He suggests that modern birds' very early ancestors were reptiles that established and guarded their nests on the ground, much like crocodiles. Over time, these creatures developed hard-shelled rather than leathery eggs and the ability to modulate their own body temperature in order to provide a more constant environment for their developing young. Scales evolved into feathers, better camouflaging and insulating the parents. This is kind of stupid. If scales are going to "evolve" into feathers in order for better camoflage and insulation, why didn't scales just "evolve" into fur and/or a fat creature with fur? I thought the reason why birds have feathers is that they enable flight while still providing warmth.
And if this theory is true, then why didn't everything develop feathers? For example, if warmth and camoflage is the criteria, then fat and fur seem to much more practical and would hold an advantage over feathers for the simple reason that fur is easier to maintain than feathers. The loss of one feather is more of a loss than the loss of one piece of hair.
I'm not sure that species have a choice about whether they develop fur or feathers. There is an initial random mutation in one direction or the other and once each path is set, it is "hard" to change tracks to the other. The proto-bird would not only have to mutate to get rid of its feathers, but would also have to mutate to get hair. This implies a naked bird running around that is freezing its butt off, and isn't able to fly either.