Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber Reinforce Evolution Theories (2011)(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber Reinforce Evolution Theories (2011)
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/dinosaur-feathers-found-in-amber-reinforce-evolution-theories/245094/?single_page=true
6 comments
You raise an interesting question - 1) did researchers just not see the feathers until there was the idea that they might be seeing feathers? But I can think of a few other interpretations. 2) Researcher don't systematically review everything that they see in amber but instead systematically search for specific features and ignore others (which is only slightly different than #1), 3) feathers are rare enough that it required a searching an extensive collection, which previously wasn't available, and 4) there are very people in the field.
Quoting from http://www.wired.com/2011/09/dinosaur-feathers-amber/ :
> When study co-author Ryan McKellar first looked at the amber, the University of Alberta paleontologist wasn't even interested in feathers. He was interested in insects. It was only when he and Wolfe noticed odd, hair-like structures that they wondered if something other than bugs might be preserved.
I think that gives weight towards your #1, since it shows that (at least some) researchers will notice things other than what they are looking for, which is my #2.
Then again, this Atlantic article says:
> What originally got me interested in this project was a single feather fragment trapped in a spider web that had been given to Dr. Brian Chatterton. ... As part of this project I was able to go through the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology collection of 3,000 or so inclusions in great detail. After finding a lot of feather fragments in this collection, I had the good fortune of meeting the Leuck family, amateur collectors in southern Alberta, who donated a pair of additional specimens to the University of Alberta.
Wikipedia reports that "Only 11 specimens are currently known", so 8 feathers were found in a set of 3,000 pieces of amber with inclusions. I wonder when Chatterton identified that feather. And when the Leuck family recognized that they might have feathers.
These factors give more weight towards #3 and #4.
I can't figure the balance between the different factors, and the primary paper (at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/1619.abstract#aff... ) is behind a paywall. But I am leaning towards your hypothesis.
Quoting from http://www.wired.com/2011/09/dinosaur-feathers-amber/ :
> When study co-author Ryan McKellar first looked at the amber, the University of Alberta paleontologist wasn't even interested in feathers. He was interested in insects. It was only when he and Wolfe noticed odd, hair-like structures that they wondered if something other than bugs might be preserved.
I think that gives weight towards your #1, since it shows that (at least some) researchers will notice things other than what they are looking for, which is my #2.
Then again, this Atlantic article says:
> What originally got me interested in this project was a single feather fragment trapped in a spider web that had been given to Dr. Brian Chatterton. ... As part of this project I was able to go through the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology collection of 3,000 or so inclusions in great detail. After finding a lot of feather fragments in this collection, I had the good fortune of meeting the Leuck family, amateur collectors in southern Alberta, who donated a pair of additional specimens to the University of Alberta.
Wikipedia reports that "Only 11 specimens are currently known", so 8 feathers were found in a set of 3,000 pieces of amber with inclusions. I wonder when Chatterton identified that feather. And when the Leuck family recognized that they might have feathers.
These factors give more weight towards #3 and #4.
I can't figure the balance between the different factors, and the primary paper (at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/1619.abstract#aff... ) is behind a paywall. But I am leaning towards your hypothesis.
There's a bunch of stuff in university and museum collections that come to light when an interested researcher goes to look for other stuff.
Recently some Charles Dickins notes were found that have been used to identify previously unidentified authors. Researchers didn't use any complex software to identify previously anonymous writing; they just read the notes that had been hidden in a collection.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/charles-dicke...
Some of the oldest fragments of the quran were recently found in a UK university collection.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/world-oldest-quran-man...
There's so much stuff in collections waiting to be discovered.
Recently some Charles Dickins notes were found that have been used to identify previously unidentified authors. Researchers didn't use any complex software to identify previously anonymous writing; they just read the notes that had been hidden in a collection.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/charles-dicke...
Some of the oldest fragments of the quran were recently found in a UK university collection.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/world-oldest-quran-man...
There's so much stuff in collections waiting to be discovered.
I imagine museum amber was not originally collected scientifically. The most beautiful examples were preserved - those with large insects in them. Any cloudy or obscured specimens got discarded as unworthy. That would be, any with unrecognized feathers, dismissed as flaws.
"They can't determine which feathers belonged to birds or dinosaurs yet, but they did observe filament structures that are similar to those seen in other non-avian dinosaur fossils."
So, those could be just... bird feathers.
So, those could be just... bird feathers.
Only one way to find out. We have to clone the creature in the amber. The blood of the mosquito trapped in the amber seems like a good option.
Preferably in a remote location that's safe. Like an island.
what could possibly go wrong?
If anything goes wrong, we'll just do a theme park!
[deleted]
You scientists! You're so excited that you could do this, you don't stop to think whether you should!
Which would also be dinosaur feathers, at that time. Because back then, they weren't essentially different.
Luckily humans and dinosaurs never shared the earth. If being around live hens makes me nervous, imagine the horror of being pursued by a giant carnivorous chicken. No, sir, no. Leave me with the lizards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
Can someone address this? I've seen this put forth by many and Dawkins sounds very, very confused and completely avoids the question.
Can someone address this? I've seen this put forth by many and Dawkins sounds very, very confused and completely avoids the question.
It's really stupid to argument on fundamental issues based on the elocution skills of famous people but that sounds like the video discussed here
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Dawkins_could_not_give_an_exam...
Creationists are an extreme example of the psychological finding that brains are excellent at amplifying the currently held beliefs no matter which data it is fed by cherry picking just the notions that support the belief system.
The corollary of this is that it is pointless to argument with creationists.
Once I understood this cherry picking done automatically by brains I realized that lots of popular religious material is probably not created by malicious omission of facts but by just simply ... processing information in academically non-rigorous manner.
