Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Do you support Feduccia's position on the integumentary structures of Longisquama?

WiYC said:
"3. Because some evolutionists don't agree with Feduccia (an ardent evolutionist ), Feduccia's testimoney is a "extreme minority view and not taken seriously by other scientists." Again, if you wish to offer competing specific scientific analysis, go ahead. If not, don't waste our time with opinions."

You have turned to Feduccia as an authority. Why might that be? Do you find his position that birds evolved from some kind of archosaur compelling? Do you find his argument for protofeathers in Longisquama especially convincing? No. I think you simply take comfort in his attack on the more accepted theories of feather evolution. You don't accept his science, but you like his bile when he attacks other scientists.

Feduccia has cultivated an image as kind of a crank. He refuses to accept new ideas because they conflict with his idea of how he thinks birds evolved. A good example is provided in a review of his book "The Origin and Evolution of Birds". Kevin Padian talks about his aversion to cladistics which has revolutionized systematics.

"The success of phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) applied to nearly all branches of life in the past two decades has been revolutionary, although not infallible. It has provided a universal, testable method for establishing relationships among organisms, and a framework for anchoring and testing other evolutionary questions, including those of adaptation, ecology, behavior and biochemical change. Feduccia dismisses all these results because he cannot accept the theory that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs. Why? Because he knows that flight must have begun in trees, and so the first birds were arboreal, unlike the terrestrial predatory dinosaurs of the Mesozoic Era. How does he know this? Well, most birds today live in trees, and they are adapted for flight. And theoretically it is easier to evolve flight if you can already glide from an arboreal perch."
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919005208/www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Feduccia97-03.html

I have read a bit of Feduccia and find that he seems set in his ways and behind the times. He has done some interesting work. However, the relationship between theropods and birds is supported by more than the integumentary structures of Sinosauropteryx.

Interesting diversion. Where is your scientific evidence ... or is that too much to ask for?

Yes, we know that you believe that ALL quotes from evolutionists that disagree with you are taken out of context ...

and ALL evolutionists that disagree with you "refuse to accept new ideas"...

and that you believe in evolution.

The problem is that your new quote doesn't include any conclusive evidence supporting any of your claims, and you have yet to come up with supportive scientific documentation for your faith.

Again, provide specific evidence supporting your claim (and TalkOrigins) that Sinosauropteryx had feathers. This is what the debate is about, not your opinion or what you or I think of Feduccia.

Re: Interesting diversion. Where is your scientific evidence ... or is that too much to ask for?

WiYC said:
"Again, provide specific evidence supporting your claim (and TalkOrigins) that Sinosauropteryx had feathers. This is what the debate is about, not your opinion or what you or I think of Feduccia."

Feduccia is an authority that you are using. I stated my opinion but provided support for that position. He refuses to accept cladistic analysis as I indicated earlier from Padian's article.

"For Feduccia, cladistic analyses must be methodologically flawed because the unique anatomical features that unite birds with theropods must be de facto convergences, primitive states or not homologous. He does not explain to his audience that cladistic analysis is the only method currently known that explicitly deduces probable convergences, primitive states and nonhomologous characteristics, and he offers no method in its place. The closest he comes, in several places, is to rely on logically circular "pseudophylogenies" based on the presumed adaptive value of various features. But one is left to imagine transitional animals that had these traits."
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919005208/www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Feduccia97-03.html

He concocts his own phylogeny based on very dubious analysis and shaky fossils.

"Instead, Feduccia seizes the biologically and taxonomically vacuous term "avimorph thecodonts" (supposed archosaurs with one or more apparently birdlike features) as prime candidates for bird origins. Of the disparate Triassic animals he mentions, Cosesaurus is an aquatic prolacertiform, not even an archosaur; Longisquama is so poorly preserved that it cannot even be classified confidently within the diapsid reptiles..."
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919005208/www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Feduccia97-03.html

Sorry, it is about the science and his willingness to engage in debate based on the evidence that undermines his credibility on this issue.

Do you understand that the burden of proof is yours?

