[_ Old Earth _] Dino feathers?

[brother Paul]

Today it was announced that a piece of feathered “Dinosaur tail” was found encased in Amber. There are two issues with the find at this time despite the bombardment of “may be” and “could be” being presented as established fact at this time.

First is the fact that there has been no proof at this time (yet but may be forthcoming later) that the source is actually reptilian (thus Dinosaur) and second is the problem with the formation of Amber surrounding the specimen.

a) There are contrasting views as to why resin is produced, it is a plant's protection mechanism. The resin may be produced to protect the tree from disease and injury inflicted by insects and fungi. Resin may be exuded to heal a wound such as a broken branch, and resins possess odors or tastes that both attract and repel insects (Langenheim, 1969, p. 1167). In mature trees, resin may simply exude from vertical fissures in the bark due to tension produced by rapid growth (Langenheim, 1969, p. 1166). Resin may also be produced as a plant's method for disposing of excess acetate (Langenheim, J. H. (1969). Amber-a botanical inquiry. Science 163(3): 1157-1169).


b) …amber is formed as a result of the fossilization of resin that that takes millions of years and involves a progressive oxidation and polymerization of the original organic compounds, oxygenated hydrocarbons. Although a specific time interval has not been established for this process, the majority of amber is found within Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary rocks(approximately 30-90 million years old).


So first we do not actually know why it even forms and we actually do not know for sure how long it takes (millions of years to form is an assumption that makes no sense). If Amber took a million years to form matter trapped in the process would deteriorate to more of a degree than specimens indicate.

So regarding this find two questions will need to be addressed and evidence should be what leads the conclusions instead of (as now) the conclusions leading the interpretation of the evidence. So first question? Since Dinosaurs are giant lizards (reptiles) what is the evidence these feathers are reptilian? Prove a reptile source…then explain how they remained in such perfect condition if the process took millions of years?

 

[AirDancer]

There have actually been archaeological digs that have found fossil impressions of feathers with dinosaur fossils.

Think Jurassic Park III, where the Velociraptors have feathers.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes. There is no question that dinosaurs had feathers. There is still a bit of controversy about whether birds evolved from dinosaurs (which most paleontologists think) or whether dinosaurs and birds have a common thecodont ancestor. (as a few ornithologists like Alan Feduccia think). There are some thecodonts known to have had "protofeathers", such as Longisquama.

Recent finds seem to support the former idea; the large number of protobirds now in evidence seems to indicate birds evolved from advanced theropod dinosaurs.

 

[brother Paul]

Longisquama? Really? You have to stop buying into what you are told and step outside the box and look for yourself void of the program. Nothing in the fossil or the impressions demonstrates these are feather like OR have ends that look like hockey sticks but they keep saying it is so over and over and the masses believe them (maybe because it can be construed to fit the hypothesis)

 

[Barbarian]

Longisquama? Really?

That is the argument from scientists who don't think birds evolved from dinosaurs.

You have to stop buying into what you are told and step outside the box and look for yourself void of the program. Nothing in the fossil or the impressions demonstrates these are feather like

“The strange skin appendages of Longisquama are neither scales nor feathers,” says Michael Buchwitz of the Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, Germany. “They are perhaps linked to the early evolution of dino and pterosaur fuzz, though.”

.
Buchwitz has reanalysed the original fossil and says that the base of the structures lies so close to the bones of the spine that they were probably anchored deep within the skin. They were definitely attached to the body.

He has also studied recently discovered isolated “feathers” from the same locality, which are better preserved. He says Longisquama‘s appendages neither branch like real feathers nor vary in structure along their length as feathers do. Most tellingly, each carries a very unfeather-like thick border along one edge.

For all that, Buchwitz says the appendages are clearly similar to the real deal. Like feathers, they have a central filament running along their lengths, for example. He thinks this means that they were constructed using the same developmental genes that later produced feathers.

Longisquama‘s skeleton is too incomplete to work out its exact evolutionary position, but Buchwitz says the little reptile was probably part of the lineage that gave rise to pterosaurs, crocodiles, dinosaurs and birds. Many of these groups later evolved their own skin appendages, including filaments on pterosaur wings, quills on the tails of some plant-eating ornithischian dinosaurs, and the proto-feathers of theropod dinosaurs. Longisquama shows that evolution was experimenting with the genes that gave rise to feathers long before any of these animals appeared on the scene.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...rew-feather-like-structures-before-dinosaurs/

OR have ends that look like hockey sticks but they keep saying it is so over and over and the masses believe them (maybe because it can be construed to fit the hypothesis)

The finding that the same genes that form scutes (scales found on dinosaurs and birds) also form feathers, has further confirmed that protofeathers came about from scales.

 

[Jim Parker]

First is the fact that there has been no proof at this time (yet but may be forthcoming later) that the source is actually reptilian (thus Dinosaur)

Dinosaurs aren't reptiles.
Reptiles descended from dinosaurs.
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/birds-dinosaurs-reptiles

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, "reptiles" refers to all amniotes other than birds and mammals. The amniote egg was the separation between amphibians, which were still tied to water for part of their lives, and fully land-living organisms.

