127-million-year-old baby bird fossil sheds light on avian evolution

March 5, 2018, University of Manchester
Artist impression of Enantiornithes by artist Raúl Martín. Credit: Raúl Martín

The tiny fossil of a prehistoric baby bird is helping scientists understand how early avians came into the world in the Age of Dinosaurs.

The fossil, which dates back to the Mesozoic Era (250-65 million years ago), is a chick from a group of called, Enantiornithes. Made up of a nearly complete skeleton, the specimen is amongst the smallest known Mesozoic avian fossils ever discovered.

It measures less than five centimetres - smaller than the little finger on an average human hand - and would have weighed just three ounces when it was alive.What makes this fossil so important and unique is the fact it died not long after its birth. This is a critical stage in a bird's skeletal formation. That means this bird's extremely short life has given researchers a rare chance to analyse the species' and development.

Studying and analysing ossification - the process of bone development - can explain a lot about a young bird's life the researchers say. It can help them understand everything from whether it could fly or if it needed to stay with its parents after hatching or could survive on its own.

The lead author of the study, Fabien Knoll, from The University of Manchester's Interdisciplinary Centre for Ancient Life (ICAL), School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and the ARAID—Dinopolis in Spain explains: "The evolutionary diversification of has resulted in a wide range of hatchling developmental strategies and important differences in their growth rates. By analysing bone development we can look at a whole host of evolutionary traits."

With the fossil being so small the team used synchrotron radiation to picture the tiny specimen at a 'submicron' level, observing the bones' microstructures in extreme detail.

Phosphorous mapping image and photo of fossil. Credit: Dr. Fabien Knoll

Knoll said: "New technologies are offering palaeontologists unprecedented capacities to investigate provocative fossils. Here we made the most of state-of-the-art facilities worldwide including three different synchrotrons in France, the UK and the United States."

The researchers found the baby bird's sternum (breastplate bone) was still largely made of cartilage and had not yet developed into hard, solid when it died, meaning it wouldn't have been able to fly.

The patterns of ossification observed in this and the other few very young enantiornithine birds known to date also suggest that the developmental strategies of this particular group of ancient avians may have been more diverse than previously thought.

Dr Fabien Knoll in lab. Credit: Dr. Fabien Knoll

However, the team say that its lack of doesn't necessarily mean the hatchling was over reliant on its parents for care and feeding, a trait known as being 'altricial." Modern day species like love birds are highly dependent on their parents when born. Others, like chickens, are highly independent, which is known as 'precocial." Although, this is not a black-and-white issue, but rather a spectrum, hence the difficulty in clarifying the developmental strategies of long gone bird species.

Luis Chiappe, from the LA Museum of Natural History and study's co-author added: "This new discovery, together with others from around the world, allows us to peek into the world of ancient birds that lived during the age of dinosaurs. It is amazing to realise how many of the features we see among living birds had already been developed more than 100 million years ago."

Explore further: Early bird winds back the avian clock

More information: Fabien Knoll et al, A diminutive perinate European Enantiornithes reveals an asynchronous ossification pattern in early birds, Nature Communications (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03295-9

Related Stories

Early bird winds back the avian clock

May 5, 2015

Modern birds may have evolved six million years earlier than thought, said Chinese palaeontologists Wednesday after analyzing the fossil remains of a previously unknown prehistoric relative.

Tracing the evolution of bird reproduction

August 10, 2016

What really did come first—the chicken or the egg? Birds' reproductive biology is dramatically different from that of any other living vertebrates, and ornithologists and paleontologists have long wondered how and when ...

Birds of a fibula

August 3, 2016

Over the last 20 years, there has grown insurmountable evidence that birds are the direct modern descendants of dinosaurs. Eagles are dinosaurs. Pigeons are dinosaurs, annoyingly. Even penguins are weird, swimming dinosaurs.

First fossil bird with teeth specialized for tough diet

January 7, 2013

Beak shape variation in Darwin's finches is a classic example of evolutionary adaptation, with beaks that vary widely in proportions and shape, reflecting a diversity of ecologies. While living birds have a beak to manipulate ...

Recommended for you

Growing a dinosaur's dinner

July 13, 2018

Scientists have measured the nutritional value of herbivore dinosaurs' diet by growing their food in atmospheric conditions similar to those found roughly 150 million years ago.

