Replies

[[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