Mark Norell Publishes New Archaeopteryx Findings

Mark Norell, Chair of the Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, has published a new paper revealing the Archaeopteryx, once thought to be the first bird, was in fact a feathered dinosaur.

First found in Germany in the 1860's and dating to 150 million years ago, Archaeopteryx has long been considered the iconic first bird. But microscopic imaging of bone structure published in PLoS One shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs.

"For a long time, Archaeopteryx was considered the archetypical bird primarily because it had feathers, although it retained typical dinosaur features like a long tail and teeth," said Norell. "But the discovery of classical bird features like feathers and wishbones have recently been found in many non-avian dinosaurs blurring the line of what constitutes a bird."

Produced/Edited by James Sims. For more information visit http://www.amnh.org

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• amnh
• natural history museum
• dinosaur
• raptor
• archaepteryx
• mark norell

[flambagels]

Interesting, looks like they'll have to change their display!

[LimesNorrlandicus]

Yes, and the bible comes across as pretty retarded if you take the time to read it. Stoning people? Wiping out cities full of innocent people for little or no reason?!... etc. No merciful god would approve of the bible, it is sick and irrational. No merciful god would create a context in which such horrific deeds would be justified.

[251melabelle]

in spite of the apparent or actual existence of ‘feathered theropods,’ the supposed evolutionary origin of feathers remains problematic.35 Nowadays evolution is said to occur in a mosaic fashion, and this is supposedly justified by evolutionary changes in developmental pathways, relative to embryonic development.33 But, as noted earlier, embryonic development can soundly contradict accepted evolutionary schemes, notably the theropod-to-bird dogma.

[251melabelle]

3 A second inescapable fact also remains: evolutionists have lowered their standards for what qualifies as evidence. Failing to find fossil animals showing comprehensive intermediacy between reptiles and birds, they are now forced to patch together a ‘series’ of fossil animals that merely show a variegated assortment of reptilian and avian traits.

[dragonamt]

@obiwing5 The heisenberg uncertainty principle? For REAL? Seriously, probabilities are completely different from not having a freaking clue were the puppet master can somehow intervene without us knowing. Regardless, you can't take a theory in quantum mechanics and apply it so broadly to a macroevolutionary theory without some serious, peer reviewed, data based theory backing that up. As a scientist I can't discount anything but I don't see your theory holding water.

[obiwing5]

@dragonamt inteligent desigh is retarded because it is a theory made by nonscientists. there is plenty of leeway found inthe hiesenberg uncertainty pricipal for God to steer evolution and essentialy desighn any way he wants to without anyone possibly scientifically knowing. Therefor Inteligent desighn is scientific if taught in this light. Teaching that regular evolutionary theory is the only possible theory is making evolution a religion itself.

[dudev]

@dragonamt

Your response is a little unclear. But, annually, there are usually a dozen or more attempts by state politicians to introduce legislation promoting creationism or its cousin, intelligent design. 

[dragonamt]

@dudev [Correction: That said, when the idea of teaching creationism in school **is brought up** I always respond.] ... anyway, I have never not had that response shut them up immediately.

[dragonamt]

@dudev That said, when the idea of teaching creationism in school I always respond: "The US constitution states there is a separation of church and state, it does not mention a separation of science and state, you cannot make evolution illegal to teach in public schools and by the constitution itself you cannot make creationism legal to teach. Learn about God in church if you wish to, on your own time, learn about science in school, no one said you had to like it."

[dragonamt]

@dudev My point is that the facts are there, eventually one day religious fanatics will either get tired of lying to themselves and actually accept reality or they won't. It is very unlikely that anything anyone can say in a youtube comment is going to cause a fanatic (or troll) to relinquish their religion, and even less likely when the only explanation as to why they should do so is: "because you're stupid".

[dudev]

@dragonamt

"but this treatment of religion as an enemy"

Believers are constantly challenging the separation of church and state. They dilute science curricula and push creationism in public schools and rewrite American history to fit their agenda and force religion into politics. If they didn't act like such insufferable assholes, we atheists wouldn't make religion such an issue. It's they who see non-believers as the enemy. All atheists I know support freedom of religion.

[gamesbok]

@SchertzPark The roots of biological evolution are biology. Your pathetic attempt to change the subject to abiogenesis, another arbitary stage, by the way, I will take as an admission of defeat.

The universe is awash with organic material.

Try Oro J 1961 Mechanism of synthesis of adenine from hydrogen

cyanide under possible primitive Earth conditions; Nature

(London) 191 1193–1194

If you think something happened that isn't chemistry you are obliged to tell us what that might be.