LIMA, Peru – The unusually intact fossilized skull of a giant, bony-toothed seabird that lived up to 10 million years ago was found on Peru's arid southern coast, researchers said Friday.

The fossil is the best-preserved cranium ever found of a pelagornithid, a family of large seabirds believed to have gone extinct some 3 million years ago, said Rodolfo Salas, head of vertebrate paleontology at Peru's National History Museum.

The museum said in a statement that the birds had wingspans of up to 20 feet (6 meters) and may have used the toothlike projections on their beaks to prey on slippery fish and squid. But studying members of the Pelagornithidae family has been difficult because their extremely thin bones — while helpful for keeping the avian giants aloft — tended not to survive as fossils.

"Its fossils are very strange, very rare and very hard to find," Salas told The Associated Press.

The cranium discovered in Peru is 16 inches (40 centimeters) long and is believed to be 8 million to 10 million years old, based on the age of the rock bed in which it was found.

"Rarely are any bones of these gigantic, marine birds found fossilized uncrushed, and to find an uncrushed skull of this size is very significant," said Ken Campbell, curator of vertebrate zoology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles.

Campbell, who examined photos of the find but was not involved in the dig, said he knows of "no specimen of comparable quality."

Dan Kepska, a paleontology researcher at North Carolina State University who also was not part of the project, agreed that the skull is the most complete ever reported.

He called the birds "one of the great enigmas of avian paleontology."

With fossils discovered in North America, North Africa and even Antarctica, Kepska said, the birds were ubiquitous only a few million years before humans evolved and scientists puzzle over why they died out. Some believe they are related to gannets and pelicans, while other say they are related to ducks.

Campbell said the Peru find "will undoubtedly be of great importance to our understanding of these gigantic birds, and it will help clarify the relationships of the other fossil pelagornithids found in the Pisco Formation."

The formation, a coastal rock bed south of the capital, Lima, is known for yielding fossils of whales, dolphins, turtles and other marine life dating as far back as 14 million years.

Big Bird's got nothing on this MoFo.....20ft wing span.
That thing would have take a small child if it was hungry enough....damn glad its not around.

Well, go dream about it for the next few days you're not here.

NO RELIGION IN STB!

Pwnt!

PEACE nuggah!!

I'm confused about this part:

The cranium discovered in Peru is 16 inches (40 centimeters) long and is believed to be 8 million to 10 million years old, based on the age of the rock bed in which it was found.

How do they figure that 8 million is an accurate number if they base it on the age of the rock bed in which it was found? I mean, if I walk into a 300 year old house and it caves in on me, would I be assumed to be 300 years old when they find me in the rubble?

I'm confused about this part:



How do they figure that 8 million is an accurate number if they base it on the age of the rock bed in which it was found? I mean, if I walk into a 300 year old house and it caves in on me, would I be assumed to be 300 years old when they find me in the rubble?

Probably more like 60,000 years old. You have to multiply, not add.

I'm confused about this part:



How do they figure that 8 million is an accurate number if they base it on the age of the rock bed in which it was found? I mean, if I walk into a 300 year old house and it caves in on me, would I be assumed to be 300 years old when they find me in the rubble?

They've got a 2 million year margin of error there. That's a lot of years.

When the questions brought forth are completely illogical and themselves backed by nothing, of course you are gonna get shut down.

So what's the magical method to dating fossils since apparently they are doing it all wrong?

So then, how do you date them then ? Sog has a very good question....

BTW, the TREX debate, is reversed fossilization.....they used a method to remove the minerals from the fossil and what was left was the protien lattice.

you can't date most fossils using C14 because they are permineralized, but the recent discovery of soft tissue in T-Rex bone obliterates even the slightest possibility "dinosaurs" (large reptiles now extinct) lived "millions", rather than thousands, of years ago

No it doesn't. Go read the actual published work on the T-Rex and get back to us.

again, the imaginary epochs based on radiometric dating of rocks are the final straw holding up the Darwin tent, without that, it's all smoke

Ahahahahahahahahahaa

Yeah the who theory is about to collapse. Don't make me laugh......again

Goddamnit! I just spent the last 10 minutes explaining why dating a fossil based off the rock it's found in is legit. Then this fucking computer I'm on 'accidentally' and killed my post.

Goddamnit! I just spent the last 10 minutes explaining why dating a fossil based off the rock it's found in is legit. Then this fucking computer I'm on 'accidentally' and killed my post.

It doesn't matter. It will fall on deaf ears for the incredulous.

I dunno why you guys waste your breath. Or.. finger.. dexterity in this case.

Basically, layers of rock form over long periods of time as debris on the surface of the earth is covered by fresh debris (dirt, dead plant life, etc). As what was once on the surface gets pushed deeper and deeper it becomes dirt, the dirt becomes clay, the clay becomes rock, and the rock separates into different layers. Each layer represents a different era, each era covers the span of LOTS of years (though still not *that* long in the whole scheme of things).

Sometimes items (plants, animals, chunks of rock) don't decompose with everything else that is on the surface with them, instead they are preserved in the dirt/clay/rock. These are fossils.

As a result it's perfectly acceptable to date one of these items (fossils) based on the surrounding rock it's found in. Since EVERYTHING around it was present when the fossil fell to the ground.


In a nutshell, thats why dating a fossil based off the rock it is found in is legitimate.

It doesn't matter. It will fall on deaf ears for the incredulous.

Yeah, I wasn't typing it out for Mark's sake. I know he would rather believe that the Earth is flat (and the center of the Universe) if he could get away with it, because that's what old Christianity said. I was trying to answer Sonofabelch's question.

Yeah, I wasn't typing it out for Mark's sake. I know he would rather believe that the Earth is flat (and the center of the Universe) if he could get away with it, because that's what old Christianity said. I was trying to answer Sonofabelch's question.

Which makes me wonder why he doesnt hang out here http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Who knows, in a few years we may see a serious American debate on this same matter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wppjYDj9JUc

lol

you can't, it's just that simple....there is no "clock on the wall", as much as some may like to think there is...the most robust evidence of true history is available records of human civilizations on this planet..."science" requires human observers, last time I checked

"reverse fossilization" is not a legitimate term

So given your stance, fossils have no date to them? If they are not millions of years old, how old are they and why?

BTW, instead of 'reverse fossilization' lets try de-mineralization....can your mind grasp that without the liberal double talk youre doing?

Yeah, I wasn't typing it out for Mark's sake. I know he would rather believe that the Earth is flat (and the center of the Universe) if he could get away with it, because that's what old Christianity said. I was trying to answer Sonofabelch's question.


No it isn't.

rock can form quickly under the right conditions, it doesn't take long periods of time, so that oft-parroted base assumption is wrong right out of the gate

layers of rock also form rapidly in conditions of a flood, and flood geology is very poorly understood, people simply assume "millions of years"

Coincidently quck formations just so happen to occur in every case of fossilized reminisce which challenges the theological standpoint:lmfao:

Nobody studies flood geology because it's nonsensical. Why study something that didn't happen?



no, it's a simplistic assumption, and the radiometric dating of rocks has been shown to be highly erratic from formation to formation and basically worthless

we've been over this several times in the religion section, search there if you really want to debate this legitimately, every thread here implodes

Yes we have been over how ill informed you are on the subject plenty of times. When ever you are asked to bring forth credible evidence you crumble. Radometric dating is very accurate.:bigthumb:

I'm so far over your head I may as well be on the washington monument and you're pavement

:crying:


Wait, no... that's not the one.


Yup, this one sums it up better.

:jerkit: