The Dinosaur Feather Mystery Ending

[geoffreyah]

"imagine if you will" if you reverse enginered a bird, the whole animal from head to toe, and you find the direct line of birds runs right through the heart of the whole of Dinosauria-each step, each missing linc along the path towards avisaurus brings you through the closest direct ancestors of all dinosaurs...each direct link shows it's closeness to all of the fossil records archasaurs(not to mention all lifes trail )-then they mint change them closer to those lost vistages in the flesh...(O:

[geoffreyah]

The only system that we should use to measure desent of life is a direct line relationship with the life that still lives today to understand the history of the living world-again direct line desent-so we can protect the living diversity-and have a special respect for the struggle that life must endure to reach a pinnicle.

[geoffreyah]

"Most traits evolved having nothing to do with flight,? including Wings!! WOW! Wings? yeah WINGS! for 'display' true flight being one of the only definable characteristics that is Bird!!-Metabolism and Growth rates being the other two.

[Cheuvin]

um.. birds are not dinosaurs... or else we may as well just call people fish... which might be considered true in some sort of technical sense but it is rather impractical to think of mammals as fish, even if they have an ancestor that is best described as a fish with modern terms.

[pienipaha]

Yes - birds are classified as Dinosauria.

Fish itself is not a group of classification. We are however vertebrate creatures with jaws, like most fish are. (At Uni the group that involved fishes had a side note on the text that as such, humans also are included xD )

Note that classification is under change and it happens quite rapidly. Classification is completely human made anyway, so no wonder not all of it makes sense since biologically only the species level matters...

[Cheuvin]

yes birds are classified as dinosauria.. does that make them dinosaurs? I do not think so. Dinosaur is a looser term referring to animals the same way 'fish' does?

[pienipaha]

Birds do fit into every definition of a theropod dinosaur. They evolved from dinosaurs, so they can be nothing else than dinosaurs. Animal can not outgrow it's lineage.

So you can say that humans are fish, it's not wrong if our nearest common ancestor was a fish.

I can consult someone with more expertise about this to get better clarity though.

Hopefully they will soon settle with the terms in a sensible way. Manmade classification is really confusing at times. Updates need to be made.

[pienipaha]

I got the thing clarified.

The only thing "fish" stands for is chordate, thus humans can be called fish.

However, dinosaur has a very specific meaning and birds along with the other animals refered to as dinosaurs could not be classified as anything else that is separated from the original taxon.

[Cheuvin]

Ok so basically, humans are fish!

[puncheex]

@Cheuvin: Common usage might vary, but pylogenetics, the study of taxonomy of creatures, believes that clade names should always be "paraphyletic"; that is, the name of a clade applies to all descendents of the clade. Thus, we are humans, but we are also apes, monkeys, primates, placental mammals, therapods, amniotes, tetrapods, bony fish, chordates, vertebrates and animals, plus 30-40 others I skipped over. By that way of thinking, birds are dinosaurs, because they had dinosaur ancestors.

[puncheex]

(Excuse me, above where I said "paraphyletic" I meant "monophyletic".)

Now, phylogenetics is a relatively new field; it was started in 1950. Before that we had the traditional Linnaean classifications., and in that system, many of the names were paraphyletic rather than monophyletic, in which a names did not necessarily include all descendants.  Thus dinosaurs had a special meaning that the modern system has changed; likewise monkey, fish and others. So it depends on your system.

[pienipaha]

The problem with Linnaean classification is that it doesn't always accurately reflect common decent, thus the need for other systems. (That's pretty much what you said there with not including all decendants...)

Just some time ago I spoke to a person who didn't know what dinosaur means, saying that lemurs are surviving dinosaurs (and then linked me to Ida). This person is not stupid, just confused. (Was very willing to learn, actually.)

Shows that these things aren't so easy to grasp...

[puncheex]

Indeed: The Linnaean system was built upon the only clue they had at the time, morphology. Now we have genetics, and a couple of other fields that all corroborate the morphology, correcting it and making it more robust.

[shoshanish]

@Cheuvin birds are dinos because they still have the qualities of there ancestors!

some dinos had feathers, look up "the dinosaur feather mystory" here on youtube!

[Cheuvin]

@shoshanish yes but birds also have qualities that dinosaurs do not have

[pienipaha]

@Cheuvin

Birds are dinosaurs. Naturally, they are different from many other dinosaurs, but they still are and always will be one of the many subgroups within. See my explanation about classification below.

[neonwind]

Thank you for uploading this.

[rezario1]

Thanks a lot for uploading this excellent video. I tried to buy this documentary - but it's not possible to buy it from anywhere including "Discovery"

Is there any chance you can upload it to Google videos ? (cheeky request !)

I wasn't aware that Archeopteryx is older than Laoning fossils, but it is clear that about the transition of dinosaurs to birds due to the shared features of both grops, etc.