A statistical study of the hot streak

July 12, 2018

An international team of researchers has conducted a statistical analysis of hot streaks to learn more about this mysterious facet of human nature. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the group describes how they ...

Study finds solos twice as common in sad songs

July 11, 2018

Music can transport a spirit from sullen to joyful. It can bring a concertgoer to unexpected tears. But the details of just how that connection between performance and emotion works remain largely mysterious.

54 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2018
It is amazing to realise how many of the features we see among living birds had already been developed more than 100 million years ago."

This seems to be a contradiction to the statement that such birds lived in a prehistoric time period.
If there is no history for it, how is it possible to attach a time span and definite location in history to when birds supposedly developed their features?
Just so by the way - there is currently absolutely no accepted actual observed and documented support for the story that birds "evolved" from dinosaurs. Please get that straight. There just is no way currently to link birds to dinosaurs except through some highly imaginative speculation.

Right now the best possibility is that a dinosaur laid an egg and out popped a chicken or some other bird, with fully developed feathered wings, hollow bones, air sacs etc.!
drrobodog
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2018
If there is no history for it, how is it possible to attach a time span and definite location in history

Using a variety of dating methods for the timeline and the actual location of the fossil for the approximate location.

with fully developed feathered wings

"Moreover, fossils of more than thirty species of non-avian dinosaur have been collected with preserved feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers."

, hollow bones, air sacs etc.!

"Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors."

https://en.wikipe...of_birds
Bart_A
1 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2018
Seeing an old fossil does not say anything about "evolution". It merely shows what a specimen was a long time ago. Evolution is a black box, an imagination. And it takes a super imagination to try to shed any light on this unproven theory.
Nonlin_org
1 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2018
Actually, it is not at all amazing that this bird looks like any modern one. That is because we have yet to see something "evolve" ...artistic license aside: http://nonlin.org...olution/
drrobodog
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2018
Bart_A
[...]unproven theory

When you use a phrase like this, people assume you are either; just messing with them or, that you don't understand the topic you are criticizing. In either case a discussion is not possible, and so they will simply down-vote and move on.

Nonlin_org
yet to see something "evolve"

Actually as I recall some things have been seen to evolve, however why is "seen" a requirement? Have you seen the earths core? Have you seen gravity? How about an electron orbit jump?

In some cases it is better to not rely on what's seen (criminal case), due to bias.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2018
Actually, it is not at all amazing that this bird looks like any modern one. That is because we have yet to see something "evolve" ...artistic license aside: http://nonlin.org...olution/


Oh dear. Not even wrong, springs to mind!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
Right now the best possibility is that a dinosaur laid an egg and out popped a chicken or some other bird, with fully developed feathered wings, hollow bones, air sacs etc.!
Fred is only able to reach these outrageous conclusions because his religion makes him totally oblivious to evidence.

Of course he can proclaim anything he wants if he believes that evidence which is contrary to what he reads in his holy book is planted by Satan.

This is a sickness typical of people who favor superstition over reality, and it endangers us all as never before.

End religion before it ends us all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2018
According to existing theory the birds evolved from dinosaurs, but IMO these small flying ones existed a way before (Xiaotingia zhengi etc.). Only large gallinaceous birds evolved directly from dinosaur
I do hope you don't think you can sway a religionist with facts. They already despise facts. And even when they attempt to conjure up their own theories to explain irrefutable facts they always have the statement 'Well who can know the mind of god?' to fall back on, which they usually have to do anyways.

Better to attack their faith directly than to try to refute their arguments.

So why do they bother theorizing to begin with? It's just another form of deception. Religionists feel obligated to break any and all commandments in defense of their faith, and can always be expected to do so.

So watch your wallet and your back.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2018
Seeing an old fossil does not say anything about "evolution".

Bart_A

Obviously false; especially if the fossil is that of a missing link just like any one of the many such missing links that have already been discovered. Evolution is a proven scientific fact only in very small part because of these discovered missing links (there is huge amounts of other types of evidence).
Nonlin_org
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
Actually as I recall some things have been seen to evolve, however why is "seen" a requirement?

drrobodog,

What have you seen "evolve"? Of course "seen" means "demonstrated". Are you a robot stuck on language?
Like it or not, this particular evidence works against "evolution".

jonesdave,

Your "Not even wrong" is euphemism for "I have no arguments".
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2018
jonesdave,

Your "Not even wrong" is euphemism for "I have no arguments".


