Re: Interesting diversion. Where is your scientific evidence ... or is that too much to ask for?
"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."
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..."
Sorry, it is about the science and his willingness to engage in debate based on the evidence that undermines his credibility on this issue.