Jump to content


Photo

Feathered Dinosaurs


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:16 AM

I'm wondering what people think of Beipiaosaurus, Dilong, and Yutyrannus huali. Could God have created dinosaurs with feathers? That would be no more unusual than creating mammals and reptiles with wings (e.g. bats and pterosaurs).

Concerning Beipiaosaurus, CreationWiki says that it "seems to have been a flightless bird, complete with downy feathers." Does anyone disagree? What do people think of the other two? Thanks for reading.

#2 Fiver

Fiver

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Provo, Utah

Posted 05 April 2012 - 02:15 PM

I've often wondered how Creationists would deal with these examples. Archeopteryx is often dismissed as a non-transitional because it has been described as "a flying, perching bird", and yet Dilong and Yutyrannus huali could hardly be described this way. I would think that at the very least, Creationists would have to agree that (a) some dinosaurs had feathers, and (B) some flightless birds had dinosaur-like skeletons in the past.

#3 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 05 April 2012 - 04:43 PM

I've often wondered how Creationists would deal with these examples. Archeopteryx is often dismissed as a non-transitional because it has been described as "a flying, perching bird", and yet Dilong and Yutyrannus huali could hardly be described this way. I would think that at the very least, Creationists would have to agree that (a) some dinosaurs had feathers, and ( B) some flightless birds had dinosaur-like skeletons in the past.


I'm not doubting that some of these creatures may have had dinosaur-like skeletons, but could you give an example of a dinosaurian feature in say Beipiaosaurus?

I also think that we should be cautious:



Discover: What about all the other evidence for feathered dinosaurs?

Feduccia: When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact related to dinosaurs. That's a difficult issue to deal with right now, given the existence of fake fossils.

Discover: So far, only one feathered dinosaur, Archaeoraptor, has been publicly acknowledged as a forgery. You think there are others?

Feduccia: Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are faked and which ones are not. I have heard that there is a fake-fossil factory in northeastern China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found.

Journals like Nature don't require specimens to be authenticated, and the specimens immediately end up back in China, so nobody can examine them. They may be miraculous discoveries, they may be missing links as they are claimed, but there is no way to authenticate any of this stuff.

Discover: Why would anyone fake a fossil?

Feduccia: Money. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business. These fossil forgeries have been sold on the black market for years now, for huge sums of money. Anyone who can produce a good fake stands to profit.

- Discover Dialogue: Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds, Discover 24(2), (February 2003); http://discovermagaz...b/breakdialogue



I've also heard that feathers or feather-like structures have been found on pterosaurs, which are also reptiles, indicating that feathered reptiles may have been a normal type of thing in the past.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Pterorhynchus

Some people (not me) even believe that pterosaurs, not dinosaurs, evolved into birds.
http://pterosaurnet....r-feathers.html
  • MarkForbes likes this

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 April 2012 - 11:32 AM

There is no conclusive evidence of feather evolution. In fact, experimental data suggests that these filaments are collagen fibers.

"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. Rather, based on histological studies
of the integument of modern reptiles, which show complex
patterns of the collagen fibers of the dermis, we conclude
that “protofeathers” are probably the remains of collagenous
fiber “meshworks” that reinforced the dinosaur integument.
"


http://biology.kenyo...duccia_Alan.pdf


Enjoy.

#5 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 06 April 2012 - 12:16 PM

There is no conclusive evidence of feather evolution. In fact, experimental data suggests that these filaments are collagen fibers.

"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. Rather, based on histological studies
of the integument of modern reptiles, which show complex
patterns of the collagen fibers of the dermis, we conclude
that “protofeathers” are probably the remains of collagenous
fiber “meshworks” that reinforced the dinosaur integument.
"

http://biology.kenyo...duccia_Alan.pdf


Enjoy.


Thank you for the article. Have you seen the fossils of Beipiaosaurus and Yutyrannus huali? They don't look the same as Sinosauropteryx. I think Feduccia may have something with the latter, but I'm not as confident about the other two. I couldn't find a good picture showing the structures on the fossil of Dilong though. The other two look like they have some serious "fluff" all around their body.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 April 2012 - 12:21 PM

Yutyrannus huali is a therapod with fosslized collagen fibers preserved in the matrix.Beipiaosaurus is collagen fibers as well. You can clearly see a dark outline around the fossil were the tissue was and all of the fibers are unattached and inside that outline.

Posted Image

#7 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 06 April 2012 - 12:45 PM

Yutyrannus huali is a therapod with fosslized collagen fibers preserved in the matrix.Beipiaosaurus is collagen fibers as well. You can clearly see a dark outline around the fossil were the tissue was and all of the fibers are unattached and inside that outline.