Nope, there are plenty. See the scientific literature. Un-peer reviewed opinion pieces on websites are an irrelevance. and scarcely worth addressing.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2018

What have you seen "evolve"? .

Scientists have seen the proof (in the form of the overwhelming vast mountain of empirical evidence) for many specific species evolving and many evolving in the modern day. Arguing over whether you can say they have 'seen' them evolve is just arguing the toss over irrelevant semantics. They have still seen the proof and that's all that counts. Proof is Proof.
humy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2018
No new species have demonstratively evolved these days into new ones - period. The examples of speciation observed can be all explained by selective inbreeding and adaptation etc. The evolutionary theory has many evidence but no direct proof.


Simply and clearly false.
Just one example out of many;
https://www.wired...-action/
Nonlin_org
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2018
jonesdave,

Nope, there are plenty. See the scientific literature.

But you have none, of course. Well, I do: http://nonlin.org...lection/ and http://nonlin.org/evolution/

humy

Just one example out of many;

Note how those are all finches. Would you call your fellow human of a different color (or nose shape) a different "species". Maybe if you're racist. But you can still have kids with her/him. See? Just like those finches.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2018
jonesdave,

Nope, there are plenty. See the scientific literature.

But you have none, of course. Well, I do: http://nonlin.org...lection/

humy

Just one example out of many;

Note how those are all finches. Would you call your fellow human of a different color (or nose shape) a different "species". Maybe if you're racist. But you can still have kids with her/him. See? Just like those finches.


Linking to crap pseudoscience websites is not helping your cause. Try writing a scientific paper. And getting it published. Like everybody else has to do.
Nonlin_org
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2018
Try writing a scientific paper. And getting it published. Like everybody else has to do.

And you still have no evidence, of course. And you just got angry cause I called out your crap pseudo-science. Good.

So are you publishing in "Astrology Today" or "Evolution Phrenology"? Don't worry - I won't compete with you for those two.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2018
Would you call your fellow human of a different color (or nose shape) a different "species".

Nope; they aren't sufficiently different.
So you deny there are different species of finches?
What about primates? Is it racist to call us and chimpanzees a different spacies?
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2018
freely breedable each other, then no actual speciation did actually happen.

False. Your definition of species is too simplistic because there are examples of closely related species, at least on the rare occasion, spontaniously hybridizing.
See the evidence;
https://en.wikipe...eciation
Nonlin_org
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2018
Would you call your fellow human of a different color (or nose shape) a different "species".

Nope; they aren't sufficiently different.
So you deny there are different species of finches?
What about primates? Is it racist to call us and chimpanzees a different spacies?

Are you saying those finches are as different from each other as humans from chimps? What does it mean "sufficiently different"? Can you quantify that?
The whole "speciation" concept is in big trouble: http://nonlin.org...roblems/
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
The whole "speciation" concept is in big trouble.....


No, not really. If you'd linked to a piece of scientific work in a respected peer reviewed journal, it might be worth the time to look at it. Opinion pieces on the internet aren't worth the trouble.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2018
Try writing a scientific paper. And getting it published.
We are here to engage in Socratic logical discussion - not to scream "read/write some manual, which everyone could parrot like I already do". If you don't want to discuss and argue logically, you're not required to do it here. If you're already brainwashed by mainstream, it's your full right to remain so - but you shouldn't ask other independently thinking people to do the same.


You can write what the hell you want to on here. Just don't expect anyone to take it seriously.
humy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018

Are you saying those finches are as different from each other as humans from chimps? What does it mean "sufficiently different"? Can you quantify that?

Can you? Because, if you cannot, how can YOU know they are NOT sufficiently different to be validly said to be a different species?
-I see you performing a clear double standard here. Sorry! You cannot have it both ways!
Nonlin_org
1 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2018
The whole "speciation" concept is in big trouble.....


No, not really. If you'd linked to a piece of scientific work in a respected peer reviewed journal, it might be worth the time to look at it. Opinion pieces on the internet aren't worth the trouble.

Even Dawkins, your prophet thinks so. And of course they all try to spin that:

Speciation failed concept: https://www.seas....-species
Nonlin_org
1 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018

Are you saying those finches are as different from each other as humans from chimps? What does it mean "sufficiently different"? Can you quantify that?

