Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GodGunsGuts

Except that similar fossils have been found with feather impressions, so in this case, it is at least reasonable to assume a likelihood that this animal also had feathers.

There are a great many fossil finds that don’t make the news, simply because they aren’t as “sexy” as finds like “Sue” or “Big Al”. But there have been fossil finds of hide, feathers, digestive contents, and occasionally other soft tissues. The dinosaur-era picture is a lot more complete than most people are aware of.


14 posted on 06/18/2009 12:04:10 PM PDT by Little Pig (Is it time for "Cowboys and Islamofanatics" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Little Pig
Proof!
17 posted on 06/18/2009 1:05:57 PM PDT by baclava
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Little Pig; GodGunsGuts
Except that similar fossils have been found with feather impressions, so in this case, it is at least reasonable to assume a likelihood that this animal also had feathers

The term used is "protofeathers". The only fossils which have true feathers are those that are distinctly birds, the oldest such fossil is the archaeopteryx. One can assume anything one wants, but lacking proof makes such an assumption a fairy tale.

26 posted on 06/18/2009 9:02:13 PM PDT by AndrewC (Metanoia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson