Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds

Knight-Dragon

Unhidden Dragon
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Messages
19,961
Location
Singapore
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051010085411.htm

CHAPEL HILL -- No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree.

Led by Dr. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a team of scientists says that as a result of their new research and other studies, continuing, exaggerated controversies over "feathered dinosaurs" make no sense.

"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology in UNC’s College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake.

"The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’"

A report on the team’s latest research appears in the Journal of Morphology published online Monday (Oct. 10). Other authors are Drs. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa and Richard Hinchliffe of the University College of Wales.

Using powerful microscopes, the team examined the skin of modern reptiles, the effects of decomposition on skin and the fossil evidence relating to alleged feather progenitors, also known as "protofeathers."

They found that fossilized patterns that resemble feathers somewhat also occur in fossils known not to be closely related to birds and hence are far more likely to be skin-related tissues, Feduccia said. Much of the confusion arose from the fact that in China in the same area, two sets of fossils were found. Some of these had true feathers and were indeed birds known as "microraptors," while others did not and should not be considered birds at all.

"Collagen is a scleroprotein, the chief structural protein of the connective tissue layer of skin," he said. "Naturally, because of its low solubility in water and its organization as tough, inelastic fiber networks, we would expect it to be preserved occasionally from flayed skin during the fossilization process."

Although a few artists depicted feathered dinosaurs as far back as the 1970s, Feduccia said the strongest case for feathered dinosaurs arose in 1996 with a small black and white photo of the early Cretaceous period small dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which sported a coat of filamentous structures some called "dino-fuzz."

"The photo subsequently appeared in various prominent publications as the long-sought ‘definitive’ evidence of dinosaur ‘feathers’ and that birds were descended from dinosaurs," he said. "Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence -- either structural or biological -- that these structures had anything to do with feathers. In our new work, we show that these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, but rather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced the skin."

Belief in the existence of the "dino-fuzz feathers" caused some scientists to conclude that they served as insulation, and hence dinosaurs were warm-blooded.

The researchers also examined evidence from five independent, agreeing studies involving structural and genetic analyses related to the "tridactyl," or three-fingered, hand, which is composed of digits 1, 2 and 3 in dinosaurs, Feduccia said. That is the most critical characteristic linking birds to dinosaurs. They found that embryos of developing birds differed significantly in that bird wings arose from digits 2, 3 and 4, the equivalent of index, middle and ring fingers of humans. To change so radically during evolution would be highly unlikely.

"If birds descended from dinosaurs, we would expect the same 1, 2 and 3 pattern," he said.

Current dinosaurian dogma requires that all the intricate adaptations of birds’ wings and feathers for flight evolved in a flightless dinosaur and then somehow became useful for flight only much later, Feduccia said. That is "close to being non-Darwinian."

Also, the current feathered dinosaurs theory makes little sense time-wise either because it holds that all stages of feather evolution and bird ancestry occurred some 125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous fossils unearthed in China.

"That’s some 25 million years after the time of Archaeopteryx, which already was a bird in the modern sense," he said. Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathered dinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals and magazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have made it difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.

"With the advent of ‘feathered dinosaurs,’ we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology," he said. "Just as the discovery a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur described in 2000 in an article in Science turned out to be an artifact, feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field. Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world of dinosaurs, the wishful hope that one can finally study dinosaurs at the backyard bird feeder.

"It is now clear that the origin of birds is a much more complicated question than has been previously thought," Feduccia said.

The UNC scientist is the author of more than 150 papers and six major books, including The Age of Birds, which Harvard University Press published in 1980 and The Origin and Evolution of Birds, published by Yale University Press in 1996.

Among other discoveries, Feduccia found by a careful examination that Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird and one of the world’s most famous fossils, could fly. Previously, many scientists thought the animal to be an Earth-bound dinosaur.

He determined its flying ability by observing that the fossil’s feathers had leading edges significantly shorter than their trailing edges, which is characteristic of all modern flying birds. The edges of feather of birds incapable of flight, such as ostriches, are symmetrical.
 
I grew up watching documentaries and TV specials about Dinosaurs who were cold-blooded and scaly-skinned, much like the snakes and lizards that I kept (and still keep) as pets.

I don't think its "romantic" at all to think that Dinosaurs were big birds. I've never found that appealing.

I always knew there was something wrong with the feathered dinosaur thesis; it just didn't seem right.
 
CHAPEL HILL -- No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree.

