Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

This is the list of the "living fossils" Dr. Werner found:

Living Fossils List from Carl Werner

Dan

The point stands. While there are some primitive ancestral birds. There are no flamingos in the mesozoic. Anyone can say "well, there were some birds that sort of looked like the birds today". Well yea, everyone is in agreement that there are birds of that time. But this is far from stating that modern living birds are in the succession.

There are alligators in the succession dating back millions of years as well. They look somewhat similar to modern day alligators as well. Aside from being multiple times as large...but theyre there.

There is the infamous megalodon as well. Looks a lot like a great white.

Everyone is aware that some animals in the fossil succession, look sort of like animals of today. In fact, the higher the layer, the more similar fossils get to modern day living animals. Why would that be? Why must something like a reptile that looks like a bird, come after a reptile that doesnt? Neither can fly, both are cold blooded.

To a young earther...you just have to...guess. Pick and choose. Assume odd coincidences.

Why would a reptile-like-mammal come after a mammal-like-reptile? It makes sense if they descended from one another. But for a young earther, there really is no reason for this. Its just some sort of bizarre coincidence.

But, go back further and what happens? birds are no more, only dinosaurs that look sort of like birds. But no birds.

Some have told me that mammals are more recent in the succession than reptiles because they are warm blooded as well. Too bad many reptiles have outlived mammals in the succession, otherwise that might make sense.

Too bad even slow moving, lugging reptiles like giant crocodiles and megalania
Megalania - Wikipedia
out-lived many flying birds as well. So it wasnt their ability to fly that defined their position in the succession.

I guess its just a coincidence that some giant reptiles survived the flood and outlived countless flying birds. Some did, some didnt. No reason, no rhyme. Just coincidence and guess work.


This isnt an explanation^ this is just...typical un-clarity of young earth beliefs. And this un-clarity either results in you guys saying that its a giant scientist conspiracy, or just shrugging your shoulders and saying "well i dont know".

 

[Job 33:6]

I figured I would make one more post here.

So, to continue where we left off.

We've established that there are not actually any flamingos in mesozoic rock.

There are ancient birds that hold some similarities to modern species such as flamingos, that are found in mesozoic rock. Everyone seems to agree here.

And with that, there isnt actually such a thing as a "living fossil". Just some animals that may look "sort of" like some animals of the past. Which is something that even Darwin pointed out in the origin of species.

A claim was made that birds are found in more recent layers than dinosaurs because their ability of flight, assisted them in escaping the flood. However, many slow and lumbering animals are found in more shallow layers than many pre-historic birds. For example,

Archosauromorpha - Wikipedia

There are many fossils listed here in this link ^ of reptiles that have been found in layers, higher in the succession than many birds. Some of these reptiles are larger than dinosaurs, some certainly slower as well.

Alright, moving on now.


Now that we understand that flamingos do not exist in mesozoic rock. My response question is, why is it that DNA relatedness matches the phylogeny of the fossil succession?

For example,

Hippos share more similarities in their DNA with whales than they do with other odd toed ungulates such as rhinos and pigs.

So why is it that this coincidence exists, in which whale-like, hippo-like animals exist in the fossil record at more recent times than morphologically similar ungulates? Why couldnt the indohyus be found with the rhinos? Why was it found with the whales? Pre historic whales look a lot like fish, but of course, pre historic whales do not appear until after whale-like mammals appear in the fossil succession.

Example number two,

Why must the fish and amphibian fossils be found together? Why the coincidence that we find fish-like amphibians? Why not find amphibians after the appearance of reptiles? Same with birds and mammals. Why must their fossil order, match their DNA order?

Example number 3,

Therapsides are found after synapsids. Never the other way around. Mammal like reptiles have always been found, originating before reptile like mammals. And yet, its not a question about warm or cold blood, as cold blooded dinosaurs post date both, as do warm blooded mammals.