Another related excellent docmentary is called "The Four Winged Dinosaur" by NOVA. Thanks again

[ndjarnag]

amazing videos! thanks for the upload. subscribed :)

[pienipaha]

Thnx!

[centrarchid]

Though I support the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs archeopteryx pre-dates all the featured dinosaurs discovered in China. The documentary ignores this and gives us a time table that doesn't match. And the dude at the end saying tyrannosaurus had features? We have no proof of that, jumping the gun a little I say. Documentaries are made for entertainment first, education second. I suggest if anyone is interested enough that they pick up a scientific text, far more accurate.

[pienipaha]

Yes I'm aware of that. Though there has been more findings after this was made. (See Science News 3, for example.)

And I agree with you. As far as the book is as new as possible, it's likely better. Depending on the target audience, of course :P

[centrarchid]

I'm not targeting you personally, just criticizing the video in general. It was still a good show.

[pienipaha]

I know, so worry not. The protofeathered dinosaurs do provide us a clue, as they are from the same ancestral line as birds an larger theropods. Perhaps they remained alive unchanged alongside the other species, perhaps there are more even older species yet to dug up...

Archaeopteryx is the first actual bird. Birds are nowadays classified as reptiles, under the superorder Dinosauria too.

[centrarchid]

I am sure there are feathered bird-like dinosaurs that predate archeopteryx, I'm not arguing against the dinosaur-bird connection. My beef with the show is that it presented an inaccurate time line in part 5. It mislead the viewer to believe that all the Lioning finds predated archeopteryx when in fact Archeopteryx is older then they are.

[pienipaha]

Bothers me too. Though after any documentary I prefer to make a back-up check, just in case.

Indeed the age of the fossils should have been mentioned.

[pienipaha]

GREAT NEWS!

Just recently (unsurprisingly from China) a new fossil was discovered! The little, feathered dinosaur was named Epidexipteryx hui, and dates back 152 and 168 million years, making it older than Archaeopteryx!

I'll post a link on my channel.

[pienipaha]

Make that in the video description.

[OldBobMcCoy]

My dad has a problem with the fact that I when I draw feathers on the dinosaurs that had them. He trusts my judgment on paleontology up to that one particular point, because in his opinion, "nobody knows about feathered dinosaurs."

Yeah, nobody from HIS generation. It's good to see that my generation is far more receptive to this fact. It frustrates me that he's so against the concept of feathers on dinosaurs, and mostly because it just seems so arbitrary.

Thanks for the video.

[pienipaha]

Sharing knowledge is my pleasure.

My dad has no problem accepting feathered dino-drawings of mine. Actually, when I said I want a pet dinosaur, he told me to get a parrot xD

Maybe you should show him some literature or this documentary. Feathered dinosaurs are still everywhere, birds are classified as ones. Just show him a book on avian taxonomy, wikipedia even states that point :)

[jonthebaptist666]

There are NO transitional fossils, oh my!

There are NO transitional fossils, oh my!

There are NO transitional fossils, oh my!

Seriously, how can any of the millions of Americans who say that be taken seriously? Great program, thanks for the upload

[SoliloquyMonologues]

(1)

Hello, Thanks for the video. Let me first say that I don't believe so you know where I am coming from.

I tend to look at both sides as I don't trust either fully. Visual & oversimplified media can easily be used as an effective propaganda. Whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant.

[SoliloquyMonologues]

Anyhow, I wanted to point this out:

sciencedaily com /releases/2005/10/051010085411­.htm

news nationalgeographic com /news/2007/06/070601-dino-feat­hers.html

news nationalgeographic com /news/2008/01/080116-dinosaur-­skin_2.html

BTW: Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird, whether it is or not is debatable I guess. Either way it is irrelevant, the label neither makes the argument better or worse.

Again thanks for the video.

[SoliloquyMonologues]

Sill commenting filter. It took me a few tries to figure out I can't post W W W. :(

[pienipaha]

Archaeopteryx's classification as a bird wouldn't change anything, for birds are also members of the dinosauria.

[twothlesswonder]

Excellent Video!

Although I had already learned most of this stuff, It was a special treat to see some of the computer models in action.

Thanks for uploading this stuff!

[TheSanityInspector]

Amazing, just amazing. I don't pay for TV, so I'm glad to have seen this. Just think: that prehistoric dromaeosaur might be more closely related to the finches at my backyard birdfeeder, than to the herbivorous dinosaurs it preyed upon. Just wow...

[pienipaha]

I don't know about you but I had a laugh when, after seeing this, my cat brought in her latest pray: a tiny bird. She's a dinohunter!

Though I must admit, that modern predatory birds would be very scary enemies, being some of the most succesfull carnivores of this day. Very gracefull too. Makes me happy to live in the middle of a forest where plenty of dierent birds are nesting. There'snothing like sitting outside with binoculars, following their everyday life.