Since you CANNOT provide any scientific information refuting Feduccia's, Lingham-Soliar's, and Hinchliffe's findings that prove the cross section and chemical analylsis were NOT feather related, we'll assume your ability to prove otherwise in nil.

You may debate your own opinion, but not on this board.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"Again, provide specific evidence supporting your claim (and TalkOrigins) that Sinosauropteryx had feathers. This is what the debate is about, not your opinion or what you or I think of Feduccia."

Feduccia is an authority that you are using. I stated my opinion but provided support for that position. He refuses to accept cladistic analysis as I indicated earlier from Padian's article.

"For Feduccia, cladistic analyses must be methodologically flawed because the unique anatomical features that unite birds with theropods must be de facto convergences, primitive states or not homologous. He does not explain to his audience that cladistic analysis is the only method currently known that explicitly deduces probable convergences, primitive states and nonhomologous characteristics, and he offers no method in its place. The closest he comes, in several places, is to rely on logically circular "pseudophylogenies" based on the presumed adaptive value of various features. But one is left to imagine transitional animals that had these traits."
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919005208/www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Feduccia97-03.html

He concocts his own phylogeny based on very dubious analysis and shaky fossils.

"Instead, Feduccia seizes the biologically and taxonomically vacuous term "avimorph thecodonts" (supposed archosaurs with one or more apparently birdlike features) as prime candidates for bird origins. Of the disparate Triassic animals he mentions, Cosesaurus is an aquatic prolacertiform, not even an archosaur; Longisquama is so poorly preserved that it cannot even be classified confidently within the diapsid reptiles..."
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919005208/www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Feduccia97-03.html

Sorry, it is about the science and his willingness to engage in debate based on the evidence that undermines his credibility on this issue.

This is but one study that seems to overstate its case, and not as conclusive as they would have you

Time, more fossils and more studies will better answer this question. One thing that was ignored in this study was the fact that these structures appear in areas other than the midline. In discussion here the problem is outlined.

http://dml.cmnh.org/2007May/msg00413.html
"* they seem to continually interpret all the structures are body midline structures, but Currie et al. long ago pointed out that in the holotype, the structures are _not_ preserved along the body midline, particularly in the head area. Yes, the skin doubtless sloughed off during the decay process, and not having any real resistance (like the bones did), would have been compacted more than the skeleton, and could easily make it look like midline structures are not on the midline, but this argument cuts both ways: non-midline structures could also be displaced to appear as if they're on the midline, especially when the entire body is laterally compressed and exposed in lateral view. Currie & Chen's paper document (though doesn't adequately picture) patches of these structures on the caudolateral margin of the cranium, and in another specimen on the ribs and side of the tail. Unless these animals were covered by the kinds of ribbon-like frills of collagen in places other than the body midline (a la http://lhs.lidgerwood.k12.nd.us/LHS/BlakesWebPage/Graphics/Pictures/Comp.jpg -- certainly possible, but seems very odd to me...certainly without a modern analog), the argument that the fibers are collagenous and restricted to the body midline is weakened."

The remarks are from Jerry D. Harris, Director of Paleontology at Dixie State College. He is typical of the response to the study.

So, now your argument is based on what WASN'T found? Interesting 'evidence'

Being as the argument in entirely based on what WASN'T left on the fossil, we'll stand on the other more unbiased findings.

"Yes, the skin doubtless sloughed off during the decay process, and not having any real resistance (like the bones did), would have been compacted more than the skeleton, and could easily make it look like midline structures are not on the midline, but this argument cuts both ways: non-midline structures could also be displaced to appear as if they're on the midline, especially when the entire body is laterally compressed and exposed in lateral view. "

As you so correctly commented:

"Time, more fossils and more studies will better answer this question."

