Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

4-Winged Proto-Bird Unearthed In China; Predates Archaeopteryx

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the four-wings-perhaps-the-earliest-insult dept.

Earth 140

Wired reports on a find described September 24 in a note at Nature and the day after at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology: a dinosaur fossil bearing true feathers on four limbs. The fossil was discovered in northeastern China, in strata believed to have been deposited between 151 million and 161 million years ago. If that estimate is correct, the newly discovered Anchiornis huxleyi is at least one million years older than the believed age of the more famous winged dinosaur Archaeopteryx.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fr (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564199)

fpzfgjhsfgjsrhsfbsfghf

rtdgfjdjdtyj

ghujkrfkfryk

What's next? (5, Funny)

flubba (1035146) | about 5 years ago | (#29564213)

8-Winged Meta-Bird?

Re:What's next? (0, Redundant)

hydrolyzer (1637811) | about 5 years ago | (#29564217)

yes.

Re:What's next? (-1, Offtopic)

gardyloo (512791) | about 5 years ago | (#29564337)

Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of shaving in this country. The Gillette Mach3 was the razor to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-blade razor. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Mach3Turbo. That's three blades and an aloe strip. For moisture. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened--the bastards went to four blades. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three blades and a strip. Moisture or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five blades.

Re:What's next? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564345)

Followed by an N-Winged pseudo-bird

Re:What's next? (4, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29565089)

I won't be happy until I get my p-winged quantum bird.

Re:What's next? (1)

Loko Draucarn (398556) | about 5 years ago | (#29566551)

You'd think that would work, but after every migration, the bird's got to run around and hunt for another p-wing before it can do another long distance flight.

Re:What's next? (1)

herks (1144039) | about 5 years ago | (#29567581)

Is a p-winged bird the same as an np-winged bird?

Re:What's next? (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | about 5 years ago | (#29567745)

I'll stick with my A-Wing fighter, thanks.

Re:What's next? (3, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 5 years ago | (#29564535)

I summon; Mega-Ultra-Chicken.

Re:What's next? (1)

plover (150551) | about 5 years ago | (#29564555)

No, it's a flightless bird with hairy feathers.

B.C. reference, anyone?

Re:What's next? (1)

stuntpope (19736) | about 5 years ago | (#29564791)

Yeah, I Grog it.

YET the article said it cant walk (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | about 5 years ago | (#29565847)

paradox

Gilette Mach 5 Uber-Bird (5, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | about 5 years ago | (#29564617)

"Fuck it, we're going to five wings."

Re:Gilette Mach 5 Uber-Bird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29565871)

It's also got a lubricating pad under its beak. The closest peck you've ever had, guaranteed!

(BTW, who else got a free razor from Gilette in the mail on their 18th birthday? How the hell did they know when my birthday was?)

Re:What's next? (1)

s2theg (1185203) | about 5 years ago | (#29565851)

Maybe it's really a compressed set of love birds.

Re:What's next? (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | about 5 years ago | (#29567719)

Maybe it's really a compressed set of love birds.

Considering that would mean one's 'arms' are where the other's 'legs' are, and the second head is completely invisible.... Them's some kinky love birds.

X-Wings Rule! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564219)

See, God does exist and He hates episodes 1->3.

Well then (2, Funny)

Capsy (1644737) | about 5 years ago | (#29564223)

We're all doomed if they manage to bring these birds back to life in the future. This is almost as bad as flying mantas.

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564361)

Except these will taste like chicken.

Re:Well then (4, Insightful)

AndGodSed (968378) | about 5 years ago | (#29564451)

You know the rule; if it tastes like chicken it probably isn't.

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564951)

how long till buffalo wings come down in price?

PBS covered this... (5, Informative)

cptdondo (59460) | about 5 years ago | (#29564229)

like a year ago on Nova.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/program.html [pbs.org]

And from the documentary, it was obvious that the discovery had been made some time prior to the making of the show.

So this is old news. I guess dinosaur news travels slowly.

