Would you like to retract your comment? Again, where is your evidence?
In regard to your comment:
"WiYC quoted NewScientist and it seems that they are not talking about Sinosauropteryx here."
Unless you think the same four when to China at the same time and announced two findings at the same press conference, it looks as though they ARE taking about Sinosauropteryx.
In regard to your last paragraph, we ARE NOT the least bit interested in your opinion. ONE MORE TIME, ARNESON:
Your postings will be delected unless they specifically address evidence of what we are covering (Not Protarchaeopteryx.)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
WiYC quoted NewScientist and it seems that they are not talking about Sinosauropteryx here.
"Bones of Contention, the Fossil that Shook Science" by Paul Chambers talks about this incident on p. 228. The fossil in question was Protarchaeopteryx.
"While in China the western scientists were given a peek ath the shape of things to come. In a dark corner of the Chinese Geological Museumthey were shown what their host Ji Qiang, the museum's director, called his 'special specimen'. This turned out to be a turkey-sized skeleton which was laid out in some detail on a slab of Liaoning shale. It had long strong legs, wihg-like arms a toothed skull and , according to Ji feathers. When the team saw the animal they were amazed. It was indeed a well-preserveddinosaur with the same kind of fluffyu covering as had been seen in Sinsauropteryx. The 'special animal' immediately became the cetntre of attention, but a problem soon arose.
"All four westen scientists concluded that whatever the structures were, ther were not feathers in the same sense that we know them tday.
"Larry amrtin, who is not keen on the idea of feathered dinosaurs anyway, told me the structures 'didn't have a single feature whick we would normally use to diagnos a feather. All four of us agreed but the Chinese said that unless we announced these features as being feathers our trip was over.'"
It is important to note that there are at least seven different types of modern feathers recognized. Also, the paperes referring to the integument on Sinosauropteryx recognize them as 'primative feathers' or 'what appear to be feathers'. The BAD theorists would view this as the likely scenario. Feathers, in their view, evolved for other reasons, i.e., insulation, camoflage (in young), or display (for sexual selection). All are still seen in birds. I think the BAD scenario makes more sense for a couple of reasons. One, they have fossils of feathered dinosaurs. Two, the evolution of feathers in their approach seems more likely. Feduccia would argue that feathers evolved for flight more directly.