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

So to turn back to the original question. How is it that a global flood would sort animals in the earth based on genetic relatedness?

Young earth creationist answers:
Option number 1: Its a big conspiracy by scientists.
Option number 2: I'll change the subject.
Option number 3: Well, I just don't have a feasible response.
Option number 4: Here is an unrelated response that doesn't address the question.
Option number 5: I deny the hundreds of thousands of independently published research articles by scientists around the world, such a succession doesn't actually exist and they are just making all this stuff up.


Also, it should be noted that this is not just a discussion of temporal location, it is more predominantly a discussion of physical locality. Time is essentially irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

If flight saved the birds, why did so many birds perish, simultaneously with the dinosaurs? Why is it that flightless birds like ostriches survived, while many birds of flight, such as the ones we just discussed...died?

Before this conversation gets carried away with little "gotcha's", let me assert that the fossil record is based almost entirely on animal habitat at the time of the great flood. A second, less crucial factor would be the ability to recognize approaching danger and flee from it. But since it is a little difficult to flee from an enormous wall of water, habitat was the most important factor for those animals seeking to be fossilized, first. LOL!

I suspect young earthers must blindly pick and choose what animals were on the ark, and which ones by pure chance just happened to live and die.

To be more accurate, that is the old-earth/evolution scheme: to pick and choose anything from someone's vivid imagination, no matter how ridiculous, if it can be squeezed into the evolutionism narrative. Take, for example, the dinosaurs-to-birds myth. How can it be proved wrong? Macroevolution is not "falsifiable", and will never be unless a time machine is invented.

Why would birds come right after theropod dinosaurs with feathers? Well just a coincidence as well I suppose.

There were no theropod dinosaurs with feathers. That is another over-hyped myth.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Well, it seems that no evidence has been provided for the presence of flamingos in the mesozoic. As expected. I'll just let that point sit.

Dr. Carl Werner has the evidence. You refuse to believe him because he is not an evolutionist (not any more).

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Dr. Carl Werner has the evidence. You refuse to believe him because he is not an evolutionist (not any more).

Dan

I havent seen the evidence. According to the youtube video, he doesnt actually have the evidence either, rather it is the museums that have the evidence and he just went and looked at museum collections. But since I directly work with museum collections, I wouldnt consider his opinion above my own. Not without more information or evidence from him. But he doesn't have any as far as I am aware.

 

[Job 33:6]

There were no theropod dinosaurs with feathers. That is another over-hyped myth.
Dan

Denial of reality is not an adequate response.
Zhenyuanlong - Wikipedia

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I figured I would make one more post here.

So, to continue where we left off.

We've established that there are not actually any flamingos in mesozoic rock.

That has not been established. Rather it has been claimed by Dr. Werner, and inferred by you from your refusal to look outside your box.

[Note: I revisited Werner's video and found that particular claim about flamingos came from a scientist Werner interviewed.]

There are ancient birds that hold some similarities to modern species such as flamingos, that are found in mesozoic rock. Everyone seems to agree here.

And with that, there isnt actually such a thing as a "living fossil". Just some animals that may look "sort of" like some animals of the past. Which is something that even Darwin pointed out in the origin of species.

Dr. Werner doesn't seem to think so, and the evolution orthodoxy has a very poor track record on openness, even rivaling the Inquisition in some instances, and resorting to corrupt judges and the power of sword in others, but I may be repeating myself.

A claim was made that birds are found in more recent layers than dinosaurs because their ability of flight, assisted them in escaping the flood. However, many slow and lumbering animals are found in more shallow layers than many pre-historic birds. . .

I agree. Now that I have examined all the factors, I have determined that habitat is definitely the most important factor. Those land animals in low-lying habitats were typically the first to be fossilized. Even some birds would have difficulty escaping an enormous wall of water while also being pelted by torrential rain.

So to turn back to the original question. How is it that a global flood would sort animals in the earth based on genetic relatedness?

