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!

Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the I-think-I-saw-this-movie dept.

Science 190

An anonymous reader writes "A stunning array of prehistoric feathers, including dinosaur protofeathers, has been discovered in Late Cretaceous amber from Canada. 'Protofeathers aren't known from any modern, existing groups of birds and therefore the most obvious interpretation is that they belong to dinosaurs,' said University of Alberta professor, Alexander P. Wolfe. The 78 to 79-million-year-old amber preserved the feathers in vivid detail, including some of their diverse colors."

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

Yes! (2, Funny)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415364)

Can't wait for Jurassic Farms. *licks chops*

Re:Yes! (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415632)

Ooh, I second that!

Re:Yes! (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415806)

Won't it just taste like chicken?

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415886)

Yes, chickens the size of small cars.

Re:Yes! (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416036)

They're called emu. Smack into one o' those with your expensive car and the damage will look like another car caused it.

Re:Yes! (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416160)

Sorry, I've actually eaten emu. It tastes like ass.

Very red meat for bird, also very gamey.

Re:Yes! (2)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416794)

Why do you know what ass tastes like?

Re:Yes! (1)

Barsteward (969998) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417436)

" It tastes like ass." - it tastes like a donkey??

Re:Yes! (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416014)

More like emu.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416064)

Isaac Asimov wrote a story, the name of which I cannot recall (although I believe that it was part of the Buy Jupiter compilation, if my memory deceives me not), about farming dinosaurs for food. I believe the comparison between dinosaur meat and chicken was akin to "the way Jupiter resembles an asteroid".

Re:Yes! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417036)

Won't it just taste like chicken?

Technically chicken tastes like dinosaur.

Re:Yes! (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417092)

:) Yeah, maybe I got it backwards.

Re:Yes! (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417278)

Big scary chickens. I feel there should be an obligatory [xkcd.com] XKCD [xkcd.com] raptor [xkcd.com] reference [xkcd.com] here [xkcd.com] ; but, I can't decide which one to post.

Non-Avian (1)

Anthony (4077) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415380)

That would be non-avian dinosaur feathers.

Re:Non-Avian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415882)

I thought birds are reptiles? SO these are reptile feathers?

Re:Non-Avian (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416712)

Current thinking has birds more closely related to dinosaurs than reptiles. Some go so far as to say birds would be a subclass of dinosaurs if what we think of as dinosaurs were still around to compare them against.

TFA is ad ridden blog (-1, Troll)

dev567 (2462460) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415386)

Get the stunning pictures from the souce [aeonity.com]

Re:TFA is ad ridden blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415430)

Awesome. I appreciate it.

Re:TFA is ad ridden blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416920)

Warning!That is child pornography! DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK! fucking disgusting, I hope you burn in hell you sick fuck

Re:TFA is ad ridden blog (0)

xevioso (598654) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416992)

nonnono. It's not child porn; it's the goatse image. Still pretty bad.

TFA is ad-ridden blog (-1, Troll)

dev568 (2462466) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415426)

Get the stunning pictures from the source [aeonity.com]

Re:TFA is ad-ridden blog (-1, Offtopic)

Dr Herbert West (1357769) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415532)

Nice try, troll.

Ah ha! (0)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415440)

They have finally found the relics of our dinosaur government. Well, at least they mean something to paleantologists.

So Many Missing Links to Choose From (4, Funny)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415442)

What's really neat is that there are now so many dinosaur/bird hybrid fossils that we don't know which one is the direct ancestor of modern birds [ideonexus.com] . There are just too many candidates for the missing link.

The really funny is that the Creationists are spinning the overwhelming abundance of missing links to mean that none of them are missing the link.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (1)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415456)

That should read "none of them are the missing link". (Hangs head in shame for watching TV while commenting)

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415516)

None of them *is* the missing link.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415620)

But which one is the weakest link?

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (3, Funny)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415964)

The Creationist, of course. Goodbye.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415720)

I had to read it five times after reading your second post to figure out what you actually said.

For the other dyslexics that couldn't see the problem "the missing link" != "missing the link".