When you guys have actual proof versus speculation, let us know.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Time, more fossils and more studies will better answer this question. One thing that was ignored in this study was the fact that these structures appear in areas other than the midline. In discussion here the problem is outlined.

http://dml.cmnh.org/2007May/msg00413.html
"* they seem to continually interpret all the structures are body midline structures, but Currie et al. long ago pointed out that in the holotype, the structures are _not_ preserved along the body midline, particularly in the head area. Yes, the skin doubtless sloughed off during the decay process, and not having any real resistance (like the bones did), would have been compacted more than the skeleton, and could easily make it look like midline structures are not on the midline, but this argument cuts both ways: non-midline structures could also be displaced to appear as if they're on the midline, especially when the entire body is laterally compressed and exposed in lateral view. Currie & Chen's paper document (though doesn't adequately picture) patches of these structures on the caudolateral margin of the cranium, and in another specimen on the ribs and side of the tail. Unless these animals were covered by the kinds of ribbon-like frills of collagen in places other than the body midline (a la http://lhs.lidgerwood.k12.nd.us/LHS/BlakesWebPage/Graphics/Pictures/Comp.jpg -- certainly possible, but seems very odd to me...certainly without a modern analog), the argument that the fibers are collagenous and restricted to the body midline is weakened."

The remarks are from Jerry D. Harris, Director of Paleontology at Dixie State College. He is typical of the response to the study.

The argument is based on what your source doesn't address.

Currie & Chen documented the structures occurring at areas other than the midline. The paper you cite does not address these sturctures even though their photos show them. Also, the explanation provided Lingham-Soliar, Feduccia, and Wang does not even explain all of the structures they claim occur on the midline.

The study is far from conclusive.

Other scientists have commented on the study. It will take time for other papers to be published. In the meantime, the listserves on dinosaur paleontology have been quite critical of the study. Here are a few points from one post on the work of Feduccia's, Lingham-Soliar's, and Hinchliffe's from:
http://dml.cmnh.org/2007May/msg00416.html

"1) Despite David Marjanovic's assertation that Lingham-Soliar is an authority on collagen, little of that expertise is evident in this paper. To begin with, they never actually provide a method (e.g. morphology, chemistry, etc) to distinguish fossil collagenous tissue from other fiberous tissues in vertebrate bodies (e.g. muscle and elastic tissues)."

A consistent methodology would be nice. If you read the paper, you get lots of pictures and lots of statements saying, "this looks like collagen fibers to me". No analysis or testing was done on this basis.

"2) Establishing that the structures are either dermal or epidermal (or less superficial altogether), and either muscular, elastic, or collagenous is problematic on all the fibers preserved in IVPP V12415...To claim that these fibers (which look different from the type specimen) are homologous with the structures seen in other specimens without the type of detailed comparison that the authors' themselves decry in other studies(!) is beyond careless: it's special pleading."

So the authors say it kind of looks like something I have seen before but don't actually go through the process of comparing the Sinosauropteryx with this other something. No analysis is done. We just take there word for it, I guess.

"3) Taphonomy... speaking of special pleading... The paper attacks previous authors for ignoring the roll of taphonomy, and then...completely ignores the taphonomy of their specimens! For example, they repeatedly refer to the possible roll of wind and water "erosion" to play a roll in breaking down connective tissue into the appearance of insulatory structures, but don't even make a passing mention of the actual depositional environment of these specimens. Since current consensus is they are from low-energy fine-grained shallow lakebed sediments there is no evidence of significant water currents (it would take a lot to break down collagen) and wind seems unlikely underwater, to say the least."

If it is indeed explained as collagenous, it is going to take some explaining as to why it would break down as they claim. The environment that it was fossilized in does not seem to fit their scenario, and they don't even bother to try to explain it.

"4) They also show a photograph (Fig 4) of the tail of NIGP 127587. Despite claims in the paper, the photograph shows a dorsally located layer (apparently) consisting of dino-fuzz style insulatory structures, and a ventral layer of rigorously parallel non-epidermal fibers that are clearly not dino-fuzz (the taphonomy does not distinguish between collagen/elastin/muscle fiber hypotheses in this specimen like it does in IVPP P12415). Unless it is a trick of the lighting, the photograph seems to indicate the epidermal/insulatory layer is preserved on a more superficial layer of rock than the collagen/muscles fibers are. Worse yet, the proto-fuzz type fibers clearly extend down most of the way past the tail, indicating it is not a midline stucture."

