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

How do they know this creature was amphibious??

[GreyPoopon]

Are there any real experts out there who can explain how they know this creature was amphibious? I looked at the image, and I see no indication that this creature spent most of its time in the water. It seems no different than a duck - adapted to the water, but certainly not spending most of its time there. How can you tell?

Re:How do they know this creature was amphibious??

[fuego451]

I was wondering about this myself. The article did say the fosils indicated a webed foot which would indicate, at least, a partially aquatic life. 'Amphibious' is a poor choice of words without more information. I think of ducks and other waterfowl as being 'aquatic' not amphibious as they spend much of their time on the water, not in the water. However, penguins, platypus', cormorants and a few others are exceptions I would consider amphibious as they are each great underwater swimmers.

Re:Regardless...

[Stephan Schulz]

And what exactly does freedom of speech have to do with scientific progress?

It very much enables it in the first place.

Two of the most technologically advanced states in the last century (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), were very un-free places.

You mix up science and engineering. And Nazi Germany's technology was based on the scientific lead Germany had achieved in the early late 19th and early 20th century (and they lagged in things like code breaking, operational research, ...).

The Soviet Union had good competence in a few key areas that were funded well, but lagged in overall development.

Re:Fascinating logic, really.

[Dimensio]

IDCers see evolution's willingness to learn and constant progress as a sign of weakness, flipfloppery and intellectual bankruptcy.

I have, quite recently, observed a creationist state that humans should not attempt to learn how the universe works, and that God did not give humans brains for that purpose.

In fact, the creationist's exact quote is "God didn't give us brains to bother about how the world works; he told us all we need to know about how the world works and we venture into that area on our own, and often to our great detriment."

I believe that this statement reveals a great deal regarding the educational values and motives of creationists.

Re:Oh noes!

[Umbral Blot]

But there are standards of proof that generally are agreed upon as being sufficient. Evolution has as much or more evidence than special relativity does (it's hard to find extremely fast objects and study them in a controlled setting; it is somewhat easier to find fossils). Few people think it makes sense to doubt that special relativity at least approximates the ultimate physical laws, why should it be acceptable to doubt evolution? The evolution camp can never find all the links, simply because not every animal is fossilized, thus there are, by necessity, some missing links. However we don't expect physicists to study every fast moving particle to verify special relativity, why should biologists uncover every possible fossil to verify evolution?

Do they have a phallus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they are aquatic, and we know waterfowl have penises, albeit ones with lymphatic engorgement rather than bloodvessels, this would be interesting to know, since 97% of birds don't have one. Other types of birds that do are ratites - Emu, Ostrich, etc.

Re:Why is it proof of evolution ?

[damienl451]

That's great, my comment was modded down to -1 (just like any comment that dares question the validity of Evolution). Maybe we should add a new category (-5000, "not compatible with my worldview ?"). I have yet to find ONE comment in favor of ID or Creationism that was modded "Insightful".

Re:Missing Link, eh?

[Zaatxe]

The problem with the "missing link" expression is that it gives a wrong idea of linearity in evolution, which couldn't be further than truth. Evolution works in branchs, not in strings.

Isn't that obvious that "missing link" and "common ancestor" ideas are mutually exclusive?

Re:Why is it proof of evolution ?

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Science's website tells us that it's "an early ornithuran bird". Okay, so it's still a bird, just different from the birds we have today.

The whole point is that it's a "bird" that is different from the birds we have today. It's also much more closely-related to older birds and bird-like creatures. That's why we call it a transitional fossil. You provide us with no source or explanation of why this isn't another feather in the cap of evolution.

Then you attack the media and slashdot for reporting it, once again without pointing out exactly what you think is wrong.

You can't simply spout off ID talking points here. We're pretty logical-minded people, and will demand claims that can be researched so we can see the evidence for ourselves.

When I see an ID proponent who does that - and then admits to any falsehoods in his claims - I'll mod him insightful. "This is just a bird" is not insightful, and sort of misses the whole point. The thing is, I have yet to meet an ID proponent who actually understands evolutionary theory.