Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday September 15, 2011 @11:22AM from the I-think-I-saw-this-movie dept.

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."

125 of 190 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yes! by xstonedogx · 2011-09-15 11:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Can't wait for Jurassic Farms. *licks chops*
1. Re:Yes! by RobbieThe1st · 2011-09-15 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Ooh, I second that!
2. Re:Yes! by riverat1 · 2011-09-15 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Won't it just taste like chicken?
3. Re:Yes! by macraig · 2011-09-15 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  More like emu.
4. Re:Yes! by macraig · 2011-09-15 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  They're called emu. Smack into one o' those with your expensive car and the damage will look like another car caused it.
5. Re:Yes! by HornWumpus · 2011-09-15 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I've actually eaten emu. It tastes like ass.
  Very red meat for bird, also very gamey.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
6. Re:Yes! by DamienNightbane · 2011-09-15 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you know what ass tastes like?
7. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-15 16:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Won't it just taste like chicken?
  Technically chicken tastes like dinosaur.
8. Re:Yes! by riverat1 · 2011-09-15 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  :) Yeah, maybe I got it backwards.
9. Re:Yes! by confused+one · 2011-09-15 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Big scary chickens. I feel there should be an obligatory XKCD raptor reference here; but, I can't decide which one to post.
10. Re:Yes! by Barsteward · 2011-09-15 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  " It tastes like ass." - it tastes like a donkey??
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
11. Re:Yes! by queBurro · 2011-09-15 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  I remember this all being predicted in 2000ad back in the 70's, there must have been some slippage on the delivery dates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesh_(comics)
  
  --
  sag
12. Re:Yes! by tehcyder · 2011-09-16 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you know what ass tastes like?
  You know your mom? Well...
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
13. Re:Yes! by stillnotelf · 2011-09-16 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Your second link lost its number and goes to the main page. I couldn't figure out what today's comic about stud finders had to do with raptors...
Non-Avian by Anthony · 2011-09-15 11:26 · Score: 1

That would be non-avian dinosaur feathers.

--
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
1. Re:Non-Avian by MozeeToby · 2011-09-15 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:Non-Avian by serviscope_minor · 2011-09-15 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  Current thinking has birds more closely related to dinosaurs than reptiles.
  Dinosaurs are/were reptiles. Which means that so are birds (biologically, though not of course in common parlance). The term "reptile" is polypyhletic (or paraphyletic), meaning that it encompasses something other than a complete evoloutionary sub-tree.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
So Many Missing Links to Choose From by ideonexus · 2011-09-15 11:33 · Score: 4, Funny

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. 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.

--
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
1. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by ideonexus · 2011-09-15 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  That should read "none of them are the missing link". (Hangs head in shame for watching TV while commenting)
  
  --
  i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
2. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-15 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  None of them *is* the missing link.
3. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Dog-Cow · 2011-09-15 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  But which one is the weakest link?
4. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-15 12:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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 ), then long-legged and obviously not flying dinosaurs with pretty clear flightless-bird-style feathers (e.g., Caudipteryx ), then Microraptor 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 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.
5. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by m.ducharme · 2011-09-15 13:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The Creationist, of course. Goodbye.
  
  --
  Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
6. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Black+Parrot · 2011-09-15 17:48 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
7. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by RPI+Geek · 2011-09-15 18:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  >> 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 has been observed, but I'll concede the point that it hasn't been observed in dinosaurs.
  
  --
  
  - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
8. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Barsteward · 2011-09-15 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  yawn.. are you a creationist scientist who believes humans and dinosaurs lived side by side?
  
