exchemist
Veteran Member
Metronome! I like it.
-
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.
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
exchemist
Veteran Member
Heh heh.A picture is worth a thousand words..
Good example of progressive indoctrinees..
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
Looks like the ancestors of Great Northern Gannett. And they sure do have teeth! Try feeding a wild one. One missed calculation and you're bleeding.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
I just hope with this new die off of bird species, we will be foward thinking enough to preserve the DNA of all of these creatures we are killing. Just in case someone, someday, will have enough of a viable planet to reintroduce the extinct birds,animals and other species.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not know what "real science" is. You refuse to even learn the basics. And then you make false claims about scientists . Tsk tsk.
The pseudoteeth of the Great Northern Gannett are not the true bony teeth of the pelagornithid bird, and evolved from the beak.
Though many birds, such as chickens, have the gene for teeth, but it is turned off
Last edited:
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's amazing really. Teeth take too long to form in an egg that you have to
sit upon. It's okay for lizards and crocodiles, but they don't sit on them. So "teeth"
can be formed from the keratin (?) of the beak - but beaks are fine as they are
so "birds" dispensed with them.
..nevermind..
I can't present an alternate perspective, without the True Believers going on a jihad, and clamoring for the mods to ban me..
You guys believe whatever you want. Who am i to present facts and reason that conflicts with the belief in universal common ancestry?
Your minds are made up.. i will not rock the boat with facts.
It has been made clear to me, that an objective, scientific examination of the theory of UCA, is not wanted, and will be resisted, banned, or shouted down by censors. Your indoctrinated beliefs are safe and secure. I cannot challenge them.
Where was there a claim of UCA in this thread?
You claimed the dates are fictitious. Substantiate that claim.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hard line creationists need to deny all aspects of evolution. They can see that admitting that one form of life evolved is to admit that all life is the product of evolution. That is why they are so bound and determined to call any observed evolution "adaptation". They know a slippery slope when they see one
usfan
Well-Known Member
..so you believe.. but in reality, these dating methods are as reliable as dating sites, for discovering facts.
Don't believe me? Show me the dating methods for determining the '62 million years!', in the OP. What is it based on, except circular reasoning and belief?
..so you believe. But you have no facts to support this belief.
Yes, dismissal and reassertion is better than supporting a claim with facts.
I don't see any evidence for this belief. Similarity of design does not indicate descendancy. That is merely a religious belief, not science.
Yes, belittling me, personally is a powerful argument for common ancestry..
Yes, how dare i try to argue science, in a progressive echo chamber..
1. The implication is always for "Evolution!', and the thread is placed in a "evolution vs creation' subforum.
2. I make no claims of dates, just dispute the asserted ones in this article. Those who make the claim are tasked with supporting it. It is not the skeptic's job to disprove every wild claim out there.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Here's some information on how dating is done - and it isn't based on circular reasoning or belief:
Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective
Yes, these dating methods are reliable.
Well, in this particular case, I don't have access to the original scientific article until I get to campus. But, simply knowing it is from the Paleocene goes a long way to getting a general date.
Paleocene rocks have been dated previously, so using those dates will give a general idea how old the fossils are. Again, since I don't know what other techniques were used, I can't say anything past that.
Wrong. We have all the facts relating to the dates of the different strata *at least*. Plus, if they did further dating, that would be added facts supporting the assertion.
What basis do you have for claiming the dates are wrong?
Which is NOT a claim for UCA. And yes, the evidence does support evolution.
Yet you claim the dates are inaccurate. What, precisely, is the issue with them?
usfan
Well-Known Member
Then you answer your earlier question..
I dispute the dates as being circular, without scientific evidence. There is no valid way to assert these dates, and they are assumed and believed, only.
usfan
Well-Known Member
Yes, a link is powerful evidence..
Projection, 'tiz you with the belief, i gave the facts. However, when you decide to do the job properly rather than cherry pick from my post i will answer you. Until then here are a few links that could improve your education on the subject.
General overviews
Absolute dating - Wikipedia
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
More specific
How Old is Earth, and How Do We Know?
How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You really don't want facts because if you did you would actually look things up from serious science sources. Your position is like that of the climate change deniers who refuse to accept known science so as to keep their highly partisan opinions regardless of the facts.
Anyhow, you want proof? Here: nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants. They work, right? Since they work, this must mean that scientists must logically know how radioactivity works, right? Well, the dating techniques that go back millions to billions of years b.p. typically use radioactive dating techniques.
If your church denies the generally reliability of known science, then let me recommend that you actually look for a denomination that doesn't see science as a threat, which I did almost 50 years ago. To not do so is to use one's religion as a set of blinders to reality, and I would suggest that any denomination that does as such must be considered bogus because basic Christian Truths cannot be relative to the viewer. And to view the creation accounts as somehow being real history is terrible "theology".
IOW, science and Christianity must be 100% compatible because both are seeking the same thing albeit from different angles. Accepting the basic ToE offers no threat to any serious Christian scholarship.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Dating methods used by fossil scientists are long established and quite reliable methodology-- each dating method is cross-checked, by alternative methods, which corroborate the findings.
For example, Carbon 14 dating (not used here, as C14 does not work past 30,000 years) has been proven time and again, using tree ring counting, and ice-cores of ancient ice sheets both in the North and the South polar ice caps. Even someone as dense as a creationist can count up the ice layers reliably enough, which prove Carbon 14 works.
You have an objection to counting, now?
Nonsensical horse exhaust. You do not believe in counting physical layers or rings?
Ironic, much? You have no facts of ANY sort in support of Creation Nonsense.
It would appear that you have little or no idea what a fact actually is...
No wonder you cannot .... count...
Nonsensical bull exhaust, as per your usual.
Yes, belittling me, personally is a powerful argument for common ancestry..
Nobody is belittling you, here-- we are pointing out you have zero arguments that are factual or logical.
Yes, how dare i try to argue science, in a progressive echo chamber..
Except? You have failed-- to 100% -- to argue actual science. It is as if you lack a simple understanding of what science is.
1. The implication is always for "Evolution!', and the thread is placed in a "evolution vs creation' subforum.l.
This is because evolution is based on fact, and creationism is not.
You to not believe in counting. Gotcha. That explains ... so much.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Yes, a link is powerful evidence..
Only if one possess both the will to click, and the mental capacity to read what the link presents.
I can see that would be a very steep challenge for some...
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes, a link is powerful evidence..
Too afraid to read it and learn something? How exactly do you expect to get evidence? You claimed that dating methods where based on belief and circular reasoning - the link explains why you are wrong. You asked to be shown dating methods and the link explains them. Nobody can actually show you a method on a forum - you need to read and understand.
Please describe what you perceive as the circularity.