The photos in the paper seem to show dino-fuzz and the authors simply ignore it. The original paper mentioned these structures occurring in several locations besides the midline. The paper does not address this which would seem to be a very significant hole in their case.

"5) Finally, the tone of the paper is inexcusible (to me). Even ignoring the hypocrasy[sic] of chastizing previous studies for failure to consider taphonomy and do proper comparative work...while ignoring taphonomy (if not outright contradicting it) and failing to do detailed compartive work, the intro and conclusion is rife with phrases urging us to avoid "recourse to arbitrary conjectures on feather origins" (discussion section) that "strengthened the resolve of many palaeontologists that
birds are direct descendents of theropod dinosaurs." (introduction) This type of pejorative wording is distasteful enough on cable news shows; it has no place in scientific publications (well, perhaps in an editorial).

In summary, the paper spends a lot of time accusing other studies of the same flaws it commits. The paper fails to make a good case that the fibers of IVPP V12415 are collagenous (especially the cervical tissues) or epidermal in nature. It fails to link the fibers in IVPP V12415 to the proposed proto-feathers of the type specimen, and in fact presents a photograph that appears to contradict the idea. They fail to provide a plausible mechanism that would decompose collagenous tissue into the appearance of insulatory strucutres, and the mechanisms they do postulate directly contradict the actual taphonomy of the specimens.

Hopefully this paper will be the stimulus for further research into the nature of the fibers preserved in Sinosauropteryx, feathered dinosaurs, mammals, etc. from Liaoning. In the meantime, let's all strive to write more papers taht are more responsible than this one, regardless of conclusions.

Scott Hartman
Science Director
Wyoming Dinosaur Center"

The paper you cite has plenty of flaws. It is far from the final word on Sinosauropteryx and its interesting structures. The authors clearly feel their case has been made and have been quite forceful (nasty) in the manner they have expressed this belief. Yet, they seem to commit the sins of which they accuse others - in spades.

Excuse me if I question their motives, methods and conclusions. The burden was theirs (and yours), and they failed to meet it.

Now photos are evidence? The material was available for genetic testing.

Please provide the genetic testing results of the material found that prove it was found to be feather related.

Again, unless you have evidence contrary to Lingham-Soliar, it's nothing but your faith.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Other scientists have commented on the study. It will take time for other papers to be published. In the meantime, the listserves on dinosaur paleontology have been quite critical of the study. Here are a few points from one post on the work of Feduccia's, Lingham-Soliar's, and Hinchliffe's from:
http://dml.cmnh.org/2007May/msg00416.html

"1) Despite David Marjanovic's assertation that Lingham-Soliar is an authority on collagen, little of that expertise is evident in this paper. To begin with, they never actually provide a method (e.g. morphology, chemistry, etc) to distinguish fossil collagenous tissue from other fiberous tissues in vertebrate bodies (e.g. muscle and elastic tissues)."

A consistent methodology would be nice. If you read the paper, you get lots of pictures and lots of statements saying, "this looks like collagen fibers to me". No analysis or testing was done on this basis.

"2) Establishing that the structures are either dermal or epidermal (or less superficial altogether), and either muscular, elastic, or collagenous is problematic on all the fibers preserved in IVPP V12415...To claim that these fibers (which look different from the type specimen) are homologous with the structures seen in other specimens without the type of detailed comparison that the authors' themselves decry in other studies(!) is beyond careless: it's special pleading."

So the authors say it kind of looks like something I have seen before but don't actually go through the process of comparing the Sinosauropteryx with this other something. No analysis is done. We just take there word for it, I guess.

"3) Taphonomy... speaking of special pleading... The paper attacks previous authors for ignoring the roll of taphonomy, and then...completely ignores the taphonomy of their specimens! For example, they repeatedly refer to the possible roll of wind and water "erosion" to play a roll in breaking down connective tissue into the appearance of insulatory structures, but don't even make a passing mention of the actual depositional environment of these specimens. Since current consensus is they are from low-energy fine-grained shallow lakebed sediments there is no evidence of significant water currents (it would take a lot to break down collagen) and wind seems unlikely underwater, to say the least."

