5 ms·

Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber Reinforce Evolution Theories (2011)

60 points by aaronbrethorst 11y ago

JacobAldridge 11y ago
I can only imagine that similar discoveries / observations even 10 or 20 years ago may have been overlooked. Until the recent conclusion that some dinosaurs were feathered, paleontologists uncovering feathers in amber or elsewhere may have simply concluded it was a bird specimen and moved on. 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.
- dalke 11y ago
  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/ 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-1 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/1619.abstract#aff... ) is behind a paywall. But I am leaning towards your hypothesis.
- DanBC 11y ago
  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-dickens-notes-solve-the-mystery-of-unidentified-victorian-authors-10384128.html 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-manuscripts-uk-150722110034399.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/world-oldest-quran-man... There's so much stuff in collections waiting to be discovered.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  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.
raducu 11y ago
"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.
- x5n1 11y ago
  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.
  - pikoh 11y ago
    Preferably in a remote location that's safe. Like an island.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      what could possibly go wrong?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - aruggirello 11y ago
        If anything goes wrong, we'll just do a theme park!
  - sizzzzlerz 11y ago
    You scientists! You're so excited that you could do this, you don't stop to think whether you should!
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Which would also be dinosaur feathers, at that time. Because back then, they weren't essentially different.
hohohmm 11y ago
Is US the only place that Evolution needs constant reinforcing?
- palmer_eldritch 11y ago
  Well, it's just a theory after all...
  - wallzz 11y ago
    No it's a scientific fact now
    - mdpopescu 11y ago
      As opposed to what other kind of fact? :)
      - user_0001 11y ago
        Religious "fact" ;-)
  - awjr 11y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A theory is a proven truth until disproved ;)
    - palmer_eldritch 11y ago
      Oh, shi- I forgot: /sarcasm
      - antimagic 11y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law Tsk tsk, shame on you...
ching_wow_ka 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g 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.
- pygy_ 11y ago
  "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.
- ryangittins 11y ago
  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.
- fsloth 11y ago
  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_example_of_increasing_information 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.
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  Sure. Dawkins himself has addressed it, so I'll just let him speak for himself: http://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/the-information-challenge/ 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?
debacle 11y ago
But it's just a theory.
scardine 11y ago
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.

I can only imagine that similar discoveries / observations even 10 or 20 years ago may have been overlooked. Until the recent conclusion that some dinosaurs were feathered, paleontologists uncovering feathers in amber or elsewhere may have simply concluded it was a bird specimen and moved on. 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.

dalke 11y ago
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/ 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-1 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/1619.abstract#aff... ) is behind a paywall. But I am leaning towards your hypothesis.
DanBC 11y ago
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-dickens-notes-solve-the-mystery-of-unidentified-victorian-authors-10384128.html 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-manuscripts-uk-150722110034399.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/world-oldest-quran-man... There's so much stuff in collections waiting to be discovered.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
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.

raducu 11y ago

"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.

x5n1 11y ago
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.
- pikoh 11y ago
  Preferably in a remote location that's safe. Like an island.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    what could possibly go wrong?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - aruggirello 11y ago
      If anything goes wrong, we'll just do a theme park!
- sizzzzlerz 11y ago
  You scientists! You're so excited that you could do this, you don't stop to think whether you should!
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Which would also be dinosaur feathers, at that time. Because back then, they weren't essentially different.

hohohmm 11y ago

Is US the only place that Evolution needs constant reinforcing?

palmer_eldritch 11y ago
Well, it's just a theory after all...
- wallzz 11y ago
  No it's a scientific fact now
  - mdpopescu 11y ago
    As opposed to what other kind of fact? :)
    - user_0001 11y ago
      Religious "fact" ;-)
- awjr 11y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A theory is a proven truth until disproved ;)
  - palmer_eldritch 11y ago
    Oh, shi- I forgot: /sarcasm
    - antimagic 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law Tsk tsk, shame on you...

ching_wow_ka 11y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g 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.

pygy_ 11y ago
"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.
ryangittins 11y ago
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.
fsloth 11y ago
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_example_of_increasing_information 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.
thaumaturgy 11y ago
Sure. Dawkins himself has addressed it, so I'll just let him speak for himself: http://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/the-information-challenge/ 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?

debacle 11y ago

But it's just a theory.

scardine 11y ago

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.