|
|
Post by stoneage on Feb 19, 2012 21:25:19 GMT
So there is no such thing as bird feathers except maybe ornithischian quills. What about the the Hererodontosaur, Tianyulong? Storys about proto-feathers abound in all sorts of scientic studys. Even among Dinosaurs supposively not related to Dinosaurs. What about Beipiaosaurus and Dilong paradoxus, aren't they suppose to have fossil impressions of proto-feathers. The quills of heterodontosaurs and psittacosaurs may or may not be related to feathers. If they are, they may count as genuine protofeathers. References to "protofeathers" are based on fossils which are severely crushed. This study showed that if you flatten even a modern bird, its feathers look like "protofeathers": www.springerlink.com/content/u71014417j3214j0/The flattening makes the filaments on either side of the feather quill all blur together, and appear to be independent. This study showed that the "protofeathers" of Sinosauropteryx are identical to chick down, but were misinterpreted because they were so small and squished together. But on close examination, both barbs and quills can be seen and probably make up individual, complex feathers: www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/e01-050The EBFF feathers of Beipiaosaurus and an undescribed tyrannosaur are interesting, because they're more quill-like with no barbs or filaments branching. However they're not like regular feather quills because they're broad and flat (certainly nothing like the ones reported in the amber). They might be protofeathers, or highly modified normal feathers. If they are protofeathers, note that they're absolutely nothing like the short, fuzzy supposed protofeathers of Dilong etc. (which are probably similar to normal downy feathers). So, there's no solid evidence any theropods had protofeathers. Most of them had ACTUAL feathers identical to the kind found in modern birds. It's possible protofeathers were a feature of primitive dinosaurs, and they evolved into true feathers among tetanurans or something. But we have no evidence of those yet. All this proves is the evidence we have is fuzzy, and that popular theropdod dinosaur to bird transformation maybe just BAD theory. The general consensus of palaeontologists remains that birds did indeed evolve from dinosaurs, and that most people support this view. However, as Prof Lingham Soliar said: "My view is that we leave mob rule out of good science otherwise we would still believe in blood-letting as a cure for disease, numerology of the pyramids, the flat earth theory and the sun going round the earth |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 20, 2012 11:22:40 GMT
All this proves is the evidence we have is fuzzy, and that popular theropdod dinosaur to bird transformation maybe just BAD theory. The general consensus of palaeontologists remains that birds did indeed evolve from dinosaurs, and that most people support this view. However, as Prof Lingham Soliar said: "My view is that we leave mob rule out of good science otherwise we would still believe in blood-letting as a cure for disease, numerology of the pyramids, the flat earth theory and the sun going round the earth There is also I believe at least three Icthyosaur fossils that show structures similar to the supposed "protofeathers" of Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus,etc. So unless one wants to believe the fish-lizards had feathers, it's safe to assume that something else is possibly going on here. As to Mr. Stoneage's other point, the dino-bird theory is not necessarily a BAD idea, surprising as it may seem to some to hear me say that. In my opinion, it was actually a quite reasonable idea. Unfortunately, many people seem to have a high emotional investment in the idea. I don't know if anybody is reading my posts, but Lingam Solier etc. are dead wrong because Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus etc. DO NOT HAVE PROTO FEATHERS. The collagen fibres of ichthyosaurs and decaying sharks do not in fact resemble those structures on close inspection. The structures in theropods are TRUE FEATHERS. Either birds evolved from theropods, or all theropods are birds. BAND makes no sense in light of these discoveries. Let me say this again: i'm NOT saying these dinos do not have feathers. i'm saying the structure of their feathers are not simple filaments as often said. The structure is fully modern or close to it. Not only are they feathered dinosaurs, the're modern-feathered dinosaurs. End of story. BANDits are quack pseudoscientists no better than the morons who think aliens built the pyramids. Lingam solier etc. have never explained why their "collagen" fibers are bunched together and attached to quills in the middle. They simple ignore these studies because it would destroy their theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Feb 20, 2012 12:24:21 GMT
dinoguy2, please omit the character assassinations. These have no place in a genuine debate and will only serve to incite and provoke others. This is an official warning.