Dr. Kurt Wise has a detailed segment on that question, beginning at about the 25:03 minute mark in the following video, initially focusing on Disparity vs. Diversity. Later in the segment, at about the 31:43 mark, he further explains the importance of Habitat:

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Dr. Wise, he received his PhD in Geology from Harvard studying under the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a famous evolutionist.

Young earth creationist answers:
Option number 1: Its a big conspiracy by scientists.

No doubt, by some. In fact, some even admit it. This is the ever-loony Richard Dawkins:

"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative." [Richard Dawkins, "Blind Watchmaker." 1986, Gen 7:21, pp.229-30] ​

That is an obvious conspiracy against more plausible alternatives. Many so-called "naturalists" refuse to believe a creator could possibly be a part of nature. LOL! Of course, if you believe in magic, like atheistic evolutionist's must, there is no room for a creator. Peter seemed to be labeling those, like Dawkins, "willingly ignorant":

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:” — 2Pet 3:3-6 KJV​

Option number 2: I'll change the subject.

Sometimes. Of course, evolutionists are never, ever guilty of that. LOL!

Option number 3: Well, I just don't have a feasible response.

It is unforgivable when creationists admit they don't know everything, unlike those (many) evolutionists who dogmatically assert that evolution is a fact and everything is solved by time (and even more time, if our previous numbers don't add up).

Option number 4: Here is an unrelated response that doesn't address the question.

Yeah, like, "where is the proof of macroevolution?"

Option number 5: I deny the hundreds of thousands of independently published research articles by scientists around the world, such a succession doesn't actually exist and they are just making all this stuff up.

No one with more than a few brain cells would trust the pal-review process.

Also, it should be noted that this is not just a discussion of temporal location, it is more predominantly a discussion of physical locality. Time is essentially irrelevant to this discussion.

Time is always relevant to the evolutionist. It is all they have.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I havent seen the evidence. According to the youtube video, he doesnt actually have the evidence either, rather it is the museums that have the evidence and he just went and looked at museum collections. But since I directly work with museum collections, I wouldnt consider his opinion above my own. Not without more information or evidence from him. But he doesn't have any as far as I am aware.

It appears we have beat this dead horse more than enough.

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

"I agree. Now that I have examined all the factors, I have determined that habitat is definitely the most important factor. Those land animals in low-lying habitats were typically the first to be fossilized. Even some birds would have difficulty escaping an enormous wall of water while also being pelted by torrential rain."

And yet, there are plenty of low lying, burrowing small mammals that were buried after large dinosaurs. So obviously it isnt about being "low lying".

You're just making this stuff up on the fly.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Denial of reality is not an adequate response.
Zhenyuanlong - Wikipedia

That is rather skimpy "evidence" for such a dogmatic assertion. There are evolutionists who disagree with the feathered dinosaur hypothesis (if it even rises to the level of hypothesis). Are you certain that which some claim to be feathers is not collagen, or is this old research?

"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." [Feduccia et al, "Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist? Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence." Journal of Morphology, 2005] ​

http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol241/bird flight 2005 Feduccia_Alan.pdf

[Dr. John Alan Feduccia is a paleornithologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina.]​

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

And you never actually responded to my question.

You cant quote a document from 13 years ago that has no relevance to the fossil that i have depicted in my link.

Theropods had feathers, whether youre capable of understanding that or not.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

"I agree. Now that I have examined all the factors, I have determined that habitat is definitely the most important factor. Those land animals in low-lying habitats were typically the first to be fossilized. Even some birds would have difficulty escaping an enormous wall of water while also being pelted by torrential rain."

And yet, there are plenty of low lying, burrowing small mammals that were buried after large dinosaurs. So obviously it isnt about being "low lying".

You're just making this stuff up on the fly.

I am not making anything up; but you, on the other hand. are "seeing" everything through the worldview of the uniformitarian evolutionist. How do you know those were low-lying in relation to the dinosaurs, or even lived in the vicinity of the dinosaurs?

