Slashdot Mirror
Dinosaur Feather Color Discovered
anzha writes "Do you remember being a kid and told we'd never know what colors the dinosaurs were? For at least some, that's no longer true. Scientists working in the UK and China have closely examined the fossils of multiple theropods and actually found the colors and patterns that were present in the fossilized proto-feathers. So far, the answer is orange, black and white in banded and other patterns. The work also thoroughly thrashes the idea that fossils might not be feathers, but collagen fibers instead. If this holds up, Birds Are Dinosaurs. Period. And colorful!"
Would you kill a dinosaur for your shotgun?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
TFA explicitly states that:
"... we cannot predict specific colors in fossils, maybe except black. So we are still far from putting colors on dinosaurs."
The "orange, white and black" colours are from an illustration at the top of an article, and a theory about a different dinosaur that definitely had stripes (possibly white and black ones.)
Is it only the sensationalist submissions that get through, or only the sensationalists who submit?
"If this holds up, Birds Are Dinosaurs. Period."
Nobody out there not convinced by the existing lines of evidence proving birds are dinosaurs is going to be convinced by this. And don't kid yourself, there are lots of such people.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
Do you remember being a kid and told we'd never know what colors the dinosaurs were?
I remember being a kid and told a lot of things would never come to pass that did in fact come to pass.
Free Martian Whores!
Flamingo pink, canary yellow, "red factor" coloring. Lots of the brighter colors like those are diet based. That dinosaurs whites could be neon pink if it has the right diet!
Also, some of those melanosomes degrade chemically fairly quick and will never show in a fossil record.
tastes like dinosaurs?
My wife gets the kids dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets at the warehouse club. I've always thought that particularly poetic.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The evidence and reasoning for birds being the modern descendants of the raptor-like dinosaurs is already pretty damn compelling. If that line of reasoning could have led us astray, then it's just as likely that this is just a case of parallel evolution where feathers and feather pigmentation were evolved separately by both dinosaurs and whatever the hell birds' actual ancestor's were.
I guess what I'm saying is that this is more about answering the question of how bird-like were the dinosaurs already or how early did bird-like features evolve, rather than piling more evidence on the dinosaur-bird connection.
Though I'll admit I'm biased, since that connection means my bird watching is a little less nerdy since it's actually dinosaur watching!
Wait... no, it's still just as nerdy.
The enemies of Democracy are
More like a... six-foot turkey.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/09/1189634.aspx
This is an older article that also talks about the banding.
Do you remember being a kid and told we'd never know what colors the dinosaurs were?
I remember being told that we could in theory breed dinosaurs in test tubes by extracting blood from mosquitoes preserved in amber ...
... and since Microsoft owns the patent to the color they've since filed a motion to sue the Jurassic Age.
Jason-Palmer.com
The work also thoroughly thrashes the idea that fossils might not be feathers, but collagen fibers instead.
ah, no. Fossils are not feathers. Ever. In any way, shape or form. However, these fossils might be of feathers.
Barney has always bothered me... Why are we teaching our children to play with a large and obviously dangerous carnivore?
If this holds up, Birds Are Dinosaurs. Period.
No, they're not. Birds are not dinosaurs any more than squid, octopus and nautilus are ammonites. Closely related they may be, but birds are birds.
I can see where they'd think modern birds are descendants of velociraptors, or even the T-Rex to some extent. But what about dinosaurs like Brontosaurus or Triceratops? Do we really think those guys were bird ancestors? They look more like elephants than ostriches. We lump a lot of animals together under the generic "dinosaur" tag. But how much does a stegosaurus have in common with an allosaurus... and by extent, a chicken or an eagle?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Birds are grouped in the same clade as dinosaurs—the same even-narrower clade as theropod dinosaurs, in fact. (Or in Wikipedia's words: “Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialised sub-group of theropod dinosaurs. More specifically, they are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others.”) Squid, octopodes, and nautiluses do not fall into the clade of ammonites (the nearest clade including all of these animals is the class Cephalopoda); therefore (1) they are not ammonites and (2) your analogy is completely off base.
You seem to be the dinosaur here.
If you want to discuss evolution with me, you must accept that I understand it just as well as you do.
Every thing you say demonstrates that this is simply not true. Every misconception, every "simply because this doesn't mean that" strawman, every misstatement of what has and has not actually been observed, belies what you actually understand about evolution.
Yet by declaring it to be the case that you know everything about evolution already, you indicate that you do not wish to actually learn about the reality of evolutionary science.
But that's okay. Science presses on without need of your impossible-to-earn approval. Just do us all a favor and don't run for office.
The enemies of Democracy are
When I describe the current theory of evolution, I describe it for the fraud it is.
No, when you describe it, you describe what you imagine the theory is, and then explain why your imagination is obviously wrong.
Your posts in this thread are completely chock-full of misconceptions, errors, and flat out fabrications of what evolutionary theory is. You make claims about what evolutionary theory states, but those claims are completely wrong. They are strawmen. You then proceed to burn them, and think that proves you "right". Good job. *golf clap*
You see, I don't think you're wrong because you disagree with evolution. I think you're wrong because you obviously have no understanding of evolution but claim to. You can't possibly prove evolution wrong without actually knowing what it is saying.
If you actually understood evolution like you claim to, then we could have a reasonable discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of these claims. You might actually have something useful to contribute. But since you don't know, think you know, and ergo obviously refuse to educate yourself, you cannot contribute anything useful.
You see, I have been listening to you, and that's why I know that if you understood evolution like you claim to, you could, yourself, point out at least half a dozen errors in your description of evolutionary theory. Until you can demonstrate this understanding by pointing out those errors, then you're simply another example of someone who thinks deliberate ignorance is a form of intellectual strength. So, come on, demonstrate your understanding to me. What outright falsehoods have you stated in your posts?
Because I'm feeling very generous, I'll give you a hint on one of them. You mentioned something about T-Rex's limbs being unable to evolve into bird wings. In the actual theory, it is in fact limb structure itself that provides a very strong clue (among many).
Just in case you manage to google that up, read up on it, pretend you knew about it already, and want to come back and here and say how your vague and brand new comprehension enables you to prove it wrong, keep in mind there are plenty of other errors you made. If you can't point them out, I'm just not going to believe you know what you're talking about.
And if you can point them out, then you were just trolling with your lies. But believe me, that's pretty much the best case scenario for you.
The enemies of Democracy are