ummm most of your links do nothing to challenge dinosaurs to bird as dinosaurs had feathers possibly as far back as the therapod/sauropod split possibly even further back. Also posting a link from 2000 is a bit disingenuous as it wasn't till 1999 but didn't' grow till around 2001 and such when we started getting all the feathered dinosaurs from China and such.
The links were not just talking about feathers. Feathers is an easy one for evolution to use and one that is overused because it is the most obvious to link the two. But the links I posted talk about the anatomical changes that would be needed to make those feathers and wings work as a bird. There no sense have a good set of wings which look like they are just as good as any modern bird and then have all your insides completely useless for using those wings.
There are major skeletal, respiratory, muscular, neurological systems and structures that have to take place for it to be or become a bird. What the links are showing is that the types of dinos therapods didn't have these structures to indicate that they are transitional links. So wings are one thing to use as a transitional support but everything else that makes them birds isn't there or ever shown in the fossil records of being on its way to being there.
And your lack of understanding of evolution or even family trees is disturbing, just as it be stupid to say, "How can you be descended from europeans as there were europeans while you lived." saying dinosaurs living long side birds doesn't in any way refute evolution, it doesn't say that therapods like t-rex and such were the ancestors of birds they were the descendants of the species that split off into birds.
No what the links are saying is that a more modern type of bird is found before the so called more ancient link that is being used for birds. How can a more modern bird be in existence before a more ancient one that is being used an an early stage of birds. Modern birds have been found with dinos and the time needed to evolve them into modern birds isn't there.
And the fact that you dissmiss the picture shows a complete lack of understanding of both science and evolution, that one picture is the best evidence we have period. A fossil so well preserved that we can look at the feathers of that dinosaur and compare it to modern birds to get a strong idea of just what it looked like. But continue to dissmiss things, the more you stick your fingers in your ears and go, "NUHUH!!!!." it just makes you look silly and shows you don't care about truth, but just care about what you think is true.
I am not ignoring any evidence. Just questioning it. If you want to believe everything you read then thats up to you. But as more discoveries are made the great claims made by evolution at one time are so often dashed with a new discovery that puts the past one into doubt or shows it as not being what they claimed and were so excited about. Its happened with Archaeopteryx and it will happened with others.
here is a link to new data thats trying to figure out their true colours of that dinosaur, but the fact that the feathers are so well preserved that we can have a debate shows that dinosaurs had feathers.
Feathers so well formed that they are similar to modern birds. Yet now on an even earlier bird type that hasn't even evolved all the necessary structures to use those modern wings and feathers to fly. Its like having the legs of an Olympic sprinter and not being able to walk. The legs look great and look like they could run like the wind but are just limb vessels without all the ligaments, nerves, muscles and brain signals telling them to work like they look. It just doesn't make sense.
If it looks like they are modern and work then chances are they work. If they work that earlier on in the scheme of things then chances are they were already fully formed and working wings of a bird and not a dino in its early stages turning into a bird. Why have ultra modern wings and the rest is nothing like a bird. Just doesn't make sense. Now we see this specimen came before the famous Archaeopteryx but there is no transition between them. We are told that Dino limbs on therapods (which were too short anyway) grew longer and then grew feathers as the first proto wings.
But now we have a new example who somehow grew four wings out of two short limbs. But then after deciding that four wings was best which in many ways would be, it decided to lose two of them and they became vestigial. Yet there is no evidence of any transitions of gradual diminishing of these wings or the gradual growing of them from short stubs. All we see once again is completely formed wings with modern complex feathers that just pop into existence without any trace of where they came from.
How do we know there are not just early birds and birds alone that were always there. This may have been an example of a four winged bird with fully formed wings and a magnificent full set of feathers.
whats your answer to that? And the dozens and dozens of feathered dinosaurs, the evidence is pretty strong at this point the question is where in the dinosaur line did they evolve.
There is no reason why Dino didn't have feathers. But some of the so called feathers have been found to be frayed collagen fibers. Even so as explained before scales are nothing like feathers and feathers are more likely to come from hair rather than scales which are on Dino's. Still just because dinos may have some feathers for display doesn't mean they turned into birds which seems to be the conclusions evolution uses the feathers for. There are many other features and internal structures that need to have major changes which dinos dont have and have never shown to have transformed into. So you need to look at all the evidence and not just turn one feature into a major change b assumptions and jumping to conclusions.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
