Skip to comments.Prehistoric mammal hair found in Cretaceous amber
Posted on 06/14/2010 2:14:31 PM PDT by JoeProBono
Palaeontologists have discovered two mammal hairs encased in 100 million-year-old amber. While older 2D fossilised hairs are known, those preserved in the amber are the oldest 3D specimens known. The hairs, found alongside a fly pupa in amber uncovered in southwest France, are remarkably similar to hair found on modern mammals. That implies that the shape and structure of mammal hair has remained unchanged over a vast period of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
WELL, NOW WHAT? Now that Helen is gone... nothing more to post...
oh look ... genetic material :)
So hair didn’t evolve? How unDarwinian.
Wow...all for the love of Grant Money.
1. A Chimera is produced when a human embryo is fused with an animal embryo; 2. An Hybrid is produced when a human female egg is fertilised with animal sperm or vice-versa; and 3. A "Cybrid" is produced when an animal cell's genetic material is removed and replaced with human genetic material.
Well, maybe modern animals just have old hair? Or, old animals had modern hair...
Ya know, if there isn’t a good reason to evolve, it won’t happen. As long as it works, it’s probably not going to change.
Please tell me that isn’t real . . .
a. feathers didn’t turn into birds.
b. reptile scales evolved into feathers
The hairs, found alongside a fly pupa in amber uncovered in southwest France, are remarkably similar to hair found on modern mammals. That implies that the shape and structure of mammal hair has remained unchanged over a vast period of time.
Or maybe it just means that (macro) evolution and the billions of years are not true.
Cretaceous amber ping
Evolution is Science Fiction.
Jurassic Park ping
Finally it’s revealed where the fellow who is running for Governor in Texas on the Rat ticket came from. Thanks we Texans needed to know that....
Not immediately, but yes.
Actually, it’s a lot more accurate, and intellectually honest, to say that parakeets are the great-great-great-etcetc grandchildren of a certain branch of dinosaurs.
Not my hair. Most of mine is eligible to be stuck in amber,wherever it is.
I may never eat meat again. That is sooooo disturbing.
Some, though given the timescale, and the assumptions that not many birds were robust enough for remains to be preserved before decomposition and not many birds lived in the kinds of environments that favored fossilization, there aren’t as many as there are for, say, reptile to mammal. Here’s an initial list. One last aside: be careful with demanding transitionals, as it becomes all to easy to demand “the one in between those”, on and on recursively. It’s dishonest to keep raising the bar. The existence of even some transitional fossils is enough to show that such things can and do exist. The notion that there would be animals similar to both a predecessor and an antecedent, and yet related to and generationally independent of both is absurd:
# Lisboasaurus estesi and other “troodontid dinosaur-birds” — a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a “cousin” of the birds instead.
# Protoavis — this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently.
# Archeopteryx — reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn’t take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds). Not currently considered transitional, but a good example of the changes in morphology along the way; more of a dead-end.
# “Chinese bird” [I don’t know what name was given to this fossil] — A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail (”pygostyle”), but I don’t know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused.
# “Las Hoyas bird” [I don’t know what name was given to this fossil] — This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird.
# Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds.
And that’s just pieces of the bird line. Other animals are far better represented. There are hundreds of so-called transitional fossils.
Ha. made me laugh. Thanks. (except i don’t wear bobbi pins being a guy and all)
If it works, don't fix it.
oooh, ahhhh! Thanks JoeProBono! Look Back in Amber ping.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
>>Look Back in Amber ping.
I had chicken tonight, thank god.
We're planning Chinese Hassenpfeffer later in the week.
We knew she likes the turkey's cracked corn, but we had no idea she would go after the wild Hassenpfeffer's cabbage leaves bait.
She was one P.O.ed pussy when I went in & got the camera instead of immediately releasing her.
According to creationists zero.
That's because according to them, every time a critter is found with features and age mid-way between known critters creationists blandly insist that the new critter doesn't fill the gap, but actually creates two new gaps on either side.
If they do will you shut up?
Nahhh, I’ve got a couple 100 million year old mammal hairs.
[it was a little harsh]...
That picture is totally disgusting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.