Move over Archaeopteryx

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Move over Archaeopteryx

Post by mr friendly guy »

linky
A new discovery may have knocked Archaeopteryx off the 'first bird' perch, writes Steve Salisbury.

As little as 15 years ago, the boundary between birds and dinosaurs was a fairly sharp one. On one side was Archaeopteryx, a 150 million-year-old magpie-sized creature from Bavaria, southern Germany, long considered the world's first bird.

On the other was Deinonychus, an emu-sized meat-eating dinosaur or theropod, and a member of the group known as Dromaeosauridae, made famous as the "raptor" in Stephen Spielberg's Jurassic Park movies.

Numerous similarities between the skeletons of Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx — first recognised by palaeontologist John Ostrom in the late 1960s — provided important evidence that birds had evolved from small two-legged theropod dinosaurs, an idea first championed by Thomas Huxley in 1859.

The feathered Archaeopteryx, unlike its modern-day counterparts, had a long bony tail, a toothed beak and three unfused and clawed fingers.

Deinonychus, on the other hand, was much larger than Archaeopteryx, was not known to have been feathered, and clearly couldn't fly.

So although these two animals provided a glimpse across what had previously been an insurmountable evolutionary gap, the bridge between dinosaurs and birds was still very flimsy.

Indeed, many palaeontolgists argued that the differences between Archaeopteryx and Deinonychus were too great to link birds to dinosaurs, and any similarities were likely to be due to convergent evolution.

^ to top
Feathered dinosaurs

Then, starting in 1996, a flurry of new discoveries changed the game forever.

Feathered dinosaurs, many of them dromaeosaurids like Deinonychus, others only distantly related, began to emerge from the 125 million-year-old rocks of Liaoning Province, north-eastern China.

Some were covered in hair-like downy tuffs, others sported feathered tails, arms and even legs. All of a sudden, the boundary between birds and theropod dinosaurs became very fuzzy.

Many features long regarded as the hallmark of birds — feathers, a wish-bone, long forelimbs and the capacity to fly — had clearly evolved within the theropods.

How to define a bird in a way that distinguished the group from dinosaurs became very tricky. But the consensus among palaeontologists was that Archaeopteryx should still be considered the first "true" bird.

Its evolutionary position still defined the point at which dinosaurs transitioned into birds ... until today.

^ to top
A new order

Now we have Xiaotingia, a small, chicken-sized, feathered theropod, also from Liaoning, but from rocks about 155 million years old.

Although its fossils are not as spectacular as those of Archaeopteryx, the skeleton of Xiaotingia (see image above) shows that several features, including long, robust forearms, that were thought to be distinctive of avialans (a group containing the ancestors of modern birds), may actually be characteristic of the more inclusive group of bird-like dinosaurs and birds — Paraves.

Most significantly, however, detailed analysis of the evolutionary position of Xiaotingia within Paraves indicates that both it and Archaeopteryx are not avialans.

In other words, neither are "true" birds. Instead, both animals fall within their own group, Archaeopteryidae, within Deinonychosauria, alongside dromaeosaurids (such as Deinonychus) and troodontids.

Deinonychosaurians seem to be united by a more elongate skull, sharp teeth and presumably a taste for flesh. The first birds now appear to be forms such as Epidexipteryx, Jeholornis and Sapeornis.

These animals have much shorter, higher skulls, blunt teeth and were possibly herbivorous. While this arrangement is still only tentative, it indicates that the evolutionary transition from birds to dinosaurs will need to be carefully re-evaluated ... again.

Should we be surprised by all this? Probably not.

As more and more bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds are discovered, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the transition from dinosaurs to birds was a gradual transformation over many million of years, and one that involved many different types of animals and a large portion of the dinosaurian family tree.

Out of this feathery tangle, the ancestors of today's birds eventually emerged.

Archaeopteryx will always be an iconic fossil in the history of evolutionary biology, but for now its title as the world's first bird seems to have been lost.

Who knows what the next chapter of this exciting story will bring. I for one will be looking forward to it.


Interesting. I have also taken the liberty of linking to wiki articles about those other fossils which might wrest the mantle of "first bird" from Archaeopteryx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidexipteryx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeholornis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapeornis
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
Ryag Han
Youngling
Posts: 138
Joined: 2009-12-27 04:47pm

Re: Move over Archaeopteryx

Post by Ryag Han »

this is very interesting. with all these recent fossils, id like to see what the objections are from the denialists. but leaving them aside, i always found these animals very interesting.