Can you? Because, if you cannot, how can YOU know they are NOT sufficiently different to be validly said to be a different species?
-I see you performing a clear double standard here. Sorry! You cannot have it both ways!

Can I what? Dude, "speciation" and "sufficiently different" are your failed concept, not mine - burden of proof is on you. Even so, I sent you the link explaining why it fails. You're hilarious.

Try again:
Are you saying those finches are as different from each other as humans from chimps? What does it mean "sufficiently different"? Can you quantify that?
humy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2018
- burden of proof is on you.

"burden of proof" of what? We're not talking about theories here but definitions. Your definition of speciation failed as shown by my link (examples of different species hybridizing); try again.
Are you saying those finches are as different from each other as humans from chimps?

No. I said Nothing remotely like it. So you cannot read?
Nonlin_org
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2018
- burden of proof is on you.

"burden of proof" of what? We're not talking about theories here but definitions. Your definition of speciation failed as shown by my link (examples of different species hybridizing); try again.
Are you saying those finches are as different from each other as humans from chimps?

No. I said Nothing remotely like it. So you cannot read?

What are you talking about? I am not defining "speciation" as there's no such thing. But you are, so prove it. The links just show problems with the concept.

Here they are again spinning the failure:
Speciation failed concept: https://www.seas....-species
Dawkins Essentialism—what I've called "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind" https://www.edge....tirement

Whatever you were trying to say, those finches are like human races, not like chimp vs human.
IwinUlose
1 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2018
Why argue about macroscopic details? This has been an argument going on since Darwin got off the boat that can't really ever be resolved until all the underlying genes, genetic history, current pressures, and pressures of ancestors can all be accounted for.

How can genomes be dynamic in a dynamic environment without evolution being the outcome?
humy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2018
I am not defining "speciation" as there's no such thing

So you deny the scientific facts if they contradict your religion. Got it.
But you are,

No, I wasn't.
Why would I try to when it is already defined for me and I know what it means?
If I wanted to show a definition, I just copy and paste it from somewhere like here;
https://en.wikipe...eciation
But, unless you are completely stupid (which you are), you would certainly already know what it means.
Nonlin_org
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2018
I am not defining "speciation" as there's no such thing

So you deny the scientific facts if they contradict your religion. Got it.
But you are,

No, I wasn't.
Why would I try to when it is already defined for me and I know what it means?
If I wanted to show a definition, I just copy and paste it from somewhere like here;
https://en.wikipe...eciation
But, unless you are completely stupid (which you are), you would certainly already know what it means.

How would "speciation" contradict my religion? You think it support yours if true? Very funny.
Also funny that other retard materialists I am debating think that definition is wrong. And of course they won't say which one is "right".
Are you looking in the mirror when uttering "stupid? You should.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2018

How would "speciation" contradict my religion?

You believe in the anti-evolution young-Earth (and I wouldn't be surprised if that includes flat-Earth) religion crap. Speciation implies evolution is possible hence why you say its impossible.
I have no religion hence don't have a problem with speciation.
Nonlin_org
1 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2018

How would "speciation" contradict my religion?

You believe in the anti-evolution young-Earth (and I wouldn't be surprised if that includes flat-Earth) religion crap. Speciation implies evolution is possible hence why you say its impossible.
I have no religion hence don't have a problem with speciation.

Only idiots believe stuff emerges by itself despite all observations. And their religion is atheism/ evolutionism/ materialism.
zz5555
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2018
Only idiots believe stuff emerges by itself despite all observations.

Statements like this fascinate me. The obvious question after this statement is to ask where gods came from? Most answers would indicate that you believe yourself to be an idiot.

The only answer that saves you from that is to claim that gods have always existed. But that works for "where did the universe come from?" as well. Any answer works for either god or the universe. So in the end, the existence (or not) of god tells us nothing about the universe.

The only thing that god and religion might be useful for is morality. But since the Bible makes it clear that morality comes from society and not religion, you don't even have that.