Re:PBS covered this... (3, Interesting)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about 5 years ago | (#29564245)

A week ago this news was on Belgian news channels, so there must be something this week that makes it news now.

Re:PBS covered this... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564289)

Anchiornis huxleyi on belgian waffles with cool whip. mmm. *druel*

Re:PBS covered this... (1)

Jurily (900488) | about 5 years ago | (#29564637)

Yes, timothy.

Re:PBS covered this... (0, Offtopic)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 5 years ago | (#29565205)

Now, now, not so hasty. It's not really noteworthy until kdawson dupes it.

That was my first thought too, but... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564407)

I also remember watching that document and was fascinated. However, a few wordings from TFA are interesting.

In fact it does refer to the microraptor (which parent's link is about). "A similar configuration has been seen in other feathered dinosaurs, including Microraptor* (SN: 1/27/07, p. 53) and Archaeopteryx (SN: 9/23/06, p. 197)." So they know it is similar to earlier findings.

"...is the oldest known to have sported feathers and is estimated to be between 1 million and 11 million years older than Archaeopteryx, the first known bird..."

So they have found yet another feathered, four winged dinosaur. All such findings help us understand more of them. In addition, this one appears to be older than the previous findings which again gives us a bit better image of what happened and when. I'm interested to see how this thing is different from microraptor. So they seem to have made findings that are nothing revolutionary but give us again a bit better image of what has happened, how and when. Probably some news sources misinterpreted that to mean much more than it does

(*: Should not be confused with mircoraptor, which is a type of predator mostly residing in IRC chatrooms and preying on teenagers)

Re:PBS covered this... (4, Funny)

AndersOSU (873247) | about 5 years ago | (#29564593)

hey back off, on an evolutionary time scale, that's lightning fast.

Re:PBS covered this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564669)

Considering the number of faked fossils that come out of China, I'm pretty skeptical.

Re:PBS covered this... (4, Funny)

oGMo (379) | about 5 years ago | (#29564719)

So this is old news. I guess dinosaur news travels slowly.

Are you kidding? The story comes 151 million years after the fact! And that wasn't even the release date!

Re:PBS covered this... (1)

Provocateur (133110) | about 5 years ago | (#29567909)

Can you even imagine *when* the Slashdot dupe appears?

Re:PBS covered this... (1)

matthew.s.ackerman (1611107) | about 5 years ago | (#29565091)

Sorry, microraptor (covered in the nova story) dates from the early Cretaceous, well after Archaeopteryx. This new find dates from the late Jurassic but pre-dates Archaeopteryx finds. This fossil was just found this year. Not every four winged dinosaur with feathers is the same. Jeeze.

Re:PBS covered this... (2, Informative)

Conanymous Award (597667) | about 5 years ago | (#29565197)

Just one problem: we're talking about two different animals here. The PBS critter is Microraptor, found in at least 2003, while the new four-wing in TFA is Anchiornis (and it's older than Microraptor, which is an important part of the story).

It's not the news that's slow here.

Re:PBS covered this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29566657)

It is and it isn't old news.

OLD NEWS:
A) Microraptor, a similar 4-winged, flight-feather-bearing dinosaur has been known for a few years now, and, yes, NOVA did a great show on it that I highly recommend
B) This isn't Microraptor, it is a different species (Anchiornis huxleyi) with a similar 4-winged anatomy
C) Anchiornis huxleyi isn't a new species. It was described a few years ago.

NEW NEWS:
A) Anchiornis huxleyi is apparently significantly geologically older (Jurassic Period) than Microraptor (which is from the Cretaceous Period)
B) This specimen of Anchiornis huxleyi is much nicer than the previously-known specimens (see OLD NEWS), and it makes the 4-winged, Microraptor-like anatomy clear.

So, it's a simplification to call this old or new news -- 4-winged dinosaurs? Old news. This specimen and this old? Quite exciting news.

