Astonishing 99-Million-Year-Old Bird Wings Found Preserved In Amber

originally posted by: thesungod
a reply to: Phage

Maybe that's why it's not used much in science, it seems to have a fluid meaning.

I don't think it is a maybe. I think you are dead on correct.

I actually think it's avoided because it begs for deeper clarity and obtaining that clarity is unbelievably difficult especially considering everyone is stuck in the "evolution vs creationism" debate.

There's gotta be an even more surprising alternative explanation. I can think of several alternatives, and even mixtures of all of these possibilities.

Fact is: no one actually knows due to lack of data. We just assume we know based on a handful of out of context puzzle pieces that could work with all sorts of bigger pictures.

Amazing pics, thanks for sharing 👍👍

The 1st realisation I had that birds were probably dinosaurs, was when I visited Texas and saw a grackle for the 1st time.
I'm from the UK and am use to seeing pretty coloured small garden birds. When I saw the Grackles walking around for the 1st time I was like "w.. t... f... Are THOSE???
They just seemed to walk like how I would imagine prehistoric animals would.

Anyway just thought I'd share that with you

Grackle wiki

a reply to: gortex

I wonder if they can get intact DNA from the feathers. It would be so cool if they could clone the creature responsible for them.

a reply to: openminded2011

Only guessing but as the wings have been hermetically sealed for the past 99 Million Years it could be a possibility , not sure if DNA would naturally degrade even if it is sealed in a time capsule.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

My curiosity wonders why such ancient creatures did not hardly evolve at all (if even at all) for hundreds of millions of years while all these others supposedly evolved rapidly in comparison by ridiculous bounds.

Because evolution is not linear, there is no requirement that a species go extinct once other species have evolved from it.
Therefore your statement that they haven't evolved at all has very little meaning, other than the species itself hasn't changed. You can't say that other species have not evolved from the unchanged one. Only that the species your talking about is successful enough to have avoided extinction - so far.

Harte

I can only say, how beautiful the wings look in the amber, I am amazed that in our modern times we are still making discoveries of a time long ago when human beings were no even in site.

We are still learning and is more to be discover.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: dr1234

I had no idea birds were dinosaurs

That's because, according to current scientific classification schema, they aren't.
But it's a shorthand way for people with no knowledge of the matter to chime in.

Hi Harte,

do you have source material that shows that the 'taxon' Aves was taken out of the 'taxon' Dinosauria?

Thanks.

a reply to: Brotherman

If a Rolex could keep time. They are notorious for being lousy time keepers.

This post is absolutely brilliant. I haven't heard this anywhere else, so thank you very much.

originally posted by: Agnost

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: dr1234

I had no idea birds were dinosaurs

That's because, according to current scientific classification schema, they aren't.
But it's a shorthand way for people with no knowledge of the matter to chime in.

Hi Harte,

do you have source material that shows that the 'taxon' Aves was taken out of the 'taxon' Dinosauria?

Thanks.

Why? Do you believe that either way, the following would be true?

originally posted by: intrptr

We've known for a few decades that many dinosaurs had feathers...

Im, sorry, lol. Thats because "dinosaurs" were birds.

See? Feathers...

Are apes humans?

At any rate, the answer to your question is that Aves was never formally included in Dinosauria, and recent findings tend to contraindicate their inclusion. For example:
Link

Harte

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Bone75
Only on ATS can 99 million year old bird wings get spun into dinosaur feathers.

So because it is a feather it could have only come from a bird according to you ?

Did you even bother reading the article? They aren't just feathers, they're whole wings... from a bird.

Birds are dinosaurs.

From: en.wikipedia.org...

The scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

Edit: Well crap. I went back and read the thread (I won't be making that mistake again) and see this has already been discussed. So is the wiki link incorrect? Are birds not a group of theropod dinosaurs?

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Bone75
Only on ATS can 99 million year old bird wings get spun into dinosaur feathers.

So because it is a feather it could have only come from a bird according to you ?

Did you even bother reading the article? They aren't just feathers, they're whole wings... from a bird.

Birds are dinosaurs.

From: en.wikipedia.org...

The scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

Edit: Well crap. I went back and read the thread (I won't be making that mistake again) and see this has already been discussed. So is the wiki link incorrect? Are birds not a group of theropod dinosaurs?

No, not yet.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Bone75
Only on ATS can 99 million year old bird wings get spun into dinosaur feathers.

So because it is a feather it could have only come from a bird according to you ?

Did you even bother reading the article? They aren't just feathers, they're whole wings... from a bird.

Birds are dinosaurs.

From: en.wikipedia.org...

The scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.

