Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Unearth Largest Feathered Dinosaur
sciencehabit writes "Paleontologists have unearthed fossils of the largest feathered creature yet known, a 1.4-metric ton dinosaur that was an early cousin of Tyrannosaurus rex. The long, filament-like feathers preserved with three relatively complete skeletons of the newly described species provide direct evidence of extensively feathered gigantic dinosaurs. The discovery is controversial—and in some scientific circles, largely unexpected."
feathered dinosaurs still look weird to me.
My (certainly amateur) reading of the literature indicates that it's likely that all therapods were feathered, albeit mostly with thin insulating feathers that don't fossilize well. How is this unexpected?
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
From sesame street
It would be nice if the article actually included a few photos of the fossils that were found.
Some artists rendering is a poor substitute.
(And you thought only XKCD was relevant to Slashdot) http://www.gocomics.com//culdesac/2012/04/04
Is it Y.huali or Y.hulai ? The article has both spellings.
No reanimation until this feather thing is resolved
Have we eliminated the possibility that dinosaurs wore clothing?
Gently reply
It is likely that in some dinosaurs that both were present. In other cases, it may be that feathers were present first, then scales replaced them when shed - like adult teeth replace milk teeth. Also, because it's the same gene, a change in environmental conditions may cause feathers to appear in dinosaurs in which they would not otherwise do so -- once the mutations necessary have arisen, of course. One case study is proof that the mutations existed at that time and is a strong indication that feathered dinos existed prior to that time, but we've insufficient evidence to say definitely if this was a feathered dino in the general case, only the specific case.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Oh joy. The homeschooled trolls will be out in force again with their bible nonsense.
Feathers evolved as insulation. After millions of years, they and the critters they adorned evolved them into use for flight (along with diminished size, air-pockets in bones, etc).
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
No one is going to take time to give you a basic high school education on the internet. Posting as AC because you don't want people to know you are a whackjob is more like it.
Feathers exist for the purpose of flying. (snip) If evolution is real, then feathers evolved for flying.
Ostrich, emu, penguin...
How do you reconcile that feathers would have come about BEFORE the creature was even close to capable of flying?
Same reason some modern birds have feathers but cannot fly. Same reason whales and snakes have hip bones.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
If he'd posted under his own username, he'd be +5 Funny/Troll/Insightful by now :)
That and he wouldn't be able to vote down comments like mine.
No one is going to take time to give you a basic high school education on the internet. Posting as AC because you don't want people to know you are a whackjob is more like it.
Probably trolling. Creationists don't usually feel a need to hide their identity, because they think *they're* the ones with sane views.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Don't you people realize you are being trolled by the OP?
I have studied tonnnns of literature on both the Evolutionist and Creationist side, I have tons of very educated friends on both sides as well. NO Creationist I know of believes the retarded shit that the OP posted. Posts like this are done for the sole purpose of giving a totally incorrect impression of what creationists believe (probably because the Evolutionist that posted it has no clue regarding the data and, more importantly, the interpretation of the data that the Creationists have mused upon to come to their conclusions).
Disclaimer:
Though I have studied information on both sides, I adhere to the dogmatic interpretations of neither camp because BOTH sides require an immense amount of faith in the sense that their conjectures are based upon very one sided foundations. For example, read 'Origins' by DeGrasse and Goldsmith as well as 'The Genesis Flood' by whatever his name was- make it a point to underline every paragraph that bases its conclusion upon conjecture, inference, and assumptions, and you will find that in EITHER book you are going to need a whole lot of pens to finish. All of that being said, I feel pity for the OP for having nothing better to do with his time and mental abilities than to post some nonsense that they do not believe themselves. Immaturity knows no age.
If evolution is real, then feathers evolved for flying.
Tell that to the emu and the kiwi, you insensitive clod.
Buffalo Wings won't you come out tonight?
Come out tonight?...
I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
OMG they found Big Bird!
There is a polite refutation to a whole string of stupid creationist arguments on RationalWiki.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
personally i prefer the past when dinosaurs weren't feathered its hard to think of raptor as kool and scary anymore when they look like retarded balding chickens
So you don't think something with feathers could scary? Like, say, an eagle? Well fucking grizzly bears disagree with you -- maybe you should reconsider!
Steve Irwin would also agree, I remember when he was on Larry King and he was terrified of the parrot on his arm and was holding it as far away as possible.
"Feathers exist for the purpose of flying."
Tell that to ostriches and emus. And I wonder why peacocks have those crazy-long feathers. For flight?
Because we all know things that heavy can't fly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Feathers exist for the purpose of flying. (snip) If evolution is real, then feathers evolved for flying.
Ostrich, emu, penguin...
Penguins most certainly do fly. They just do it underwater. That said, don't confuse present-day usage with the twisted paths evolution has followed to get here.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Posting as AC because I'm sure some of the whackjobs on here will be unhinged by this...
You mean "posting AC because my Reverend Jake trolls have me at horrible karma?" Ok, I'll bite, troll, only because assholes like you you give Christians a bad name and piss me off.
Earth was created somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.
And there's the first insult. I don't know of a single Christian who believes that bullshit, which is NOT in your bible anywhere.
It's ridiculous to think that a 1.4 ton animal would have had feathers. Feathers exist for the purpose of flying.
Then why do ostriches and penguins have feathers?
How do you reconcile that feathers would have come about BEFORE the creature was even close to capable of flying?
As another commenter noted, feathers aren't for flying. Bats have no feathers and ostriches can't fly. Flying creatures (bats, some birds, some insects) can fly because their weight is low enough and the aerodynamics of their wings overcome that low weight.
TFA states that this creature is supposed to be 125 million years old. Do you have any idea how long ago that was?
Yes, about 1/32 of the age of the Earth and about 1/128th the age of the universe, unless I missed a decimal place in my math. Nowhere near as long as eternity!
Because of radiocarbon dating or some similar technique? How do we have any idea how accurate that is?
Do you have wikipedia? You can't tell the age of a fossil by carbon dating, as the carbon's long gone. Carbon dating is accurate to 58,000 to 62,000 years. There are other ways of determining the age of fossils, such as the rock strata it's buried in. See here.
Some of you will probably say that this is all faith, not science.
Science and theology are not at odds. If one seems to contradict the other, it's because your understanding of one, the other, or both is faulty.
I believe John 8:44 pertains to you, troll. Now shoo. Grownups are talking science here, and religion is offtopic.
And mods... good job on that one. Much better than yesterday's moderations.
Free Martian Whores!