Re:PBS covered this... (1)

versimilidude (39954) | about 5 years ago | (#29568973)

This was a different winged dinosaur than the one on the PBS Show.

Fake (1, Funny)

Haxzaw (1502841) | about 5 years ago | (#29564263)

My sister's husband's brother's cousin knew a kid who met a Chinese kid on the internet who said he was part of the team that made this thing. Those Chinese can make anything.

Re:Fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564303)

Well, my friend's, auntie's, mother's, father's brother knows a guy whose sister's child's dog INVENTED dinosaurs. So there.

Re:Fake (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 5 years ago | (#29564359)

I am a dinosouar, now get of my lawn.

Re:Fake (3, Funny)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 5 years ago | (#29564395)

"I am a dinosouar"

And I've got the primative writing skills to prove it!

Re:Fake (2, Funny)

MadKeithV (102058) | about 5 years ago | (#29564433)

Grandparent was correct. That's the ancient spelling.

Kind Regards,
Cthulhu.

Re:Fake (1)

laejoh (648921) | about 5 years ago | (#29564611)

I'd have expected all caps :)

Re:Fake (1)

TeXMaster (593524) | about 5 years ago | (#29564707)

"I am a dinosouar" And I've got the primative writing skills to prove it!

You mean primative as in misspelt primitive or primative as 'pertaining to primates'?

Re:Fake (1)

AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807) | about 5 years ago | (#29566287)

i was in beijing 10 years ago, and we visited an archaeological site, conveniently located just over an hour outside town, that claimed to house fossilized remains proving that China was actually the birthplace of the human race. it was pretty awesome.

Hoo Hum... (2, Funny)

Bentov (993323) | about 5 years ago | (#29564301)

*Yawn* wake me when they find a Yeti....

Re:Hoo Hum... (2, Funny)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 5 years ago | (#29564415)

Wake up! [stallman.org]

One massive problem (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564327)

Where are all the transitional species? Everyone actually agrees that Archaeopteryx is a dead end so where are the primitive birds? The problem is the date for feathers keeps getting pushed back and there have even been early lizards found with what appear to be feathers. One massive gap is if birds evolved from dinosaurs where are all the tree dwelling dinos? The only ones seem to be Archaeopteryx and related protobirds. Odds are birds branched off very early on and were a separate line of evolution so saying birds evolved from dinosaurs is kind of like saying we evolved from chimpanzees. Closely related but separate lines. It's comforting to think dinosaurs survived by adapting but that's false since birds evolved long before the extinction and seem to go back to the early days of dinosaurs not the end of their reign. There's no question they were closely related it's just all the new evidence keeps pointing to an earlier and earlier separation and probably goes back to the time we were all essentially lizards.

Re:One massive problem (2, Funny)

Pikoro (844299) | about 5 years ago | (#29564421)

who are you? that kid from Jurassic Park who keeps asking about "that other guy's" book?

Re:One massive problem (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | about 5 years ago | (#29564969)

probably goes back to the time we were all essentially lizards.

Were lizards? You obviously don't know the people I work with...

Re:One massive problem (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | about 5 years ago | (#29565505)

You mean, you're working with werelizards? Do they go hhissssshsshhissssing at the moon?

Re:One massive problem (4, Informative)

egomaniac (105476) | about 5 years ago | (#29565815)

Where are all the transitional species?

This is an old, tired anti-evolutionary argument. The answer is that every single fossil we find is a transitional species. Unfortunately fossilization is an incredibly unlikely event, and a fossil surviving for tens of millions of years and then happening to be uncovered even more incredibly unlikely, so the fossil record simply doesn't contain every species that ever existed. We may never find the real ancestor of all modern birds, just cousins of it like Archaeopteryx. So what? The fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs is irrefutable.

The problem is the date for feathers keeps getting pushed back and there have even been early lizards found with what appear to be feathers.

I assume you're referring to Longisquama. There is good reason to doubt that those structures were even real, let alone feathers.

One massive gap is if birds evolved from dinosaurs where are all the tree dwelling dinos?