I also find the arrogance of creationists amazing. After all, they are telling their gods how to create the universe. But since they created their gods in their own likeness, I guess that's appropriate.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2018
The thing that always annoys me about this non-existent God, is how lazy the bugger was. Gets to chimpanzees, and then, for his ultimate creation, just tweaks their DNA a bit. Lazy bastard. Might have made an effort, eh?
humy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2018

Only idiots believe stuff emerges by itself despite all observations.

You mean observations like of the physical simulations of early-Earth chemistry in the lab proving amino acids can spontaniously emerge? Only idiots believe stuff cannot emerge by itself despite all observations that show it can. Why should life be the special exception to the rule?
Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 13, 2018


The only answer that saves you from that is to claim that gods have always existed. But that works for "where did the universe come from?" as well. Any answer works for either god or the universe. So in the end, the existence (or not) of god tells us nothing about the universe.

The only thing that god and religion might be useful for is morality. But since the Bible makes it clear that morality comes from society and not religion, you don't even have that.

I also find the arrogance of creationists amazing. After all, they are telling their gods how to create the universe. But since they created their gods in their own likeness, I guess that's appropriate.

You lack logic. Are you saying life always existed? Animals? Humans? If not, someone created them. Yes? Perhaps someone infinite that your little monkey brain will never comprehend. Get it?
Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 13, 2018

Only idiots believe stuff emerges by itself despite all observations.

You mean observations like of the physical simulations of early-Earth chemistry in the lab proving amino acids can spontaniously emerge? Only idiots believe stuff cannot emerge by itself despite all observations that show it can. Why should life be the special exception to the rule?

Amino acids are not life. You can find them in dead animals too. And they did not "spontaneously emerged" - someone presumably intelligent ran the experiments.
humy
not rated yet Mar 13, 2018
Amino acids are not life.

irrelevant.
they did not "spontaneously emerged"

Yes they did; on early Earth. The lab experiments showed how so.
someone presumably intelligent ran the experiments.

In the lab experiments that proved amino acids can naturally spontaneously emerge via natural causes in the natural world i.e. without intelligence involved, yes.
That proves no stupid 'Goddidit' explanation required; not that was ever an 'explanation' anyway; just baseless religion.

Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 13, 2018
Amino acids are not life.

irrelevant.
they did not "spontaneously emerged"

Yes they did; on early Earth. The lab experiments showed how so.
someone presumably intelligent ran the experiments.

In the lab experiments that proved amino acids can naturally spontaneously emerge via natural causes in the natural world i.e. without intelligence involved, yes.
That proves no stupid 'Goddidit' explanation required; not that was ever an 'explanation' anyway; just baseless religion.


Last I checked, lab experiments were designed and managed by intelligent people.
The fact that they didn't get life but some trivial components that don't come anywhere near life is irrelevant?!?
No wonder you're a believer in nonsense.
zz5555
not rated yet Mar 13, 2018
You lack logic. Are you saying life always existed?

Actually, I hint the idea is idiotic. But as I pointed out, any answer for the existence of gods also works for life. And, conversely, if you think the idea of life always existing isn't logical, then you also must think the idea of god always existing isn't logical. So we're back to you must believe god was created, which you find idiotic.

But none of this is important since the existence (or not) of gods doesn't really answer where life came from. If gods exist and created life, then you've just moved the question back to where did the gods come from. On the other hand, since the elements of life could have easily been created without gods, then why hypothesize the existence of gods in the first place?
humy
not rated yet Mar 14, 2018

Last I checked, lab experiments were designed and managed by intelligent people.

Totolly irrelevant; that doesn't logically entail that the corresponding natural effect in the natural world OUTSIDE the lab they study IN the lab is also managed by intelligent people let alone a deity or a Santa.
You are totally stupid to imply the contrary.
By your own stupid logic, virtually all natural effects in the natural world OUTSIDE the lab scientists have been studied IN the lab, such as the weather and lighting and earthquakes etc, must also be managed by intelligent people 'because' they were managed by people IN the lab; you are STUPID.
humy
not rated yet Mar 15, 2018
You lack logic. Are you saying life always existed?

Actually, I hint the idea is idiotic. But as I pointed out, any answer for the existence of gods also works for life. And, conversely, if you think the idea of life always existing isn't logical, then you also must think the idea of god always existing isn't logical. So we're back to you must believe god was created, which you find idiotic.