Led by Dr. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a team of scientists says that as a result of their new research and other studies, continuing, exaggerated controversies over "feathered dinosaurs" make no sense.
My bolding. I've been followig this contoversy since 1974 and the the bird folks have been trying to "save" their field of study since the beginning. I think there are too many very convincing arguments for the bird dinosaur connection to dismiss it on what is presented here. Feathers are only one of a long list of connections. If this guy has good data, it will help refine dinosaur evolution. If it's not so good, he will fade away.
 
Birdjaguar said:
My bolding. I've been followig this contoversy since 1974 and the the bird folks have been trying to "save" their field of study since the beginning. I think there are too many very convincing arguments for the bird dinosaur connection to dismiss it on what is presented here. Feathers are only one of a long list of connections. If this guy has good data, it will help refine dinosaur evolution. If it's not so good, he will fade away.

Thank Bahamut.

I knew that something felt weird when I read that article. Ornithologists, i believe, aren't qualified to say whether or not Dinosaurs did or did not evolve into birds (which I believe they did).

What about Archaeopterix, eh? It had feathers. And many leading Palaeontologists know believe that most sauropods had some kind of growth along their spine, and dinosaurs like Velociraptor were somewhat covered in feathers.
 
aaarghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



FEDUCCIA!!!!!!!!!!!!


The old LIAR!!!!!!!!!!


His claims have been proven fraud, false and lies about 1 BILLION times!!!!!

Let me give you an example of his reasoning:
for 15 years, he said:
'Dromaeosaurs and birds are so different - birds can't be dinosaurs! Look, dromaeosaurs don't even have feathers!'

then, predictably, dromaeosaurs with feathers were found.

new argument by Feduccia:
'Yeah, but dromaeosaurs are flightless birds, not dinosaurs!'


hu???????? I thought they were SO different?????
 
"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology in UNC’s College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake.

erhm, sadly, to this day, Feduccia has been totally unable to present even ONE possible LCA (last common ancestor) of birds and the very similar non-avian theropods (meat-eating dinosaurs) that is NOT a theropod itself.

he suggested a wide variety of early mesozoic repitles, all of whom have one thing in common: they do NOT show even ONE of the roughly 25 highly telling commonalities between birds and dinosaurs. Not one. OOPS!

"The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’"

Funny, but this rethoric makes him sound like a creationist - full of big words and no content :lol:

A report on the team’s latest research appears in the Journal of Morphology published online Monday (Oct. 10). Other authors are Drs. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar of the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa and Richard Hinchliffe of the University College of Wales.
Ah, Thea!
There was quite a ruckus about a paper...

let Jamie A. Headden speak about this (Dinosaur Mailing List, Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004):
"Lingham-Soliar did research showing that you can find layers of skin
collagen overlapping into a "network" in fossil ichthyosaurs, the same
kind of network that in dolphins is used to "streamline" the skin. He then
used the same perspective to attempt to show the branching patterns of
Liaoning fossil "feathers" were in fact layers of muscle folding 90
degrees away, forming the "vane," "rachis," and "barbs." What you may hear
is that this "proves" the feathers are fake.

"I frankly have no idea what a muscle is doing coming off the end of my
hand that's longer than my entire arm AND POINTS AWAY FROM MY BODY, but
that's how the observation was interpreted by the press, as that would be
the only reasonable explanation for why such fibers are present, and the
only way to apply the idea of what they "were" to some of these people.
After all, the origin of birds to some is "anything but a small running
dinosaur," or ABSRD for short.

"What Lingham-Soliar did NOT do was show that these feathers have a
_hollow_ quill, clear patterns of barb symmetry, vane asymmetry in
"flight" structures for some forms, and most importantly, show feathers ON
TOP of others with overlaying spreads of feathers, coverts, and down
feathers. These structures have been shown to be IDENTICAL to stages and
types of modern bird feathers, from "fuzz" to plumes to down and all the
way to flight-feathers."

can you say: 'Been there, done that, found the freaking 'mistake' Thea made?????

Although a few artists depicted feathered dinosaurs as far back as the 1970s, Feduccia said the strongest case for feathered dinosaurs arose in 1996 with a small black and white photo of the early Cretaceous period small dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which sported a coat of filamentous structures some called "dino-fuzz."