You should have just stayed quite. This has been quite the ordeal for all of us.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416928)

"none of them are the missing link" ...only because they're not missing anymore. Can't be a missing link if it's not missing, right. (Don't blame me, it's not my logic)

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415680)

It's even more hilarious if you look at what was known, say, 20 years ago, before the recent discoveries and compare it to what has been found to date. Sure, since the late 1800s we had Archaeopteryx from the Late Jurassic with its odd combination of dinosaur-like features (teeth, claws, long bony tail) and flight feathers. Ignore the feathers and it looked an awful lot like a small Velociraptor-like dinosaur. Anti-evolutionary creationists mostly said it was a bird, although they weren't entirely consistent and sometimes called it a reptile. You could try to say that birds and dinosaurs were still different creatures, if you danced around some of the peculiar features of Archaeopteryx (any way you slice it, it was either a VERY weird bird or a VERY weird dinosaur). They also tried and failed to scientifically show that the feathers preserved on it weren't real.

Then in the 1990s dinosaurs with feather-like hairy structures turned up ( Sinosauropteryx [wikipedia.org] ), then long-legged and obviously not flying dinosaurs with pretty clear flightless-bird-style feathers (e.g., Caudipteryx [wikipedia.org] ), then Microraptor [wikipedia.org] with asymmetric *flight* feathers on its arms AND legs (the "four-winged dinosaur") and which experiments have shown could probably glide. It still had teeth, Velociraptor-like claws and a long, dinosaur-like tail. Then the complaint was "but these are all younger than Archaeopteryx" (Early Cretaceous), which is true, but given the rarity of these sorts of fossils it's statistically unlikely that you will find them at the very first point they ever existed. Then Anchiornis [wikipedia.org] turned up in the Late Jurassic anyway, close in age to Archaeopteryx. And that's not even all of them. Inevitably there are gaps, because there always will be gaps even if you find millions of fossils (very tiny gaps), but it's fair to say that the distinction between birds and certain dinosaurs has progressively become so blurry and arbitrary that it's hard to reliably draw the line between them. Wishbones? We used to think they were unique to birds. No. Even T. rex has a wishbone. And the list goes on and on of features we thought were unique to birds but turn out not to be. People are even questioning whether the conventional view that Archaeopteryx is a bird is correct, rather than a side-branch close to the divergence between birds and dinosaurs, which if accepted would mean you could have a flying dinosaur that isn't technically regarded as a "bird". That would be weird.

Even after all those discoveries of the last 20 years or so, anti-evolutionary creationists still assure us that there are immutable boundaries between categories of life. Scientists still do argue about the exact relationships between these various group, but it is always going to be hard to resolve close to the branch points. I think any reasonable person looking at the history of discoveries would say that we aren't seeing ever-clearer indications that birds and dinosaurs are completely distinct, but that over time they blur together more and more. This is not unique to birds either. The same sort of thing is seen if you compare, say, what was known about the transition between fish and land vertebrates in the 1800s versus the fossils that are known now. Nobody expects a perfect record of life on Earth, but the pattern with increased sampling of it is pretty obvious. To me it is no more of a jump than when you draw a regression line through an ever-increasing number of sample points along a clear trend. Meanwhile the anti-evolutionary creationists will forever emphasize that there are spaces between the data points.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (0)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416018)

ll those discoveries of the last 20 years or so, anti-evolutionary creationists still assure us that there are immutable boundaries between categories of life.

Newsflash: Creationism isn't an Evidence-Based Discipline.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416356)

Newsflash : Genesis is not to be interpreted literally.
(actually this is old news, 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (0)

thunderclap (972782) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417062)

And Evolution is still a theory because fossil can only prove a species existed not that it turned into another. That can't be proven empirically.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417244)

And Evolution is still a theory because fossil can only prove a species existed not that it turned into another. That can't be proven empirically.

Uh... *nothing* can be proven empirically. Proofs use axioms and rules of logical inference. Theories use a more generic sort of inference from evidence.

And evolution is "still a theory" because theories are as good as it gets in the empirical sciences, and no evidence has come along to shoot that theory down.

