Science shock: Fierce velociraptor just a big flappy bird
posted at 9:32 am on September 24, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Another illusion melted in the cold light of science.
Velociraptor, the terrifying predator made famous in the movie “Jurassic Park,” appears to have had feathers in real life.
A close study of a velociraptor forearm found in Mongolia shows the presence of quill knobs, bumps on the bone where the feathers anchor, researchers report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Dinosaurs are believed to be ancestors to modern birds. Evidence of feathered dinosaurs has been found in recent years, and now velociraptor can be added to that list…
The velociraptor the researchers studied was about three feet tall and weighed about 30 pounds. The size of these animals was exaggerated in the movie…
It had short forelimbs, compared to a modern bird, the researchers said, indicating it would not have been able to fly, even though it had feathers.
The feathers may have been useful for display, to shield nests, for temperature control or to help it maneuver while running, they said.
So…it was basically a mean turkey.*
*This science was conducted by researchers at Columbia University. So take it for whatever it’s worth.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Feathers or no feathers, I still wouldn’t want to meet one in a dark alley.
Think of it this way: If Tigers were fuchsia, white and black instead of orange, white and black, would they be any less dangerous?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
wearyman on September 24, 2007 at 9:38 AM
TIM: It’ll do you a trick, mate!
KNIGHT: Oh, yeah?
ROBIN: You mangy Scot git!
TIM: I’m warning you!
ROBIN: What’s he do, nibble your bum?
TIM: He’s got huge, sharp– he can leap about– look at the bones!
TABoLK on September 24, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Didn’t the Dilophosaurus kill the Wayne Knight character? That one had some fictionalized features, too.
DrSteve on September 24, 2007 at 9:39 AM
They were MOVIES. That is, completely made up works of FICTION. You cant recreate dinos from ancient mosquitos in amber, you can’t “fill in” the gaps in the genome of an extinct species with frog DNA and you can’t tug on Superman’s cape.
Besides, I thought that they had found evidence of 6′ tall ‘raptors somewhere after the first movie came out?
And having feathers just makes em even nastier, giant bird-like meat eating monsters!
Neo on September 24, 2007 at 9:43 AM
I think I soiled my armor.
Tennessee Dave on September 24, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Forget the science. What’s the consensus?
cadetwithchips2 on September 24, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Maybe Columbia will ask Dinnerjacket his opinion on this this morning. We could use his powers of logic and speadsheets applied to this problem. The feathers could well indicate a Jewish connection, I mean with Speilberg and all you can’t rule it out.
Limerick on September 24, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Put Norris and Bauer on it.
bbz123 on September 24, 2007 at 9:51 AM
It’s not the feathers or small forearms that worry me were I to run across one. It’s that mouth full of teeth and those huge claws on their feet which I’m pretty sure were used to deadly effect.
Yakko77 on September 24, 2007 at 9:53 AM
You mean like this one?
Bigfoot on September 24, 2007 at 9:56 AM
What? Paleontologists have never been wrong before!!!
jgapinoy on September 24, 2007 at 9:58 AM
A mean turkey? Surly these guys ancestors were responsible for their demise.
csdeven on September 24, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Science has become a bad joke.
Maxx on September 24, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Tough call — who has less credibility, Columbia professors or scientists who consult with Hollywood movie producers?
Jaibones on September 24, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Funny how the scholars at this university can look at a pile of bones from a creature who died off 60 million years ago and definitively label it as a non-threatening scrawny bird, yet when it comes to recognizing a living, breathing predator staring them in the face with a nuke in his back pocket, these same experts are clueless and blind as a bat.
fogw on September 24, 2007 at 10:03 AM
And 3 foot tall birds don’t strike me with the same sense of dread and wonder as 8 foot birds.
Jaibones on September 24, 2007 at 10:03 AM
LOL Job done
Ochlan on September 24, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Complements on the tagline.
frankj on September 24, 2007 at 10:18 AM
ok. Yea. keep thinking that.