"The photo subsequently appeared in various prominent publications as the long-sought ‘definitive’ evidence of dinosaur ‘feathers’ and that birds were descended from dinosaurs," he said. "Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence -- either structural or biological -- that these structures had anything to do with feathers. In our new work, we show that these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, but rather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced the skin."

ah, a very nice case of an unrepresentative sample: he talks about ONE OLD Photo, but what about all this:
Dromaeo_indet.jpg


as yet undescribed dromaeosaur

Sinornithosaurus_millenii.jpg


Sinornithosaurus millenii


Caudipterxy_dongi.jpg


Caudipteryx dongi

and a closeup of its feathers:

Caudipterxy_feathers.jpg




I could go on like that for a while - and that's just ONE Lagerstätte, I haven't even TOUGHED Archaeopterxy from Solnhofen and other places!


more below.
 
more....

The researchers also examined evidence from five independent, agreeing studies involving structural and genetic analyses related to the "tridactyl," or three-fingered, hand, which is composed of digits 1, 2 and 3 in dinosaurs, Feduccia said. That is the most critical characteristic linking birds to dinosaurs. They found that embryos of developing birds differed significantly in that bird wings arose from digits 2, 3 and 4, the equivalent of index, middle and ring fingers of humans. To change so radically during evolution would be highly unlikely.

false! As has repeatedly been shown, the genes responsilbe for the 'expression' of the structure can easily shift from one finger to another. So, e.g., can fingers 2,3,4 be exressed int he place of fingers 1,2,3. This is, btw, not only possible, but in fact fairly common.

Also, Feduccia has failed to bring any prove that the embryological sections are even exact enough (remember how tiny the embryos are) to make certain what figners birds really have.

Current dinosaurian dogma requires that all the intricate adaptations of birds’ wings and feathers for flight evolved in a flightless dinosaur and then somehow became useful for flight only much later, Feduccia said. That is "close to being non-Darwinian."

A lie - he intentionally misrepresents everything here.
He makes it seem as if FULLY DEVELOPED wings had to develop without being used - that is bull!

Short history of wing and feather evolution:

- excess creatin dumping --> protofeathers
- heat retention --> downy feathers and cover feathers (downs get too wet to work well in wet climates)
- heat retention on the nest --> longer wing feathers
- WAIR (wing assisted incling running) --> even longer feathers and wingstroke (up/down)
- flapping when jumping down or running downhill --> figure-8 wingstroke

--> fully developed flight!

later additions: triosseal foramen --> downstroke aided by arm abductor muscles

as you see: nothing un-Darwinian about this! For each step, there is a good selection cause.

Also, the current feathered dinosaurs theory makes little sense time-wise either because it holds that all stages of feather evolution and bird ancestry occurred some 125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous fossils unearthed in China.

"That’s some 25 million years after the time of Archaeopteryx, which already was a bird in the modern sense," he said. Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

So, instead of accepting a long ghost-lineage (btw, cut shorter this year by Hartman et al. reporting on a maniraptoran dinosaur from the Morrison Formation) he proposed an even longer one: he goes back to the EARLY Triassic instead of the Early Jurassic :rolleyes:

Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathered dinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals and magazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have made it difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.

the usual whining: he was hear about 1,000 times, his 'evidence' was checked and refuted - he is as reliable, it has been shown, as the AAH and creation and ID supporters :rolleyes:

The usual whining - I am waiting for him to claim he is in the same league as Wegener, Galilei and Copernicus.

"With the advent of ‘feathered dinosaurs,’ we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology," he said. "Just as the discovery a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur described in 2000 in an article in Science turned out to be an artifact, feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field. Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world of dinosaurs, the wishful hope that one can finally study dinosaurs at the backyard bird feeder.

actually, the heart was found to be INCONCLUSIVE evidence :rolleyes:

Among other discoveries, Feduccia found by a careful examination that Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird and one of the world’s most famous fossils, could fly. Previously, many scientists thought the animal to be an Earth-bound dinosaur.

He determined its flying ability by observing that the fossil’s feathers had leading edges significantly shorter than their trailing edges, which is characteristic of all modern flying birds. The edges of feather of birds incapable of flight, such as ostriches, are symmetrical.

Now he is totally off into the realms of drream:

a) the ORIGINAL description of Archaeopterxy in the 19th century already mentioned asymmetrical (thus flgiht-capable) feathers. The only discussion, aided much by Sir Hoyle, went on about whether Archaeopterxy was capable of prolonged, active flapping flight. :rolleyes:

Feduccia would be ahrd pressed to find 3 people in the scientific world who doubt Archaeopterxy could fly.