Evolution, general relativity, and the atomic theory are "still theories"; phlogiston and the steady-state universe are not. "Theory" is the corner where we park the winners, not the losers.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417364)

No. fact is where we park winner. You drop something from a 110 story building, it falls at the same rate either feather or brick. that's gravity. Gravity is fact. As you so elegantly pointed out Evolution won't ever get there so thanks. Oh and logical inference says that 5 billion year out bodies should have a far more powerful magnetic field than it does. Or the moons regolith should be deeper than it is. Evolution can't be proven. general relativity hasn't been proven because we haven't the technology to do so yet. But we will. And actually atomic theory is a fact. Otherwise we wouldn't have nuclear bombs and reactors. Nice try. And for the record, adaptation to environment isn't evolution to me. Having species just mutate from one type to another is. You want to say that dinosaurs were big ass chickens. Fine but dont tell me that t rex and a current chicken are the same or that that monkey 50 million years ago is a human today. That isn't adaptation.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (4, Informative)

RPI Geek (640282) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417306)

>> And Evolution is still a theory because fossil can only prove a species existed not that it turned into another. That can't be proven empirically.

Gravity is still a theory, too.

Speciation [talkorigins.org] has [newscientist.com] been [wikinews.org] observed [wikipedia.org] , but I'll concede the point that it hasn't been observed in dinosaurs.

Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416402)

Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (seeFeduccia v Creationists), says: “Paleontologists have tried to turnArchaeopteryxinto an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” - Feduccia, A.; cited in: V. Morell,Archaeopteryx:Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,Science259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993

Not to mention that intact, full-evolved bird fossils are found at the same level and LOWER, indicating that they are contemporary with Archaeopteryx and, in some cases, actually predate these fossils, meaning that dinosaurs evolved from birds! Strangely enough, even those these are well-documented examples, the non-scientists leap onto the bandwagon without processing all of the information. Evolution is an interesting philosophy as indicated by those who put their faith into it without investigating the facts that it purports to have in its favor.

Personally, I object to blind faith in anything.

Circular logic (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416364)

I think the comment from the story is telling:

"'Protofeathers aren't known from any modern, existing groups of birds and therefore the most obvious interpretation is that they belong to dinosaurs,' said University of Alberta professor, Alexander P. Wolfe."

Re:Circular logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416464)

You may be missing the detail that filamentous, "protofeather" structures are already known from certain dinosaurs (e.g., Sinosauropteryx). He's not saying that is the only possible interpretation, only that it is the most reasonable/obvious because structures like these are already known from dinosaurs, but not birds (modern or fossil).

Re:Circular logic (1)

gewalker (57809) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416918)

Dino-feathers in amber is a pretty interesting find, although that idea that these are dino-feathers is apparently an assumption in not having found similar feather structure in modern birds. Not being a biologist, must less a archaeo-ornithologist, I ask what is the difference between these protofeathers and downy feathers? I read what I could find easily on-line and it appears that some scientists don't believe in protofeathers at all, they think it is just decayed collagen. Nothing I found really spelled out the difference between modern feathers and protofeather other than the "proto versions" must of course been first -- at least not in a way I could understand simply.

Any real expertise or a link to a good description would be appreciated.

As a side note, the protofeathers in the find are dated at 80 MY ago, and archaeopteryx at 150 MY ago (with have generally advanced feathers, perhaps flight capable). It seems like proto does not mean what it should in this case. Personally, I start with the prototype. (I just find humor in language at time)

Re:Circular logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416960)

Circular? What do you mean?
1. There is no evidence of modern birds in the fossil record of that period. There is evidence to support this, ie a chain of fossils leading up to modern birds.
2. dinosaur fossils have already been found, with fossilized feathers attached. These are most likely just more instances of the same, but not fossilized this time, rather actually preserved in amber.

And finally, he only said "..the most obvious interpretation ..."
Which is perfectly true.
No circular reference here. The fallacy is yours.

Of course they're dino-feathers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415446)

2007 Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1721.full

I know this is /. but RTFA, the pictures are amazing!