But none of this is important since the existence (or not) of gods doesn't really answer where life came from. If gods exist and created life, then you've just moved the question back to where did the gods come from. On the other hand, since the elements of life could have easily been created without gods, then why hypothesize the existence of gods in the first place?

zz5555

Excellent points.
Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 15, 2018
You lack logic. Are you saying life always existed?

Actually, I hint the idea is idiotic. But as I pointed out, any answer for the existence of gods also works for life. And, conversely, if you think the idea of life always existing isn't logical, then you also must think the idea of god always existing isn't logical. So we're back to you must believe god was created, which you find idiotic.

But none of this is important since the existence (or not) of gods doesn't really answer where life came from. If gods exist and created life, then you've just moved the question back to where did the gods come from. On the other hand, since the elements of life could have easily been created without gods, then why hypothesize the existence of gods in the first place?

The only thing your rant shows is that your argument is religious hence Darwinism IS a religion. You're just a religious zealot despite protestations.
Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 15, 2018

Last I checked, lab experiments were designed and managed by intelligent people.

Totolly irrelevant; that doesn't logically entail that the corresponding natural effect in the natural world OUTSIDE the lab they study IN the lab is also managed by intelligent people let alone a deity or a Santa.
You are totally stupid to imply the contrary.

They ONLY observed something in the lab, not in nature. We also make cars and airplanes in the lab, yet you won't find them naturally occurring (feverish retard Darwinist minds notwithstanding).

However, this doesn't matter because they never made any life, just some simple stupid compounds for the amazement of the retard Darwinist. Like saying "you're making life when freezing ice cubes". Total stupid nonsense from a stupid zealot for the Darwinist religion.
humy
not rated yet Mar 15, 2018
They ONLY observed something in the lab, not in nature

Nonlin_org

No, they observed something that must happen in nature.
The experiments prove it must happen in nature because the laws of physics and chemistry that play out in the lab are the same ones as those that play out in nature and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
If a mixture of chemicals and physical effects combined in the lab that also must have existed on early-Earth spontaneously result in amino acids in the lab (which they did) then that proves they must have done so on early-Earth.
Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 15, 2018
They ONLY observed something in the lab, not in nature

Nonlin_org

No, they observed something that must happen in nature.
The experiments prove it must happen in nature because the laws of physics and chemistry that play out in the lab are the same ones as those that play out in nature and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
If a mixture of chemicals and physical effects combined in the lab that also must have existed on early-Earth spontaneously result in amino acids in the lab (which they did) then that proves they must have done so on early-Earth.

I can see you're not too bright, but very insistent:
1. Whatever you do in the lab may or may not happen in nature...
2. ...if it happens in nature (BIG IF) it is unlikely to happen as you imagine.
3. Amino-acids are not life. We have never seen life "arise". We have never seen anything "arise".

humy
not rated yet Mar 16, 2018

1. Whatever you do in the lab may or may not happen in nature...

Unless it simulates nature, in which case it generally does.
2. ...if it happens in nature (BIG IF)

No, in this case it must happen in nature.
Unless the laws of physics and chemistry in the lab are different from that in nature, the same chemicals and conditions replicated in the lab prove it.
3. Amino-acids are not life.

and nobody said it was. They are needed for life.
Your claim was that they couldn't spontaniously form but the lab experiment proves otherwise.
If they can spontaniously form, why not life also?
Why should life be the special exception?
Because your religion says so?
Sorry! I trust the evidence over your religion any day!
Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 16, 2018
...
Unless it simulates nature, in which case it generally does.
...
No, in this case it must happen in nature.
Unless the laws of physics and chemistry in the lab are different from that in nature, the same chemicals and conditions replicated in the lab prove it.
3. Amino-acids are not life.

and nobody said it was. They are needed for life.
Your claim was that they couldn't spontaniously form but the lab experiment proves otherwise.
If they can spontaniously form, why not life also?
Why should life be the special exception?
Because your religion says so?
Sorry! I trust the evidence over your religion any day!

"generally"?!? Total nonsense.
"must"?!? Total nonsense.
You ask stupid questions and make too many stupid claims. Chemical compounds do not "arise" - they're just simple forms of matter. Life is not just chemical compounds - when organism dies, the chemical compounds are all still there. But not life.
humy
not rated yet Mar 17, 2018
Chemical compounds do not "arise" - they're just simple forms of matter. .

