Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Velociraptor had feathers?
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 1 of 11 (423268)
09-20-2007 7:29 PM


Bumpy bones suggest Velociraptor had feathers
Which of course, updates the Jurassic Park image (which was totally wrong anyway) to look like this:
Wonder what Feduccia article AiG will cite to debunk this one...

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-20-2007 8:56 PM Doddy has not replied
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2007 1:10 AM Doddy has not replied
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 09-21-2007 6:44 AM Doddy has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 2 of 11 (423272)
09-20-2007 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
09-20-2007 7:29 PM


we've been talking about raptors with feathers for years...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 09-20-2007 7:29 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 09-20-2007 9:40 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2007 5:51 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 3 of 11 (423278)
09-20-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by macaroniandcheese
09-20-2007 8:56 PM


quote:
we've been talking about raptors with feathers for years...
...but only because it made sense based on its placd in the evolutionary tree. Speculation, really. Informed speculation, but speculation.
Now they claim to have physical evidence from fossil remains - "quill knobs" on the bones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-20-2007 8:56 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-20-2007 9:42 PM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2007 1:12 AM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2007 5:45 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 4 of 11 (423279)
09-20-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Zhimbo
09-20-2007 9:40 PM


oh. i see.
/me is so confused.

i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 09-20-2007 9:40 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 11 (423287)
09-21-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
09-20-2007 7:29 PM


Which of course, updates the Jurassic Park image (which was totally wrong anyway) to look like this:
It's hardly cut-and-dried. "Fools rush in ...", y'know.
Wonder what Feduccia article AiG will cite to debunk this one...
The bit where he claims (and he might be right) that dromaeosaurs are primitive flightless birds. AiG will cut out the bits where he makes it clear that they are primitive, and that birds are archosaurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 09-20-2007 7:29 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 11 (423288)
09-21-2007 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Zhimbo
09-20-2007 9:40 PM


...but only because it made sense based on its placd in the evolutionary tree. Speculation, really. Informed speculation, but speculation.
No, we've been talking about raptors with feathers for years because we've been digging 'em up for years.
This is merely the first indication that Velociraptor in particular might have had feathers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 09-20-2007 9:40 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 11 (423305)
09-21-2007 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Zhimbo
09-20-2007 9:40 PM


...but only because it made sense based on its placd in the evolutionary tree. Speculation, really. Informed speculation, but speculation.
i liked "testable hypothesis" better, myself. and now "confirmed hypothesis."
another small victory for evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 09-20-2007 9:40 PM Zhimbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2007 6:05 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 11 (423306)
09-21-2007 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by macaroniandcheese
09-20-2007 8:56 PM


we've been talking about raptors with feathers for years...
archaeopteryx lithographica appears to either be, or be closely related to basal deinonychosaurs. which places it well inside maniraptora, meaning that everything we see with feathers today is a "raptor."
the idea about velociraptor mongoliensis having feathers isn't new, by any stretch. greg paul predicted it 20 years ago (in his eyes, every small theropod seems to have had feathers). and because of its close relationship with things like microraptor gui, it's been widely accepted for the last 5-10 years that v. mongoliensis probably had feathers too.
still, this is by far the coolest news i've heard in months.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-20-2007 8:56 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 11 (423307)
09-21-2007 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
09-21-2007 5:45 AM


i liked "testable hypothesis" better, myself. and now "confirmed hypothesis."
another small victory for evolution.
No.
We already knew that there were feathered dromaeosaurs.
One more potentially feathered dromaeosaur is neither here nor there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2007 5:45 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 09-21-2007 12:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 10 of 11 (423311)
09-21-2007 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
09-20-2007 7:29 PM


This is merely evidence that dinosaurs are really part of the bird baramin, and thus neatly solves the question of how dinosaurs were dealt with on the Ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 09-20-2007 7:29 PM Doddy has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 11 (423350)
09-21-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Adequate
09-21-2007 6:05 AM


No.
We already knew that there were feathered dromaeosaurs.
One more potentially feathered dromaeosaur is neither here nor there.
err, no, what i mean is that they evolutionary relationship (as described above) predict that velociraptor, as a small very bird-like dinosaur, would have feathers. it does. the prediction was made, and confirmed.
i agree, it's not THAT significant, but it is another, well, feather in evolution's cap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2007 6:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024