In the case of successive tidal surges with rising water levels, there are also sorting factors to be considered with each surge.

Dan

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

When we say "mesozoic", its more than just a word that defines age. It is a word that defines locality. Space. It is a word that defines a specific superpositional location of rock. Like in the grand canyon, specific layers are mesozoic and have dinosaurs in them. Other layers are cenozoic (mammoths, saber tooth tigers, giant sloths etc.), some paleozoic (tetrapods, early mammals, mammal like reptiles etc.). And each of these has many sub sections. Triassic, jurassic, devonian, silurian, pleistocene, oligocene etc.

So, when someone says that flamingos are found next to dinosaurs...dinosaurs are only found in mesozoic rock, which therefore means that the flamingos are in mesozoic localities in specific layers. His claim is more of a claim of spatial location, than it is a claim about temporal location. Time is basically irrelevant to the discussion.

But, we can still use the word mesozoic to define, spatially, what we are talking about. And spatially, flamingos are not found with dinosaurs.

Early birds are found with dinosaurs, as he mentioned above. In fact, as most of us are already aware of, birds are considered descendents of dinosaurs, so obviously some birds would be found along side dinosaurs. But thats not to say that modern day birds are found in mesozoic rock, nor is it to say that flamingos are in the mesozoic either.

Thank you, and I wouldn't disagree that the are general patterns that can be seen in the geologic column. As Dr. Kurt Wise pointed out in the video that Bible Research Tools attached in a post, the order (spatial sequence) of fossils predicted by evolution generally does not fit well for animals; however, does fit well with for plants. Another mechanism that can produce the order seen of plants is if God created plants starting in marine environments and worked inward towards more terrestrial environments, hence Wise's theory of a floating forest.

As you being a geologist, I understand the superpositioning of layers in dealing with stratigraphy - with the oldest strata being at the bottom and the youngest strata being at the top. This is affirmed through the use of radiometric dating and is how the age of the various fossils found in each strata is determined, and this tells the evolutionary story of life evolving from a marine environment and progressively coming on land to more terrestrial life forms. As you pointed out, the evolutionary paradigm believes that birds are descendants of dinosaurs as bird fossils are found among dinosaur fossils as affirmation of this story.

Now, if this were all the information known, I don't think one could rationally argue with the idea of billions of years and, by extension, the plausibility of evolution from a universal common ancestor. There is; however, additional information that needs to be considered.

As previously mentioned, dinosaurs are referenced in the Bible, as well as seen in written literature and artwork throughout human history. Further, there is evidence of soft tissue, blood vessels, DNA, etc... also being more readily found.

As you being a geologist, now, a story needs to be discovered that accounts for everything that is known. We know DNA doesn't last 65+Ma, and even the conventional evolutionary timeframe for humans does not allow for people to exist 65 million years ago. Something is not right with the conventional story and the conventional ages given.

Now, genez has proposed the possibility that demons have informed humans of these creatures... so that's one idea is still on the table. That could explain how dinosaurs could have come to be depicted in art and in written records. I don't believe demons have influenced the Bible; however, nor do I believe they are planting fresh biological tissue in dinosaur fossils to help support a biblical creation (Satan cannot stand against himself and be divided - Mark 3:26).

What creationist scientists like Kurt Wise and others believe, is that a global flood can accomplish much of what is seen in the fossil record... and they've produced papers and research in support of this position. Further, IF we believe the biblical timeline is reasonably accurate, then this would also account for the fact that sometimes soft tissue is being found in fossils believed to be millions of years old.