So what we have here, is, btw, very old news - refuted in detail in around 2000, earlier version refuted much earlier.

I can only recommend to you all the book:
Dinosaurs of the Air - The Evolution and Loss of flight in Dinosaurs and Birds
Gregory S. Paul
The John Hopkins University Press

also inaccurate in many conclusions regarding secondary loss of flight capability and ignoring WAIR, Paul rips Feduccia and consorts apart so badly you'll be tempted to call an ambulance for them :lol:
 
The Last Conformist said:
Looks like carlosMM has done all my work for me. :)

oh, you're happy to add some Alan-F-bashing of your own :) But, after all, this is my home ground :evil:

e.g. the Longisquama furcula(?) debate - he claims it has a furcula, though it remains unclear whether the claviculae are really fused, not just damaged and pushed together, and sees this as an indication of close relationship to birds.

The evident and undoubtable furcula of theropod dinsoaurs, OTOH, is supposedly a product of convergent evolution :lol:
 
Is there anyway to prove whether some flying dinos evolved into birds, or whether some 'mother creature' split up and one side evolved into birds, whereas the other side evolved into the flying dino?

Maybe some birds have different evolution backgrounds than others?
 
Stapel said:
Is there anyway to prove whether some flying dinos evolved into birds, or whether some 'mother creature' split up and one side evolved into birds, whereas the other side evolved into the flying dino?
Yep - there are a large bunch of commonalities between birds and quite evolved dinosaurs (e.g. exact strucutre of the wrist, feathers, nesting behaviour, skull bones, body form and size development, finger and claw form, dentition, etc. etc. etc.

There is NOT ONE difference that would be a hinderance.

unless ALL THESE matches are convergences (extremely unlikely), birdsa re dinosaurs.

interestingly, if you look at a linega of dinosaurs from the first dinos to the latest recent birds you will have a VERY hard time finding a place where a big change took place. Actually, there is an excellent line of ancestors where tiny changes add up over time. No fundamental change EVER!

Maybe some birds have different evolution backgrounds than others?

nope, ornithologists have made an excellent case for bird as a monophyletic clade. As have paleontologists.

If, ever, birds evolved twice, then only one lineage survived the K/T boundary.
(note: it is highly probable that flight developed several times in dinosaurs - remember the 4-winged gliding dinosaur? That is a totally different approach to flight that is in no way conformal to active, flapping flight! Todays gliders stem from flappers!)
 
carlosMM said:
Yep - there are a large bunch of commonalities between birds and quite evolved dinosaurs (e.g. exact strucutre of the wrist, feathers, nesting behaviour, skull bones, body form and size development, finger and claw form, dentition, etc. etc. etc.
If the mother creature also has these features.....

unless ALL THESE matches are convergences (extremely unlikely), birds are dinosaurs.
Again, the migth come from the same source.

nope, ornithologists have made an excellent case for bird as a monophyletic clade. As have paleontologists.

If, ever, birds evolved twice, then only one lineage survived the K/T boundary.
Sounds fair. I've simply heared stories about the African and Indian elephant having rather different evolution backgrounds (I really don't know anything about it), so I thought that might be the case with birds too.

remember the 4-winged gliding dinosaur?
Take a wild guess!
Does Stapel remember the 4-winged-gliding-dino??

Sorry, no ;) !
 
Stapel said:
If the mother creature also has these features.....

Again, the migth come from the same source.
nope, this is what synapomorhpy means (the science term for 'commonalities') - they are a new feature of a certain group, and ONLY that group.

Sounds fair. I've simply heared stories about the African and Indian elephant having rather different evolution backgrounds (I really don't know anything about it), so I thought that might be the case with birds too.
erh, any commo0n ancestor of them that is being debated as last common ancestor is still something you'd immediately recognize as such, and lived a few million years ago. Not 115 million years ago.


Take a wild guess!
Does Stapel remember the 4-winged-gliding-dino??

Sorry, no ;) !
I knew that ;)
but you did read the thread in which I mentioned it ;) I remember that for sure :)
 
Linkie?

Feduccia-bashing is always fun. It's always entertaining to read about a Respected Scientist (tm) who's gone off his rocker. *munches popcorn*
 
Wow, carlosMM, this really does sound like your alley! You a bird biologist? Evolutionary biologist? Or just keen amateur?

Thanks for the notes either way! I'm just waiting for some thread to cover soil-dwelling nematodes, then I'll be totally on my turf!
 
Back
Top Bottom