Scientists prove raptors had feathers.

Dumpy Dooby · 09-20-2007, 09:48 PM

Scientists: Velociraptor had feathers

Story Highlights
Dinosaur predator velociraptor had feathers, researchers report
A velociraptor forearm found in Mongolia shows the presence of quill knobs
Quill knobs are bumps on the bone where feathers anchor
Dinosaurs are believed to be ancestors to modern birds

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Velociraptor, the terrifying predator made famous in the movie "Jurassic Park," appears to have had feathers in real life.

A close study of a velociraptor forearm found in Mongolia shows the presence of quill knobs, bumps on the bone where the feathers anchor, researchers report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

Dinosaurs are believed to be ancestors to modern birds. Evidence of feathered dinosaurs has been found in recent years, and now velociraptor can be added to that list.

"Finding quill knobs on velociraptor ... means that it definitely had feathers. This is something we'd long suspected, but no one had been able to prove," Alan Turner, lead author on the study and a graduate student of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History and at Columbia University in New York, said in a statement.

The velociraptor the researchers studied was about three feet tall and weighed about 30 pounds. The size of these animals was exaggerated in the movie.

It had short forelimbs, compared to a modern bird, the researchers said, indicating it would not have been able to fly, even though it had feathers.

The feathers may have been useful for display, to shield nests, for temperature control or to help it maneuver while running, they said.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/20/feathered.raptor.ap/index.html

Dumpy Dooby · 09-20-2007, 09:52 PM

This is great news for those of us that are on the right side of the evolution/creation debate. It gets us closer to proving that feathers were not created by God for the sole purpose of making a wing.

Dylith · 09-20-2007, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

This is great news for those of us that are on the right side of the evolution/creation debate. It gets us closer to proving that feathers were not created by God for the sole purpose of making a wing.

Indeed, as are the huge ammounts of fossils being uncovered in China that clearly support the existence of many types of feathered dinosaurs.

Linzyhop · 09-21-2007, 09:09 AM

this is really cool. good find Dumpy!

Publius · 09-21-2007, 10:00 AM

If Spielberg were more like George Lucas, he'd go back and re-do Jurassic Park's effects to replace the reptilian dinosaurs with feathered varieties ... thank god Spielberg isn't like Lucas.

AVengeance · 09-27-2007, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

...A close study of a velociraptor forearm found in Mongolia shows the presence of quill knobs, bumps on the bone where the feathers anchor, researchers report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

Dinosaurs are believed to be ancestors to modern birds. Evidence of feathered dinosaurs has been found in recent years, and now velociraptor can be added to that list.

"Finding quill knobs on velociraptor ... means that it definitely had feathers.

Wow, they found bumps on a bone. They call them quill knobs, despite not finding any actual feathers anchored to them. They also did not find this creature's children, or its parents. There is nothing to show this wasn't some freak event. There is nothing to show the "traits" (if that's what these bone bumps were) were passed from its parents to it, nor passed on from it to it's progeny, and there's nothing to show feathers. There's also nothing to show whether the feathers (again, if that's what those bumps truly indicate) were evolving INTO or OUT OF existance in the specimen they found.

There's way too much religion in their science, and I'm amazed at the way athiests salivate over it, thinking it "proves" their worldview.

Linzyhop · 09-27-2007, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Wow, they found bumps on a bone. They call them quill knobs, despite not finding any actual feathers anchored to them. They also did not find this creature's children, or its parents. There is nothing to show this wasn't some freak event. There is nothing to show the "traits" (if that's what these bone bumps were) were passed from its parents to it, nor passed on from it to it's progeny, and there's nothing to show feathers. There's also nothing to show whether the feathers (again, if that's what those bumps truly indicate) were evolving INTO or OUT OF existance in the specimen they found.

There's way too much religion in their science, and I'm amazed at the way athiests salivate over it, thinking it "proves" their worldview.

um are you a paleontologist?

i didn't think so.

WickedLou9 · 09-27-2007, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Wow, they found bumps on a bone. They call them quill knobs, despite not finding any actual feathers anchored to them. They also did not find this creature's children, or its parents. There is nothing to show this wasn't some freak event. There is nothing to show the "traits" (if that's what these bone bumps were) were passed from its parents to it, nor passed on from it to it's progeny, and there's nothing to show feathers. There's also nothing to show whether the feathers (again, if that's what those bumps truly indicate) were evolving INTO or OUT OF existance in the specimen they found.

There's way too much religion in their science, and I'm amazed at the way athiests salivate over it, thinking it "proves" their worldview.

Even the Pope recognizes that evolution does not disprove god or religion. He thinks the debate is crazy.

Simius · 09-27-2007, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Wow, they found bumps on a bone. They call them quill knobs, despite not finding any actual feathers anchored to them. They also did not find this creature's children, or its parents. There is nothing to show this wasn't some freak event. There is nothing to show the "traits" (if that's what these bone bumps were) were passed from its parents to it, nor passed on from it to it's progeny, and there's nothing to show feathers. There's also nothing to show whether the feathers (again, if that's what those bumps truly indicate) were evolving INTO or OUT OF existance in the specimen they found.

