is an 'OUT OF THIS WORLD' discovery... Now this goes back to my 'eXpert in the unknowns' question; What came first the chicken or the egg???

Mr X-ULTRA/QUANTUM... Enoch Question Key; The Reptilian silly... KFC anyone?... I will be passerby and just eat the chicken lizard feet



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


With so many dinosaurs species, it's apparent that not all of them had feathers.

With regards to the mass media, one of the most famous dinosaur movies, Jurassic Park, got it wrong. The Raptors in that movie had no feathers when in reality they did. So it cuts both ways.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel

Originally posted by Haxsaw
nice find, but all the evolution crap is just nonsense, you have to have more faith than a creationist to believe in evolution in its entirity.


You are entitled to your opinion and religious beliefs. But what is the difference between creationism and the study of evolution?

To be a creationist, you have to have faith.

To be a evolutionist, you have to do meticulous and hard work at the university level. Any paper you try to publish will be ruthlessly analyzed by your peers and can make or break your career.

Maybe "God" is showing us the complexity of life on earth? People who seek out this complexity and the inter-relationships between life, past and present, become evolutionists or biologists. I still think anyone can believe in God while at the same time exploring the complexity of life in an analytical way.


Good points. However I would like to say that just like dinosaurs with feathers, creationism and evolution are similar in a few ways, as it is probably a mix of both.

Most evolutionists believe in the Big Bang, so it would be accurate to say they are a combination of creationist and evolutionist.

Also, most creationists believe that God created us so that we could learn about it's creation, so they are also a combination between creationist and evolutionist because they believe in the evolution of spirit.

It's a huge mix and I don't really see any absolutes here, it's all in the grey/gray zone.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


With so many dinosaurs species, it's apparent that not all of them had feathers.

With regards to the mass media, one of the most famous dinosaur movies, Jurassic Park, got it wrong. The Raptors in that movie had no feathers when in reality they did. So it cuts both ways.


I agree.

The media has really screwed it up for paleontology and they did not depict the facts very accurately.

It's up to us to repair the damage they created.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel

Originally posted by Haxsaw
nice find, but all the evolution crap is just nonsense, you have to have more faith than a creationist to believe in evolution in its entirity.


You are entitled to your opinion and religious beliefs. But what is the difference between creationism and the study of evolution?

To be a creationist, you have to have faith.

To be a evolutionist, you have to do meticulous and hard work at the university level. Any paper you try to publish will be ruthlessly analyzed by your peers and can make or break your career.

Maybe "God" is showing us the complexity of life on earth? People who seek out this complexity and the inter-relationships between life, past and present, become evolutionists or biologists. I still think anyone can believe in God while at the same time exploring the complexity of life in an analytical way.
I have to concur... It was much like Martin Lutheran and the 'diet of worms'... This is the real reason I don't eat the other white meat



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
 


Now, about that sample of amber you showed us in the OP...

Has anyone placed a monetary value on it yet?

I would like to say it has to be worth over a million dollars at the auction at least. Hell, some establishments or collectors may pay more than that for this sample. Maybe upwards of 5 million $ US.

Maybe I am low-balling it, but that is only because the market in amber samples is pretty saturated and there are some really cheap ones floating around available today. The more rare a sample is, the higher it's value becomes significantly however.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by marsbeatsmoon
According to this warm blooded/cold blooded is old world thinking. Dinosaurs could have been a combination of both...
endothermy


Very good point. I used the term warm-blooded to make it more user friendly and less technical. But you are right, life never ceases to amaze me.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel

Originally posted by marsbeatsmoon
According to this warm blooded/cold blooded is old world thinking. Dinosaurs could have been a combination of both...
endothermy


Very good point. I used the term warm-blooded to make it more user friendly and less technical. But you are right, life never ceases to amaze me.


It's fine, because we totally don't have a good understanding of this yet, but I also agree there are combination theories that seem to fit the bill the best for most popular dinosaur examples.


That would be a good thread to debate and research for though, so if one of you guys decide to make it I will come and help dig up some studies and discoveries that will aid in underlining this information. Something like this could prove difficult however, especially considering the amounts of information we would have to wade through.

I would expect that we may find out in the future it is another transitional issue with varying degrees.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel


Even stranger, some scientists, rightly or wrongly, are "activating" dormant dinosaur genes in living birds like chickens. They got them to grow teeth for example:

They say these animals will be destroyed while still embryos.

One Link

This just adds more proof for the relationship between dinosaurs and birds.
edit on 16-9-2011 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)


I have never heard of this until now. Thank you for the information Nic, this is incredibly fascinating. Jurassic Park here we come!


I just hope they kill it. Just imagine if stuff like this got loose and bred. (If it can even breed after being altered in such a manner).

But like Dr Ian Malcolm's Chaos Theory states :


"Life...uh....find's a way."
edit on 16-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
Bringing back some of these animals to life would be very risky for us. Dinosaurs were successful for 165 million years for a reason.
Yeah, because there wasn't anyone around with our modern day weapons, lol. How would it be risky today?

"Omg, here comes a dinosaur, what do I do?"

"Shoot it?"

"Oh yeah." BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
edit on 16-9-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)


Predatory dinosaurs were almost perfect killing machines. If they got into the wild and started multiplying, we would have a real war on our hands. It would come down to who killed who the fastest, but we don't need to go there do we?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicWaterGate

This is an 'OUT OF THIS WORLD' discovery... Now this goes back to my 'eXpert in the unknowns' question; What came first the chicken or the egg???


Easy solution.

The egg came first.

Dinosaurs preceded chickens by millions of years, and dinosaurs laid eggs.

Therefore the egg came first by a long shot.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The idea of dino's changed so much in my life time. they where cold blooded slow lizards to very large active birds. makes me wonder what they really looked like though of a plucked turkey and the feathered one look so different






top topics



 
69
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join