Birds without feathers

[troodon]

In 1973, paleontologist John Ostrom claimed that, were it not for feathers found with its skeleton, all of the specimens of Archaeopteryx would have, after detailed analysis, been classified as long-armed dinosaurs. I was wondering if any YECs (or other opponents of Dinosaur-Bird evolution, should they exist on this forum) would dispute this claim and if so, why?

In addition, I would like to make the same claim in regards to the recent finds of Caudipteryx (which I think all YEC organizations classify as a bird) in the Yixian formation of China.

Were it not for its feathers this animal too would have been classified as a dinosaur. Any YECs dispute this? If so, why?

If you cannot provide a sound reason as to why either of these two animals would not have been classified as dinosaurs then I propose to you that the reason that these two early birds have skeletons similar to those of dinosaurs because they share a very recent ancestor with advanced avepod dinos. If you feel this is not a case please provide your rationalization for the blurring of lines between dinosaur and bird.

Many thanks for any response

 

[davyuk]

The fossils are hoaxes by evilushonists, and satan, and... and ... GO AWAY!!!!11!1

 

[JohnR7]

I was wondering if any YECs (or other opponents of Dinosaur-Bird evolution, should they exist on this forum) would dispute this claim and if so, why?

Science can not even determine what is animal (organic), what is vegetable and what is mineral. So how are you going to expect them to be able to tell the difference between a dinosaur and a bird?

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return."

 

[Megachihuahua]

Hum, I wonder what they define as "feathers"

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Quote: "Hum, I wonder what they define as "feathers""

The definition of feather From Hyperdicitonary.com

\Feath"er\, n. [OE. fether, AS. fe?der; akin to D.
veder, OHG. fedara, G. feder, Icel. fj["o]?r, Sw. fj["a]der,
Dan. fj[ae]der, Gr. ? wing, feather, ? to fly, Skr. pattra
wing, feathr, pat to fly, and prob. to L. penna feather,
wing. [root]76, 248. Cf. {Pen} a feather.]
1. One of the peculiar dermal appendages, of several kinds, belonging to birds, as contour feathers, quills, and down.

Note: An ordinary feather consists of the quill or hollow basal part of the stem; the shaft or rachis, forming the upper, solid part of the stem; the vanes or webs, implanted on the rachis and consisting of a series of slender lamin[ae] or barbs, which usually bear barbicels and interlocking hooks by which they are fastened together. See {Down}, {Quill}, {Plumage}.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Animal: Cow
Vegetable: Potato
Mineral: Gypsum

John, you mean to tell me that you think that no scientist could tell you that?

 

[troodon]

The fossils are hoaxes by evilushonists, and satan, and... and ... GO AWAY!!!!11!1

Science can not even determine what is animal (organic), what is vegetable and what is mineral.

I've yet to hear of a scientist claiming Archaeopteryx and Caudipteryx to have been either fossilized plants or been the result of natural geological processes. There are a few individuals who claim them to be hoaxes but this is a very rare opinion, even in Creationist organizations.

Hum, I wonder what they define as "feathers"

Late_Cretaceous gave a definition for what "feathers" are. Also, the feathers of Archaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are not in dispute (unlike those of Sinornithosaurus).

These are examples of feathers:

From Caudipteryx

From Archaeopteryx

 

[Megachihuahua]

I did the same thing on my sidewalk with chalk. May I remind you of the piltdown man hoax...
The question isn't whether they are feathers, but whether scales can evole into them. I would also like the definition for those.

 

[revolutio]

I read somewhere that recent evidence pointed away from feathers being evolved from scales. Though the article didn't specify what that evidence was.

Good job school system!

 

[Truncate]

KFC can make birds without feathers - they must have learned the secret from satan and evilutionists!

 

[troodon]

I did the same thing on my sidewalk with chalk.

These are not just markings on the rock, they are actual engravings into the sediment. Your personal conspiracy theories aside, would you care to address the OP?

May I remind you of the piltdown man hoax...

Absolutely you may remind us. There was also the Archaeoraptor hoax. And because of Archaeoraptor, Chinese paleontologists are making **** sure they don't get fooled again.

The question isn't whether they are feathers

Then why on earth are you bringing that up?,

but whether scales can evole into them

From what I have read, regular old scales are not likely to have evolved into feathers. Scutes, a type of scale, on the otherhand, are likely to have.
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199906/0040.html

I would also like the definition for those.

The first link provides a definition

I read somewhere that recent evidence pointed away from feathers being evolved from scales. Though the article didn't specify what that evidence was

Biochemical differences I believe

KFC can make birds without feathers - they must have learned the secret from satan and evilutionists

Corporations are always trying to capitalize on the innovations of the Evil Atheist/Evolutionist Conspiracy. It's best to get used to the idea that we are exploited

 

[Megachihuahua]

Scutes aren't a type of scale, they are bony plates; on catfish, among other things. Last I checked, Paulie didn't look like an armodillio.

 

[troodon]

Scutes aren't a type of scale, they are bony plates; on catfish, among other things. Last I checked, Paulie didn't look like an armodillio.

"Scutes are the thick scales on the top of a bird's foot"
"Crocodiles, a sister group of dinosaurs, have scutes...Dinosaurs had scutes"

From: http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

So no, if you had read the articles (which you obviously don't like to) you would have read that scutes (at least the type discussed here) are not bony plates.

 

[Dayton]

Caudipteryx is probably a type of deformed or mutant bird, not it's own species. Archaeopteryx is an extinct species of bird, nothing more. There is also the possibility that both are just elaborate hoaxes.

 

[Megachihuahua]

"Scutes are the thick scales on the top of a bird's foot"
"Crocodiles, a sister group of dinosaurs, have scutes...Dinosaurs had scutes"

From: http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

So no, if you had read the articles (which you obviously don't like to) you would have read that scutes (at least the type discussed here) are not bony plates.

And I can show you five articles that say Hitler is gay. Doesn't make it true.
Scutes isn't in the dictionary, give the definition smart guy.

 

[troodon]

Caudipteryx is probably a type of deformed or mutant bird, not it's own species.

More than one specimen has been found of the creature. That rules out the deformed/mutant possibility. It is somewhat funny that you think a few mutations are capable of creating the similarities we see between Caudipteryx and theropods and yet you (presumably) think macroevolution to be impossible.

There is also the possibility that both are just elaborate hoaxes.

AIG and ICR both agree that Caudipteryx is a legitimate taxa, as does every paleontologist the world over. You and the other YECs on this board are the only people I've heard suggest the possiblity.

Anyway, going back to the OP, do you agree that if it didn't have feathers Caudipteryx would have been believed to have been a dinosaur?

And I can show you five articles that say Hitler is gay. Doesn't make it true.

If you had read the article you would have noticed that I was talking about bird and crocodile scutes, not bony scutes.

Scutes isn't in the dictionary, give the definition smart guy.

"A horny, chitinous, or bony external plate or scale, as on the shell of a turtle or the underside of a snake."

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scute

 

[Megachihuahua]

Then turtles and snakes should fly, yes? Because what you're saying doesn't with me.

 

[Mainframes]

Then turtles and snakes should fly, yes? Because what you're saying doesn't with me.

Nope he is saying that they are examples of the scute on living and extinct reptiles. Thus linking the idea that they could have changed into feathers.

You thought processes are odd, it's like saying that porcupine quills are hairs, and humans have hair therefore we should have quills like porcupines......

 

[PhantomLlama]

Nope he is saying that they are examples of the scute on living and extinct reptiles. Thus linking the idea that they could have changed into feathers.

Not to mention that they are found on the feet of birds, that type of creature famous for having feathers.

It would be bad for a bird to have feathered feet, so when the other scutes evolved into feathers to improve the dino/birds flying ability the birds who also chnged their feet were selected against, thus leading to the scutes remaining on their feet but not elsewhere.

You thought processes are odd, it's like saying that porcupine quills are hairs, and humans have hair therefore we should have quills like porcupines......

It sound to me more like evading a proper response.

 

[Megachihuahua]

Nope he is saying that they are examples of the scute on living and extinct reptiles. Thus linking the idea that they could have changed into feathers.

QUOTE]
So, over all the time that scutes have been around, they are still scutes, in all their scuting glory. I guess I'm just an idiot for not knowing that Evolution can think .
And, even more to the point, there might be a "lizard-like" (yeah, right)animal with feathers, but their isn't a bird-like animal with scutes!