back to article Dino-boffins discover 100-million-year-old BIRD TRACKS in Australia

Two thin-toed tracks made more than 100 million years ago are proof birds wandered prehistoric Australia, according to palaeoboffins. Photo of the sandstone fossil along with a drawing illustrating the track Photo of the sandstone fossil along with a drawing illustrating the track. Credit: Anthony Martin Emory University …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Don Jefe

    The documentary film 'Clan of the Cave Bear' already established that birds walked with dinosaurs. I'm not sure why this scientist is so excited.

    1. phil8192

      Clan of the Cave Bear ...

      ... is speculative fiction.

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: Clan of the Cave Bear ...

        You may very well be correct, but I'll keep the image of scantily clad Daryl Hannah in my mind as a masterpiece of historical reenactment. Thank you very much :)

    2. t.est

      He's excited about the fact that birds flew during the dino era.

      According to evolutionists birds are a result of reptiles evolving to birds, basically dinos became birds. But this shows that birds did fly already while dinos walked, before they had learned to fly.

      So in a scientific world, he's unwrapping a significant if not revolutionary find. That's why he's excited about it.

  2. Graham Marsden

    And I thought...

    ... this was going to be about a bunch of Sheilas in furry bikinis...

  3. ratfox

    Mandatory XKCD

    Dinosaurs are still living among us, for birds are dinosaurs.

  4. Mr Grumblefish

    "birds are dinosaurs"

    Especially the cassowaries.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: "birds are dinosaurs"

      I wonder if dinosaurs also tasted like chicken?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "birds are dinosaurs"

      "Especially the cassowaries."

      I'm all for that Mr Mr Grumblefish. But first show, scientifically that it's Dinosaur -> Cassowarie (ancestor) -> (other) Bird. And not Dinosaur -> (other) Bird -> Cassowarie (ancestor).

      That's the massive problem with our identification system. We identify by what we see, and not necessarily by what is scientifically sound. :(

      PS, thanks for the Edit option Reg! I could come back to edit missing out that any reference to historic animals are of cause going to be ancestors of existing ones, not necessarily identical.

      1. Pookietoo

        Re: PS, thanks for the Edit option Reg!

        But can you change "of cause" to "of course"?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    100 million years ago!

    Surely they jest.

    The theists among us would argue it was about 6000 years ago.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: 100 million years ago!

      That all stems from a unit conversion error. If they'd get on board with the metric system those kinds of errors would cease to happen.

      1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

        Re: 100 million years ago! @Don

        But El Reg Standard Units are mandatory for the Church of El Reg.

        1. Robert Helpmann??

          Re: 100 million years ago! @Don

          But El Reg Standard Units are mandatory for the Church of El Reg.

          I could not find one for time anywhere on the site. I humbly submit the birdage for large units of time, being equivalent to the measure from the Early Cretaceous until now. For example, "The universe is roughly 138 birdages old."

          1. dan1980

            Re: 100 million years ago! @Don

            "The universe is roughly 138 birdages old."

            I was going to suggest 'Wagners' (Wa) but I realise now that it lacks granularity when compared to 'birdages'. By my system, the universe would be 1Wa* old.

            Makes the maths easier on a cosmic time scale but I appreciate not very useful for geological time.

            * - Technically, 0.9992Wa but close enough.

    2. phil8192

      Re: 100 million years ago!

      Not the theists. Just the literalists and those who believe Usher's silly chronology, which he concocted on the flimsiest of evidence and some very big incorrect assumptions. Theists have no problem with the Earth being billions of years old.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You evolutionary idiots !!!

    Can you not see? This is clearly a Dragon's footprint !!!!!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "ancient birds walked with dinosaurs", say Australian boffins before adding "but Stuart Broad didn't"

  8. breakfast

    Playing into their hands

    Those creationist birds are going to be all over this, leaving volichnia everywhere.

  9. Steve Knox


    "Vestigial" means left-over and directly implies former usefulness.

    "Rudimentary" might be more accurate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Vestigial?

      Ah the myth of inevitable progress. How do we know it wasn't better than a bird's foot?

      Are you are postulating that dinosaurs died out due unsuitable feet?

      Has anyone done any analysis regarding whether any animal has become extinct due to a particular body part, without the intervention of irrational people?

      The appears to be little correlation between complexity and age.

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: Vestigial?

        Progress is not an inherently positive thing, it is only the movement towards a goal. In evolution the goal being adaptation to better suit the current overall situation. There is no 'forward' or 'backward', only (more) appropriate for the situation.

        Also, the Great Panda is going extinct because they are too lazy to fuck. So yes. A particular part of anatomy can cause a species to die out.

  10. Stevie


    So the old "Birds come from Dinosaurs" theory is shown to be so much hot air. Can it be much longer before scientists find a caveman footprint of the same age?

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Bah!

      Indeed. Evolution is such an amazing process. To think that one day a dinosaur egg hatched and, SURPRISE a fully formed animal of a different species pops out of the egg. That's how evolution works, right?

      Maybe you've stumbled onto why there are no more dinosaurs. In a bit of shortsightedness, the females were all killed after their mates strongly suspected them of inter species infidelity.

      1. phil8192

        Re: Bah!

        Right, Don Jefe. The chick looked just like the Stork!!

      2. Stevie

        Re: Maybe you've stumbled onto why there are no more dinosaurs.

        The reason there are no more dinosaurs is the same as the reason there are no more cod: they tasted great with chips and the cavemen ate them all. QE2.

    2. Dagg

      Re: Bah!

      > scientists find a caveman footprint of the same age

      They have done! Sarah Palin herself has seen it, a cave man foot print inside a dinosaur foot print, she is a politician and a christian so it MUST be true.

  11. Charlie van Becelaere

    Clearly not a bird

    I learned it from this blog post:


    1. Euripides Pants
      Thumb Down

      Re: Clearly not a bird

      Clearly the author of that blog post missed the part about the footprints being found in stone...

    2. dan1980

      Re: Clearly not a bird

      That website is a good example of Poe's Law.

      Other examples from that site are:

      Russians, Asteroids, and Mars

      It's Atlantis All Over Again

      Radiation and Crop Circles

      Pyramids and Satellites

      And so on. All follow the same basic format of presenting several loosely related 'facts' and then tying them together into a rather inventive conclusion before demanding to know why we are all being kept in the dark and no one is reporting on it, ending with a promise that these luminaries and fighter for truth will "be monitoring the situation, and will report back".

      I went from: "Kooks" to "No, those articles are too crazy", back to ". . . but they've written quite a few articles - perhaps they're legit" and finally to "Damn you Poe!".

      1. Wzrd1

        Re: Clearly not a bird

        Well, while the site got it wrong, there should be radiation about while natural crop circles are created.

        Heavy thunderstorms generate x-rays and gamma rays, even *if* they don't make it to ground level. :)

        1. dan1980

          Re: Clearly not a bird

          True, but then there should also be abundant radiation about in perfectly normal, un-crop-circled areas, though of course nothing to worry about.

      2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        They didn't hear nothing - they're making it up

        The Atlantis article states that some Georgia Tech scientist is monitoring the Santorini volcano crater and is detecting signs of an imminent, ginormous explosion.

        On the other hand, Wikipedia states that the isle is currently dormant.

        I'll put my money on the wiki this time.

      3. Don Jefe

        Re: Clearly not a bird

        You should read the Conservapedia entry for Poe's law... My wife heard someone mention Poe's law only very recently and the same time she discovered Conservapedia trying to figure out what the law said. She sent me an email "Have you heard of this"? with a link to the Conservapedia entry and I thought she was actually putting Poe's law into action in an intentionally hilarious way. She wasn't, but it was still funny.

        She now uses Conservapedia in the class she teaches on bias in scientific writing, which angered a student earlier this year, and that was intentionally hilarious.

  12. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "creation scientists tend to win the debates" - heh, only in their minds

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You show me a stone with a shape in it that looks a little bit like a bird foot print and I'll show you a piece of toast with the face of Christ on it.

  14. stu 4

    Oh dear

    Seriously though - this is why palaeontology isn't a science.

    Maybe he has hit on a 'theory' that is true - but the scientific method is clearly a stranger at his door.

    I reckon we should rename the free 'ologys' that are actually scientific to make it clearer for the vast majority that are shite/artistic/creative/non-scientific..





    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Oh dear

      Yep. It was much better when everything related to the study of the natural world was classified as philosophy and you branched out from there into either more or less structured disciplines. That little bit of higher level taxonomy really made individual fields of study easier and more accurate to classify.

      I'm not sure when the move towards philosophy being considered 'analysis of thought' vs study of the natural world happened, but it was a bad move. Hell, most people don't know the P in PhD is for philosophy. If I told the average person on the street I was a Doctor of Philosophy they'd think I was some kind of new age nutter.

      In fact, the narrow contemporary view of the word philosophy is so wonky here in the US it forced a fairly significant late stage rework of the Harry Potter series US release because it was decided Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone would confuse us, hence it is now Sorcerers Stone here. God our education system has failed so badly.

  15. cortland

    Food for, er, thought

    It seems they shared the same carrion baggage, at least.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021