Meanwhile, Pandas are cuddly looking. Go pet one.
Remember… Panda BEAR. B-E-A-R.
Mazztek on September 24, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Ever been attacked by a turkey?
I had one literally attack my car as I was pulling out of my driveway last year…apparently protecting it’s little one’s.
No joke…that bird was mean.
JetBoy on September 24, 2007 at 10:24 AM
LOL! Nicely done!
crushliberalism on September 24, 2007 at 10:31 AM
There have been several species of “raptor” dinosaurs discovered. The ones in the movie were probably based on one of the large species, like utahraptor. I wouldn’t want to mess with one of them, feathers or no feathers.
juliesa on September 24, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Lovely plumage, the Utah raptor…
James on September 24, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Movie or not, everything in it was passed off as “truth”.
How in the world can someone know so much about an animal that lived millions of years ago just by examining a few bones?
I mean, God, they went into every single detail. No way.
And I also got tired of the “evil white man, bad” crap.
SuperManGreenLantern on September 24, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Wait, wait. So it went from large ferocious reptile, to small ferocious bird just like that? WTF?
Ortzinator on September 24, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Is that ranked by hits or inbound links? I can’t find him on the list…
km on September 24, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Size doesn’t matter. Ever see Hitchcock’s “THE BIRDS?”
Brat on September 24, 2007 at 11:32 AM
‘E’s pinin’ for the fjords.
TABoLK on September 24, 2007 at 12:10 PM
It’s got bit pointy teeth!
Kini on September 24, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Not yet.
frreal on September 24, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Hmmmm I wondered how they would taste deep fried cajun style
EricPWJohnson on September 24, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Someone photoshop a feather boa on that pic, stat!
James on September 24, 2007 at 1:42 PM
C’mon guys, “so show a little respect. OK?”
LOL at this whole thread. I love HotAir!
inviolet on September 24, 2007 at 1:42 PM
More importantly, consider the fact that evolution proponents are DESPERATE to prove birds evolved from dinosaurs, and that is what this is all about. Not to mention the fact that the evidence couldn’t be further from conclusive, as always it’s just a bunch of irresponsible reporting based on limited study of one tiny bone sample with bumps on it.
This is like when they see something “odd” (or surprising, because it’s a closer view than we’d previously had) on another planet through a telescope or a flyby in space. Nothing about the observation suggests water, and it certainly doesn’t suggest life… but because the theory goes “evolution is true, so there are infinite planets with an infinite variety of life out there, and water = life”. What’s funny about this is, even if we were to buy in to the BS that is evolution on Earth, water doesn’t simply mean life. It would have taken a hell of a lot more going exactly right for life to come from non-life… but don’t let that stop explosive headlines that dominate for days and weeks at a time every 6 months or so saying things like “Signs of life on Mars?”, etc. When in reality, the only thing seen was something that can’t be identified, but scientists call it likely signs of water because they fee like water is their magic life creator, and suddenly we’re on the verge of discovering aliens. F-ing pathetic.
Anyway, as I said, this is more hype than data (as usual) but more importantly, despite the fact that the hype is derived from the whole “dinos to birds” theory that scientists are desperate to prove (especially as their human evolution picture has been falling apart all year), it would seem that this particular animal wouldn’t even be part of that supposed transition… by the scientists own admission, it would be on a completely different evolutionary track. They won’t highlight this, because then you wouldn’t be misled properly.
Also, how do we know they weren’t simply looking at a bird bone? Or, more specifically, a more recent bird bone? We can’t trust their dating, they’re constantly adjusting ages of things (after teaching the bogus ages as facts for decades) by tens of millions of years. Here’s the latest if you’re interested. Evidently, 3 million years ago is a better time (than the previously assumed and taught 30 million years ago) for the Ethiopian Plateau to have risen, at least if they’re looking for support for their theory of human evolution. So wave that magic wand:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070919a
Shazzam! Yet another evolution problem solved by adjusting ages by tens of millions of years! That’s not wild guessing to fit a a prewritten story, that’s just science baby, take that creationists!
RightWinged on September 24, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Ha ha….
The Ugly American on September 24, 2007 at 3:26 PM
“Newman died”…………..
BBBWWWwwwwaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha
NOW THAT WAS FUNNY.
seejanemom on September 24, 2007 at 4:53 PM
SHOCKING!!! Another scientific “fact” found to be nothing more than an incorrect theory. The same scientific community that claims they know how the entire universe began couldn’t get a drawing of a dinosaur correct.
But don’t take this claim too seriously either. Just wait a few years and they’ll change the “facts” again.
Gregor on September 24, 2007 at 5:47 PM
I could have sworn this discovery was by researchers at MSU.
You know. Make Sh** Up.
Merovign on September 24, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Gregor, you keep making sense like this, I may have to reconsider your NAU stuff.
RightWinged on September 24, 2007 at 7:37 PM
This science was laid down by Victorian gentlemen a century and some ago.
Everything then demanded explanation and description and with vague notions, the scholars made the best of it they could. Theory is a fancy word for informed best guess, unfortunately some think theory turns to truth with enough decades behind it.
I would be a little more confident if the best minds admitted that almost nothing is actually known about almost everything.
Don’t be too harsh on the guessers, mankind demands something, even if it has to be made up.
BL@KBIRD on September 24, 2007 at 9:23 PM
The problem is, these “guessers” you speak of aren’t going on “the best data available”… They’re going on an agenda, and a need to make the data fit the theory, rather than the other way around.
Do you remember all the hype about how we were on the verge of discovering life on Mars? No we weren’t, we were looking at something we didn’t understand, but scientists wanted water to be there, because they’ve convinced an idiotic public that “water = life”… This hype pops up every few months with new signs of water, with headlines alluding to extraterrestrial life, yet there isn’t a shred of evidence to support it. But it fits the evolution agenda.
Sadly, the evolutionists are admitting Mars is bone dry and has been for a long time:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070921a
Remember the “pictures of liquid water” a few months ago, that made headlines on every news show on the planet, headlines on everyone’s home page, including Drudge and here? Do you think they’ll be reporting this?
RightWinged on September 24, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Has anyone ever seen an emu or an ostrich in action? Those birds are just plain nasty. I try to avoid them when I visit the drive-through exotic animal zoos.
You know why scientists keep crying “signs of life” more often than the Left cries “Bush lied”? Because that is what drums up publicity, which drums up money to finance their operations. Most of them hate it as much as we do, but unfortunately they do need money to continue their research. “Life on Mars” brings in a LOT more dough than “Rocks on Mars.”
As far as evolution goes, trying to figure out what happened and how is their job. If scientists just threw up their hands and said “flashbang 6-10 millenia ago” we would be as scientifically and technologically backward as the Muslim world is (if you discount all the advances they got from us).
My idea of a true scientist is one who, having just witnessed Christ’s Resurrection, runs up to Him and goes “How did You do that?” To which, Jesus responds, “It was a miracle.” And the scientist goes, “I know, but how did You do it?”
Lancer on September 24, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Again, no one is saying don’t try to study and figure out how things go… But as it is scientist ARE only saying “flashbang”, but instead of millenia they say billions of years ago… and instead of allowing the evidence to lead them there, they try to make the data fit that theory, and it’s all about proving everything “just happened” (= no God). See my examples above.. it’s all about hanging on to a ridiculous theory, by adjusting small parts of it. Not because the evidence says to, but because they need the evidence to fit, so they force it to.
RightWinged on September 24, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Ya,but can it tuck its ordanance under it fuselodge
like the Raptor F-22.he he.
canopfor on September 24, 2007 at 11:06 PM