There's way too much religion in their science, and I'm amazed at the way athiests salivate over it, thinking it "proves" their worldview.

Most people who believe in evolution are religious. Evolution, and evidence supporting evolution, has nothing to do with atheism. I'm not sure why you are complaining about atheists salivating over this when anybody who is interested in how past animals looked/behaved and evolved would be interested in new evidence that gives us a better picture of the past.

That said, I'm also not sure why you are saying "There's way too much religion in their science." I get that you think this doesn't conclusively show that raptors had feathers.... But I wasn't aware that religion was a synonym for completely unfounded idea. I mean, it seems silly to defend your religious world view by using religion as a synonym for "unfounded." But maybe that is just me.

AVengeance · 09-27-2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Even the Pope recognizes that evolution does not disprove god or religion. He thinks the debate is crazy.

Evolution == change over time == I have no problem with that.

Evolution == adaptation, mutation, changes in the DNA "program" == I have no problem with that, as long as it's supported by evidence, experimentation, and observation.

Evolution == it rained on the rocks for millions of years == living goo == people == that's bullshit.

Now, with my OPINION out of the way, can you please refute my assertion that they make wreckless and unfounded conclusions based on very limited information? Really, I'd like to know how they can tell from bumps on a bone that this creature made some babies that carried on that trait. Or that the evolution was currently going in a "toward bird" direction. It is just as likely, even by the athiestic worldview, that the bumps observed lead to a complete evolutionary dead-end, and that birds and their features evolved completely independently of this evidence.

I am amazed that some people that claim to use SCIENCE as their basis for reasoning are so willing to allow such latitude in supposition when it supports their preconcieved worldview.

One last note. I don't give a rat's tail about what the Pope thinks. He's a political figure, in the smallest nation on Earth. He's a nobody in my book- just another sinner, just another human.

Publius · 09-27-2007, 03:37 PM

Av, there have been plenty of other fossil findings that suggest dinosaurs were feathered and an ancestral link between modern birds and dinosaurs has been pretty well documented by the paleontological record... People aren't making "leaps of faith" based on this ONE piece of evidence.

AVengeance · 09-27-2007, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

um are you a paleontologist?

i didn't think so.

I don't need to be a paleontologists to recognize someone jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence.

Linzyhop · 09-27-2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

One last note. I don't give a rat's tail about what the Pope thinks. He's a political figure, in the smallest nation on Earth. He's a nobody in my book- just another sinner, just another human.

um, wasn't it catholics that originally came up with the notion of a "sin"?????

WickedLou9 · 09-27-2007, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

One last note. I don't give a rat's tail about what the Pope thinks. He's a political figure, in the smallest nation on Earth. He's a nobody in my book- just another sinner, just another human.

I'm not saying you need to listen to the pope, but he is the leader of one of the largest sects of Christianity in the world. You are not really giving him credit for the global influence that he has. He is certainly not a nobody.

Grouch · 09-27-2007, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

This is great news for those of us that are on the right side of the evolution/creation debate. It gets us closer to proving that feathers were not created by God for the sole purpose of making a wing.

If a Triceratops can be a Jesus horse a tiny 30lbs raptor can fly.

Grouch · 09-27-2007, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I don't need to be a paleontologists to recognize someone jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence.

And if they found the parents you would say it was just an accidental inbred recessive trait with no proof that it showed an example of evolution.

If they found a whole heard of them you would say it was localized to one population.

there is no rationalizing with your blatant disregard for reason.

Scrum · 09-27-2007, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Grouch

If a Triceratops can be a Jesus horse a tiny 30lbs raptor can fly.

Well when you put it that way......

AVengeance · 09-28-2007, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

um, wasn't it catholics that originally came up with the notion of a "sin"?????

uh, no.

AVengeance · 09-28-2007, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Grouch

And if they found the parents you would say it was just an accidental inbred recessive trait with no proof that it showed an example of evolution.

If they found a whole heard of them you would say it was localized to one population.

there is no rationalizing with your blatant disregard for reason.

You're the one making the conclusions, not me. I wouldn't say that it WAS LOCALIZED, only that you can't show that it wasn't. I wouldn't say that it WAS AS ACCIDENTAL INBRED RECESSIVE TRAIT but rather that you're not showing it went further. And I'd be right every time. It is people like you that want to cling to unfounded conclusions based on highly limited evidence. Then, you take your own inability to not draw conclusions, and apply it to me? Damn, son. I know as a scientist that has done plenty of experiments AND currently as a computer programmer, that to come to a conclusion, you have to actually get all the way to the end- you can't assume anything. If you do, you'll likely (almost certainly) get the wrong results.
The heading says feathers. They found bumps on a bone. They then think that they evolved into birds. That's a bigger leap of faith than even that 'raptor could make.