 

[Jim Parker]

Longisquama? Really? You have to stop buying into what you are told and step outside the box and look for yourself void of the program. Nothing in the fossil or the impressions demonstrates these are feather like OR have ends that look like hockey sticks but they keep saying it is so over and over and the masses believe them (maybe because it can be construed to fit the hypothesis)

Yup.
Feathers.
View attachment 10633

 

[brother Paul]

Yup.
Feathers.
View attachment 10633

Definitely! But there is no evidence they were part of some reptilian creature (hence dinosaur)....Dinosaur = any of a group (Dinosauria) of extinct often very large (not always) chiefly terrestrial carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the Mesozoic era

The claim is dinosaurs with feathers.....

 

[Jim Parker]

Definitely! But there is no evidence they were part of some reptilian creature (hence dinosaur)....Dinosaur = any of a group (Dinosauria) of extinct often very large (not always) chiefly terrestrial carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the Mesozoic era
The claim is dinosaurs with feathers.....

There have been several fossil discoveries which verify the "feathered dinosaur."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/feathered-fossils-china-reveal-dawn-modern-birds
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/feathered_dinosaurs.htm
https://www.britannica.com/animal/feathered-dinosaur

there's more

 

[brother Paul]

Perhaps and we can discuss some of these but I am referring to the ones found in the Amber....

 

[Jim Parker]

Perhaps and we can discuss some of these but I am referring to the ones found in the Amber....

Is that your field of expertise?
Ph.D. Paleontologist?
It's not mine. I have to depend on what trained specialists in the field say.

 

[brother Paul]

We mustn't confuse expertise with the story told to explain. N. Bonde in his 1977 article, “Cladistic classification as applied to vertebrates” in, Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, (M. K. Hecht, P. C. Goody, & B. M. Hecht, eds.) pp. 741-804. Plenum Press: New York, tells us “An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)". And world renowned Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Makes Biology Unique?, p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004) reveals to us that “Not having any (actual) fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

In other words, there is most regularly a difference between what we actually find, and the historical narrative we are told that allegedly explains it. So...

In response to your first referenced article, the avians classified “Aves: Ornithothoraces” are without doubt an actual bird (thus Avian). The factual article with the least spin (hypothesis based explanation) found at http://phys.org/news/2016-01-basal-ornithuromorph-bird-china.html is titled New basal ornithuromorph bird found in China. Please note the word “Bird”. This abcient variety of Bird was not at all reptile and lived in the early Cretaceous period (approximately 140 million years ago).


Second reference refers to one Shuvuuia deserti and though the skull appears to “more related to modern birds” than say Archaeopteryx, the bones of the forearms “were very strong, but certainly unsuitable for flight.” And they go on to tell us that “If it had feathers, then they were not preserved.”

So in this second reference we have a hypothesis based conclusion (due to similarity of the skull only) but the limbs exclude the probability for flight, and there is NO EVIDENCE of feathers. Another item along these lines “interpreted as” a dinosaur with feathers is the well-known fossil of Anchiornis Huxleyi which all we actually found was an impression fossil with no evidence of it actually being also reptilian (the assumption being imposed to fit the hypothesis).


Another in this eclectic grouping is Sinosoauropteryx which is yet another impression fossil that shows clearly this is a reptile with no clear feathers at all but some fuzzy impressions along the long tail.

So those pushing this sci-fi give us birds claiming they are dinosaurs (with no proof of them being reptilian), and dinosaurs claiming they are birds (with no proof they are avian whatsoever).


Plus the earliest Avian fossils we have found predate Archeopteryx by 100,000 years or more. Yes some of these early birds may have had teeth and even a finger claw (as a few modern birds also have) and a couple appear to have a three digit claw, but variety does not necessitate transition across phyla or family, that is the hypothesis interpreting the evidence (instead of the other way around). Data should form or shape the hypothesis. We do not start with the idea and then interpret the facts to fit.

 

[Vaccine]

So those pushing this sci-fi give us birds claiming they are dinosaurs (with no proof of them being reptilian), and dinosaurs claiming they are birds (with no proof they are avian whatsoever).

Hi Brother Paul, that about sums it up. Like you pointed out it's a "construction of a historical narrative.” What they say is entirely possible, it could just be that way. Although, it could just be another way too.

 

[brother Paul]

Hi Brother Paul, that about sums it up. Like you pointed out it's a "construction of a historical narrative.” What they say is entirely possible, it could just be that way. Although, it could just be another way too.

There you go. When we look at the articles revealing these discoveries we must pay close attention to the language in the subjunctive mood (could be, might be, we may well assume that, or many today believe, and so on)....