Edit: Well crap. I went back and read the thread (I won't be making that mistake again) and see this has already been discussed. So is the wiki link incorrect? Are birds not a group of theropod dinosaurs?

No, not yet.

Harte

Interesting.

Has there been some confusion about this recently? I ask because I've heard more than one paleontologist refer to birds as dinosaurs.

Not that I make a habit of getting information from children's cartoons, but I do enjoy watching Dinosaur Train on PBS with my sons. During every episode, Scott the Paleontologist makes an appearance and does a brief, live-action discussion on some aspect of dinosaurs. I distinctly remember him saying that birds are dinosaurs.

Any idea where all this confusion is coming from? Truth is, the idea that birds were dinosaurs never would have occurred to me if I hadn't heard scientists saying it.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. But they are a species unto themselves.
Humans evolved from apes. Do we call ourselves apes?

originally posted by: charlyv
Humans evolved from apes. Do we call ourselves apes?

No, humans didn't "evolve from apes". Humans and apes evolved from a pre-human/ape ancestor. Also known as a "common ancestor".

originally posted by: charlyv
Birds evolved from dinosaurs. But they are a species unto themselves.
Humans evolved from apes. Do we call ourselves apes?

No, but I would say that both humans and chimpanzees are primates. (I hope no one shows up to tell me I'm confused on that point as well.)

Regarding the confusion about whether birds are dinosaurs, my point is that there are paleontologists who one would think should know better who have, at least in the past, claimed that birds are dinosaurs.

And there are numerous online sources making the same claim.

So there appears to be some widespread confusion, or at least was at one time, even if it was only among "media paleontologists" who weren't paying attention or misinterpreted something.

All this nonsense -- assuming it's nonsense -- got started somewhere. I sure as heck didn't make it up myself.

Here's another interesting article basically making the same claim (that birds are dinosaurs, and that they are in fact REPTILES -- although I've never heard it put that way). This is on Berkley.edu: www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Seriously guys, I'm finding more sources online that support the "birds are dinosaurs" argument than the other way around.

For example: en.wikipedia.org...

However, the link below actually does a pretty good job of explaining why the confusion exists, which appears to be related to the fact that the definition of dinosaur changed due to a shift from paraphyletic to monophyletic nomenclature: www.miketaylor.org.uk...

Plus, that link discusses differences in the scientific versus everyday usage of the term dinosaur.

Based on everything I've read over the last hour or so, I'm inclined to believe that birds are, in fact, technically dinosaurs, given the currently accepted monophyletic definition and the bulk of the fossil evidence collected thus far.

originally posted by: charlyv
Birds evolved from dinosaurs. But they are a species unto themselves.
Humans evolved from apes. Do we call ourselves apes?

There are seven extant species of great apes: two in the orangutans (genus Pongo), two in the gorillas (genus Gorilla), two in the chimpanzees (genus Pan), and a single extant species, Homo sapiens, of modern humans (genus Homo).

en.wikipedia.org...
So yes, we call ourselves apes



a reply to: Greggers

Every link you've posted so far states that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, I don't know how you've missed that, one link refers to birds as Avian dinosaurs, that is to say "not dinosaurs"

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: charlyv
Birds evolved from dinosaurs. But they are a species unto themselves.
Humans evolved from apes. Do we call ourselves apes?

There are seven extant species of great apes: two in the orangutans (genus Pongo), two in the gorillas (genus Gorilla), two in the chimpanzees (genus Pan), and a single extant species, Homo sapiens, of modern humans (genus Homo).

en.wikipedia.org...
So yes, we call ourselves apes

a reply to: Greggers

Every link you've posted so far states that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, I don't know how you've missed that, one link refers to birds as Avian dinosaurs, that is to say "not dinosaurs"

The word Avian doesn't mean "not." And if you review the second link in my previous post you will see the changes in nomenclature that apparently helped fuel the debate, as well as the fact that while scientifically birds are dinosaurs, they are often excluded for practical reasons, depending upon the purpose of a given conversation.

From the first link in my last post: Avialae ("bird wings") is a clade of flying dinosaurs containing their only living representatives, the birds. It is usually defined as all theropod dinosaurs more closely related to modern birds (Aves) than to deinonychosaurs, though alternate definitions are occasionally used (see below).

This very clearly refers to birds as belonging to a "clade of flying dinosaurs." What we're arguing here appears to be primarily semantics. There do appear to be some scientists attempting to falsify even the idea that birds descended from dinosaurs, but so far the bulk of the evidence is not in their favor. As far as the finer debate of whether birds ARE dinosaurs, it's heavily influenced by changing standards in taxonomy.

duplicate.