I didn't say "arise", I said "spontaniously form" which I would naturally assume means the same thing in this context but mentioned it here just in case your religious rhetorical gives those two tems different meanings.
New compounds do occasionally spontaniously form. How else do you personally say they form?
Revise the science of chemistry and come back to us.
For example, when an acid is mixed with an an alkali, salt molecules spontaniously form from the mix.
If you don't believe us, stop staring at your religious calendar for just one moment and have a peek at what the science says;

http://www.rsc.or...alis.pdf

Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 17, 2018

New compounds do occasionally spontaniously form. How else do you personally say they form?
Revise the science of chemistry and come back to us.
For example, when an acid is mixed with an an alkali, salt molecules spontaniously form from the mix.
If you don't believe us, stop staring at your religious calendar for just one moment and have a peek at what the science says;

http://www.rsc.or...alis.pdf


spon·ta·ne·ous
spänˈtānēəs/Submit
adjective
performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.

No compound forms of "of a sudden inner impulse and without external stimulus".
"When an acid is mixed with an an alkali" is "external stimulus".

More importantly, LIFE IS NOT A SUM OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS. How many times do I have to repeat this?
humy
not rated yet Mar 18, 2018

No compound forms of "of a sudden inner impulse and without external stimulus".

it doesn't matter whether you call them mixing an 'external stimulus'; after they are mixed, whether they are mixed in the lab or by nature outside the lab, new compounds can form.
Whether you call that truly "spontaniously" is just merely arguing over irrelevant semantics rather than over whether they CAN form (either in nature or in the lab).
Isn't the natural mixing of chemicals outside the lab, i.e. with humans having nothing to do with it because it happens in nature, not "spontanious".
Also, this is irrelevant in your argument because it was your claim that amino acids on early-Earth could not form.
So chemicals need to 'mix' before new ones can form (actually, that isn't always true but, that's beside the point) -so what? Are you now arguing amino acids couldn't have formed on early-Earth because is impossible for chemicals to 'mix' then? Really? What about in the oceans?
Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 19, 2018
1. I didn't say " amino acids could not form". I said what happens in the lab is not what happens outside - that's different.
2. It's spontaneously, not "spontaniously".
3. To have chemical reactions, you need reactants. Organisms isolate and concentrate reactants from the environment. Who would isolate and concentrate these reactants before organisms existing?
4. When the organism dies in a medium like water, all reactants eventually dissolve and no more reactions take place - reverse that if you can.
5. Can you read: LIFE IS NOT A SUM OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS ?
6. No one has seen life form from non-life in the lab or outside, so whatever Hollyweird scenario you have in mind is worthless.
humy
not rated yet Mar 19, 2018
I didn't say " amino acids could not form". I said what happens in the lab is not what happens outside - that's different.

So are you saying they cannot form outside the lab?
If not, that's my point you deny; they can form outside the lab just as they do in the lab.
To have chemical reactions, you need reactants. Organisms isolate and concentrate reactants from the environment. Who would isolate and concentrate these reactants before organisms existing?

"who"? What an incredibly stupid question. Why cannot the oceans, lakes and tidal pools in the early-Earth rather than a stupid "who" concentrate chemicals?
Even now, chemicals are often concentrated in water outside the lab; the salt in the red sea is an example.

humy
not rated yet Mar 19, 2018
No one has seen life form from non-life in the lab or outside

No one has seen life form from a god in the lab or outside.
Therefore, by your own moronic 'logic', it couldn't have happenned.
But scientists, you know, those people smarter than you and know things you and I don't, can use their intelligence that is superior to yours to gain clues from lab experiments to how life could have started.
LIFE IS NOT A SUM OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS ?

What an incredibly stupid dense straw man.
https://en.wikipe...traw_man
Nonlin_org
not rated yet Mar 19, 2018
No one has seen life form from non-life in the lab or outside

No one has seen life form from a god in the lab or outside.
Therefore, by your own moronic 'logic', it couldn't have happenned.
But scientists, you know, those people smarter than you and know things you and I don't, can use their intelligence that is superior to yours to gain clues from lab experiments to how life could have started.
LIFE IS NOT A SUM OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS ?

What an incredibly stupid dense straw man.
https://en.wikipe...traw_man

I see you're a retard and complete waste of time. My bad for hoping even the dumbest of the dumb (that's you) can be educated.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.