The Rocks Versus Clocks Debate: When ...

The Rocks Versus Clocks Debate: When Did Modern Birds Exist?

There are 78 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 6, 2008, titled The Rocks Versus Clocks Debate: When Did Modern Birds Exist?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Paleontologists, who use estimates based on the fossil record, and scientists who use "molecular clock" methods to study evolutionary history, have never agreed on when modern birds came into existence, because they have had conflicting results.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Got Science?”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#1 Feb 6, 2008
100 million years is a big number. If they're right.
truthist

United States

#2 Feb 6, 2008
Oh, well, 100 or 60M years , what are the uncertainties in these two estimates? Maybe the rock-based approach has less uncertainty.

Wait! There are like 22 definitions for species. Human-based errors?
RMS

Portsmouth, NH

#3 Feb 6, 2008
But they do know for sure that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#4 Feb 6, 2008
RMS wrote:
But they do know for sure that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Quite true...

I think much of the controversy has to do with the "Great Extinction" that removed the Dinosaurs.

Some think it was so devastating that only a very few individuals of some groups (like birds) would have survived. Therefore, the vast diversity of modern birds had to come AFTER 65 million years ago.

I think the conclusion is that (surprising or not!:), modern birds evolved earlier, and those groups simply survived the "Great Extinction".

The problem is that birds are fragile, bird fossils are rare, and that makes getting the whole story somewhat problematical.

We just may not find out all of the details...
jit

Stockton, CA

#5 Feb 6, 2008
RMS wrote:
But they do know for sure that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
didnt you pay attension in school!
its flying that become birds.
truthist

United States

#6 Feb 6, 2008
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite true...
I think much of the controversy has to do with the "Great Extinction" that removed the Dinosaurs.
Some think it was so devastating that only a very few individuals of some groups (like birds) would have survived. Therefore, the vast diversity of modern birds had to come AFTER 65 million years ago.
I think the conclusion is that (surprising or not!:), modern birds evolved earlier, and those groups simply survived the "Great Extinction".
The problem is that birds are fragile, bird fossils are rare, and that makes getting the whole story somewhat problematical.
We just may not find out all of the details...
Unless preserved in amber?

Well, I don't remember how old that would make the amber and its content.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#7 Feb 6, 2008
truthist wrote:
<quoted text>Unless preserved in amber?
Well, I don't remember how old that would make the amber and its content.
Haven't heard of a bird preserved in amber. It would have to be a very small bird(?).

It would be a fascinating find!
jit

Stockton, CA

#8 Feb 6, 2008
jit wrote:
<quoted text>
didnt you pay attension in school!
its flying that become birds.
correction:
'flying fish', that be it!
RMS

Portsmouth, NH

#9 Feb 6, 2008
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite true...
I think much of the controversy has to do with the "Great Extinction" that removed the Dinosaurs.
Some think it was so devastating that only a very few individuals of some groups (like birds) would have survived. Therefore, the vast diversity of modern birds had to come AFTER 65 million years ago.
I think the conclusion is that (surprising or not!:), modern birds evolved earlier, and those groups simply survived the "Great Extinction".
The problem is that birds are fragile, bird fossils are rare, and that makes getting the whole story somewhat problematical.
We just may not find out all of the details...
You think, some think, you think, and getting the whole story is somewhat problematical.

Amusingly though, despite lacking the "whole story", there are great leaps to conclusions about the missing pieces.

So much for the scientific method of observation, experimentation and testable, repeatable, verifiable results.
saiai the gardener

Stockton, CA

#10 Feb 6, 2008
crash, 100 million years is a big number whether they are right ...or wrong!
Me being a practical person, I dont care much where birds are coming from but see them in numbers coming to my garden and figure the environment is not too much in danger yet.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#11 Feb 6, 2008
RMS wrote:
<quoted text>
You think, some think, you think, and getting the whole story is somewhat problematical.
Amusingly though, despite lacking the "whole story", there are great leaps to conclusions about the missing pieces.
So much for the scientific method of observation, experimentation and testable, repeatable, verifiable results.
Yep...they are. With enough work, additional pieces of evidence will be found to verify, or modify the conclusions.

