• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fossil ruffles feather evolution theory

T'ai Chi

Penultimate Amazing
T
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
11,219
From

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/15/unfeathered.dinosaur.ap/index.html

it has some possibilities on why this find doesn't have feathers. In order:

Feathers could have been lost on the evolutionary line leading to Juravenator after arising in an ancestor to both it and its feathered relatives.
Click to expand...

Or feathers could have evolved more than once in dinosaurs, cropping up in sister species at different times and places.
Click to expand...

It is also possible that this particular fossil of Juravenator, which appears to be a juvenile, only grew feathers as an adult or lost its feathers for part of the year.
Click to expand...

But there is another possibility as well, said Mark Norell, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History: It is entirely possible that Juravenator did have feathers, but they simply failed to fossilize.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting find, but it was hard to take away anything except: if you find something you believe should have feathers according to theory, but doesn't, just use any one of the possibilities above.
 
Last edited:
T'ai Chi said:
From

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/15/unfeathered.dinosaur.ap/index.html

<snip>
It is an interesting find, but it was hard to take away anything except: if you find something you believe should have feathers according to theory, but doesn't, just use any one of the possibilities above.
Click to expand...

Or, it could be viewed as an excellent example of thinking outside the box, considering the myriad of possibilities to explain the observed phenomenon, or brainstorming. It doesn't mean the scientific itself is being modified.
 
If something isn't what you expected, you try to figure out why it isn't what you expected, you form a number of theories, which you can hopefully find a way to test later.

That seems like quite good science, and common sense to boot, to me. For example--since we're talking about feathers--if I put out birdseed for the birds, and I expect them to show up, and none of them do, I try to figure out why. I form a number of theories--did something happen to the birds? Is this kind of birdseed unappetizing? Is my feeder located somewhere they don't feel safe? and then I test each one, as best I can, until I find the explanation.

Now, bad science would be "I expect it to have feathers, therefore it did," and a clinging to one's pet belief in the face of reality. Not to change in the face of evidence--now that's stupidity.
 
UrsulaV said:
Is this kind of birdseed unappetizing? Is my feeder located somewhere they don't feel safe? and then I test each one, as best I can, until I find the explanation.
Click to expand...

Is there a cat creeping into the yard?

The interaction between cats and birds is so complex it must have been designed... ;)
 
So something doesn't have feathers. So what. Some dogs have hair instead of fur. Some cats have no fur or hair. Not sure what the point is here.

Does a dog with no hair challenge the reason why some dogs have fur? That whole article is so stupid.
 
Of course , maybe the reason it died before it grew up is because it's feathers never grew in?

Who knows? As any loon will happily tell you, there are no gaps in the fossil record. This is probably a transitional form between a dinosaur and a Christmas Turkey, which also lacks feathers.

Interesting link.
 
Ed said:
Science via mass media. Sigh.
Click to expand...
Indeed.


Birds have scales, therefore, under the theropod to bird hypothesis, theropods would have had scales too! From what I understand, bird scales are homologous to reptilian ones, and we have every reason to think that the ones on juravenator were the same structures.

So the animal just had a mutation to cover itself with one type of already present integument instead of the other.


Edited to add:

If you want to be even more of a spoilsport, you could point out all the ways that this could be a preservation artifact.
 
Maybe Adam plucked it, fried it up for supper then tossed the skeleton aside. Problem solved!

Seriously, there are plenty of reasons why this could have occurred. Disease or parasites. Stress. Now if they ever find a T.Rex with feathers, that would be interesting!!
 
Oolon Colluphid said:
Maybe Adam plucked it, fried it up for supper then tossed the skeleton aside. Problem solved!

Seriously, there are plenty of reasons why this could have occurred. Disease or parasites. Stress. Now if they ever find a T.Rex with feathers, that would be interesting!!
Click to expand...


Actually, the early tyrannosaur dilong paradoxus was found with feathers.

Larger tyrannosaurs may not have needed insulation, just as elephants don't need hair. Larger animals have less surface area to their mass than small ones and are often concerned with getting rid of heat instead of conserving it. Skin impressions from larger tyrannosaurs, AFAIK are scaly.

That I suppose is another fairly concrete example of secondary feather loss.
 
neutrino_cannon said:
Actually, the early tyrannosaur dilong paradoxus was found with feathers.
Click to expand...
Hmm ... down maybe.

Photos of fossils here.

The story itself is no news. There is no non-arbitrary set of morphological criteria which distinguish dromaeosaurs which have feathers from those which don't.

Uncuriously enough, I have never seen this as a problem with dinosaur-bird evolution, and, if you read the article, nor do any of the scientists cited.
 
As we all know, any gaps in our knowledge of the fossil record are proof that evolutionary theory is totally false and therefore the Earth was created by god 6000 years ago.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom