
Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber Reinforce Evolution Theories (2011) - aaronbrethorst
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/dinosaur-feathers-found-in-amber-reinforce-evolution-theories/245094/?single_page=true
======
JacobAldridge
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
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...](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/1619.abstract#aff-1)
) is behind a paywall. But I am leaning towards your hypothesis.

------
raducu
"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
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
Preferably in a remote location that's safe. Like an island.

~~~
x5n1
what could possibly go wrong?

~~~
aruggirello
If anything goes wrong, we'll just do a theme park!

------
scardine
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.

------
ching_wow_ka
[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.

~~~
fsloth
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_exam...](http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information)

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.

------
debacle
But it's just a _theory_.

------
hohohmm
Is US the only place that Evolution needs constant reinforcing?

~~~
palmer_eldritch
Well, it's just a theory after all...

~~~
awjr
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
Oh, shi- I forgot: /sarcasm

~~~
antimagic
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)

Tsk tsk, shame on you...

