• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

62 million year old bird fossil with bony teeth found.

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
From Bony-Toothed Seabird Lived in New Zealand 62 Million Years Ago | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

Bony-Toothed Seabird Lived in New Zealand 62 Million Years Ago

Paleontologists have found the remains of a pelagornithid bird that lived 62 million years ago (early Paleocene epoch) in New Zealand.


Protodontopteryx ruthae. Image credit: Derek Onley / Canterbury Museum.

Dubbed Protodontopteryx ruthae, the ancient seabird belongs to Pelagornithidae, an ancient family of bony-toothed birds.

These seafaring birds were previously known from late Paleocene to Pliocene fossil sites and some species reached wingspans up to 6.4 m (21 feet).

Protodontopteryx ruthae is the oldest, but smallest member in the family.

It was only the size of an average gull and, like other pelagornithids, had bony, tooth-like projections on the edge of its beak.

The partial skeleton of Protodontopteryx ruthae was found by amateur paleontologist Leigh Love at the Waipara Greensand fossil site in 2018.

“The age of the fossilized bones suggests pelagornithids evolved in the Southern Hemisphere,” said Dr. Paul Scofield, a curator at Canterbury Museum and the senior author of a paper published in the journal Papers in Palaeontology.

“While this bird was relatively small, the impact of its discovery is hugely significant in our understanding of this family.”

“Until we found this skeleton, all the really old pelagornithids had been found in the Northern Hemisphere, so everyone thought they’d evolved up there.”

“New Zealand was a very different place when Protodontopteryx ruthae were in the skies. It had a tropical climate — the sea temperature was about 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit) so we had corals and giant turtles.”


“The discovery of Protodontopteryx ruthae was truly amazing and unexpected,” said co-author Dr. Gerald Mayr, a researcher with the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum.

“Not only is the fossil one of the most complete specimens of a pseudotoothed bird, but it also shows a number of unexpected skeletal features that contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of these enigmatic birds.”

The skeleton of Protodontopteryx ruthae suggests it was less suited for long-distance soaring than later pelagornithids and probably covered much shorter ranges.

Its short, broad pseudoteeth were likely designed for catching fish. Later species had needle-like pseudoteeth which were likely used to catch soft-bodied prey like squid.

“Because Protodontopteryx ruthae was less adapted to sustained soaring than other known pelagornithids, we can now say that pseudoteeth evolved before these birds became highly specialized gliders,” said co-author Dr. Vanesa De Pietri, a curator at Canterbury Museum.

_____

Gerald Mayr et al. Oldest, smallest and phylogenetically most basal pelagornithid, from the early Paleocene of New Zealand, sheds light on the evolutionary history of the largest flying birds. Papers in Palaeontology, published online September 17, 2019; doi: 10.1002/spp2.1284
 

leov

Well-Known Member
From Bony-Toothed Seabird Lived in New Zealand 62 Million Years Ago | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

Bony-Toothed Seabird Lived in New Zealand 62 Million Years Ago

Paleontologists have found the remains of a pelagornithid bird that lived 62 million years ago (early Paleocene epoch) in New Zealand.


Protodontopteryx ruthae. Image credit: Derek Onley / Canterbury Museum.

Dubbed Protodontopteryx ruthae, the ancient seabird belongs to Pelagornithidae, an ancient family of bony-toothed birds.

These seafaring birds were previously known from late Paleocene to Pliocene fossil sites and some species reached wingspans up to 6.4 m (21 feet).

Protodontopteryx ruthae is the oldest, but smallest member in the family.

It was only the size of an average gull and, like other pelagornithids, had bony, tooth-like projections on the edge of its beak.

The partial skeleton of Protodontopteryx ruthae was found by amateur paleontologist Leigh Love at the Waipara Greensand fossil site in 2018.

“The age of the fossilized bones suggests pelagornithids evolved in the Southern Hemisphere,” said Dr. Paul Scofield, a curator at Canterbury Museum and the senior author of a paper published in the journal Papers in Palaeontology.

“While this bird was relatively small, the impact of its discovery is hugely significant in our understanding of this family.”

“Until we found this skeleton, all the really old pelagornithids had been found in the Northern Hemisphere, so everyone thought they’d evolved up there.”

“New Zealand was a very different place when Protodontopteryx ruthae were in the skies. It had a tropical climate — the sea temperature was about 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit) so we had corals and giant turtles.”


“The discovery of Protodontopteryx ruthae was truly amazing and unexpected,” said co-author Dr. Gerald Mayr, a researcher with the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum.

“Not only is the fossil one of the most complete specimens of a pseudotoothed bird, but it also shows a number of unexpected skeletal features that contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of these enigmatic birds.”

The skeleton of Protodontopteryx ruthae suggests it was less suited for long-distance soaring than later pelagornithids and probably covered much shorter ranges.

Its short, broad pseudoteeth were likely designed for catching fish. Later species had needle-like pseudoteeth which were likely used to catch soft-bodied prey like squid.

“Because Protodontopteryx ruthae was less adapted to sustained soaring than other known pelagornithids, we can now say that pseudoteeth evolved before these birds became highly specialized gliders,” said co-author Dr. Vanesa De Pietri, a curator at Canterbury Museum.

_____

Gerald Mayr et al. Oldest, smallest and phylogenetically most basal pelagornithid, from the early Paleocene of New Zealand, sheds light on the evolutionary history of the largest flying birds. Papers in Palaeontology, published online September 17, 2019; doi: 10.1002/spp2.1284
big chick.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
From Bony-Toothed Seabird Lived in New Zealand 62 Million Years Ago | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

Bony-Toothed Seabird Lived in New Zealand 62 Million Years Ago

Paleontologists have found the remains of a pelagornithid bird that lived 62 million years ago (early Paleocene epoch) in New Zealand.


Protodontopteryx ruthae. Image credit: Derek Onley / Canterbury Museum.

Dubbed Protodontopteryx ruthae, the ancient seabird belongs to Pelagornithidae, an ancient family of bony-toothed birds.

These seafaring birds were previously known from late Paleocene to Pliocene fossil sites and some species reached wingspans up to 6.4 m (21 feet).

Protodontopteryx ruthae is the oldest, but smallest member in the family.

It was only the size of an average gull and, like other pelagornithids, had bony, tooth-like projections on the edge of its beak.

The partial skeleton of Protodontopteryx ruthae was found by amateur paleontologist Leigh Love at the Waipara Greensand fossil site in 2018.

“The age of the fossilized bones suggests pelagornithids evolved in the Southern Hemisphere,” said Dr. Paul Scofield, a curator at Canterbury Museum and the senior author of a paper published in the journal Papers in Palaeontology.

“While this bird was relatively small, the impact of its discovery is hugely significant in our understanding of this family.”

“Until we found this skeleton, all the really old pelagornithids had been found in the Northern Hemisphere, so everyone thought they’d evolved up there.”

“New Zealand was a very different place when Protodontopteryx ruthae were in the skies. It had a tropical climate — the sea temperature was about 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit) so we had corals and giant turtles.”


“The discovery of Protodontopteryx ruthae was truly amazing and unexpected,” said co-author Dr. Gerald Mayr, a researcher with the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum.

“Not only is the fossil one of the most complete specimens of a pseudotoothed bird, but it also shows a number of unexpected skeletal features that contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of these enigmatic birds.”

The skeleton of Protodontopteryx ruthae suggests it was less suited for long-distance soaring than later pelagornithids and probably covered much shorter ranges.

Its short, broad pseudoteeth were likely designed for catching fish. Later species had needle-like pseudoteeth which were likely used to catch soft-bodied prey like squid.

“Because Protodontopteryx ruthae was less adapted to sustained soaring than other known pelagornithids, we can now say that pseudoteeth evolved before these birds became highly specialized gliders,” said co-author Dr. Vanesa De Pietri, a curator at Canterbury Museum.

_____

Gerald Mayr et al. Oldest, smallest and phylogenetically most basal pelagornithid, from the early Paleocene of New Zealand, sheds light on the evolutionary history of the largest flying birds. Papers in Palaeontology, published online September 17, 2019; doi: 10.1002/spp2.1284

Thanks for the information, please.

Regards
 

Bob Jones

Prove It!
From Bony-Toothed Seabird Lived in New Zealand 62 Million Years Ago | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

Bony-Toothed Seabird Lived in New Zealand 62 Million Years Ago

Paleontologists have found the remains of a pelagornithid bird that lived 62 million years ago (early Paleocene epoch) in New Zealand.


Protodontopteryx ruthae. Image credit: Derek Onley / Canterbury Museum.

Dubbed Protodontopteryx ruthae, the ancient seabird belongs to Pelagornithidae, an ancient family of bony-toothed birds.

These seafaring birds were previously known from late Paleocene to Pliocene fossil sites and some species reached wingspans up to 6.4 m (21 feet).

Protodontopteryx ruthae is the oldest, but smallest member in the family.

It was only the size of an average gull and, like other pelagornithids, had bony, tooth-like projections on the edge of its beak.

The partial skeleton of Protodontopteryx ruthae was found by amateur paleontologist Leigh Love at the Waipara Greensand fossil site in 2018.

“The age of the fossilized bones suggests pelagornithids evolved in the Southern Hemisphere,” said Dr. Paul Scofield, a curator at Canterbury Museum and the senior author of a paper published in the journal Papers in Palaeontology.