- ADMIN
|
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Feb 20, 2012 13:04:07 GMT
The structure is fully modern or close to it. Not only are they feathered dinosaurs, the're modern-feathered dinosaurs. End of story. End of story? Really? Is there a scientific consensus on this? Just modern feathers in Sinosauropteryx? No stage II or III protofeathers? Could you provide some references? |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Feb 20, 2012 14:15:30 GMT
Matt., I really think you shouldn´t waste your time with this...
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Feb 20, 2012 18:01:43 GMT
dinoguy2, please omit the character assassinations. These have no place in a genuine debate and will only serve to incite and provoke others. This is an official warning. - ADMIN This is always such a fun topic when it comes up.  The more things change, the more they stay the same! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 20, 2012 18:46:47 GMT
I don't know if anybody is reading my posts, but Lingam Solier etc. are dead wrong because Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus etc. DO NOT HAVE PROTO FEATHERS. The collagen fibres of ichthyosaurs and decaying sharks do not in fact resemble those structures on close inspection. The structures in theropods are TRUE FEATHERS. Either birds evolved from theropods, or all theropods are birds. BAND makes no sense in light of these discoveries. Let me say this again: i'm NOT saying these dinos do not have feathers. i'm saying the structure of their feathers are not simple filaments as often said. The structure is fully modern or close to it. Not only are they feathered dinosaurs, the're modern-feathered dinosaurs. End of story. BANDits are quack pseudoscientists no better than the morons who think aliens built the pyramids. Lingam solier etc. have never explained why their "collagen" fibers are bunched together and attached to quills in the middle. They simple ignore these studies because it would destroy their theory. Thank you for proving my point ;D Prof. Soliar's credentials far outweigh mine & in all likelihood, most people on this forum, and is certainly not a "moron". I may disagree with Norell, Chiappe, Padian & others, but I would certainly not insult their intelligence. Let's be honest, we are not curing cancer or ending world hunger here, so we can knock it off with the personal attacks on those with whom we disagree. Golly, I know I shouldn't, but: As a general matter (I am NOT entering this feather debate you understand), to say someone's credentials are better than mine therefore I must believe them smacks of a religious-type orthodoxy. I do not have a paleontological degree, but I can form an educated opinion that Jack Horner is trolling for publicity, for example, with his "TRex is a scavenger" hypothesis. Someone with his degrees cannot possibly believe such a transparently ridiculous theory, so obviously something else was amiss. Or how about the esteemed "global warming true believers" who have been shown to be falsifying data to create the impression of a problem that does not exist. Why? Follow the money. By doing so we find that all of these gents are dependent on grants of public moneys in some form or another to remain employed. So in fact, in that case, it is the "global warming true believers" who have a motive to lie, not the legions of scientists who have no financial interest and who have been saying for years that there is no such thing as man-made global warming. I am not trying to open up a debate on these other subjects - I am merely illustrating that saying that we should not inquire into something simply because some "authority" has said that 1 + 1 = 3 is an intellectual cop-out. Its on a par with the midaeval thinkers who assumed that what the ancients (Aristotle, etc.) wrote was the be it an end-all not to be challenged. Galileo was certainly going against all respected authority when he posited that the ancients were wrong regarding the sun revolving around the earth. It was those who dismissed his theory because he did not have the pedigree of the revered ancients who would have burned him at the stake had he not recanted. My analysis is that you have run out of arguments when you resort to using someone else's "credentials" as a final way to try to end the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Feb 20, 2012 19:30:25 GMT
Thank you for proving my point ;D Prof. Soliar's credentials far outweigh mine & in all likelihood, most people on this forum, and is certainly not a "moron". I may disagree with Norell, Chiappe, Padian & others, but I would certainly not insult their intelligence. Let's be honest, we are not curing cancer or ending world hunger here, so we can knock it off with the personal attacks on those with whom we disagree. I am not trying to open up a debate on these other subjects . You may not be trying to, but you are! So, I feel I should clarify that if anyone feels the need to reply to the topic of global warming, or further discuss the logical fallacy known as the "argument from authority", please do not do it in this thread. Instead, create a new thread in the general section. Anything posted off topic in this thread will be deleted. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 20, 2012 19:49:15 GMT
I am not trying to open up a debate on these other subjects . You may not be trying to, but you are! So, I feel I should clarify that if anyone feels the need to reply to the topic of global warming, or further discuss the logical fallacy known as the "argument from authority", please do not do it in this thread. Instead, create a new thread in the general section. Anything posted off topic in this thread will be deleted. Thanks Adam. I have been chastened.  |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Feb 20, 2012 20:04:49 GMT