Whether you agree with Kurt Wise or not is irrelevant. What is relevant and is really the central issue, is that one can only believe the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs lived millions of years ago if one ignores relevant evidence. Both special and general revelation are pointing to a different story than the one told by evolution. For what benefit are you hoping to gain, by holding onto the old-age evolutionary paradigm as it unravels? Is there some fear that you will no longer be relevant within the field of geology or that your work will no longer be seen as valuable? I'm not sure and only you can answer that, but I do wonder what your theory would be that explains the geologic column AND explains soft tissue, AND explains written records and renderings of dinosaurs as drawn by humans. Either intelligent humans have been around for 65+Ma or dinosaurs aren't that old... and so the conventional dating scale needs to be reevaluated. Without doing any research, or having a degree in Geology, I believe the answer is found in God's word, but can you "see" the evidence of what has already been revealed to you?

 

[Job 33:6]

I am not making anything up; but you, on the other hand. are "seeing" everything through the worldview of the uniformitarian evolutionist. How do you know those were low-lying in relation to the dinosaurs, or even lived in the vicinity of the dinosaurs?

In the case of successive tidal surges with rising water levels, there are also sorting factors to be considered with each surge.

Dan

See, youre just making it up as you go. How do you know what animals were low lying or not? Youre the one who said it first.

 

[Job 33:6]

That has not been established. Rather it has been claimed by Dr. Werner, and inferred by you from your refusal to look outside your box.

[Note: I revisited Werner's video and found that particular claim about flamingos came from a scientist Werner interviewed.]



Dr. Werner doesn't seem to think so, and the evolution orthodoxy has a very poor track record on openness, even rivaling the Inquisition in some instances, and resorting to corrupt judges and the power of sword in others, but I may be repeating myself.



I agree. Now that I have examined all the factors, I have determined that habitat is definitely the most important factor. Those land animals in low-lying habitats were typically the first to be fossilized. Even some birds would have difficulty escaping an enormous wall of water while also being pelted by torrential rain.



Dr. Kurt Wise has a detailed segment on that question, beginning at about the 25:03 minute mark in the following video, initially focusing on Disparity vs. Diversity. Later in the segment, at about the 31:43 mark, he further explains the importance of Habitat:

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Dr. Wise, he received his PhD in Geology from Harvard studying under the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a famous evolutionist.



No doubt, by some. In fact, some even admit it. This is the ever-loony Richard Dawkins:

"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative." [Richard Dawkins, "Blind Watchmaker." 1986, Gen 7:21, pp.229-30] ​

That is an obvious conspiracy against more plausible alternatives. Many so-called "naturalists" refuse to believe a creator could possibly be a part of nature. LOL! Of course, if you believe in magic, like atheistic evolutionist's must, there is no room for a creator. Peter seemed to be labeling those, like Dawkins, "willingly ignorant":

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:” — 2Pet 3:3-6 KJV​

Sometimes. Of course, evolutionists are never, ever guilty of that. LOL!



It is unforgivable when creationists admit they don't know everything, unlike those (many) evolutionists who dogmatically assert that evolution is a fact and everything is solved by time (and even more time, if our previous numbers don't add up).



Yeah, like, "where is the proof of macroevolution?"



No one with more than a few brain cells would trust the pal-review process.



Time is always relevant to the evolutionist. It is all they have.

Dan

5 minutes of a youtube video, is not a sufficient response. This is lazy^

 

[Job 33:6]

I gave 3 examples of genetic relatedness matching up with the fossil succession. None were responded to.

Ill just re-post, because the youtube video didnt address any of this.

hy is it that DNA relatedness matches the phylogeny of the fossil succession?

For example,

Hippos share more similarities in their DNA with whales than they do with other odd toed ungulates such as rhinos and pigs.

So why is it that this coincidence exists, in which whale-like, hippo-like animals exist in the fossil record at more recent times than morphologically similar ungulates? Why couldnt the indohyus be found with the rhinos? Why was it found with the whales? Pre historic whales look a lot like fish, but of course, pre historic whales do not appear until after whale-like mammals appear in the fossil succession.