What are you talking about? First, the division between "bird" and "dinosaur" is entirely arbitrary. Birds, in a very real sense, ARE dinosaurs. We just draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say the things on one side are dinosaurs and the things on the other side are birds, but there's no hard and fast reason to draw the line at any particular spot. Archaeopteryx really doesn't look all that different from the raptors that came before it, and still has a very dinosaur-like head and no beak. Is it a bird?

Early birds were likely ground dwellers, just like the raptors they evolved from. We don't know precisely when tree-dwelling evolved, because we don't have enough fossils to be able to tell. I fail to see how this is a "massive gap"; it's a minor question at best.

Odds are birds branched off very early on and were a separate line of evolution so saying birds evolved from dinosaurs is kind of like saying we evolved from chimpanzee.s

Nonsense. Saying birds evolved from Archaeopteryx would be like saying we evolved from chimps -- not all that far wrong, but wrong. Saying birds evolved from dinosaurs is like saying we evolved from primates. Dinosaurs are a very, very big group, and there is absolutely no doubt that birds evolved from them.

Devil's Advocate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29567947)

The fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs is irrefutable

1) theory
2) You never heard of the bible, did you? Since you can't prove your "theory" of evolution, you must accept that the bible proposes a possible alternative . . . that is, unless you're like most slashdotters - ignorant.

Re:Devil's Advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29568225)

Since you can't prove your "theory" of bible-ution, you must accept that Saturday morning cartoons propose possible alternatives . . . that is, unless you're like most slashdotters - ignorant.

Re:One massive problem (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about 5 years ago | (#29568163)

You miss the poster's point. He isn't saying that evolution didn't happen. He is positing that he believes the divergence happened WAY sooner than what the 'consensus' claims. He believes that having feathers and not having feathers is a large enough evolutionary gap, and we have enough fossils from the currently believed deliverance period, that if the time line were correct, we would see a lot of intermediary fossils.

To poster isn't saying that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs. He is saying that he believes that by just saying 'evolved from dinosaurs' implies that it happened towards the middle or end of their existence as opposed to the beginning. This leads to many people making a perfectly reasonable but incorrect conclusion as to when it happened, while adding nothing to those that correctly understand the statement. Since, if the divergence happened as early as the poster believes, basically all complex animals evolved from 'dinosours'. Since the statement adds nothing for those who are not confused by it, but gives the wrong conclusion to people who are confused by it, from a pragmatic standpoint, it is wrong.

Of course, it being right or wrong depends on when birds actually first appeared. I'm not arguing that. I'm just pointing out that you are misunderstanding the parent poster.

Re:One massive problem (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 5 years ago | (#29568853)

The fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs is irrefutable.

And the Earth is irrefutably flat.

Science doesn't make retarded assumptions like that, we keep looking until we CAN prove it. If we just made assumptions based on what we know currently, we'd not only get a lot of stuff wrong, we'd get many many more things wrong in the future and get more confused as things got more and more out of touch with reality based on using old, incorrect assumptions as if they were fact.

We discovered new evidence that the Earth wasn't flat, and that changed the way we approached MANY different things. Next thing you know, the Earth isn't the center of the universe. Imagine just what the world would be like if we just continued to assume the world was flat and didn't bother to keep looking for a way to prove or disprove it ...

You can't imagine it, it would be so far different from what we have now that it is beyond the comprehension of the mind.

Re:One massive problem (2, Interesting)

jc42 (318812) | about 5 years ago | (#29569121)

Archaeopteryx really doesn't look all that different from the raptors that came before it, and still has a very dinosaur-like head and no beak. Is it a bird?

Back in the 1970s, when (Yale professor) John Ostrom was reviving the old debate over the relationship between birds and dinosaurs, he brought up a funny and informative piece of evidence: He pointed out that we actually had more Archaeopterix fossils than we thought. There were found in museums in Europe, classified as small dinosaurs.

