Posted on 03/12/2008 5:37:43 PM PDT by blam
[[The feather filaments, or barbs, had yet to become fully fused at the base and—similar to modern down—they lacked hooklets known as barbules to hold the filaments together]]
Two possibilities here- one, as the others have said- nothign more than bird feathers stuck in amber- or two, they were infact dinos, but just like all the other dino ‘down’ they lack the structures of feathers, as hte report suggests- To claim that this was a ‘transition’ is being intellectually dishonest as htere are no examples of more ‘evolved’ downy structures on dinos (which incidently turn out to be nothign more than modified scale structures which are entirely different from true bird feathers.) There is no reason to think that some dinos did infact have ‘downy type strucxtures’ meant for nothignm more than insulation that protected them when the climates went through changes- and these downy type structures fall within macroevolutionary paramenters and don’t represent Macroevolution
The lack of ‘hooks’ and other structures not mentioned in the article seperate these from TRUE feathers, and htere have been zero structures that show any ‘evolving’ beyond what is seen on the downy covered dinos.
“But when researchers examined a recently discovered specimen of Sinosauropteryx, also from Liaoning, they came to very different conclusions. When they examined the fossil under a high-powered microscope, the researchers said the two-branched structures, called rachis with barbs, are really the remains of a frill of collagen fibres that ran down the dinosaur’s back from head to tail. “The fibres show a striking similarity to the structure and levels of organisation of dermal collagen,” the kind of tough elastic strands found on the skin of sharks and reptiles today, the investigators say. The fibres have an unusual beaded structure, but this most likely was caused by a natural twisting of these strands, and a clumping together caused by dehydration, when the dinosaur died and its tissues started to dry. The tough fibres could have been either a form of armour to protect the small dinosaur from predators, or perhaps had a structural use, by stiffening its tail.
Lingham-Soliar’s team does not take issue with the theory itself. But they are dismayed by what they see as a reckless leap to the conclusion that Sinosauropteryx had the all-important proto-feathers, even though this dinosaur was phylogenetically far removed from Archaeopteryx.”
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/05/dinosaur-feathers-are-no-such-thing.html
See also: Feathered dinosaur finding won’t fly, say scientists: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/05/23/science-dinosaur-feather.html
“The pervasiveness of the beguiling, yet poorly supported, proposal of protofeathers in Sinosauropteryx has been counterproductive to the important question of the origin of birds,” the authors wrote.
Feathers fly over cornerstone fossil : http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20070523091808579C659855
“There is not a single close-up representation of the integumental structure alleged to be a protofeather,” Lingham-Soliar says.
+ Paleontologists shoot down dinosaur bird theory: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21779480-401,00.html
+
[[Modern flightless birds such as ostriches and emus have highly simplified feathers, he said]]
Which suggests loss of information- not gain. (and just how “Highly simplified” are they anyways? As simplified as Dino Down which lacks true feather features?
[[”Obviously this animal [the feathers came from] isn’t directly ancestral to anything except later dinosaurs,]]
And we know this how? Ah yes, the ever accurate “It’s gotta be 100 million years old” scientific declaration.
[[The feather filaments, or barbs, had yet to become fully fused at the base and—similar to modern down—they lacked hooklets known as barbules to hold the filaments together.]
No kidding? Ya mean they were nothign but uniquely modified scales such as other dinos had, and not feathers after all? Lemme know when ya find ‘feathers’ with relevent features whoing a turn from scales to true feathers such as 1/2 fused bases, hooklets holding the filaments together (in varying stages of ‘evolution)
Until then, call them what they are- Dino insulation.
You are aware that those links you provide just go to different versions of the same story, right? And that the full version of the story says, “The birds-from-dinos theory is based on the idea that [explanation of theory] .... Lingham-Soliar’s team do not take issue with the theory itself”? So that they are just challenging exactly what a particular fossil exemplifies about that evolution, not whether the evolution happened or not?
[[“The birds-from-dinos theory is based on the idea that [explanation of theory] .... Lingham-Soliar’s team do not take issue with the theory itself”?]