  " that monkey 50 million years ago is a human today." comment marks you are a creationist or someone who doesn't understand evolution.
  
  then again you could just be a troll
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
9. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Nrrqshrr · 2011-09-15 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yet another quality cup of coffee snorted thanks to witty /. comments. Thank you.
10. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by epine · 2011-09-15 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  Very nice post from the primordial mists of the AC. As the data points accumulate, it's becoming more evident that the AC did not branch from the human race as long ago as it often seems, but still walk among us, capable of intelligent digital locomotion, possessing the full modern complement of shift keys and angle brackets.
  I've said it before: Tyrrell rocks. I grew up in the area, but only visited later in life as a tourist. When I trim my chin feathers and expose my Grenadier Guard chin wattle, I can do a bang-on impression of an Albertosaurus, or so I'm told. Like New Orleans jazz, it's bred in the bone. Either you have it, or you don't.
  The thing that burns my biscuits about these press reports is failing to mental that Alberta had an equatorial climate in the era concerned. Along with fixation on the gaps (ever smaller and smaller), a certain sect would probably argue that equatorial drift does not require hundreds of millions of years.
  If god grabbed the planet by the axle threads, how long would it take to shift the equator circa 50 degrees, and would we all feel green for decades or centuries?
11. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by gtall · 2011-09-15 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Group theory, set theory, type theory, category theory....all mathematical theories. Your distinction between axiomatic theories and natural theories correct, but axiomatic theories are just that, theories.
12. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by mean+pun · 2011-09-15 22:16 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  Why are you so sure that that will be the observed behavior? Gravity is just a theory. Granted, there are a lot of observations that fit the theory, but how can you be absolutely sure that this theory applies at every place and moment? You are basing yourself on a finite number of observations, and the vast majority of these observations are so casual that they wouldn't spot subtle deviations.
  Actually, I am sure that if you drop a feather and a brick and a feather from a 110 story building they will not fall at the same rate, and neither of them will fall at a rate or trajectory predicted by gravity.
13. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Kirijini · 2011-09-16 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Are you really going to appeal to authority *and* object to blind faith in the same post?
14. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by crimperman · 2011-09-16 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure it shouldn't be "none of them is the missing link"? ;)
15. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by tehcyder · 2011-09-16 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Creationists aren't reasonable people:. their world view is based on faith, not reason, but they try to disguise this simple fact by arguing about scientific facts as thouh it made any diference to them.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
16. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by tehcyder · 2011-09-16 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Every description of the real world is "just" a theory unless you believe somehing like the Bile sets down immutable truths.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
17. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Empiric · 2011-09-16 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile the anti-evolutionary creationists will forever emphasize that there are spaces between the data points.
  
  Similarly, whenever my boss complains my code doesn't compile, I simply explain to him that it's just that there are "spaces between the object dependencies".
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
18. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by tehcyder · 2011-09-16 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  And for the record, adaptation to environment isn't evolution to me. Having species just mutate from one type to another is.
  It might be an idea to read at least one book that explains what the (neo-) Darwinian theory of Evolution actually is. I'd recommend one of Richard Dawkins' books like The Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene, as he is a very clear writer.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
19. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by microTodd · 2011-09-16 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Granted,my 5th-grade science is a little rusty, but I though gravity was a Law? As in, if a theory has enough corroborating evidence the scientific community agrees that it deserves to be promoted to a Law.
  Also, can't gravity be rigorously proven from first concepts using basic forces, etc? Isn't that how the Law of Universal Gravitation and the Gravitational Constant are calculated?
  I'm not a physicist...hopefully one can chime in, I'm honestly curious.
  
  --
  "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
20. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Coren22 · 2011-09-16 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Them is some good potatoes.
  Now, please return to English class.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
21. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Coren22 · 2011-09-16 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Oh god, don't tell that to Monroe, imagine his reaction if he knew there were flying raptors too!
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
22. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by tompaulco · 2011-09-16 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile the anti-evolutionary creationists will forever emphasize that there are spaces between the data points.
  Well, who can blame them? You're correct that we can't expect a perfectly smooth fossil record, but when there is such a large sampling surrounding the data points, with nothing in between, it would be kind of suspect to a mathematician. I mean, for example, we have found 30 T Rex. We have found 11 Archaeopteryx. And it is not like all of these were found in the same location trapped in a mudbank or something. When you have clusters like this and nothing in between, it starts raising questions. I mean two or three is chance, but 11? 30?
  We are left to have to consider other options, such as evolution being fairly static for a while and then moving with very rapid speed (perhaps due to an environmental change), such that the "in between" population was an order of magnitude less than the "stable" species.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
23. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by cellocgw · 2011-09-16 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW, the subject of the GP's sentence is "none," not "them." You fail English.
  And while I'm on the subject, your English teacher *flunks* you, not *fails* you.
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
24. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by stillnotelf · 2011-09-16 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Gravity is a "law" because it is much older than the current nomenclature standards, and was already called a law when science settled on theory/theorem. If it had been formalized in the late 1800s instead of 200 years earlier, it would be called the Theory of Gravity or Gravitational Theorem instead. It's just a language thing; it doesn't reflect anything about the science.
25. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Man+Eating+Duck · 2011-09-16 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Speciation has been observed, but I'll concede the point that it hasn't been observed in dinosaurs .
  No modpoints left, so I just wanted to thank you for this one. It's pure gold :)
  
  --
  Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
26. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by NiteShaed · 2011-09-16 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Granted,my 5th-grade science is a little rusty, but I though gravity was a Law? As in, if a theory has enough corroborating evidence the scientific community agrees that it deserves to be promoted to a Law.
  Theories do not get "promoted" to become laws. "Law" is an outdated term and is no longer used because it implies something immutable or final. "The Laws of Physics don't allow for that!". Science is always open to being challenged and rethought, so therefore "theory" is now as good as it gets. I believe your understanding of "Theory -> Law" is actually better described by "Hypothesis -> Theory".
  
  --
  Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
27. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by black+soap · 2011-09-16 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  This is more like "we don't have the source code for the versions of the software prior to 1990, so obviously we can't know what programs back then actually looked like."
28. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by Botia · 2011-09-16 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding me? We have classified approximately 700 species of dinosaurs. Of those, about half are believed to be duplicates as most of the fossils are largely incomplete. That leaves us with about 350 species. We believe we have discovered about 25% of the dinosaurs. Assuming this is true, that brings the number of dinosaur species up to about 1400. These 1400 dinosaurs existed over 183 million years or so (248 million years ago to 65 million years ago).
  Now lets look at the current extinction rate. Each year more than 27,000 species go extinct. Yes, you read that right. Let us look at mammals as they are typically considered the most evolved. In the past 400 years, 89 species have gone extinct and 169 species are critically endangered. Using simple extrapolation based on the 89 species, we would expect to see approximately 40 million species of dinosaurs over the 183 million years when they existed if evolution were true. If you include the critically endangered species, that would bring the total to 120 million species of dinosaurs. (Math: 89/400=0.2225 species per year. 0.225*183,000,000 = ~40,000,000).
  When creationists speak of missing links, they are no looking for a single missing link. They are looking for the variation of species that evolution dictates, approximately 40 million species of dinosaurs, not 1400.
  And just to set the record straight, I am very excited about this find and the exponential growth of knowledge we have of the earth's past. As we continue to find more fossils and other preserved remains and discover the remaining 1000 species, please quit calling each of them the missing link. It does not solve the fundamental problem of the fossil record.
29. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by crunchygranola · 2011-09-16 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  You mean like the pteradoctyl?
  Actually, surprisingly enough, no. Not like a pteradactyl. Modern cladistics completely exclude the pterosaurs from any part of the sub-tree (Dinosauromorpha) that can be called "dinosaurs" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosauria). They split off from dinosaurs in the clade Avemetatarsalia at about the same level as birds do.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
30. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by crunchygranola · 2011-09-16 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile the anti-evolutionary creationists will forever emphasize that there are spaces between the data points. Well, who can blame them? You're correct that we can't expect a perfectly smooth fossil record, but when there is such a large sampling surrounding the data points, with nothing in between, it would be kind of suspect to a mathematician.
  Not to a real mathematician, who understands statistical inference, no.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
31. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by metallurge · 2011-09-16 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Quite.
32. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by smelch · 2011-09-16 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure. You wouldn't say "some of them is", but you would say "some of it is". Why would none be different? It isn't singular all the time. None can mean not one ("none has eaten a rabbit of such vast size") or not any ("none of them have eaten a rabbit of such vast size"). In the sentence he is saying not any.
  