TFA is ad-ridden blog (-1, Troll)

dev569 (2462468) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415454)

Get the stunning pictures from the source [aeonity.com]

Re:TFA is ad-ridden blog (0, Offtopic)

UnresolvedExternal (665288) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415482)

*sigh* I must be getting as old as that joke...

Mod this Goatse down please cos I aint wasting mine....

And yes sir, I did look at the bottom and it wasn't very nice - get laid much?

flight of fancy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415474)

every one knows the earth is only 6000 years old. Though Ive been with a few birds that looked older.

TFA is ad-ridden blog! (-1, Troll)

dev570 (2462470) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415480)

Get the stunning pictures from the source [aeonity.com]

Birds are dinosaurs (1, Insightful)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415490)

Cool discovery. We now know that dinosaurs where pretty bird-like. For example, the velociraptors from the end of Jurassic Park where actually covered with feathers. Birds descend from dinosaurs and in fact, it might be more accurate to say birds ARE dinosaurs.

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (2)

UnresolvedExternal (665288) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415510)

Dear god, please don't quote Jurassic Park as a reference.....

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415546)

I actually pointed out a flaw in Jurassic Park. I think it was made before it was realized that dinosaurs had feathers.

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (1)

UnresolvedExternal (665288) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415572)

I bow to your superior knowledge

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (4, Funny)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415592)

Good thing for ILM too, because in 1992 rendering feathered dinosaurs would have taken ages! ;)

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415694)

To their credit, I think they shoe-horned in a few mentions of the bird-dino link in the movie. And while archaeopteryx fossils had been found long before (1860's, yeah?), I don't think we were quite there yet with the whole, dinosaurs-with-feathers bit.

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (2)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416010)

You are incorrect. Jurassic Park is what popularized to the public the idea that birds descended from dinosaurs for the regular person. I remember this distinctly in the documentaries about making the movie. This was an explicit intention of Spielberg. The book may not reflect this explicitly, but the movie and CG certainly did. Spielberg's dinosaur scientific consultant's were some of the principal proponents of the 'birds descended from dinosaurs'-theory and they've gone on to be vindicated as well as he has since the movie and book came out. I don't have the references off-hand, but it's certainly true. If you're just hung-up about the feathers part, you may be correct about that part at the time because feathers are so hard to preserve for obvious reasons... But frankly, who the fuck cares about feathers on dinosaurs? Now, whenever I walk into a park I'm concerned these vicious pigeons could attack me like a velociraptor (it's in their blood)!!!

DAMN YOU SPIELBERG!!!

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416396)

Pigeons? Meh. Not scary. Flight has made them light and wimpy.

Emus, ostriches, rheas and cassowarys? THOSE are scary. Heck, ostriches even have claws on their wings.

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417136)

I actually pointed out a flaw in Jurassic Park.

Oh no! Next thing you'll be telling me that velociraptors were not even Jurassic.

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (1)

ldobehardcore (1738858) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415916)

Also real velociraptors would only be about nipple high on most people. Not the size of a thorogh bred race horse as depicted in the movies

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416292)

Actually they were lower than that (more like knee-high [wikipedia.org] ). Deinonychus [wikipedia.org] was bigger, but still only hip-high, although I suppose both of them could jump.

But say hello to my little friend Utahraptor [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Birds are dinosaurs (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417146)

Raptors(falcons, hawks, eagles) are killing machines. If they were any bigger I don't doubt we'd make for a nice quarry. When I read JP I remember more being made out of the feather theory, I remember because it reminded me of the evil rooster that tormented me when I was 3yo.
 
BTW, I've been privileged to have a family of Harris' Hawks nesting outside my bedroom window for the last 10 months. No shitting, I went to the aid of a peacock a few hours ago after they cornered him on the neighbor's porch. The big mutha hawk perched on the gable end 15' over my head and stared at me, unafraid, as I herded her lunch into the safety of his coop. I don't know if they could have taken him, he's triple the size and I don't know how aggressive peacocks are, actually. His talons are impressive.

Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber? (4, Funny)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415504)

I assume Amber was refusing to walk through the TSA body-scanner and had thus been subjected to the full-body search? And people say there is no value to such searches. Look at the advances in science we are getting. Thanks, TSA!

