Scientists Find Missing Link in Bird Evolution

BlueCup writes "Dozens of fossils of an ancient loon-like creature that some say is the missing link in bird evolution have been discovered in northwest China. The remains of 40 of the nearly modern amphibious birds, so well-preserved that some even have their feathers, were found in Gansu province, researchers report in Friday's issue of the journal Science. Previously only a single leg of the creature, known as Gansus yumenensis, had been found."

Comments

Re:Doubious Dating Techniques

[NosTROLLdamus]

Though the method of dating the fossil was not stated in the article, carbon dating can be used up to, like, 60,000 years, which is well beyond the creation of the earth according to biblical timelines, but still, loses some usefullness depending on the age of the specimen. Carbon-14 has a HALF-LIFE of 5730 years. HALF-LIFE. You know how that works don't you?

Often proponents of creationism and intelligent design tend to choose the dating technique that fits the picture they have in their minds. For example, the poster above me stated a single, unrefined example of a dating technique being off in order to set a mindset that this technique is unreliable, and, unjustifiably, useless in all situations. He or she also states the half life of carbon-14, and a continued presence of it in fossils to understate the possible age of the fossil, conviently fitting into creationary mold set by the bible. How old is the world again? 6,000 years?

Re:FSM Strikes Again!

[yankpop]

So, they took the evidence and looked at it through the lense of their pre-determined conclusions got the answer they wanted to find? I seem to remember a lecture in a science 101 class that included strong, almost vehement admonition to never ever do exactly what they just did.

I'm just an evolutionary biologist, so you'll have to take this with a grain of salt, but that's bullshit. What they did was note that most species of birds near that occur near the base of the evolutionary tree are aquatic. That's it: they described a pattern. I suppose you could be right, maybe they have some vested interest in early birds being aquatic. I can't imagine what possible motivation you might have for fabricating such an esoteric claim, but you're the one who (anonymously) claims to know so much more than us biologists.

Of course, you could very easily and objectively test this yourself. Look up the latest evolutionary tree for birds, figure out which ones the ecology is known for, and label your tree accordingly. Then look at the tree, and see if the species near the base of the tree are mostly aquatic. If they are, then the guys in the article are ok. I don't think this is pressing enough that I'm going to rush out and do it myself. But you can be sure that there are more than enough fanatical ornithologists in the world to check these things out.

If you really can't find an "evolutionist" who knows more about the subject than you do, you are looking in the wrong places.

yp.