The overall process is obvious...this discussion is about details.

And...thinking is ALWAYS better than NOT thinking!
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#12 Feb 6, 2008
saiai the gardener wrote:
crash, 100 million years is a big number whether they are right ...or wrong!
Me being a practical person, I dont care much where birds are coming from but see them in numbers coming to my garden and figure the environment is not too much in danger yet.
Are they native birds?...Or are they the masses of House Sparrows and Starlings that most of us see now that so many native populations have decreased or crashed? Maybe you are fortunate...
truthist

United States

#13 Feb 6, 2008
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't heard of a bird preserved in amber. It would have to be a very small bird(?).
It would be a fascinating find!
Indeed,:) And small birds have small eggs. An egg in amber? I dream.

Well, I now remember a pollen on a bee in amber that was reported last year. That would date to later than the dinasours. I have a large piece of amber with a bug in it.:)
truthist

United States

#14 Feb 6, 2008
crash?

Noooooo..
Womba

Troy, MI

#15 Feb 6, 2008
Wouldn't it be ironic ; birds evolving into dinos.

That would be a kick in the butt.
climbing the wall

Auburn Hills, MI

#16 Feb 6, 2008
Their is birds preserved in amber(very small ones) at collector for natural history museums that lives in California ,he also states that he has had frogs and large spiders etc.in the past that were trapped in very large pieces of amber as large as pillows.I have personally seen pieces of this size.Yes they do exist.Can you imagine the size of the trees that had this size of tree sap on it?
Mike

Spanaway, WA

#17 Feb 6, 2008
As long as they are pretty or tasty I don't care how long it took to make 'em.
Daniel

Fort Morgan, CO

#18 Feb 6, 2008
climbing the wall wrote:
Their is birds preserved in amber(very small ones) at collector for natural history museums that lives in California ,he also states that he has had frogs and large spiders etc.in the past that were trapped in very large pieces of amber as large as pillows.I have personally seen pieces of this size.Yes they do exist.Can you imagine the size of the trees that had this size of tree sap on it?
Your such a LIAR!
Darwin is DEAD

Santa Barbara, CA

#19 Feb 6, 2008
Evolution is in conflict with common sense. The only reason such twaddle is believed is not because of the evidence, but because people wish to believe there is no God. So they resort to the most idiotic of rationalzations. Thus evolution was born.

"A hundred years or so ago, C. S. Peirce, a working scientist as well as the greatest of American philosophers, distinguished genuine inquiry from "sham reasoning," pseudo-inquiry aimed not at finding the truth but at making a case for some conclusion immovably believed in advance; and predicted that, when sham reasoning becomes commonplace, people will come "to look on reasoning as merely decorative," and will "lose their conceptions of truth and of reason."
Philosopher Susan Haack

Describes the pseudo-science of evolution perfectly
Poo Mingby

Tucson, AZ

#21 Feb 6, 2008
This I do understand. Non-academics may not. In the academic world, people will not even submit research for publication that may not be politically correct for fear of being black-listed.

This is more common than anyone would want to admit. That can be a dangerous situation as all professors must get their 4 "pubs" per year or go to teach in a junior college.

So someone may have the answer but is afraid to publish his/her research.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paleontology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Crocodile rock: Prehistoric critter named for M... Aug 12 Xstain Mullahs 3
News Life-Size Noah's Ark To Open Amid A Flood Of Sk... (Jul '16) Jul 23 Luther 9
News The Mystery of the Mokele-Mbembe (Jul '07) Jul '17 1def-ghd 2
News Humans in America 100,000 years earlier than pr... Jul '17 pshun2404 26
News This bizarre ancient creature mystified Darwin;... Jul '17 Suezanne 1
News Tyrannosaurus rex had scaly skin and wasn't cov... Jun '17 T-rex_Rules 1
What are these Jun '17 Shedrock80 1
More from around the web