“While this bird was relatively small, the impact of its discovery is hugely significant in our understanding of this family.”

“Until we found this skeleton, all the really old pelagornithids had been found in the Northern Hemisphere, so everyone thought they’d evolved up there.”

“New Zealand was a very different place when Protodontopteryx ruthae were in the skies. It had a tropical climate — the sea temperature was about 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit) so we had corals and giant turtles.”


“The discovery of Protodontopteryx ruthae was truly amazing and unexpected,” said co-author Dr. Gerald Mayr, a researcher with the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum.

“Not only is the fossil one of the most complete specimens of a pseudotoothed bird, but it also shows a number of unexpected skeletal features that contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of these enigmatic birds.”

The skeleton of Protodontopteryx ruthae suggests it was less suited for long-distance soaring than later pelagornithids and probably covered much shorter ranges.

Its short, broad pseudoteeth were likely designed for catching fish. Later species had needle-like pseudoteeth which were likely used to catch soft-bodied prey like squid.

“Because Protodontopteryx ruthae was less adapted to sustained soaring than other known pelagornithids, we can now say that pseudoteeth evolved before these birds became highly specialized gliders,” said co-author Dr. Vanesa De Pietri, a curator at Canterbury Museum.

_____

Gerald Mayr et al. Oldest, smallest and phylogenetically most basal pelagornithid, from the early Paleocene of New Zealand, sheds light on the evolutionary history of the largest flying birds. Papers in Palaeontology, published online September 17, 2019; doi: 10.1002/spp2.1284
It was a pleasure to read this new discovery. I hope that is a new link in our evolutionary chain.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
My problems with this article:

1. Ancient dates of '62 million years!' are asserted, with no basis in fact.
2. Extinct birds (and other organisms) are legion, and do not prove or indicate common ancestry.
3. This highly complex bird appears suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms to explain its origins.
4. Speculations about ancient dating.. 'millions & millions of years!', are conjectured, believed, and asserted, but have no verifiable scientific evidence. Circular reasoning is used to arrive at the dating of these kinds of fossils.
5. This is a religious belief, masquerading as 'Science!', that all organisms share common ancestry.

Other than these few minor not picks, it is a fine article, and expresses the religious belief in universal common ancestry very well. ;)
 

Bob Jones

Prove It!
My problems with this article:

1. Ancient dates of '62 million years!' are asserted, with no basis in fact.
2. Extinct birds (and other organisms) are legion, and do not prove or indicate common ancestry.
3. This highly complex bird appears suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms to explain its origins.
4. Speculations about ancient dating.. 'millions & millions of years!', are conjectured, believed, and asserted, but have no verifiable scientific evidence. Circular reasoning is used to arrive at the dating of these kinds of fossils.
5. This is a religious belief, masquerading as 'Science!', that all organisms share common ancestry.

Other than these few minor not picks, it is a fine article, and expresses the religious belief in universal common ancestry very well. ;)
None of what you stated is true.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
My problems with this article:

1. Ancient dates of '62 million years!' are asserted, with no basis in fact.

Dating based on objective verifiable evidence without a religious agenda. Misuse of the word fact.

2. Extinct birds (and other organisms) are legion, and do not prove or indicate common ancestry.

Again and again . . . science does not prove anything, Not meaningful assertion.

3. This highly complex bird appears suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms to explain its origins.

Appears to be? . . . reflects a lack of knowledge of the science involved.

4. Speculations about ancient dating.. 'millions & millions of years!', are conjectured, believed, and asserted, but have no verifiable scientific evidence. Circular reasoning is used to arrive at the dating of these kinds of fossils.

Dating based on objective verifiable evidence without a religious agenda. Misuse of the word fact.


5. This is a religious belief, masquerading as 'Science!', that all organisms share common ancestry.

Other than these few minor not picks, it is a fine article, and expresses the religious belief in universal common ancestry very well. ;)

What is your qualifications in the sciences to make these outrageous assertions based on a religious agenda.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
What is your qualifications in the sciences to make these outrageous assertions based on a religious agenda.
I am not wanting to upset or disparage the beliefs of others, just defending real science from those who use it to promote their religious agenda.

Anyone can believe whatever they want, about origins, and the nature of the universe. Universal common descent is a popular belief, about the nature of life, origins, and the universe. It is carefully indoctrinated from infancy, for most people (in the west, anyway).
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I am not wanting to upset or disparage the beliefs of others, just defending real science from those who use it to promote their religious agenda.

You made a number of completely false claims that deny the real science.

Anyone can believe whatever they want, about origins, and the nature of the universe.

Of course they can, but only some beliefs fit with the objective evidence.

