"John M. Rensberger, former curator of paleontology at the Burke Museum at the University of Washington, Seattle, called Feduccia's paper "the best presentation" he's seen yet of the argument that birds did not descend from theropods. But he agreed with Xu that Feduccia's theory has flaws. Regarding alleged differences in bird and theropod hand morphology, both he and Wu said scientists are still debating whether birds display the 1-2-3 digit arrangement or the 2-3-4. "It really hasn't been proven one way or the other," he said. .." ~ vannrox (quoting Rensberger)
I'm a "creationist", but not a "Young Earth Creationist" (see my profile page for details if interested), however it seems to me as if the YEC, Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati - [B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M. Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist AiG (Australia)] - makes some very valid points here:
Under this heading at bottom of commentary posted here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp
See: Postscript: Feduccia v Creationists
[snip]
"The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that’s not evolution in action, I do not know what is." ~ Feduccia
Wow, so the best proof of goo-to-you evolution he can come up with is corn turning into corn?!
But he has yet to prove that this is an increase in information, which would be required to turn scales into feathers or a reptile lung into a bird lung (something Feduccia never explains in his encyclopaedic book The Origin and Evolution of Birds10).
Rather, this is yet another example of sorting or loss of previously-existing genetic informationthis sort of change is in the opposite direction from evolution (see The evolution train’s a-comin’).
Note also a common phenomenon. An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority.
For example, a palaeontologist says, ‘The fossil record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution.’
But an embryologist says, ‘Richardson showed that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity. But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor’.
However, the molecular biologist says, ‘There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.’
...Feduccia stated:
The difference between feathers and scales is very, very small. You can transform bird scutes [the scales on bird feet] into feathers with the application of bone morphogenic protein.
This totally misses the point that the cells from which scutes are formed have the genetic information for feathers already present, but turned off. Somehow the chemical induced the genes coding for feathers to switch back on.
Feduccia’s ‘evidence’ offers not the slightest support for the idea that the genetic information for feathers arose where none previously existed.
It would be a totally different matter if bone morphogenic protein could transform scales into feathers on a reptile, which has no genetic information for feathers!
Feduccia’s claim parallels an earlier misinformed claim that retinoic acid (vitamin A) could turn scales into feathers. See Putting Feathers on Reptiles for further explanation, and for electron micrographs showing the immense differences between feathers and scales. Also, feather proteins ( -keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins ( -keratins).11
These simple mistakes by Feduccia once more illustrate the fact that even world-class experts are usually laymen outside their own field. ...
Conversely, the major propagandists for evolution tend to be atheistic story-tellers like Richard Dawkins or ‘political animals’ like fellow atheistic anthropologist Eugenie Scott
Jake