SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The first ever example of a plant-eating dinosaur with feathers and scales has been discovered in Russia. Previously only flesh-eating dinosaurs were known to have had feathers so this new find indicates that all dinosaurs could have been feathered.
This discovery suggests that feather-like structures were likely widespread in dinosaurs, possibly even in the earliest members of the group. Feathers probably arose during the Triassic, more than 220 million years ago, for purposes of insulation and signalling, and were only later co-opted for flight. Smaller dinosaurs were probably covered in feathers, mostly with colourful patterns, and feathers may have been lost as dinosaurs grew up and became larger.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Fossils Suggest all Dinosaurs had Feathers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 12 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You can never do just one thing.
-- Hardin
(Score: 0, Redundant) by WizardFusion on Monday July 28 2014, @12:51PM
Everyone knows the world is flat and only 5000 years old
/sarcasm
(Score: 2) by present_arms on Monday July 28 2014, @01:51PM
I remember having a chat with a person once. She believed that the earth is only 6000 years old, when I questioned her about how there are fossil and other scientific evidence she told me that it was placed there by God to confuse us mere mortals
True story
http://trinity.mypclinuxos.com/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @01:52PM
Anti-Russian Warmongering [slashdot.org] at Slashdot.
Good thing Soylent News exists so we can have discussions with sanity, discussions that are not steered by crazed Jewish warmongers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @09:52PM
Oh, look, one of those Putins bitches off topicing.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday July 28 2014, @02:58PM
i think the citation you want is "Ken Ham reckons..."
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday July 28 2014, @05:31PM
Dinosaurs had feathers because scales are rough and would chafe Jesus.
If there's one thing we don't need to see in the paintings of the son of God, it's bright red inner thighs and crotch.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 28 2014, @01:52PM
"dinosaurs could have been..."
Could have been purple were-stuffed-animals who sing "I love you, you love me..." to little kids.
There are several aspects of wikipedia culture worthy of contempt, but one innovation is tagging as "weasel words" any... weasel words.
SN should auto tag anything with "could have" as weasel-ish. Its right up there with titles that ask a question.
Those are our generations annoying habits, similar to how my parents generation thought it was hilariously innovative to tag a suffix of "-gate" on every political scandal for decades which has thankfully died out, or slightly more recently we have the people who can't stand silence and fill their speech with the word "like" as a filler.
An interesting high tech startup opportunity would be a low latency augmented reality filter system that eats moronity. Its an interesting technical challenge. On some levels, its so simple, a regex that eats any formatted text title ending in a question mark is simple. Now do that with spoken audio, good luck.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Monday July 28 2014, @02:14PM
I would suggest you buy some earplugs. The amount of non-moron comming through such a filter will be so little you won't notice the difference.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Monday July 28 2014, @02:48PM
Unless you're actually discussing weasels, then it's OK to use those words.
Also - they find one damn fossil, and suddenly they think that ALL dinosaurs had feathers? What kind of stupid shit is this?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Monday July 28 2014, @03:30PM
The reality of science conflicts with the ideal of science.
In the ideal of science, proper methodology and rigorous thinking separate correct hypotheses from incorrect ones. Long and painstaking work will eventually reveal the truth. For the ideal to become the reality, scientists would have to be rewarded based on their thoroughness and caution and the best scientists might spend most of their time confirming the findings of others. This is not how it works.
In the reality of science, hypotheses compete in a popularity contest. Pettiness and personality conflicts come to the foreground.
It is difficult to tell from the bad reporting whether the statement "all dinosaurs had feathers" is a conclusion that is really justified by the evidence, or posturing by a guy who has just changed the balance of power between two warring camps within the field and is trying to gain favor with the new camp whose cause he just boosted.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @03:44PM
I guess the whole "Lets comment without reading the article" idiocy has rolled-over from Slashdot to the Soylent crowd. I guess it's not a surprise, it is the same demographic after all.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday July 28 2014, @07:19PM
So, they 'could' have had wings, but could they fly?
/Me remembering Les Nessman reporting on WKRP's thanksgiving publicity stunt: throwing live turkeys out of a helicopter.
'Oh, the humanity!' ("I swear to God, i thought turkeys could fly!")
Can you imagine a T-Rex being thrown out of a helicopter, feathers and all? 'Oh, the humanity... oh, the MESS!'
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---