You know what would be cool? (4, Funny)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415568)

If the dinosaurs also talked like some birds. And when they where about to eat you they menaced you by repeating the words of the last person they ate. So they'd corner you and yell, "Please don't eat me! Please don't eat me! Oh God! Nooo!"
Kind of an out there thought but I had to share. I thought it was cool.

Re:You know what would be cool? (4, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415682)

This is a unix system, I know this! This is a unix system, I know this! Oh god! Nooo!

Re:You know what would be cool? (2)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415982)

fsn was made for IRIX systems so I guess it's not too terribly surprising that's what a bunch of CGI guys would pick when told to "Show something computery... and make it look good."

Re:You know what would be cool? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417006)

That line was just shameless pitching to nerds in the audience.

Besides, what could a schoolgirl (or boy) know about unix. "can you get facebook on it" LOL

Re:You know what would be cool? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415684)

That sounds like a monster that would show up on Doctor Who...

Re:You know what would be cool? (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416618)

I've actually been watching a lot of Doctor Who. That might be why I'm thinking that way. Also I saw the parrot video from an earlier article today, and I realized that it saying "What are doing! What are you doing!" sounded pretty menacing.

Re:You know what would be cool? (2)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415714)

Clever girl...

Re:You know what would be cool? (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415894)

Except in the book it was the little boy...

Re:You know what would be cool? (1)

bar-agent (698856) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416058)

And when they where about to eat you they menaced you by repeating the words of the last person they ate. So they'd corner you and yell, "Please don't eat me! Please don't eat me! Oh God! Nooo!"

It's the drugs. It's the drugs, isn't it?

eat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416230)

when they where about to eatcheap ugg [uggsalecheap.net] they menaced you by repeating the words of the last person they ate.

but but but but (0, Troll)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415586)

The Creation museum says that birds aren't related to dinosaurs.

Six thousand years ago Washington was riding a dinosaur, so this makes no sense.

my favorite museum item (1)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415590)

amber with mummified spider's lung

Let me be the first to say.. (0)

Pottsynz (756353) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415622)

that life, uh... finds a way.

Re:Let me be the first to say.. (1)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416008)

And he never bothered to play another character for the rest of his days...

Spielberg does a Lucas (1, Funny)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415636)

Now the Raptors look like chickens.

Dr Alan Grant: "NOOOOooooooooooo!"

Science ruins Michael Crichton again!

Luke, here is your feather (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415698)

Feathered dinosaurs in a Jurassic Park reboot could still be made scary. Look at this raptor [wikipedia.org] , for example.

Re:Luke, here is your feather (1)

Psion (2244) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416034)

Looks like a mummer. [lehighvalleylive.com]

Re:Luke, here is your feather (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416248)

Feathered dinosaurs in a Jurassic Park reboot could still be made scary. Look at this raptor [wikipedia.org] , for example.

Looks like she's ready for the spring cotillion...

Re:Luke, here is your feather (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416768)

Well, if Lucas had directed it, the Blu-ray edition would soon have feathered dinosaurs, and Jeff Goldblum would also yell out "You're plucked".

Re:Spielberg does a Lucas (5, Insightful)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415748)

Science and Michael Crichton always had a hate-hate relationship.

Re:Spielberg does a Lucas (3, Informative)

izomiac (815208) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416184)

Timeline:
  • 1990 - Jurassic Park book released
  • 1993 - Jurassic Park movie released
  • 1998 - Feathers discovered on a velociraptor

Now, although I enjoy Crichton's works, most are soft science fiction (harder than most though). The velociraptors were far more like Deinonychus antirrhopus (considered a species of Velociraptor by Crichton's primary source, though the dispute is even acknowledged by Alan Grant, oh, and no feathers have been found on this species), and a lot of cinematic liberty was taken in the movie and book. Most of it's not terribly important to the central theme, which is fairly common for his works. It's also rather common for people to not realize there is a theme to his books.

BTW, have some basic respect for the dead, even if you disagree with him or don't care for his works. Save your jokes for people who are alive or committed serious crimes in life.