 

[Barbarian]

The feathered tail is not from a bird, since a bird has a short pygostyle, not a tail. It is likely one of the feathered dinosaurs like Archaeopteryx, which is very birdlike, but has anatomical features that show it not on the direct line that led to birds. More recently, new finds indicate that many or most dinosaurs had feathers.

The fossilized feathers were sent to specialists who had previous experience with dinosaur feathers. The feathers discovered at the Kulinda site were in remarkable condition, allowing the experts to determine that the feathers were composed of filaments that connected at the base, rather than along a central shaft, like is seen in many modern birds.


"Developmental experiments in modern chickens suggest that avian scales are aborted feathers, an idea that explains why birds have scaly legs,” co-author Danielle Dhouailly added. “The astonishing discovery is that the molecular mechanisms needed for this switch might have been so clearly related to the appearance of the first feathers in the earliest dinosaurs.”


The researchers suspect that feathers were a common feature among dinosaurs, particularly smaller ones. They were likely used to insulate the animals, and evolved to aid in flight much later. Fossils have shown evidence of feathered dinosaurs over a 50 million year timespan, and it is possible that they first appeared 220 million years ago in the Triassic. Of course, it is a bit speculative to assume that every dinosaur could have had feathers, and a great deal of research will be needed to fully explore the prevalence of feathers among dinosaurs.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...ered-fossils-hint-all-dinosaurs-had-feathers/

 

[Roro1972]

I grew up on a macaroni farm and we never dug up any dino bones or feathers while planting or harvesting our macaroni.

 

[Jim Parker]

I grew up on a macaroni farm and we never dug up any dino bones or feathers while planting or harvesting our macaroni.

I had the same experience on my parents chicken farm.
They never had a decent crop yield though.....probably planted the chicks too deep or too close together......had to give it up.
...started a construction company..........built sand castles..........did ok til the tide came in..... too many warrantee repairs after that

 

[Barbarian]

In response to your first referenced article, the avians classified “Aves: Ornithothoraces” are without doubt an actual bird (thus Avian). The factual article with the least spin (hypothesis based explanation) found at http://phys.org/news/2016-01-basal-ornithuromorph-bird-china.html is titled New basal ornithuromorph bird found in China. Please note the word “Bird”. This abcient variety of Bird was not at all reptile and lived in the early Cretaceous period (approximately 140 million years ago).

Second reference refers to one Shuvuuia deserti and though the skull appears to “more related to modern birds” than say Archaeopteryx, the bones of the forearms “were very strong, but certainly unsuitable for flight.”

Do you suppose Archaeopteryx was a bird? We know it could fly, since it has asymmetrical flight feathers. Was it a bird?

So in this second reference we have a hypothesis based conclusion (due to similarity of the skull only) but the limbs exclude the probability for flight, and there is NO EVIDENCE of feathers.

So a bird isn't a bird if it can't fly? Or is there a more objective test? Obviously, the numerous feathered dinosaurs show that feathers aren't unique to birds.

Another item along these lines “interpreted as” a dinosaur with feathers is the well-known fossil of Anchiornis Huxleyi which all we actually found was an impression fossil with no evidence of it actually being also reptilian (the assumption being imposed to fit the hypothesis).

It had flight feathers and longer forelimbs (which are, however, commonly found in very small dinosaurs) but it otherwise looks like a dinosaur.

The skeleton:

Shows a mostly-dinosaur skull without beak, fitted with dinosaur teeth. The shoulder joint is slightly birdlike, but not very. It lacks the keeled breastbone of a bird, the uncinate ribs of a bird, pelvis of a bird, and the bones of the hand are not fused as in birds. It has a dinosaur tail instead of an avian pygostyle. The hindlegs are like that of a dinosaur. Yet it had wings, feathers and could fly. You think it's a bird? Or do you think it's a dinosaur? Or is it a transitional between the two?

So those pushing this sci-fi give us birds claiming they are dinosaurs (with no proof of them being reptilian),

Here's the skeleton of a bird: and one of Compsognathus, a small dinosaur:

Which do you think looks most like that of Anchiornis? Me too.

Plus the earliest Avian fossils we have found predate Archeopteryx by 100,000 years or more.

This is like arguing that if you're alive, your uncle must be dead. A primitive group can live on long after a more advanced group evolves in the lineage.

Yes some of these early birds may have had teeth and even a finger claw (as a few modern birds also have) and a couple appear to have a three digit claw

Not "appear to have." There's no question at all about it. They have dinosaur hands. And dinosaur hips. And dinosaur tails. And dinosaur skulls. And dinosaur ribs... and so on.

but variety does not necessitate transition across phyla or family

"Phylum" would group all organisms with a backbone or notochord. "Family" would divide major groups of organisms within a class.

that is the hypothesis interpreting the evidence (instead of the other way around). Data should form or shape the hypothesis.

Actually, previous knowledge forms a hypothesis. Data confirm it and make it a theory. As you know, theories are hypotheses that are confirmed by repeated evidence. Would you like to see some more evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs?