Xtra News Community 2
November 21, 2019, 05:32:13 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

'First Bird' Not Very Bird-Like


Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 'First Bird' Not Very Bird-Like  (Read 199 times)
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Moderator
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« on: October 09, 2009, 04:39:22 pm »

'First Bird' Not Very Bird-Like

A feathered beast that lived some 150 million years ago and which was considered the first bird likely grew more like its sluggish ancestors, the dinosaurs.

That's according to new analyses of tiny bone chips taken from Archaeopteryx and detailed this week in the journal PLoS ONE. The study researchers estimate a 970-day period from baby Archaeopteryx to an adult. For comparison, birds reach adult size in a matter of weeks.

They also think the early bird was much larger than previous estimates probably the size of a raven rather than a crow.

"Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds. It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives," said lead author Gregory Erickson of Florida State University, and a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. "Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast. This is why we see flocks of pigeons that all look the same and rarely see baby birds."

He added, "Animals like Archaeopteryx would be very foreign to a bird watcher.

Fossils like those from Archaeopteryx and other primitive birds continue to paint a picture of exactly how the transition from theropod dinosaurs to modern birds occurred some 150 million years ago.

Birds and dinosaurs

When alive, Archaeopteryx looked like a cross between a bird and a dinosaur, as it sported feathers, a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) and a reverse first toe on its foot (which allows some birds to perch) like birds. But it also had non-avian dinosaur features like a long bony tail, claws and teeth.

And now slow growth can be added to Archaeopteryx's dinosaur side.

In addition, scientists thought such lickety-split bone growth was a prerequisite for flight. But the now-considered slow grower Archaeopteryx may have flown or at least glided (though the jury is still out on whether it got airborne at all), suggesting fast bone growth wasn't necessary for taking to the air.

Bone chips

The research team removed tiny chips from the thighbones and a shinbone of Archaeopteryx remains. To put the bones into evolutionary context, the team also sampled bones from two early birds the long-tailed Jeholornis prima and the short-tailed Sapeornis chaochengensi along with birds' closest dinosaur relatives, including Velociraptor mongoliensis and a miniaturized species such as Mahakala omnogova that is similar in size to Archaeopteryx.

The bones from these early birds looked similar to those of same-sized dinosaurs, as they were dense with small blood vessels and bone cells that were flattened and parallel.

More advanced birds, such as the 94 million-year-old Ichthyornis dispar, had bones that were well-supplied with blood vessels and a woven structure, with randomly oriented bone fibers, indicating fast growth with no annual growth lines.

"Archaeopteryx had comparable metabolism to closely related Velociraptor," said study researcher Mark Norell, a paleontologist at AMNH. "Although the genealogy of birds is well understood, the genesis of modern bird biology has been a huge mystery. We knew that [birds] are a kind of dinosaur, but we now know that the transition into true birds physiologically and metabolically happened well after Archaeopteryx."

http://www.livescience.com/animals/091008-bird-growth.html
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Sir Blodsnogger
Guest
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2009, 06:56:57 am »

Dazza mack you should be fined for spreading this rubbish onto an unsuspecting world
Report Spam   Logged
AnFaolchudubh
Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 3828


Faugh a ballagh!


« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2009, 11:09:51 am »

Dazza mack you should be fined for spreading this rubbish onto an unsuspecting world

You should be locked away for the rubbish you spread gommie!
Report Spam   Logged

Stupid people are not an endangered species so why are we protecting them
R. S. OhAllmurain
robman
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 2197



« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2009, 11:10:37 am »

Read between the lines gommie, there are some immutable facts in there. Some of the conclusions drawn from these facts and clues are a little far fetched and should be thought of as inferences, not conclusions.
Science can be subject to flights of fancy but don't discount it entirely, separate the wheat from the chaff.
Attempting to completely debunk science only makes you appear an oaf.
Report Spam   Logged

I once thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.
Sir Blodsnogger
Guest
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2009, 11:06:27 pm »

I think you must be right about science and I have a question to ask about science. With the exception of arithmetic which piece of science is based on facts??
Report Spam   Logged
pantherrr0
Moderator
Bloody-Good Member
*
Posts: 264


« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2009, 01:24:56 am »

keeping with the  topic, im  curious  on the bone  density.

have to  track down more i guess
numbers  gommie are just things  made up to  describe things that occur you seem to  be putting in a double negative there.

but as for  provable FACTS   the issue with the bone density  especially in regards to the relative size will be a major factor on if it could fly, given that blood vessels are similar to the other bird like things i think it would be a reasonable assumption that the force generation /gram of muscle would  also be in the ball park regions. this all comes down to gravity on our planet accelerating everything "down" at about 9.81 m/s/s  and if you would like proof, seing as  like most things involving science  the idea of theories is to achieve something testable   we can test this. all you need to  do is  find a very  high place with a sheer face,  top of a 15 story building perhaps  then  jump off. should you not accelerate due to gravity perhapes even reaching your terminal velocity where air friction  comes into equilibrium with gravities acceleration then  you wont  either die or sustain horrific injuries when you  hit the  ground here we will have proof if gravity exists, and  we will have definate upper bound on bone density , well at least  on density / surface area ratios

you seem to be so keen to  have proof gommie, ill be eagerly awaiting the results of your little test =)

*grin*  imagine the irony should you win a darwin award

Report Spam   Logged
robman
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 2197



« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2009, 09:57:41 pm »

which piece of science is based on facts??
Well... that must be the dumbest question I've ever heard. I presume you're using a computer, there may be a bit more science than mathematics at work there. Those aircraft you may have noticed in the sky from time to time? the laws of physics and chemistry may have a little something to say there, don't you think?
Medical science is all a crock?
Oh wait.... aircraft don't exist because there's no mention of them in the bible...right?
Report Spam   Logged

I once thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.
Sir Blodsnogger
Guest
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2009, 07:55:01 am »

Dont mess me about you green nutcracking git.     Grin
Which piece of evolution science is what i meant but forgot to say. Now lets have proof please.
Report Spam   Logged
robman
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 2197



« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2009, 09:23:52 pm »

Here's a tiny smidgeon. I presume you accept that DNA exists?
Is the correlation between human and chimpanzee DNA part of the grand design?
96% the same at last report. And no, it doesn't indicate that humans descended from chimps, simply the we share a common ancestor.
Report Spam   Logged

I once thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.
Sir Blodsnogger
Guest
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2009, 05:11:41 am »

Without being contentious I heard it was 99% and whales at 97 something like that. Yes I fully agree that dna exists. I wonder how God did that
Report Spam   Logged
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Moderator
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2009, 08:50:35 pm »

Without being contentious I heard it was 99% and whales at 97 something like that. Yes I fully agree that dna exists. I wonder how God did that


In other words....

I just say the shit which I say -  just because.......

 Huh
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
robman
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 2197



« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2009, 09:32:14 pm »

And this similarty in DNA doesn't suggest some connection between species Gom?
The question I would ask if I had the slightest glimmer of belief in some sort of supreme being, isn't how did he/she/it did it, more why did HSI do it.
Report Spam   Logged

I once thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.
Sir Blodsnogger
Guest
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2009, 08:48:12 am »

That el supremo used dna to set diverse species in place
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.