G
Gigantals
Guest
Firstly, we should be cautious concerning fossils from China, which have already fooled us with Archaeoraptor.
Secondly, those feathers in Anchiornis are fully formed. They are no different to those of modern birds (and this species seems to be already somewhat similar to birds, hence the name).
Kulindadromeus, along with many similar species, didn’t have feathers (those ‘filament types’ are about as different as the hair on my head and the hair on my arms)
I’m not asking for you to tell me how filaments became feather (there are no proto-feather fossils, showing a half-filament, half-feather stucture).
I’m asking you to show me how scales became feathers.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Without using any of the ‘dinofuzz’, because that it provides just as much evidence for being a seperate hairlike structure. And there’s no evidence to show how scales became filaments in the first place.
Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence.
Recent discoveries from the Early Cretaceous of China have highlighted the debate, with claims of the discovery of all stages of feather evolution and ancestral birds (theropod dinosaurs), although the deposits are at least 25 million years younger than those containing the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx. In the first part of the study we examine the fossil evidence relating to alleged feather progenitors, commonly referred to as protofeathers, in these putative ancestors of birds. Our findings show no evidence for the existence of protofeathers and consequently no evidence in support of the follicular theory of the morphogenesis of the feather.
“Fossil remains of a bird which lived between 142 and 137 million years ago were recently found in the Liaoning province of northeastern China. The discovery, made by a fossil-hunting farmer and announced by a c Chinese/American team of scientists, including Alan Feduccia (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and Larry D. Martin (University of Kansas), provide the oldest evidence of a beaked bird on Earth yet found. … The Chinese bird, claim its discoverers, probably lived at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary–prior to the arrival of Deinonychus and Mononykus–and could not possibly be descended from them.” “Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories,” Geotimes, vol. 41 (January 1996), p. 7
The time frame between Liaoningornis and archaeopteryx (the least disputed ‘first bird’) is a little small, so it couldn’t be a descendant of that first bird (because comparing to older fossils, birds clearly don’t have four wings).
If we go back further so something like Aurornis, then we reduce the timeframe those ‘filaments’ could’ve evolved into actual feathers.
A similarity between scales and feathers may be found in chemistry (hence the quote from my last post), but there is far more similarity (including the complexity) between feathers and hair (especially the follicles).
Secondly, those feathers in Anchiornis are fully formed. They are no different to those of modern birds (and this species seems to be already somewhat similar to birds, hence the name).
Kulindadromeus, along with many similar species, didn’t have feathers (those ‘filament types’ are about as different as the hair on my head and the hair on my arms)
Loading…
evolutionnews.org
I’m not asking for you to tell me how filaments became feather (there are no proto-feather fossils, showing a half-filament, half-feather stucture).
I’m asking you to show me how scales became feathers.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Without using any of the ‘dinofuzz’, because that it provides just as much evidence for being a seperate hairlike structure. And there’s no evidence to show how scales became filaments in the first place.
Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence.
Recent discoveries from the Early Cretaceous of China have highlighted the debate, with claims of the discovery of all stages of feather evolution and ancestral birds (theropod dinosaurs), although the deposits are at least 25 million years younger than those containing the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx. In the first part of the study we examine the fossil evidence relating to alleged feather progenitors, commonly referred to as protofeathers, in these putative ancestors of birds. Our findings show no evidence for the existence of protofeathers and consequently no evidence in support of the follicular theory of the morphogenesis of the feather.
“Fossil remains of a bird which lived between 142 and 137 million years ago were recently found in the Liaoning province of northeastern China. The discovery, made by a fossil-hunting farmer and announced by a c Chinese/American team of scientists, including Alan Feduccia (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and Larry D. Martin (University of Kansas), provide the oldest evidence of a beaked bird on Earth yet found. … The Chinese bird, claim its discoverers, probably lived at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary–prior to the arrival of Deinonychus and Mononykus–and could not possibly be descended from them.” “Jurassic Bird Challenges Origin Theories,” Geotimes, vol. 41 (January 1996), p. 7
The time frame between Liaoningornis and archaeopteryx (the least disputed ‘first bird’) is a little small, so it couldn’t be a descendant of that first bird (because comparing to older fossils, birds clearly don’t have four wings).
If we go back further so something like Aurornis, then we reduce the timeframe those ‘filaments’ could’ve evolved into actual feathers.
A similarity between scales and feathers may be found in chemistry (hence the quote from my last post), but there is far more similarity (including the complexity) between feathers and hair (especially the follicles).
Last edited:
