The scale to feather transition hypothesis is only a theoretical construct. There is no evidence for it in the fossil record.
The experts say that "protofeathers" are not feathers whether they are on Sinosauroptyrex, Sinornthosaurus, or any other dinosaur.
That is a big blow to the current avian evolution theory/hypothesis and leaves the "how" of feather evolution without a story and without evidence.
So what? Confuciusornis had a claw similar to a dinosaur. That similarity is not weighty evidence by any stretch (and Archy was a bird).
Heavily debated outside of Darwin Central, the list-o-links, and Nature Magazine.
Feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds has been described as "the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion".
I've shown that everyone's had better photos for a minimum of five years. It hasn't been 1996 for almost 10 years now. It doesn't matter what the first photo published in 1996 looked like. There's been ample time for any misleading impressions to be corrected if that were necessary. If he doesn't have new evidence, and I don't see where he does, what's the big deal now?
The scale to feather transition hypothesis is only a theoretical construct. There is no evidence for it in the fossil record.
All of the evidence I've presented is evidence that feathers originated in dinosaurs. Any evidence at all that goes to the saurian origin of birds is also evidence for the saurian origin of feathers. Thus far we have seen that some saurian groups had what can hardly be anything other than feathers. You and Feduccia are ignoring the clear cases to concentrate on the ambiguous ones. Why? We have seen that a progression from clearly saurian to ambiguous to clearly avian forms exists in the fossil record. How is this not evidence for the avian origin of feathers?
The experts say that "protofeathers" are not feathers whether they are on Sinosauroptyrex, Sinornthosaurus, or any other dinosaur.
You have not cited anyone dealing with Sinornithosaurus or anything other than Sinosauropteryx. Why are you claiming to have done so? And why are you mischaracterizing the preponderance of opinion in paleontology when we both know the handful of names you have cited isn't one percent of it?
Here's a nice mainstream site where Kevin Padian works. Are Dinosaurs Really Birds? That's what real science is saying right now.
Here's another author on the creationist tactic of citing a few non-creationist minority "voiced in the wilderness."
Notice the author is citing Feduccia's conclusion, and not his evidence. There is no mention that that his opinion is a minority opinion. Feduccia's peers in the field of bird evolution are "authorities" too. In short this creationist is saying that Feduccia is an authority and that he says that birds are not descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are not descended from dinosaurs. It is a classic "argument from authority." It is also very inconsistent. Feduccia also says that evolution occurs, so if this argument is to be followed to its logical conclusion, this creationist must accept the evolution of birds from non-birds! One could also cite many more authorities that say birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. This is why one should not pick and choose authorities. If Feduccia does turn out to be correct and his views become established within the scientific community, then the evolution deniers will probably become fond of quoting what Kevin Padian and other proponents of birds being descended from dinosaurs had to say about Feduccia's views.That is a big blow to the current avian evolution theory/hypothesis and leaves the "how" of feather evolution without a story and without evidence.
No. As already explained. The only thing going on here is your religious horror driving you to deny a world of scientific evidence.
So what? Confuciusornis had a claw similar to a dinosaur. That similarity is not weighty evidence by any stretch...
You're not seeing the whole truth. Whole species have been shuffled back and forth between the dinosaur and bird clades. Caudipteryx comes to mind. Just now, without looking, I can't rememeber myself just which bin it is in on most web sites. Pretty sure you can find plenty examples of both.
...(and Archy was a bird).
Dealt with already. If you don't have an answer, don't fake it. The whole truth is that the farther back you go, the more birds start to look like dinosaurs and some dinosaurs get to look like birds until you get to things that could just as easily go in one bin as in another. Convergence as you look back through time, divergence as you come forward. That is exactly the diagram Darwin drew in Origin of Species.
... (and Archy was a bird).
Dealt with already. If you don't have an answer, I'd suggest avoiding broken-record repetition of what has been disposed of. Looks worse than you know. Looks like the former Dover School Board under oath in court.
Heavily debated outside of Darwin Central, the list-o-links, and Nature Magazine.
I can cite sources, you can cite sources.
Feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds has been described as "the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion".
Most paleontologists disagree.