Ihatefeathers:
I was not calling anyone a moron or impugning anyone's academic degrees. My points had to do with analyzing people's motivations, which is a different matter altogether. As Adam said, this is not the place to have that discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Feb 20, 2012 20:25:47 GMT
Golly, I know I shouldn't, but: As a general matter (I am NOT entering this feather debate you understand), to say someone's credentials are better than mine therefore I must believe them smacks of a religious-type orthodoxy. I do not have a paleontological degree, but I can form an educated opinion that Jack Horner is trolling for publicity, for example, with his "TRex is a scavenger" hypothesis. Someone with his degrees cannot possibly believe such a transparently ridiculous theory, so obviously something else was amiss. Or how about the esteemed "global warming true believers" who have been shown to be falsifying data to create the impression of a problem that does not exist. Why? Follow the money. By doing so we find that all of these gents are dependent on grants of public moneys in some form or another to remain employed. So in fact, in that case, it is the "global warming true believers" who have a motive to lie, not the legions of scientists who have no financial interest and who have been saying for years that there is no such thing as man-made global warming. I am not trying to open up a debate on these other subjects - I am merely illustrating that saying that we should not inquire into something simply because some "authority" has said that 1 + 1 = 3 is an intellectual cop-out. Its on a par with the midaeval thinkers who assumed that what the ancients (Aristotle, etc.) wrote was the be it an end-all not to be challenged. Galileo was certainly going against all respected authority when he posited that the ancients were wrong regarding the sun revolving around the earth. It was those who dismissed his theory because he did not have the pedigree of the revered ancients who would have burned him at the stake had he not recanted. My analysis is that you have run out of arguments when you resort to using someone else's "credentials" as a final way to try to end the debate. Mr. Simon, with all due respect, I am not "trying to end the debate" as you have so condescendingly put it. This debate will not end with either you or me. As you have stated, you have no paleontological degree & neither do I. I can assume that you read scientific papers & come to your individual conclusions, just like I do. My point was to please refrain from referring to highly educated people as "morons" or less complimentary epithets. As far as Jack Horner is concerned, I agree with you 100% as far as the T-rex is a scavenger theory. The man may have some other motives for repeating that idea, but that does not make him a moron or idiot or whatever term you wish to use. You wouldn't like to have your intelligence insulted, I don't, & I'm sure the other gentlemen I mentioned wouldn't either. I hope that you can understand that, thank you. It was dinoguy2, not Simon, who wrote the offending post, and he got a formal warning for it. As such, there is no need for the incident to be given any additional attention. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 20, 2012 20:49:43 GMT
sbell:
;D
Interesting article and counterarticle guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 20, 2012 22:54:12 GMT
Sigh...these debates make me sad but also make me laugh at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Feb 21, 2012 5:39:11 GMT
Sigh...these debates make me sad but also make me laugh at the same time. Ditto.  |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Feb 22, 2012 0:19:54 GMT
Sorry about that, it just really irks me when people take one of my post and take away the total opposite meaning than what was intended. As for references I provided them in an earlier post.
Argument from authority is one of the more pernicious logical fallacies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Feb 28, 2012 5:52:24 GMT
(I just find in interesting that someone would join a dinosaur-themed board with the username "ihatefeathers" - Sort of like joining a reptile forum with the username "snakessuck".)
Ok, you can punish me now.
But out of curiosity, what sort of feathers do emus and kiwis have? I confess that I dont really know what the difference is between a protofeather and the feathers of some flightless birds. When I think of a true feather, I always imagine the kind that flighted birds have.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Feb 28, 2012 19:01:31 GMT
(I just find in interesting that someone would join a dinosaur-themed board with the username "ihatefeathers" - Sort of like joining a reptile forum with the username "snakessuck".) Ok, you can punish me now. But out of curiosity, what sort of feathers do emus and kiwis have? I confess that I dont really know what the difference is between a protofeather and the feathers of some flightless birds. When I think of a true feather, I always imagine the kind that flighted birds have. If I can recall correctly they have a different structure, emus and ratite feathers are like this:  Whereas "protofeathers" are like simple quills without barbs or anything attached to the main structure, what we know as dinofuzz. |
|
The more things change, the more they stay the same! ;D