Image
95% of people laugh at other people because they are different. Copy this into your profile if you are a part of the 5% that laughs at the other 95% because they're all the same

Image
RAT-FLAIR
Johonebesus
Jedi Master
Posts: 1487
Joined: 2002-07-06 11:26pm

Re: Move over Archaeopteryx

Post by Johonebesus »

Ryag Han wrote:this is very interesting. with all these recent fossils, id like to see what the objections are from the denialists. but leaving them aside, i always found these animals very interesting.
Well the objection is obvious: "archaeopteryx is a lynchpin of evolution, but now it's proven that it isn't ancestral to birds, so evolution collapses!"

I've heard many times that Piltdown was a fraud, Lucy wasn't technically a human (i.e. Homo), brontosaurus was a mistake, et cetera, and since all these things are essential to the theory of evolution, evolution is disproven.

Good luck trying to explain the difference between creationist strawmen and actual theories. The key is to understand that these people think of science as a revealed religion, with prophets and doctrines. If the prophet or doctrine is wrong, the the religion can't be trusted. They don't quite grasp that science is about growing knowledge, so scientific consensus should change over time. They see that as a flaw, and can't wrap their heads around the idea that it is a feature, and a wonderful one at that.
"Can you eat quarks? Can you spread them on your bed when the cold weather comes?" -Bernard Levin

"Sir: Mr. Bernard Levin asks 'Can you eat quarks?' I estimate that he eats 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 quarks a day...Yours faithfully..." -Sir Alan Cottrell


Elohim's loving mercy: "Hey, you, don't turn around. WTF! I said DON'T tur- you know what, you're a pillar of salt now. Bitch." - an anonymous commenter
User avatar
Anguirus
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3702
Joined: 2005-09-11 02:36pm
Contact:

Re: Move over Archaeopteryx

Post by Anguirus »

^ Indeed.

This is 0% surprising. Paleontologists and evolutionary biologists in recent years never say that they've found the first X, or in more accurate terminology the node of a given branch of a phylogenetic tree. Because it's not as if you could demonstrate this to be true even if you had. In fact, I've heard people using Archaeopteryx as an example for years to explain the concept of "this is almost certainly not the common ancestor to all birds, but we believe it is closely related to that common ancestor and shares many traits with them." Even my children's books about dinosaurs often couched their sections on Archaeopteryx with reservations like "it is hard to say whether Archaeopteryx is better considered a bird or a dinosaur." Of course, 20 years later it's abundantly clear that by definition it is either both, or it is "just" a dinosaur. Of course the latter means that "just" dinosaurs had flight feathers (whether or not the animal could fly, which is in dispute) so by the layman's conception of birds not a whit has changed.

This shouldn't be of great interest to people who don't work on birds (and us dinogeeks) but someone worked out a way to spin it into an awesome headline. It's also a good feature of phylogenetic analysis that adding more and more fossils leads to different conclusions about when certain features evolved. In other words, more data leads to a better answer.

There are just so many fossils now that show a mosaic of "bird-like" and "dinosaur-like" features that the creationist obsession with Archaeopteryx is a non-starter. It's just the result of historical reasons and the fact that they are really wonderfully-preserved fossils. In other word, as usual, creationist understanding lags 30-50 years.
"I spit on metaphysics, sir."

"I pity the woman you marry." -Liberty

This is the guy they want to use to win over "young people?" Are they completely daft? I'd rather vote for a pile of shit than a Jesus freak social regressive.
Here's hoping that his political career goes down in flames and, hopefully, a hilarious gay sex scandal.
-Tanasinn
You can't expect sodomy to ruin every conservative politician in this country. -Battlehymn Republic
My blog, please check out and comment! http://decepticylon.blogspot.com
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Move over Archaeopteryx

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

What Angirius said.

Something we have to remember when we are dealing with any evolutionary transition that generates new taxonomic groups is that any node on a phylogenetic tree gives rise to a great many branches, and each branch point is another node. Of all the bird like dinosaurs to ever live (and there were a lot of them) only one of those lineages lead directly to modern birds. A great many side branches would have had more or less features common to birds, with those having more EITHER being more closely related, or the product of convergence. Here, we have fossil forms once thought to be more closely related to birds, now seeming to be more closely related to Velocoraptor.

IF Archaeopteryx was capable of flight (which it may or may not have been, though it could most certainly glide) we have more questions to answer. Namely, the question of the independent origins of flight. We may end up having two separate answers to how and why flight originated in avialans and deinonychosaurs. The answer to the age old "trees down" or "ground up" flight origin (each supported by different sets of fossil and ecological data) may well be "Yes". Which I think may be rather interesting.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
wautd
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7588
Joined: 2004-02-11 10:11am
Location: Intensive care

Re: Move over Archaeopteryx

Post by wautd »

Offcourse, the creatards see this as evidence against evolution :banghead:
Post Reply