  --
  If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
33. Re:So Many Missing Links to Choose From by MrKaos · 2011-09-16 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  That should read "none of them are the missing link". (Hangs head in shame for watching TV while commenting)
  But of them, are the link missing none? This dinosaur stuff is really confusing sometimes.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Birds are dinosaurs by bigsexyjoe · 2011-09-15 11:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

--
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
1. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by UnresolvedExternal · 2011-09-15 11:44 · Score: 2
  
  Dear god, please don't quote Jurassic Park as a reference.....
2. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by bigsexyjoe · 2011-09-15 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  I actually pointed out a flaw in Jurassic Park. I think it was made before it was realized that dinosaurs had feathers.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
3. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by UnresolvedExternal · 2011-09-15 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  I bow to your superior knowledge
4. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by airfoobar · 2011-09-15 12:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Good thing for ILM too, because in 1992 rendering feathered dinosaurs would have taken ages! ;)
5. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by ldobehardcore · 2011-09-15 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  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
  
  --
  Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
6. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by Monkey-Man2000 · 2011-09-15 13:13 · Score: 2
  
  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!!!
  
  --
  This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
7. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-15 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Actually they were lower than that (more like knee-high). Deinonychus was bigger, but still only hip-high, although I suppose both of them could jump.
  But say hello to my little friend Utahraptor .
8. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by quenda · 2011-09-15 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  I actually pointed out a flaw in Jurassic Park.
  
  Oh no! Next thing you'll be telling me that velociraptors were not even Jurassic.
9. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by tunapez · 2011-09-15 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
10. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by RivenAleem · 2011-09-16 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Velociraptors were bad enough to begin with, but now you're saying they can fly? Now we're fucked.
11. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by tehcyder · 2011-09-16 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Dear god, please don't quote Jurassic Park as a reference.....
  To be fair, it was that film that sparked the revival of interest in cool UNIX-based 3D graphical operating systems amongst the general population, wihout which we wouldn't have Compiz today.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
12. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by tehcyder · 2011-09-16 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Now, whenever I walk into a park I'm concerned these vicious pigeons could attack me like a velociraptor
  Cue Tom Lehrer's "Poisoning Pigeons In The Park"...
  
  When they see me coming, the birdies all try and hide,
  But they still go for peanuts when coated in cyaniade...
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
13. Re:Birds are dinosaurs by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2011-09-16 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  As I recall the "velociraptor" was made up. Ithink some form of raptor type dinosaur was later named "velociraptor" in honour of the movie.
  I could be wrong, but that is how I remember it.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber? by Obfuscant · 2011-09-15 11:44 · Score: 4, Funny

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? by bigsexyjoe · 2011-09-15 11:55 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
1. Re:You know what would be cool? by swanzilla · 2011-09-15 12:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This is a unix system, I know this! This is a unix system, I know this! Oh god! Nooo!
  
  --
  0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
2. Re:You know what would be cool? by airfoobar · 2011-09-15 12:24 · Score: 2
  
  Clever girl...
3. Re:You know what would be cool? by Shadow99_1 · 2011-09-15 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Except in the book it was the little boy...
  
  --
  we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
4. Re:You know what would be cool? by Intropy · 2011-09-15 13:10 · Score: 2
  
  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."
5. Re:You know what would be cool? by bar-agent · 2011-09-15 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
6. Re:You know what would be cool? by bigsexyjoe · 2011-09-15 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
7. Re:You know what would be cool? by crimperman · 2011-09-16 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  yes it was (although he wasn't so little in the book) but the GP was referring to the line made by the gamewarden when he is tricked by the Velociraptors while hunting them.
8. Re:You know what would be cool? by tehcyder · 2011-09-16 02:12 · Score: 2
  
  Awesome, it's similar to Predator when the alien copies bits he hears people saying and repeats them back.
  
  "Any time..."
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
my favorite museum item by Kvasio · 2011-09-15 12:00 · Score: 1

amber with mummified spider's lung
Spielberg does a Lucas by Lord_of_the_nerf · 2011-09-15 12:09 · Score: 1, Funny

Now the Raptors look like chickens.
Dr Alan Grant: "NOOOOooooooooooo!"
Science ruins Michael Crichton again!
1. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by SETIGuy · 2011-09-15 12:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Science and Michael Crichton always had a hate-hate relationship.
  