If it is indeed explained as collagenous, it is going to take some explaining as to why it would break down as they claim. The environment that it was fossilized in does not seem to fit their scenario, and they don't even bother to try to explain it.

"4) They also show a photograph (Fig 4) of the tail of NIGP 127587. Despite claims in the paper, the photograph shows a dorsally located layer (apparently) consisting of dino-fuzz style insulatory structures, and a ventral layer of rigorously parallel non-epidermal fibers that are clearly not dino-fuzz (the taphonomy does not distinguish between collagen/elastin/muscle fiber hypotheses in this specimen like it does in IVPP P12415). Unless it is a trick of the lighting, the photograph seems to indicate the epidermal/insulatory layer is preserved on a more superficial layer of rock than the collagen/muscles fibers are. Worse yet, the proto-fuzz type fibers clearly extend down most of the way past the tail, indicating it is not a midline stucture."

The photos in the paper seem to show dino-fuzz and the authors simply ignore it. The original paper mentioned these structures occurring in several locations besides the midline. The paper does not address this which would seem to be a very significant hole in their case.

"5) Finally, the tone of the paper is inexcusible (to me). Even ignoring the hypocrasy[sic] of chastizing previous studies for failure to consider taphonomy and do proper comparative work...while ignoring taphonomy (if not outright contradicting it) and failing to do detailed compartive work, the intro and conclusion is rife with phrases urging us to avoid "recourse to arbitrary conjectures on feather origins" (discussion section) that "strengthened the resolve of many palaeontologists that
birds are direct descendents of theropod dinosaurs." (introduction) This type of pejorative wording is distasteful enough on cable news shows; it has no place in scientific publications (well, perhaps in an editorial).

In summary, the paper spends a lot of time accusing other studies of the same flaws it commits. The paper fails to make a good case that the fibers of IVPP V12415 are collagenous (especially the cervical tissues) or epidermal in nature. It fails to link the fibers in IVPP V12415 to the proposed proto-feathers of the type specimen, and in fact presents a photograph that appears to contradict the idea. They fail to provide a plausible mechanism that would decompose collagenous tissue into the appearance of insulatory strucutres, and the mechanisms they do postulate directly contradict the actual taphonomy of the specimens.

Hopefully this paper will be the stimulus for further research into the nature of the fibers preserved in Sinosauropteryx, feathered dinosaurs, mammals, etc. from Liaoning. In the meantime, let's all strive to write more papers taht are more responsible than this one, regardless of conclusions.

Scott Hartman
Science Director
Wyoming Dinosaur Center"

The paper you cite has plenty of flaws. It is far from the final word on Sinosauropteryx and its interesting structures. The authors clearly feel their case has been made and have been quite forceful (nasty) in the manner they have expressed this belief. Yet, they seem to commit the sins of which they accuse others - in spades.

Excuse me if I question their motives, methods and conclusions. The burden was theirs (and yours), and they failed to meet it.

Photos referenced are from the paper you cited.

Have you read the paper that you cited? I forgot. You only select quotes from them found at creationist sources. Photos are at the heart of the paper. Their analysis of them is pretty shallow as was indicated by the other scientists critiquing the paper.

You won't accept evolutionist's findings. So where is your conclusive evidence?

Evolutionists (and TalkOrigins) claim that Sinosauropteryx was "covered with primitive feathers."

You do not accept the summary of the high-resolution microscopic images, even though they are from ARDENT evolutionists.

So, unless you can offer proof, it's your faith again.


November 2005:
“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. These "meshworks" of the skin frequently formed aberrant patterns resembling feathers as a consequence of decomposition. Our findings also draw support from new paleontological evidence. We describe integumental structures, very similar to "protofeathers," preserved within the rib area of a Psittacosaurus specimen from Nanjing, China, an ornithopod dinosaur unconnected with the ancestry of birds. These integumental structures show a strong resemblance to the collagenous fiber systems in the dermis of many animals.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16217748&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Have you read the paper that you cited? I forgot. You only select quotes from them found at creationist sources. Photos are at the heart of the paper. Their analysis of them is pretty shallow as was indicated by the other scientists critiquing the paper.