Re:Spielberg does a Lucas (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417150)

Even going back to the "doctors with nukes" thriller of Andromeda Strain the science, technology and engineering has been a very twistable plot device. Even today we don't really have the gear that was supposed to be available in the present of "Congo" (1980) because satellite communications gear still takes time to set up for more than a tiny bandwidth, let alone under a thick dripping wet multi-layered tree canopy. In his later works he even used his influence in an attempt to discredit established science. A lot of the stories are fun (homicidal albino gorillas with stone ping pong bats?) but remember that he also did a lot of poking fun at science from what he saw as his superior position as a medical doctor. To me those smug blatant attacks made his later books unreadable and I doubt they would have been published in that form if he didn't already have a reputation. He needed an editor to get him away from the tirade and into the action.
Jurassic Park had a lot of admitted dumbing down and bait and switch to get the story moving and the movie to fit, which is fair enough because nobody pretended otherwise, but it's where Crichton used his influence to deliberately sell misinformation as information that annoyed me when he was alive. Just accept him as a fiction writer that made some things in science popular. He brought comments like the above "hate-hate" relationship on himself when he was alive and they are not going to go away for a while, it's got nothing to do with "respect for the dead".

Re:Spielberg does a Lucas (2)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417238)

My basic respect extends as far as I think he deserves.

When I write a misleading author's note about global warming on my next book, I'll expect no less.

Re:Spielberg does a Lucas (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417272)

BTW, have some basic respect for the dead, even if you disagree with him or don't care for his works. Save your jokes for people who are alive or committed serious crimes in life.

Dead people are harmed far less from bad jokes than living people. Please have some basic respect for the living. Save your jokes for the dead, they won't mind.

"Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber" (1)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415658)

Amber was quite surprised at the finding.

Re:"Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber" (1)

drnb (2434720) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415800)

Amber was quite surprised at the finding.

I'd wager Amber stopped being surprised a long time ago.

Re:"Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber" (1)

IHateEverybody (75727) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417300)

But once she decided to incorporate the feathers into her act, Amber's clientele doubled.

Jurassic Park reboot next... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415674)

I can't wait till they reboot/remaster the movie for "better accuracy"

Spielberg: "Alright everyone make sure all the dinosaurs look feathery, crank up those CG effect boxes!"

Re:Jurassic Park reboot next... (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415868)

They should hand it to George Lucas.

Lies (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415754)

This is all fake. Everyone knows that the earth didn't exist 79 million years ago. At best, 7 thousand years ago and man and dinosaur coexisted. Those feathers were obviously from the dinosaur being hunted for food. This is all a lie perpetuated by satan.

Done laughing yet?

Tweet Tweet (1)

TakeABow (2005428) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415762)

So Dinosaurs had feathers. Now I can't help but imagine a velociraptor with yellow baby chick down feathers.

Re:Tweet Tweet (1)

madhi19 (1972884) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416856)

Think about a giant Ostrich. That pretty much how they must have looked. And modern Ostrich are mean SOB in a good day.

Age old question finally answered! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37415832)

Dinosaurs did taste like chicken.

That Dang Amber- I keep telling her (2)

gearloos (816828) | more than 3 years ago | (#37415864)

That Dang Amber- I keep telling her I'm gonna break up with her if she doesn't stop that kinky stuff!

Corwin was no doubt quite upset by all the mess... (1)

VoxBoston (670308) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416140)

/reporting from shadow-Earth.

Obligatory Lost World ref (1)

wesleyjconnor (1955870) | more than 3 years ago | (#37416332)

Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming.

NB4jesushatesevolutionitsalie faggotry [NT] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416644)

NB4jesushatesevolutionitsalie faggotry

Tweet tweet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37416748)

At what point do we just say they were outright birds?

Oh, somewhere in Canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417042)

Now that narrows it right down doesn't it? Milky Way/Earth/Canada. Damn near down to a square micron. I'm just tired of people not giving some half decent location of something. Here, the article gives us "Canada", a very small area of 9,984,670 km2 (3,854,085 sq mi). Why, that's like the tip of a needle!

soo... have they drilled the amber yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417368)

...and just how much residual DNA _is_ in those feathers...?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?