Universal common descent is a popular belief, about the nature of life, origins, and the universe. It is carefully indoctrinated from infancy, for most people (in the west, anyway).

Evolution and common descent is (obviously) only about life, not the universe. It is not just a belief, it is one of the best established theories in science. It is not indoctrinated, it is taught because there is copious amounts of evidence for it.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
You made a number of completely false claims that deny the real science.
..so you accuse, without evidence. My statements stand, unrefuted.

Evolution and common descent is (obviously) only about life, not the universe. It is not just a belief, it is one of the best established theories in science. It is not indoctrinated, it is taught because there is copious amounts of evidence for it.
Yes, this is your belief, indoctrinated from early childhood. But it is a religious belief, without scientific basis. Even forums like this will not allow objective examination of the facts, but support fallacies and mandates to promote the atheistic naturalism belief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moz

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Dating methods are usually pretty solid, with lots of consilient verification.
Appears suddenly in the fossil record? It's a new specimen of a well known family of birds.
No transitional forms? How are you defining "transitional form?" How large a sequence qualifies; how close the fossil phenotypes? Remember, fossils that old aren't that commonly found, so holes in the sequences are to be expected.
How is it a religious belief? For that matter, what about it are you finding religious?
It's observable evidence. Any conclusion are drawn from observation and fact. How is this religious?
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
1. Ancient dates of '62 million years!' are asserted, with no basis in fact.
In the news article sure, but that’s pretty much always true of mainstream articles. If you need technical details, you’d have to delve in to the scientific publications the article is reporting on (and actually linked).

2. Extinct birds (and other organisms) are legion, and do not prove or indicate common ancestry.
Who said it did? This is just a report about a new kind of fossil.

3. This highly complex bird appears suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms to explain its origins.
Given this is reported to be one of the oldest examples of the category, the suggest would be that it is a transitional form (arguably every species ever is a transitional form anyway).

4. Speculations about ancient dating.. 'millions & millions of years!', are conjectured, believed, and asserted, but have no verifiable scientific evidence. Circular reasoning is used to arrive at the dating of these kinds of fossils.
This is just an extension of your first point, one you’re ironically asserting with no basis in fact. I’ve no real interest in getting in to that age-old argument but it’s what you’d have to do to support your point here.

5. This is a religious belief, masquerading as 'Science!', that all organisms share common ancestry.
That’s your personal opinion, masquerading as science, and you’re perfectly entitled to it.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
..so you accuse, without evidence. My statements stand, unrefuted.


Yes, this is your belief, indoctrinated from early childhood.
But it's religion that's indoctrinated in early childhood, before any logical firewalls form or any capacity for critical analysis.
Science derives from observable facts. Conclusions are drawn from evidence, not from interpretation of folklore.
Science draws conclusions from facts. Religion cherry-picks facts to support a preconceived, axiomatic conclusion.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
..so you accuse, without evidence. My statements stand, unrefuted.

Your claims are solidly refuted by the copious scientific evidence for evolution and the dating methods. There are endless resources that you (or anybody else) can use to find this evidence. You might as well claim the Earth is flat as deny evolution - it's just silly.

But it is a religious belief, without scientific basis.

This is untrue. You are bearing false witness.

...atheistic naturalism belief

Seriously? There is nothing inherently atheistic about this - many of the scientists involved (especially historically) are theists.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I wonder why all modern birds evolved to have no teeth?
Yet mammals have eschewed beaks. Is there some
relationship between locomotion mode & eating tools?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I wonder why all modern birds evolved to have no teeth?
Yet mammals have eschewed beaks. Is there some
relationship between locomotion mode & eating tools?
Birds grind their food internally, in their gizzards. They have no need of food processing structures in their bills/mouths. Many still do have serrated bills or toothlike projections to enhance grip, but nothing to process food.
Brush Your Beak: 10 Amazing Birds With Teeth - WebEcoist
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
My problems with this article:

1. Ancient dates of '62 million years!' are asserted, with no basis in fact.
2. Extinct birds (and other organisms) are legion, and do not prove or indicate common ancestry.
3. This highly complex bird appears suddenly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms to explain its origins.
4. Speculations about ancient dating.. 'millions & millions of years!', are conjectured, believed, and asserted, but have no verifiable scientific evidence. Circular reasoning is used to arrive at the dating of these kinds of fossils.
5. This is a religious belief, masquerading as 'Science!', that all organisms share common ancestry.

Other than these few minor not picks, it is a fine article, and expresses the religious belief in universal common ancestry very well. ;)

But does this bird have the "Eve gene"? NOPE. ONLY human females do - right usfan?


Any evidence that the Hebrew tribal deity breathed into a dust-man and a fully formed adult human male popped out?
 
Last edited:
Top