Example number two,

Why must the fish and amphibian fossils be found together? Why the coincidence that we find fish-like amphibians? Why not find amphibians after the appearance of reptiles? Same with birds and mammals. Why must their fossil order, match their DNA order?

Example number 3,

Therapsides are found after synapsids. Never the other way around. Mammal like reptiles have always been found, originating before reptile like mammals. And yet, its not a question about warm or cold blood, as cold blooded dinosaurs post date both, as do warm blooded mammals.


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

So to turn back to the original question. How is it that a global flood would sort animals in the earth based on genetic relatedness?

 

[Job 33:6]

The guy keeps suggesting that the fossils go from sea to land, but he doesnt mention the times where life goes from land to sea, in both the fossil succession and via genetic similarity. He doesnt describe anything about reptile like mammals post dating mammal like reptiles.

He doesnt talk about ungulates being closer related to whales, both via dna and the fossil succession.

I could give plenty more examples too.

The only response ive heard is...these animals were "low lying", which basically means, well, i guess they just got lucky!

 

[Bible Research Tools]

And you never actually responded to my question.

You cant quote a document from 13 years ago that has no relevance to the fossil that i have depicted in my link.

Theropods had feathers, whether youre capable of understanding that or not.

I examined the photo, and write-ups in several publications, and I have to admit they are reasonably convincing.

But since so many fossils have been faked, multiple specimens from different sources must be presented before a skeptic like me would be even remotely convinced. I would also have to read what Dr. Feduccia reports, since he is one of the more rationally-minded evolutionists.

Are there other specimens?


BTW, I am on record in this forum with my belief that, from an interpretation of Genesis and intertestamental literature, the animal kingdom was genetically corrupted prior to the flood. Therefore, nothing in the fossil record would completely surprise me.

That said, evolutionists have such a poor track record with the truth, the old adage, "trust but verify", must be subordinated to "verify, then trust".


One other point: a long chain of transitional forms would be required to reasonably prove macroevolution.

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

That is rather skimpy "evidence" for such a dogmatic assertion. There are evolutionists who disagree with the feathered dinosaur hypothesis (if it even rises to the level of hypothesis). Are you certain that which some claim to be feathers is not collagen, or is this old research?

"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." [Feduccia et al, "Do Feathered Dinosaurs Exist? Testing the Hypothesis on Neontological and Paleontological Evidence." Journal of Morphology, 2005] ​

http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol241/bird flight 2005 Feduccia_Alan.pdf

[Dr. John Alan Feduccia is a paleornithologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina.]​

Dan

Here is actually another line straight from your link

"We suggest that a possible solution to the disparate data is that Aves plus bird-like maniraptoran theropods (e.g., microraptors and others) may be a separate clade, distinctive from the main lineage of Theropoda, a remnant of the early avian radiation, exhibiting all stages of flight and flightlessness."

Which is to say that, they aren't denying that there are such things as maniraptoran theropods that fly, such as microraptors. Nor are they saying that fossil collections of microraptoran theropods do not have feathers.

Microraptor (Greek, μικρός, mīkros: "small"; Latin, raptor: "one who seizes") was a genus of small, four-winged paravian dinosaurs. Numerous well-preserved fossil specimens have been recovered from Liaoning, China.

Microraptor - Wikipedia

This just fails, because the article itself acknowledges the existence of feathered theropods.

Its just discussing the origins of birds, and whether birds have originated directly from a main line branch of theropods, or some sort of offshoot branch. But its not denying that there are reptilian fossils with feathers.

 

[GenemZ]

Hi genez, I have enjoyed reading your posts on this thread--you have brought up so many points and perspectives that I have never considered - so refreshing! My premise here is that dinosaurs would have largely been destroyed in the flood, except for the two of how ever many kind Noah had on the ark (some number greater than zero).

But, that would be tantamount to putting the Nephilim on the ark to save them,too. Makes no sense .. since the flood was given to eradicate such alleged and real life.