Actually no- I wasn’t aware they were same story- just quick skimmed them and took quotes out that were relevent ot the idea that they aren’;t true feathers. As to their opinions on ‘dino to bird’ I am not concerned with hteir opinions- the facts are all that are relevent. The ‘feathers’ lack TRUE features of TRUE feathers, and are nothign more thna dino insulation from collagen modified structures, which we know dinos indeed did have. Also of note is hte fact that dinos with such insulating ‘down’ lacked any features unique to bird flight, such as lungs, breathing systems, arm muscles unique to flight, TRUE feathers, etc- A post such as this thread might get some excited abotu ‘more eivdnece’ supporting the ‘dino-to-bird’ hypothesis, BUT dinos have a LONG LONG way to go before they can becoem birds- Dinos were reptilian, not avian, and hte ‘discovery’ of feathers in amber do nothign to move the idea of ‘dino-to-bird’ any closer to actuality. The scientist’s opinions are irrelevent to the facts.
Does this mean that “Jurassic Park” wasn’t so far fetched? LOL!
And your unlearned opinions are relevant?
What a joke!
*LOL* Isn't that the very definition of quote-mining?
no- quote mining is picking comments out of context and presentign them as meaning somethign other than they truly mean in the full context
[[And your unlearned opinions are relevant?
What a joke!]]
Since you can’t seem to follow a conversation Coyote- I’ll explain this REAAAAALY slowly for you- I didn’t present opinions- I presented FACTS- somehtign you seem oblivious to, and loathe to cede whenver those FACTS refute your claims! Next time why not pay attention instead of blatting about somethign that is irrelevent ot the conversation. If you can refute the FACTS Coyote- IF you can show they are infact feathers or heck- even protofeathers for that matter- then fine- do so- but try a little maturity instead of posting ignorant childish comments irrelevent ot hte issues being dicussed! How old are you anyways? You act liek a third grader!
:)
[[:)]]
Isn’t that cute? Two little kids tee-heeing
So when you said
The ‘feathers’...are nothign more thna dino insulation from collagen modified structures, which we know dinos indeed did have.
Is that a fact or your opinion? If you claim it's a fact, how do you know? Apart from how do you know it was collagen, how do you know it was for insulation? Aren't you subject to the same restrictions you always claim scientists are, that you didn't observe it and can't replicate it? And as far as I can tell, the person who claims that the featherlike structures on dinosaurs is really collagen is the same person--Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal--who is claiming this down in amber isn't really a feather. You've managed to find one scientist studying this stuff who doesn't buy the feather story, and you claim what he says is fact. But to be consistent with the other things you've said about scientific theories, wouldn't you have to say it was just his opinion?
[[how do you know it was for insulation?]]
Wasn’t for flossing hteir teeth after meals.
[[Is that a fact or your opinion? If you claim it’s a fact, how do you know?]
Studying feather structures tells you it is fact
[[Aren’t you subject to the same restrictions you always claim scientists are, that you didn’t observe it and can’t replicate it?]]
Yup.
[[You’ve managed to find one scientist studying this stuff who doesn’t buy the feather story, and you claim what he says is fact.]]
Oh there’s more- scientific facts don’t lie.
[[But to be consistent with the other things you’ve said about scientific theories, wouldn’t you have to say it was just his opinion?]]
No- a study of feathers and collagen will clear this up
Seems to me, I can give a smile, ‘hello’, to Coyoteman, if I chose..your ‘two little kids tee-heeing’, conjecture, is of course, irrelevant.....
mmm yes, I’m sure it was just a ‘helo coyote- nice to see ya’ message that you had in mind and not a ‘here’s a slap on the back for givin hte Christian a childish cyberspace insult- right- whatever- seems to me you’re feigning innocence.
Your post is nothing but more mere conjectures, and therefore, irrelevant...
I think this embarrassing episode is just an example of what happens when you outsource the production of fossils to the Chinese.
The Germans did it much better — so well in fact that Archaeopteryx is accepted by creationists as a bird.
Peter Jackson is doing well with the production of Hobbits, but with NewLine going belly up, we may not see any more of them.
[[Peter Jackson is doing well with the production of Hobbits, but with NewLine going belly up, we may not see any more of them.]]
I think it has resurfaced- some htought they were microcephaly (sp?) folks, but apparently, there is now some dissagreement due to hte size of skulls being a bit bigger (or smaller- can’t remember)
[[Your post is nothing but more mere conjectures, and therefore, irrelevant...]]
mmm yes- keep feigning- whatever
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.