Like editing video to convey the message the original authors wish to convey, for example.
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Dawkins_could_not_give_an_exam...
Creationists are an extreme example of the psychological finding that brains are excellent at amplifying the currently held beliefs no matter which data it is fed by cherry picking just the notions that support the belief system.
The corollary of this is that it is pointless to argument with creationists.
Once I understood this cherry picking done automatically by brains I realized that lots of popular religious material is probably not created by malicious omission of facts but by just simply ... processing information in academically non-rigorous manner.
Like editing video to convey the message the original authors wish to convey, for example.
Sure. Dawkins himself has addressed it, so I'll just let him speak for himself: http://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/the-informatio...
I found this by Googling for, "dawkins give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome". It was the top result.
Y'know, we live in an age of unprecedented access to information. It really is remarkable. At no time in human history has more information been more available to more people for less effort. Why, in this age, would you want to remain willfully ignorant?
I found this by Googling for, "dawkins give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome". It was the top result.
Y'know, we live in an age of unprecedented access to information. It really is remarkable. At no time in human history has more information been more available to more people for less effort. Why, in this age, would you want to remain willfully ignorant?
I think this video was debunked as having been tampered with quite a while ago. Someone spliced different questions in there, making it look like he didn't have an answer.
"Give an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome."
Literally any mutation that adds at least one base to the DNA chain.
That being said adding information may or may not result in beneficial traits.
Literally any mutation that adds at least one base to the DNA chain.
That being said adding information may or may not result in beneficial traits.
But it's just a theory.
Is US the only place that Evolution needs constant reinforcing?
Tbh the sort of folks who don't believe in evolution are probably unlikely to be swayed by evidence. I think some of the religious arguments against evolution genuinely claim that fossil records used to support evolution are put on earth by God to test his believers. Not much you can say against that :-/ I've never seen this belief expressed in person (only on the net) so hopefully it isn't so prevalent
Possibly some believe this. But those who I have come across find macroevolution very hard to believe and have no qualms with small variations among "species". They say that there were different sets of creation which then something happened to one set(died out?) and another set was put in place. Also the fact that scientists admit themselves they have pretty much no idea how life first began. These are the two biggest issues of contention for most people.
A few other criticisms I've heard from people: - How many times have scientists claimed to be certain about something with their "evidence" and then switched their position at another time? I know this is seen as a plus to many but it's not an invalid concern. - Science cannot nor does it claim to be something one can use to acquire certainty about anything. You can't really prove anything with the scientific method. It's based on observation and induction(not mathematical) which are inherently flawed. - From the most basic interactions people have with science is food and medicine. We've seen how "great" GMO's have been and how many medicines have harmed people and have been taken off the shelves. It's not strange for someone to go to 5 different doctors with one set of symptoms and get 5 different diagnoses each with a different solution.
Before I'm attacked, I want to mention I am conveying what I've heard. Honestly, nobody will listen to you speak out of your emotions. A lot of people claim to be objective but then resort to name calling and exhibiting anger.
A few other criticisms I've heard from people: - How many times have scientists claimed to be certain about something with their "evidence" and then switched their position at another time? I know this is seen as a plus to many but it's not an invalid concern. - Science cannot nor does it claim to be something one can use to acquire certainty about anything. You can't really prove anything with the scientific method. It's based on observation and induction(not mathematical) which are inherently flawed. - From the most basic interactions people have with science is food and medicine. We've seen how "great" GMO's have been and how many medicines have harmed people and have been taken off the shelves. It's not strange for someone to go to 5 different doctors with one set of symptoms and get 5 different diagnoses each with a different solution.
Before I'm attacked, I want to mention I am conveying what I've heard. Honestly, nobody will listen to you speak out of your emotions. A lot of people claim to be objective but then resort to name calling and exhibiting anger.
It's worth noting that people applying the Bible have claimed certainty about things and then reversed their position quote a lot, too (certain dates for the end of creation are the most dramatically obvious case, though there are certainly cases of other factual and moral beliefs drawn with supposed certainty from the Bible that have evolved over time, as well as examples of such beliefs where people claiming certainty based on the Bible have offered different answers to the same question at the same time.)
So the lack of consistent certainty is not a differentiator between science and the Bible.
So the lack of consistent certainty is not a differentiator between science and the Bible.
>Science cannot nor does it claim to be something one can use to acquire certainty about anything
I have heard this too. Although I still fail to grasp how one can hold that view, which shows thought, critical thinking and analysis, then argue that a book written / made up / dictated too by God / added to / amended / edited over the last few thousand years is held up to be something that can gives us certain. Which is the complete opposite of the thinking they put forward with regards to science.
I have heard this too. Although I still fail to grasp how one can hold that view, which shows thought, critical thinking and analysis, then argue that a book written / made up / dictated too by God / added to / amended / edited over the last few thousand years is held up to be something that can gives us certain. Which is the complete opposite of the thinking they put forward with regards to science.
You seem to be confusing the degree of critical thinking that goes into making the original claims about science and the Bible with the critical thinking required to report what claims are made for each. The former differs between science and the Bible, the latter does not.
Interestingly the first sentence of your second paragraph is a plot point in an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia ("Science is a liar ... sometimes") : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0
Certainly the richest one:
https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/wealt...
https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/wealt...
Well, this article is from 2011. More so then than now, I believe.
Well, it's just a theory after all...
Not sure you understand what "scientific theory" actually implies.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A theory is a proven truth until disproved ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A theory is a proven truth until disproved ;)
Oh, shi- I forgot: /sarcasm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Tsk tsk, shame on you...
Tsk tsk, shame on you...
Which makes me wonder if there are any other specimens in museums (etc) that may warrant further investigation for clues in the evolution of dinosaurs and birds.