Posted Image


Thank you. That sounds good and convincing, but what about the "EBFFs" on Beipiaosaurus? Apart from those fibers it appears that there are longer structures that come out of the fossil. You can see those in picture C.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Beipiaosaurus

Posted Image

Also, did the fossilization process or something cause the dinosaur to bulk up? It looks like the neck and tail of this creature isn't as slender as you'd normally expect. The tail also looks very rounded at the end. Was it squished or could that just have been how this creature was? Thanks for taking the time to help me.

#8 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:27 AM

Yes dinosaurs most likely had feathers. Probably not covering their entire body, but yes most of them were probably warm blooded. Their eggs were also hard shell, and not soft shell like most reptiles. Plus if you look at the features of their skeletons they really do mostly resemble birds. I'm not saying they evolved, but the therapods especially have the closest relation.

Let's not forget that our interpretation of dinosaurs has never been perfect, and we can only look at ancient writings of dragons if we want a little better picture of what dinosaurs were like when alive. Which in most cases is hard to explain as well.

#9 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:31 AM

Thank you. That sounds good and convincing, but what about the "EBFFs" on Beipiaosaurus? Apart from those fibers it appears that there are longer structures that come out of the fossil. You can see those in picture C.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Beipiaosaurus

Posted Image

Also, did the fossilization process or something cause the dinosaur to bulk up? It looks like the neck and tail of this creature isn't as slender as you'd normally expect. The tail also looks very rounded at the end. Was it squished or could that just have been how this creature was? Thanks for taking the time to help me.


As you will notice with most complete fossils like this... they were buried alive, during a flood. Hmm, I wonder why... Evolutionist would have you believe that almost all of these dinosaurs died by a river, which makes no sense. Especially when we find Sauropods (100+foot long neck dinosaurs) buried as well. I guess dinosaurs just loved to die by rivers.

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 April 2012 - 09:49 AM


I've often wondered how Creationists would deal with these examples. Archeopteryx is often dismissed as a non-transitional because it has been described as "a flying, perching bird", and yet Dilong and Yutyrannus huali could hardly be described this way. I would think that at the very least, Creationists would have to agree that (a) some dinosaurs had feathers, and ( some flightless birds had dinosaur-like skeletons in the past.


Archeopteryx is dismissed as a non-transitional because there is absolutely NO gradual transitional evidence leading up to Archeopteryx, nor is there gradual transitional evidence leading from Archeopteryx. Archeopteryx appears in its place as “fully formed”; as it were “made” that way. It matters not if Archeopteryx were a flying, perching bird, or a bird that ran along the ground; whether it is feathers or not. Just as it matter not if some dinosaurs had feathers, as they ALL appear in history as fully formed.

#11 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 07 April 2012 - 03:41 PM

Yes dinosaurs most likely had feathers.


Couldn't it be possible that Feduccia is right? I also haven't really seen any bird "feathers". They just look like they're single filaments. They could be beneath the skin (which is what I'm going to say for right now) or it could just be some kind of fuzzy stringy body covering that's not related to feathers.

most of them were probably warm blooded.


Is this still being debated? What is the consensus?
  • Springer likes this

#12 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 06:13 AM



I've often wondered how Creationists would deal with these examples. Archeopteryx is often dismissed as a non-transitional because it has been described as "a flying, perching bird", and yet Dilong and Yutyrannus huali could hardly be described this way. I would think that at the very least, Creationists would have to agree that (a) some dinosaurs had feathers, and ( some flightless birds had dinosaur-like skeletons in the past.


Archeopteryx is dismissed as a non-transitional because there is absolutely NO gradual transitional evidence leading up to Archeopteryx, nor is there gradual transitional evidence leading from Archeopteryx. Archeopteryx appears in its place as “fully formed”; as it were “made” that way. It matters not if Archeopteryx were a flying, perching bird, or a bird that ran along the ground; whether it is feathers or not. Just as it matter not if some dinosaurs had feathers, as they ALL appear in history as fully formed.

At least now you know how "Creationists would deal with these examples". I've often wondered when evolutionists would come up with a better hypothesis....

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 April 2012 - 03:13 PM

Couldn't it be possible that Feduccia is right? I also haven't really seen any bird "feathers". They just look like they're single filaments. They could be beneath the skin (which is what I'm going to say for right now) or it could just be some kind of fuzzy stringy body covering that's not related to feathers.



"Alan Feduccia, a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote an essay for New Scientist (subscription required). His position does not deny an evolutionary origin of birds, but places the “feathered dinosaurs” so often portrayed as ancestors of modern birds on a dead-end branch. He claims his position is more in line with 19th century paleontologist Richard Owen and 20th century evolutionist Gavin de Beer. These men viewed flightless birds as degenerate products of variation, not stages toward flight; for instance, de Beer in 1956 “showed conclusively that flightless birds descended from flying ancestors and have never re-evolved flight.”

Similarly, Feduccia holds that the “feathered dinosaurs” attracting so much attention in the media were either pure scaly dinosaurs with whose decayed collagen has been misinterpreted as “proto-feathers,” or were degenerate flightless birds. His own view is that the birds evolved from archosaurs, the predecessors in evolutionary history of the true dinosaurs. He thinks some of the archosaurs lived in trees and developed flight as they jumped (the arboreal hypothesis)."


Questioning The Dino-Bird Hypothesis

Also remember that bird trace fossils pre date dinosaurs (Gilmore 1927) and Triassic shorebirds.

Posted Image

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6892/fig_tab/nature00818_F1.html

#14 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 28 April 2012 - 06:05 PM

"Alan Feduccia, a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote an essay for New Scientist (subscription required). His position does not deny an evolutionary origin of birds, but places the “feathered dinosaurs” so often portrayed as ancestors of modern birds on a dead-end branch. He claims his position is more in line with 19th century paleontologist Richard Owen and 20th century evolutionist Gavin de Beer. These men viewed flightless birds as degenerate products of variation, not stages toward flight; for instance, de Beer in 1956 “showed conclusively that flightless birds descended from flying ancestors and have never re-evolved flight.”

Similarly, Feduccia holds that the “feathered dinosaurs” attracting so much attention in the media were either pure scaly dinosaurs with whose decayed collagen has been misinterpreted as “proto-feathers,” or were degenerate flightless birds. His own view is that the birds evolved from archosaurs, the predecessors in evolutionary history of the true dinosaurs. He thinks some of the archosaurs lived in trees and developed flight as they jumped (the arboreal hypothesis)."


Questioning The Dino-Bird Hypothesis

Also remember that bird trace fossils pre date dinosaurs (Gilmore 1927) and Triassic shorebirds.

Posted Image

http://www.nature.co...re00818_F1.html


Thanks for your help and for the articles. I was wondering what you thought of Shuvuuia deserti.

"The type specimen of Shuvuuia was found surrounded by small, hollow, tube-like structures resembling the rachis (central vane) of modern bird feathers. Though highly deteriorated and poorly preserved, biochemical analyses later showed that these structures contain decay products of the protein beta-keratin, and more significantly, the absence of alpha-keratin. While beta-keratin is found in all integumentary (skin and feather) cells of reptiles and birds, only bird feathers completely lack alpha-keratin. These findings show that, though poorly preserved, Shuvuuia likely possessed a coat of feathers." - Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuvuuia

CreationWiki says that it is a flightless bird. I was unable to find a picture of the fossil or fossils.

"August 15, 1999. A small flightless bird with badly preserved integument. Chemical analyzes have supported these as feathers, but the conclusion reached was that Shuuvia was a bird." CreationWiki, http://creationwiki....thered_dinosaur

#15 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 03 May 2012 - 10:10 AM

Yes dinosaurs most likely had feathers. Probably not covering their entire body, but yes most of them were probably warm blooded. Their eggs were also hard shell, and not soft shell like most reptiles. Plus if you look at the features of their skeletons they really do mostly resemble birds. I'm not saying they evolved, but the therapods especially have the closest relation.

Let's not forget that our interpretation of dinosaurs has never been perfect, and we can only look at ancient writings of dragons if we want a little better picture of what dinosaurs were like when alive. Which in most cases is hard to explain as well.



#16 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 03 May 2012 - 10:13 AM

I'm not at all convinced that filamentous impressions represent feathers or feather precursors. This is a classic example of how paleontologists are overstepping their bounds. They are reading more into a fossil than what is actually there. They have been labeled "feathered dinosaurs" and everyone thinks a transitional species has been found.

#17 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:19 AM

Archeopteryx is dismissed as a non-transitional because there is absolutely NO gradual transitional evidence leading up to Archeopteryx, nor is there gradual transitional evidence leading from Archeopteryx. Archeopteryx appears in its place as “fully formed”; as it were “made” that way. It matters not if Archeopteryx were a flying, perching bird, or a bird that ran along the ground; whether it is feathers or not. Just as it matter not if some dinosaurs had feathers, as they ALL appear in history as fully formed.


