Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Index > General > Who Is Your Creator message forum > Conspiracy theories are for creationists. We have a disagreement between scientists.
Forum: Who Is Your Creator message forum
This forum is locked and posting is not allowed
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Conspiracy theories are for creationists. We have a disagreement between scientists.

WiYC said:
" 1. You don't offer ANY scientific testimoney AFTER the analysis was confirmed for the supposed 'feathers.'"
The four that went to China all had something to say about Sinosauropteryx. As I indicated earlier and the scientists from the China team indicate below, these are not feathers as we know them now. They certainly don't provide an aerodynamic advantage, but we would not expect is from the dinosaur we have here. All agreed that they influenced their thinking. Even Larry Martin the Birds are not Dinosaurs (BAND) pioneer soften to the idea that these structures seem to point to Birds are Dinosaurs (BAD).

From the press conference upon their return from China April 24, 1997 at the Philidelphia Academy of Science.

John Ostrom - BAD pioneer:
"Beijing museum director Ji Qiang immediately recognized the fossil's significance. A colleague took a photo of it to the annual Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists meeting in New York in October. The photograph apparently sent John Ostrom into a "state of shock," as Ostrom said later, because "it seemed to have feathers." This would strengthen the theory Ostrom pioneered in the 20th century, that birds evolved from dinosaurs."

Larry Martin - early BAND supporter
"Although skeptical from the first, Martin acknowledged that 'The dinosaur origin of birds is an intrinsically attractive idea. Because if birds are simply dinosaurs, then we have living dinosaurs, and we know all about their internal organs and their physiology and their behavior. We have brought them to life.'"

Peter Wellnhofer - BAD supporter
"After three days of examination (not nearly enough, they stressed), none of them would go out on a limb with a full-fledged judgment. However, they did agree on one thing: under a microscope, that dark-colored ridge doesn't really look like modern feathers. 'We cannot call them bird feathers,' said Wellnhofer. 'It's definitely something quite new and unusual. Whether it has anything to do with bird feathers, I don't know.'"

Allan Brush - BAD supporter
"Alan Brush states that much more research is necessary. Modern feathers are structures that have been subjected to over a hundred million years of evolution for the purpose of a flight. Brush believes that the structures on the fossil could be protofeathers, the structures from which modern avian feathers evolved, or might be true feathers of a sort entirely unlike modern feathers. More research, including cross-section and chemical analysis, could determine whether they are protofeathers, feathers, or something totally unrelated."
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/protosino.html

Email  
The point was to make two things clear. - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 9:42am
Interesting standard of honesty, indeed. - by Arneson - Sep 10, 2007 10:39am
Not really. - by Arneson - Sep 10, 2007 11:07am
The study is far from conclusive. - by Arneson - Sep 7, 2007 9:28am
You obviously didn't notice... - by Arneson - Sep 5, 2007 9:53pm
Another WiYC Blunder - by Arneson - Sep 5, 2007 4:25pm