  --
  Support SETI@home
2. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by izomiac · 2011-09-15 13:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  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.
3. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by dbIII · 2011-09-15 17:21 · Score: 2
  
  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".
4. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by Lord_of_the_nerf · 2011-09-15 17:45 · Score: 2
  
  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.
5. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-15 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by RivenAleem · 2011-09-16 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect that a number of scientists secretly love him for making their line of work popular and thus getting them significant amounts of funding.
7. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by dunezone · 2011-09-16 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  A science fiction book contains information that might be wrong. Go figure.
8. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by HBI · 2011-09-16 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Let's assume that he did mislead people. He did no less than the AGW fanatics have done...try to stampede the stupid masses into believing there was (Gore, IPCC, AGW fanatics) or was not (Crichton, Rutan, etc) an emergency that needed a response. The "best" part is that, regardless of what you might think, your side has admitted repeatedly - even Al Gore did so - that they have been exaggerating the truth and have inadequate evidence of their conclusions. The objective is to get something political done. Truth is optional.
  Essentially, your disdain for him amounts to a political argument with the guy. Even I don't waste time ripping on the swimmer (Ted Kennedy) anymore. Woops.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
9. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by black+soap · 2011-09-16 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't say just how much frog DNA they had to use to fill in the gaps....
10. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by dbIII · 2011-09-16 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  To show how silly that is look at the top ten fiction writers and pretend that their stuff is all true as well.
  I think you don't understand what the discussion is about because it all happened a few years ago. Crichton attracted a lot of criticism for pushing his own little anti-environmentalism agenda which had no basis in reality but he pretended it did. He treated science like magic in a few of his books, fair enough, a lot of SF writers do that, but they don't then try to pretend that the magic is real and that they know more than scientists in the field they are writing fiction about.
11. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by Lord_of_the_nerf · 2011-09-16 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'll happily mock anyone who is purposefully misleading.
  I also wasn't aware that choosing a 'side' meant endorsing every opinion within it.
  Luckily 'my side' includes almost every reputable scientific body in the world, which makes me feel slightly more comfortable.
12. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by dbIII · 2011-09-16 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  The issue was he pretended some of his fiction was real and used his reputation to harrass some real scientists, as I tried to write in the first paragraph above.
  At the end of his life he wrote a string of disaster novels where science was the cause and the moral was the luddite "if only we had left it alone". Those sort of books most likely inspired the "hate-hate relationship" comment from the poster above.
  The biggest clanger ultimately pushing an anti-science agenda was of course "State of Confusion" as discussed here:
  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/
  He actually does a Godwin and compares all of climate science to eugenics. That's a pretty big insult to people in your town that do nothing but innocently collect weather data. If you knew them instead of them being a formless "other" to be attacked would you really put up with such bullshit?
13. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by c6gunner · 2011-09-16 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  What the ... he's dead??
  Just checked wikipedia and it says he died in 2008. I had no idea. Dammit. I thought his newest book was taking a while ...
14. Re:Spielberg does a Lucas by SETIGuy · 2011-09-19 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, ask a palaeontologist how the grants got bigger after Jurassic Park. Oh what, they didn't?
  
  --
  Support SETI@home
"Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber" by DJCouchyCouch · 2011-09-15 12:15 · Score: 1

Amber was quite surprised at the finding.
1. Re:"Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber" by drnb · 2011-09-15 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Amber was quite surprised at the finding.
  I'd wager Amber stopped being surprised a long time ago.
2. Re:"Dinosaur Feathers Found In Amber" by IHateEverybody · 2011-09-15 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  But once she decided to incorporate the feathers into her act, Amber's clientele doubled.
  
  --
  Does this .sig make my butt look big?
Luke, here is your feather by tepples · 2011-09-15 12:20 · Score: 1

Feathered dinosaurs in a Jurassic Park reboot could still be made scary. Look at this raptor, for example.
1. Re:Luke, here is your feather by Psion · 2011-09-15 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like a mummer.
2. Re:Luke, here is your feather by c6gunner · 2011-09-16 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Feathered dinosaurs in a Jurassic Park reboot could still be made scary. Look at this raptor, for example.
  Ah, yes. It has the fearsome power of making it's prey die from laughter.
Tweet Tweet by TakeABow · 2011-09-15 12:33 · Score: 1

So Dinosaurs had feathers. Now I can't help but imagine a velociraptor with yellow baby chick down feathers.
1. Re:Tweet Tweet by madhi19 · 2011-09-15 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  Think about a giant Ostrich. That pretty much how they must have looked. And modern Ostrich are mean SOB in a good day.
2. Re:Tweet Tweet by ledow · 2011-09-16 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Think about a giant Ostrich" - one that's about the size of a chicken.
  To follow my rules for keeping pets - I'd be quite happy to have it because I *COULD* drop-kick it over the wall if it were to turn against me. (And hence, I don't keep Great Danes or any of a range of other breeds of dog as pets).
That Dang Amber- I keep telling her by gearloos · 2011-09-15 12:49 · Score: 2

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

--
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Re:Jurassic Park reboot next... by airfoobar · 2011-09-15 12:50 · Score: 1

They should hand it to George Lucas.
Re:Let me be the first to say.. by Intropy · 2011-09-15 13:13 · Score: 1

And he never bothered to play another character for the rest of his days...
Corwin was no doubt quite upset by all the mess... by VoxBoston · 2011-09-15 13:44 · Score: 1

/reporting from shadow-Earth.
Obligatory Lost World ref by wesleyjconnor · 2011-09-15 14:26 · Score: 1

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

--
http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
Circular logic by sonamchauhan · 2011-09-15 14:31 · Score: 1

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."
1. Re:Circular logic by gewalker · 2011-09-15 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  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)
2. Re:Circular logic by pokerdad · 2011-09-16 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  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."
  Considering the age of most fossil finds in Alberta, that isn't as crazy as you think.
3. Re:Circular logic by sonamchauhan · 2011-09-23 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  I did.
  If you read my reply above, and the links referenced, you'll know why it is
4. Re:Circular logic by sonamchauhan · 2011-09-23 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hi... Gladly.
  Please see my post above. Heres' the link to the paper quoted there.
  http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol241/bird%20flight%202005%20Feduccia_Alan.pdf
  
  [From the main paper]
  We examine the alleged support from the fossils Sinosauropteryx (Currie and Chen, 2001), Sinorni- thosaurus, an indeterminate theropod (Ji et al., 2001), and Caudipteryx (Qiang et al., 1998) with respect to the key features in stages 1–4 of Prum and Brush’s (2002) developmental theory on feather morphogenesis. ...
  [From the Abstract]
  Our findings show no evidence for the existence of protofeathers and consequently no evidence in support of the follicular theory of the morpho- genesis of the feather. Rather, based on histological studies of the integument of modern reptiles, which show complex patterns of the collagen fibers of the dermis, we conclude that “protofeathers” are probably the remains of collagenous fiber “meshworks” that reinforced the dinosaur integument.
  I do believe what's written here:
  http://www.icr.org/article/6398/
5. Re:Circular logic by sonamchauhan · 2011-09-23 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  1. No evidence of birds?
  http://www.icr.org/article/6398/
  If dinosaurs evolved into birds, then protofeathers should be found on dinosaur fossils located below (and therefore dated before) fossils of birds, not above and after them. McKellar's fibers came from Cretaceous deposits, but true bird feathers have been found in fossil layers far below the Cretaceous. Why would feathers still be evolving long after they supposedly already existed?
  2. Dino Feathers?
  http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol241/bird%20flight%202005%20Feduccia_Alan.pdf
  
  [From the Abstract]
  Our findings show no evidence for the existence of protofeathers and consequently no evidence in support of the follicular theory of the morpho- genesis of the feather. Rather, based on histological studies of the integument of modern reptiles, which show complex patterns of the collagen fibers of the dermis, we conclude that “protofeathers” are probably the remains of collagenous fiber “meshworks” that reinforced the dinosaur integument.
  In the second part of the study we examine evidence relating to the most critical character thought to link birds to derived theropods, a tridactyl hand composed of digits 1-2-3. We maintain the evidence supports interpretation of bird wing digit identity as 2,3,4, which appears different from that in theropod dinosaurs. The phylogenetic significance of Chinese microraptors is also discussed, with respect to bird origins and flight origins. We suggest that a possible solution to the disparate data is that Aves plus bird-like maniraptoran theropods (e.g., microraptors and others) may be a separate clade, distinctive from the main lineage of Theropoda, a remnant of the early avian radiation, exhibiting all stages of flight and flightlessness.
  Even without these points, the claim is circular - it would in time 'strengthens' the shaky 'fact' it depended on.
  Note, I am not claiming a lack of integrity of the researcher - just that he has made an erroneous claim, based on what he believes to be true.
Found in Amber by The_mad_linguist · 2011-09-15 18:54 · Score: 1

It was announced dinosaur feathers have been found in Amber this week. High placed French official Cordell Fennevall is on record as saying that this is a 'real discovery', and all other paleontological work this year will merely be its shadows.
Artistic renderings in this article were created by one Dworkin Barimen. All rights reserved.
one of my better typos by epine · 2011-09-15 21:54 · Score: 1

s/mental/mention
The vast majority of my typos are full word substitutions. No idea at all how that word leaked into the sentiment.
For some reason.... by MrNthDegree · 2011-09-15 21:57 · Score: 1

I imagined Amber Mac full of feathers :-|
Re:Oh, somewhere in Canada? by ledow · 2011-09-15 23:56 · Score: 1

Because the second you tell people where they were found, you get a billion people cutting through the rock to try to find their own, to keep or to sell on, destroying everything that is there.
It's a perfectly cromulent reference. by zippthorne · 2011-09-16 00:11 · Score: 1

In the book, the lawyer survived (and, iirc, was actually not a bad guy...), and Hammond was killed in a fairly disturbing fashion.
Nevertheless, the quotes from the movie are more memorable. I don't think I can recall any of Muldoon's lines from the book...

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
They loved him once by Quila · 2011-09-16 00:21 · Score: 1

And then he blasphemed against the Holy Church of Global Warming.
1. Re:They loved him once by SETIGuy · 2011-09-19 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't a science that he didn't misunderstand. And then write 500 pages of incoherent babble about. Climatologists weren't worried about him because he was incompetent to talk about any type of science. Ask anyone who has worked in chaos theory. Or medicine. Or biotech.
  
  --
  Support SETI@home
Re:Jurassic Park reboot next... by stillnotelf · 2011-09-16 05:58 · Score: 1

The lawyer shot first.

Not to be crude, but the lawyer _shat_ first, if I remember the scene correctly...
Jesus? by digitalPhant0m · 2011-09-16 06:31 · Score: 1

So let me get this straight. Jesus was riding a feathered Dinosaur.
Re:TFA is ad-ridden blog by Tolkien · 2011-09-16 09:42 · Score: 1

You really suck at trolling, so you're probably the slash* kid from a little while back. Stop it. Your parents should be ashamed of what you've become, though it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they already are.

--
how is babby formed?
Re:TFA is ad-ridden blog by MrKaos · 2011-09-16 11:40 · Score: 1

The poster is actually a dinosaur troll from the lameassic age.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Calling Prince Corwin by hawkfish · 2011-09-20 13:37 · Score: 1

Two jokes about women named "Amber" and none about the one true world?
Of course there are dinosaur feathers in Amber - our dinosaurs are just shadows of them.
This place is really going to the dogs!

--
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
Still circular by sonamchauhan · 2011-09-23 12:54 · Score: 1

The "already known" fact that dinosaurs had protofeathers reinforces his theory, and his theory ends up reinforcing the "already known" fact?
Still seems circular to me.
http://www.icr.org/article/6398/
and
Feduccia, A., T. Lingham-Soliar and J. R. Hinchliffe. 2005. Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence. Journal of Morphology. 266 (2): 125.
See also 'Silkie chicken', referred to elsewhere in this thread
79-million-year-old amber by Immigration.to.Canad · 2011-09-29 20:39 · Score: 1

Imagine how much that piece would fetch on eBay.

--
Immigration to Canada