Wasn't Archeopteryx dismissed as a non-transitional form because it does not share morphology with birds, like the Microraptor do?
Of course, if evolution were true we would expect to find at least some animals that pop up in the fossil record, given how rare fossils are.
Now as for your other idea, that all appear in history as fully formed, of course they were. A bird is a bird and a dinosaur is a dinosaur. We have numerous 'feathered dinosaurs' all over the world. That doesn't mean to say they evolved (although they could have), it merely means God created in a step-by-step process in the creationist view.
The ones that don't appear 'fully feathered dinosaurs' as you might be arguing for, have been shown to have 'proto feathers', but these you might dismiss as hoaxes.

#18 Calum

Calum

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Detroit, Michigan

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:33 AM

I'm not at all convinced that filamentous impressions represent feathers or feather precursors. This is a classic example of how paleontologists are overstepping their bounds. They are reading more into a fossil than what is actually there. They have been labeled "feathered dinosaurs" and everyone thinks a transitional species has been found.


But these imprints look virtually the same as the filamentous coverings of some birds today - take kiwis, for example.

Even AiG supports the claim that microraptor gui was feathered, but as in this case the evidence was so overwhelming for it having feathers they had to assign it as some 'kind' of bird. But look at the skeleton differentiations between a raven, a microraptor, and a velociraptor:
Raven:
(http://paleoaeolos.d...eleton-32711345)
Microraptor:
(http://qilong.devian...letons-27326378)
Velociraptor:
(http://qilong.devian...raptor-24578261)

Still think Microraptor was a modern bird?

Incidentally, Velociraptor has been found with evidence for feathers. So has oviraptor, the therizinosaurs, the alvarezsaurids, the tyrannosaurs, and several other theropods. In fact, some psittacosaurs (a type of ceratopsian) have been found with feather-like tail structures. It's not on the line from dinos to birds, but it gives evidence theropods had feathers too.

In a theistic evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. It also makes sense in the old earth creationist perspective, as God could have created in a step-by-step process. There is nothing wrong with having feathered dinosaurs. It might present problems in a YEC perspective, but I don't see how.

#19 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2012 - 04:14 AM



Archeopteryx is dismissed as a non-transitional because there is absolutely NO gradual transitional evidence leading up to Archeopteryx, nor is there gradual transitional evidence leading from Archeopteryx. Archeopteryx appears in its place as “fully formed”; as it were “made” that way. It matters not if Archeopteryx were a flying, perching bird, or a bird that ran along the ground; whether it is feathers or not. Just as it matter not if some dinosaurs had feathers, as they ALL appear in history as fully formed.



Wasn't Archeopteryx dismissed as a non-transitional form because it does not share morphology with birds, like the Microraptor do?



No, it’s ‘dismissed as a non-transitional form because it does not’ because it has absolutely NO “gradual transitional evidence leading up to” it, “nor is there gradual transitional evidence leading” away from it.
Archaeopteryx merely appears as it is “suddenly” in history.


Of course, if evolution were true we would expect to find at least some animals that pop up in the fossil record, given how rare fossils are.



Fossils aren’t rare at all Calum… This is a usual tactic used by evolutionists and atheists (which begs a major question, but I’ll save it for later). There have literally been millions of fossils found, and yet absolutely NO gradual transitional fossils have been found to support macro-evolution. Noting more than millions of years of leaps and lurches and speculation to fill this “evolution of the gaps”.


Now as for your other idea, that all appear in history as fully formed, of course they were. A bird is a bird and a dinosaur is a dinosaur.


Just as one would expect to find as a predicator for “Creation”.



We have numerous 'feathered dinosaurs' all over the world. That doesn't mean to say they evolved (although they could have), it merely means God created in a step-by-step process in the creationist view.


Which, of course is mere speculation, sans ANY biblical evidence. Further, finding fossils that are clearly FULLY FORMED with absolutely NO gradual transitional forms leading UP TO, and AWAY FROM, supports the Creation Model, and undermines the Macro-evolution Model.



The ones that don't appear 'fully feathered dinosaurs' as you might be arguing for, have been shown to have 'proto feathers', but these you might dismiss as hoaxes.



I don’t dismiss any actual fossils as hoaxes, I merely point out the lack of evidence for macro-evolution in ANY of them, and the support FOR Creation in ALL of them.

#20 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:47 AM

On face value, that looks rather like hair or stings then feathers. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users