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

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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".

Actually, we are a kind of ape.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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".

Actually, we are a kind of ape.

Harte

I never said we're not, but I would still say we're not apes as such, even though we are primates.

My point was, we never evolved directly from apes. We evolved from a commin ancestor which would make apes a relative, but not a direct ancestor.

originally posted by: Greggers

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.

The post I originally replied to on this stated that "Dinosaurs are birds," not that "Birds are dinosaurs."
So, no.
But birds have never been "officially" classified as dinosaurs. That's because we can't know this, since evidence also points to the possibility of them having a common ancestor.

Harte

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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".

Actually, we are a kind of ape.

Harte

I never said we're not, but I would still say we're not apes as such, even though we are primates.

My point was, we never evolved directly from apes. We evolved from a commin ancestor which would make apes a relative, but not a direct ancestor.

Dude, embrace your apeness.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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".

Actually, we are a kind of ape.

Harte

I never said we're not, but I would still say we're not apes as such, even though we are primates.

My point was, we never evolved directly from apes. We evolved from a commin ancestor which would make apes a relative, but not a direct ancestor.

Dude, embrace your apeness.

Harte

I'd rather embrace my primateness

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Greggers

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.

The post I originally replied to on this stated that "Dinosaurs are birds," not that "Birds are dinosaurs."
So, no.
But birds have never been "officially" classified as dinosaurs. That's because we can't know this, since evidence also points to the possibility of them having a common ancestor.

Harte

My original post, however, was that birds were dinosaurs. I hadn't even seen your post at the time that I posted it. But I went back and made the edit because that very topic had been discussed in the thread. I agree with you, by the way, about the "dinosaurs are birds" claim. I assumed that claim was made in jest or was a mistaken reversal. Either way I agree it's absurd, so you and I are on the same page there.

As far as what we can or cannot know about whether birds are dinosaurs, I can only say that the current taxonomical standards plus the preponderance of the evidence at present appears to support the idea. Yes, it's possible they have a common ancestor. And if such is discovered, I can only assume paleontologists will stop referring to birds as dinosaurs.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Phage

I used to accept the theory of macroevolution wholeheartedly

I'm calling BS on this. There is no such theory in science.

There is only evolution. Absolutely no difference between "micro" and "macro", those terms are only used to determine how much time has passed. The mechanisms are identical. More mutations add up over more time, so there is a perceived bigger change. Nobody that says they "accepted the theory of macroevolution" has ever studied it, because they wouldn't say that if they had.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Greggers

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.

The post I originally replied to on this stated that "Dinosaurs are birds," not that "Birds are dinosaurs."
So, no.
But birds have never been "officially" classified as dinosaurs. That's because we can't know this, since evidence also points to the possibility of them having a common ancestor.

Harte

My original post, however, was that birds were dinosaurs. I hadn't even seen your post at the time that I posted it. But I went back and made the edit because that very topic had been discussed in the thread. I agree with you, by the way, about the "dinosaurs are birds" claim. I assumed that claim was made in jest or was a mistaken reversal. Either way I agree it's absurd, so you and I are on the same page there.

As far as what we can or cannot know about whether birds are dinosaurs, I can only say that the current taxonomical standards plus the preponderance of the evidence at present appears to support the idea. Yes, it's possible they have a common ancestor. And if such is discovered, I can only assume paleontologists will stop referring to birds as dinosaurs.

While there is evidence to the contrary (I linked one aspect of it,) I tend to agree with you here.
I mean, I've eaten snake. It tastes like chicken.

Apparently, however, the debate isn't exactly as settled as it once was thought to be.

Harte

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

a reply to: muzzleflash

Spider woman spun a web, covered it with dew and draped it throughout the universe.

Buffalo Wings with Hot Sauce?

The fossil record indicates that birds are the last surviving dinosaurs, termed avian dinosaurs, having evolved from feathered ancestors within the theropod group of saurischian dinosaurs. True birds first appeared during the Cretaceous period, around 100 million years ago. DNA-based evidence finds that birds diversified dramatically around the time of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that killed off all other dinosaurs. Birds in South America survived this event and then migrated to other parts of the world via multiple land bridges while diversifying during periods of global cooling.Primitive bird-like dinosaurs that lie outside class Aves proper, in the broader group Avialae, have been found dating back to the mid-Jurassic period.Many of these early "stem-birds", such as Archaeopteryx, were not yet capable of fully powered flight, and many retained primitive characteristics like toothy jaws in place of beaks, and long bony tails.

Birds are descended from the therapods, and evidence has shown that the therepods were warm blooded and feathers evolved as insulation.
Although this is a fascinating subject, it doesn't really belong in the" Ancient and Lost Civilizations "
forum, Mods?

Just checked in again on this thread and saw it is more or less sorted out.

The semantics are indeed confusing. What people perceive as being dinosaurs, is not what biologists and paleontologists perceive as dinosaurs. The same happens with apes.

New discoveries and new techniques are changing taxonomy, and also caused the shift from paraphyletic clades to monophyletic clades. A clade that was classified alongside another one, suddenly might find itself classified as a part of the latter clade, or even split up and placed under different clades. And in many cases the original names of the clades are maintained.

So, in the eyes of mainstream science, the clade ‘Aves’ and species ‘Tyrannosaurus rex’ share a common ancestor and are both placed in the clade ‘Dinosauria’. Maybe that changes tomorrow in the light of new findings, but today it is the most accepted theory.

Likewise humans, gorillas, gibbons share a common ancestor and are placed in the clade ‘Hominoidea’, that means human-like, but its actual synonym in common language is ‘apes’, so theoretically, yes, we are apes.

And, here is another one: ever wondered why there are almost no crustaceans on earth, and almost no insects in the water? Well, that was answered in 2010 (and following years) when they discovered that insects are in fact crustaceans, although in this case they changed the name of the clade ‘Crustacea’ to ‘Pancrustacea’ and the old ‘Crustacea’ is now a polyphyletic group.

In day to day life (and in fact in schools also) people may see and study apes and humans, crustaceans and insects, dinosaurs and birds as separate kinds of ‘sister’ groups, and that’s fine with me for practical reasons, but in today’s mainstream science semantics they are not.

Cheers!

a reply to: gortex

Astonishing! lol! My late Mom found a piece of Amber in a Gypstone Quarry right here in little ole Manitoba Canada. It had a perfectly preserved big Bumble Bee inside. My eldest daughter probably thought it was too junkie to keep and if she didn't sell it in the garage sale, probably trashed it along with many other little treasures my late Mom found over the years. lol! That is what she gets for being exactly like her father only looks almost identical to me lol!
Her Father was going to burn my huge crate boxes of comic books that were in perfect condition.
I couldn't let him do that so I called a gf to donate them to the Sick Children's Foundation Auction.
Next Day, driving into work, it came on the radio, " Thank you to anonymous for the huge comic book donation. We sold 1 for $10 000.00, 1 for $7000.00, etc. " lol! My ex husband turned in his seat and said, " You Bitch! You knew! " I said, " I TRIED to tell you but you wouldn't listen. Better they have it than you or a fire lol! " Another beating resulted It was worth it that time though don't you agree? lol!
Now I am wondering about the Bumble Bee in the Amber lol! All my late Mom's jewelry was to be given to me but none of it was. She's had the Amber wrapped in gold with a loop, then a gold chain slipped through lol! She believed Bees to be a symbol of very good luck. Her and I are a lot similar with things we find or collect lol! Too funny! But I wonder how old IT could have been?

a reply to: charlyv

That looks a tad bit like a cross between tiny hair like feathers and scale shaped like on fish.

a reply to: gortex

One point is that the wings would have to be older as the Amber would have needed to form and harden around them in perfect timing.

a reply to: Agnost

And, here is another one: ever wondered why there are almost no crustaceans on earth, and almost no insects in the water? Well, that was answered in 2010 (and following years) when they discovered that insects are in fact crustaceans, although in this case they changed the name of the clade ‘Crustacea’ to ‘Pancrustacea’ and the old ‘Crustacea’ is now a polyphyletic group.

What are ypu talking about, there are more than 67,000 known species of crustaceans,
and insects are not crustaceans they are both arthropods.

a reply to: Harte

So what exactly would an Ostrich be? Dinosaur or Non-Flying Bird?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Phage

I used to accept the theory of macroevolution wholeheartedly

I'm calling BS on this. There is no such theory in science.

Looks like you've got reading to do...

The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by the vast majority of[24] scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species."

There are other senses that term is used in, but that's the most frequent. Context matters.

Why don't you read this and the references?

Macroevolution terminology confusions

Macroevolution means evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record. It is contrasted with microevolution, the study of evolution over short time periods, such as that of a human lifetime or less. Microevolution therefore refers to changes in gene frequency within a population .... Macroevolutionary events events are much more likely to take millions of years. Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution ... or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion .... Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution.

You have now been confronted with the fact your simplistic opinion was driven by bias and ignorance and foolish prejudice.

No wonder it's difficult to discuss this topic, you immediately jump to the conclusion that I "haven't studied biology" when I've actually spent years doing exactly that in a formal setting. Over a single word you didn't even bother to Google?!?

Please read the article linked, do some basic research for at least 1 hour, then let me know what's up.

Blindly believing in things should be avoided and we ought to question things and most of all, do a tiny bit of reading. Just a tiny bit would be fine...

a reply to: muzzleflash

None of what you linked to, or quoted, says that there is a "theory of macroevolution". No one is disagreeing that macroevolution is studied, just that there is no "theory of macroevolution". It's actually an area of study that is a part of the theory of evolution.