What everyone doesn't know is that an animal cannot fly once it gets over around 35 lbs. so they have to come up with "glider" theories, etc. But as the article says, everyone tries to fit what they find into their own paradigms. Fact is, things could have been different back then on levels many of us haven't even considered - yet.
One astronomer has floated the idea that the reason we see red shift in distant galaxies is not because they are travelling away from us, but because time travels at a slower speed there. It could be false, but is it really any more far fetched than string theory or so many other hypotheses that have been floated?
We don't know what we don't know.
Actually, yes. Off the top of my head, for a couple reasons.
Gravitational lensing (a general relativistic effect) is observed for distant galaxies. If time travelled slower, there would be aberrations in this effect that aren't observed.
If the redshift didn't correlate to motion, it would mean our galaxy is in a unique gravitational potential well. Gravitational field equations would need a corrective term that is not in any other way corroborated.
We don't know what we don't know, but there are definitely ideas we can rule out.
A six foot Pteranodon with a 25 foot wingspan?