He suggested that we not treat this as a misclassification at all, but rather as a tacit acknowledgement that those fossils were primitive birds and dinosaurs.

He also said that we need more such fossils, but I suppose everyone agreed with that. The basic problem here is that birds just don't fossilize very well.

I saw an example of this a few years ago. Due to my wife's allergies to furry critters, we have long had pet birds, mostly small parrots. Several of our cockatiels (and one friends') have been buried in a small raised strawberry/flower bed in the backyard. One spring, I decided to dig it up and sift out the rocks and roots of some large weeds (e.g., creeping bellflowers). I used a screen that was easily capable of separating out objects the size of their largest bones (skull, breastbone, etc). I found lots of small pebbles and roots, but no bones at all. In only a few years, their bones and beaks had been completely reduced to topsoil.

We lost two more of our small feathered friends last winter, both older than the 15 years they are expected to live, and they're buried in the center of the same bed. In a year or two, they'll be part of the soil, leaving behind no fossil evidence that they ever existed.

It takes some special, rare conditions for a bird to be turned into a fossil. Their adaptations for flight include very light, hollow bones. It's no mystery at all why the fossil record is so sparse.

four wings? (2, Funny)

lamehero (1645121) | about 5 years ago | (#29564353)

so i guess two wings didn't do the job of flight for this proto birds

Re:four wings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564569)

A fat lot of good four wings did to them. What with being extinct and all.

plus 1, Troll) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564379)

(7000+1400+700)*4 of OpenBSD. How and h3lp us! and easy` - only

Possible Dead end. (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 years ago | (#29564381)

It could also be a dead end in development.

Sometimes evolutionary traits come up early then the creature dies out only to be "re-evolved" later.

There sometimes seems to be a misunderstanding in evolution. Concepts the strongest survives, or evolution will only get better and better. Doesn't always fall true. One minor disadvantage could kill you out, allowing the weak creature to exist and thrive without your presence. Or even good traits that get killed off only to come back again.

Re:Possible Dead end. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564525)

I seem to see a lot of misunderstanding of evolution ... such as a trait leading a species to extinction being called a "minor disadvantage" ... or a species that carries the traits allowing it to survive is somehow evolutionarily "weak" while the extinct is somehow "strong."

Simply by definition, those surviving are fittest for the environment.

Re:Possible Dead end. (2, Interesting)

sonnejw0 (1114901) | about 5 years ago | (#29564691)

Well, "fittest" means a lot more than "best". Fittest is about efficiency as well as ability. A human with 8 foot long legs could run really fast and use little energy, but would be less coordinated, more likely to trip because the nerve impulses would take too long to travel down to the leg to correct posture in time to catch itself from a fall. That's why most long legged animals have four legs (i.e. giraffe, moose, etc., which are all comically uncoordinated).

So a species that is "fittest" may not be the "best" species in an environment. It may simply be the most efficient design. Prevalence of resources is another important factor, an animal cannot be large and reproduce a lot of offspring, or it will destroy its own environment (humans?) and quickly go extinct. Long term success is about equilibrium with the environment, which is why small animals (drosophila, yeast, maybe even as big as cockroaches), are so successful. They exist sparsely and reproduce quickly with short generations, so that the species can easily maintain equilibrium with its environment.

The longer the generational gap and the greater the population, the more easily a species falls out of equilibrium with its environment.

Re:Possible Dead end. (1)

Ansonmont (170786) | about 5 years ago | (#29564795)

Moose are more coordinated than you are giving them credit for. I know this personally, having seen them scramble up hillsides and stomp through swamps. Not sure about giraffes personally, but I have seen some video shots where they were running quite well. Both fast and with agility.

-A

Re:Possible Dead end. (1)

sonnejw0 (1114901) | about 5 years ago | (#29565833)

It was just an on-the-spot example. Don't read too much into it. My main point, which was unfortunately a one-liner, was: "The longer the generational gap and the greater the population, the more easily a species falls out of equilibrium with its environment." as a response to what fittest actually means.

Re:Possible Dead end. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29564879)

That's why most long legged animals have four legs (i.e. giraffe, moose, etc., which are all comically uncoordinated).

Of the mammalian variety, yes, but did you forget birds?

Re:Possible Dead end. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564839)

Climate 1 yields trait 1 in species x, species x thrives as a result.
Climate change occurs, trait 1 is no longer advantageous. Species x dies out.

Re:Possible Dead end. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29565303)

Simply by definition, those surviving are fittest for the environment
 
I think the best definition for the long term evolutionary process is that those surviving adapted best to changes in the environment. That's why humans do so well - we adapt to almost all environments.

Re:Possible Dead end. (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#29564539)

Throwing out terms like strong and weak and simply talking about fitness for a given environment makes it easier.

Re:Possible Dead end. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564833)

Also, it might be worthwhile to stress that evolutionary fitness is all about efficiency of reproducing successfully, in a given environment, at a given time. The time factor is important, because everything is interconnected - for the simple case (1 evolving species, mutable but not evolving environment) a short term gain might (or, actually almost certainly will) change the environment enough to render the said evolutionary gain less efficient. And we're not really dealing with the simple case, everything affects everything, the environment changes with the different evolving species, and the environment actually consists of other evolving species for a very large part. So if you're particularly fit at a particular time in a particular environment - don't expect that to last.

Re:Possible Dead end. (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 5 years ago | (#29564607)

It could also be a dead end in development.

You mean like Windows ME?

Re:Possible Dead end. (1)

corbettw (214229) | about 5 years ago | (#29565019)

Hey, no one ever said God was a very intelligent designer.

Fail (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564527)

The earth is only 6000 years old. This is yet another hoax by you jerk heathens. Rush told me so.

Rush? (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about 5 years ago | (#29565299)

Frankly, I wish Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and Neil Peart would just shut up about all that stuff.

Ha (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 5 years ago | (#29564619)

Anyone find it a little amusing that a species found in a totalitarian country is given the specific name huxleyi?

Re:Ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29567793)

Different Huxley -- Thomas Henry, "Darwin's Bulldog", not Aldous.

all you smarty pants scientists (3, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 5 years ago | (#29564627)

did you ever think why these so-called missing links are dead and buried in the ground? god killed them, that's why. doesn't that teach you anything? THEY AREN'T HERE ANYMORE. don't you wonder why that is and why you shouldn't dig this stuff up? god killed them fair and square. who gives you the right to mess around with god's intention?

Re:all you smarty pants scientists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564815)

What gives you the right to misinterpret a fiction about God's intentions and push your interpretation on the rest of us?

Re:all you smarty pants scientists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564967)

-1 Whoosh.

hook, line, and sinker (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 5 years ago | (#29567453)

Loving Troll Father, we thank you for this cornucopia of naivete,
And for all your blessings of the easily duped to us.
Lord Troll Jesus, come and be our guest,
And take your place at this trollish table of bounty.
Holy Troll Spirit, as the trolled fool feeds our trollish pride,
So we pray you would nourish our trollish souls. Amen.

so beeth the prayer of the troll upon a successful catch

Re:all you smarty pants scientists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564825)

Or maybe he put them there for us to find. ;)

no! (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 5 years ago | (#29565429)

SATAN did. SATAN put those bones there you fool!

Re:no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29568927)

"Don't you know there ain't no Devil? There's just God when he's drunk." -Tom Waits

Re:all you smarty pants scientists (0, Offtopic)

palegray.net (1195047) | about 5 years ago | (#29565807)

Good trolls incorporate an element of subtlety; this isn't anywhere near your best work, man :).

its true (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 5 years ago | (#29566877)

i tried, i failed

not many people understand how hard it is to fake real genuine stupidity

its a kind of genius, the troll that can feign true and convincing retardedness

Re:all you smarty pants scientists (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 5 years ago | (#29568273)

If the God didn't intend us to dig these shit up, he wouldn't have given us shovels.