Thanks for repeating the quote that has already been addressed.

Have you read the article or are you simply going to continue to refer to the abstract. I have already shown you how Feduccia, et al. failed to address all of the evidence, i.e., ingument appearing on other parts of the body. They also fail to make an effective case for midline structures explaining the evidence they do address.

'The material was available for genetic testing.' I don't think so...

WiYC said:
"Please provide the genetic testing results of the material found that prove it was found to be feather related."

I'm not sure where you pulled this one from, but the material in question is rock. As far as I know you can't do genetic testing on rocks. There are other methods that might possibly be applied to the fossil. However, you would need permission of the Chinese to do it. Genetic testing would not be one of the tests.

Feduccia is an evolutionist. Why would you think we find his opinions 'compelling'?

The issue is NOT the fact that you believe Feduccia and ALL the other scientists that agree with him (about psuedo feathers) are equally archaic and uninformed.

The issue is that you have NO competing testimoney that claims the cross section and chemical analysis are 'feather related.'

Also, do you believe that cladistics could be considered 'evidence' or 'proof' of feathers? If so, please explain your rational.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"3. Because some evolutionists don't agree with Feduccia (an ardent evolutionist ), Feduccia's testimoney is a "extreme minority view and not taken seriously by other scientists." Again, if you wish to offer competing specific scientific analysis, go ahead. If not, don't waste our time with opinions."

You have turned to Feduccia as an authority. Why might that be? Do you find his position that birds evolved from some kind of archosaur compelling? Do you find his argument for protofeathers in Longisquama especially convincing? No. I think you simply take comfort in his attack on the more accepted theories of feather evolution. You don't accept his science, but you like his bile when he attacks other scientists.

Feduccia has cultivated an image as kind of a crank. He refuses to accept new ideas because they conflict with his idea of how he thinks birds evolved. A good example is provided in a review of his book "The Origin and Evolution of Birds". Kevin Padian talks about his aversion to cladistics which has revolutionized systematics.

"The success of phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) applied to nearly all branches of life in the past two decades has been revolutionary, although not infallible. It has provided a universal, testable method for establishing relationships among organisms, and a framework for anchoring and testing other evolutionary questions, including those of adaptation, ecology, behavior and biochemical change. Feduccia dismisses all these results because he cannot accept the theory that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs. Why? Because he knows that flight must have begun in trees, and so the first birds were arboreal, unlike the terrestrial predatory dinosaurs of the Mesozoic Era. How does he know this? Well, most birds today live in trees, and they are adapted for flight. And theoretically it is easier to evolve flight if you can already glide from an arboreal perch."
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919005208/www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Feduccia97-03.html

I have read a bit of Feduccia and find that he seems set in his ways and behind the times. He has done some interesting work. However, the relationship between theropods and birds is supported by more than the integumentary structures of Sinosauropteryx.

Feduccia suffers from the same problem creationists do.

I don't find his arguments particularly compelling. He is a scientist that seems to frequently ignore science when it doesn't agree with him. Creationists tend to do the same. You are willing to cite particular critisms he levels when you think they support your position. However, he is making them to support an alternative evolutionary scenario. Unfortunately for him, the fossils, cladistics and morphology don't support that position. He has no solid evidence.

If he wants to overturn BAD, he needs evidence for his alternative scenario. Like creationists, he can only argue a rear-guard action against BAD. That doesn't support Feduccia's position and it certainly doesn't support a creationist one either.

You obviously didn't notice...

WiYC said:
"4. You obviously didn't notice that there are 6 additional palaeontologists cited in the two articles confirming there is NO evidence of feathers on Sinosauropteryx:"

You have two guys co-authoring with Feduccia. The other four are talking about another fossil as I demonstrated before you posted this.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/727903/

You can read this one for more detail on your fabulous for that were talking about another dinosaur in your quote.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/727926/

Another WiYC Blunder

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.

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.
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/protosino.html

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.)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

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.