Possums, Strong and Fit? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29564733)

Possums are a good example of the less 'fit' surviving. They are not terribly strong, fit or intelligent. They are however survivors that can reproduce when other animals are struggling.

Re:Possums, Strong and Fit? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29566987)

Possums, or at least the species we have in the US, are tough, nasty, and vicious. They're more than a match for the toughest alley cat and can take mess up dogs twice their size; it's only against larger predators that they feign death. They're pretty stupid, but strong for their size and despite being marsupials quite fit. Their population range in the US is spreading, not shrinking, and they adapt well to urban areas.

Margin of Error (3, Interesting)

immakiku (777365) | about 5 years ago | (#29564797)

Not that this is really relevant, but if the margin of error was about 5 million years, how are they confident to say that it was 1 million year older?

Re:Margin of Error (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29565049)

is estimated to be between 1 million and 11 million years older than Archaeopteryx, the first known bird.

Re:Margin of Error (1)

matthew.s.ackerman (1611107) | about 5 years ago | (#29565155)

Well, not that I have checked, but perhaps they can tell that specimen A is older than specimen B by a significant amount due to the stratigraphy of the specimens, even though they can't say how old specimen A or specimen B is with any great precision.

Re:Margin of Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29565759)

Wikipedia gives the age of Archaeopteryx to be 145-150 million years - source "The Ultimate Dinosaur Book"(!). So we have:

Archaeopteryx: 147.5 +/- 2.5 Myr
Anchiornis: 156 +/- 5 Myr

p(age of Anchiornis - age of Archaeopteryx >= 1 Myr) = ... and I leave that as a problem for the reader ;)

wow (0, Offtopic)

chelroms (1642993) | about 5 years ago | (#29564857)

this is cool i thought only cabal online has this animal but this true... http://www.techandgizmo.com/ [techandgizmo.com]

No suprises there (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 5 years ago | (#29565163)

The defective 4 winged bird was... made in China.

Re:No suprises there (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 years ago | (#29566331)

The defective 4 winged bird was... made in China.

Poor critter. From the pics, it looked like the battery just, well, exploded. That ought to teach them not to use cheap Chinese knockoffs.

Siamese (2, Insightful)

AniVisual (1373773) | about 5 years ago | (#29565937)

If humans can have conjoined twins and occurrences where one developing foetus is absorbed into another resulting in additional limbs and anatomy, why can't prehistoric animals have them too? This may no more be a defect in the phenotype than true genetic drift

Nutjobs out in force (5, Funny)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 5 years ago | (#29565983)

The really depressing thing is the article comments. It seems the Creationists found out about the article, and are pinging the bejeezus out of it in the comments.

My personal favorite bit of ignorance starts like this:

am nor a scientist or even an academic of any kind but as I understand it and please tell me if I am wrong but for a Theory to become fact it has to ...

*raaaaaaaaz*! Thanks for playing.

Re:Nutjobs out in force (1)

mayko (1630637) | about 5 years ago | (#29567431)

This person actually convinced me that evolution does not exist with their flawless idea for experiment.

Heres why I do not beleive in evolution. If I had two, lets say Penguins for arguments sake. If I bread these two penguins in a big deep hole with a ledge with their food on say, two feet out of reach of the penguin then how many generations would it take for the Penguins to Evolve into a creature that is capable of getting the food off the ledge? Also wouldnt they just die out while they couldnt get the food?

Isn't it obvious? God would grant them flight, and we would get a new species.

Re:Nutjobs out in force (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29568555)

...If I bread these two penguins in a big deep hole...

Isn't it obvious? God would grant them flight, and we would get a new species.

But how would they fly with those seven herbs and spices all over them?

all those wings (1)

fall2009epafv (1645915) | about 5 years ago | (#29566691)

According to the article it is the evolutionary stage before birds like today? What type of flight did they have with all these wings? Anyone pick this info up?

frosT pist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29567669)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?