I’m trying to find anything about Xing finding c.99 myo bird wings and bones in the citation AIG offers (which is Xing et. al.'s original paper; I’ve linked it above). I’m finding nothing akin to the AIG claims. Maybe Xing has another article elsewhere and claims thus, but not in the citation. Likewise, AIG’s Dr. Menton (who, as @Swamidass may be interested to learn, previously worked for WashU’s School of Medicine?) seems to be downplaying (among other things) the distinctions between present bird feather structure and mid-Cretaceous feather structure. As a sidebar: as a theologian, I know positively nothing about feather structure. But as someone who reads plenty (and who has done it before on papers), I can sense when rhetoric is attempting to make up for evidence.
It should be noted that the fossil is not a whole dinosaur tail, but rather only a small piece of a tiny feathered tail measuring about 1.4 inches in length and containing 8 vertebrae, each about the size of a grain of rice!
Rhetorically downplaying the significance of even the smallest facts, data, and evidences?
It is estimated that this would make this presumed relative of T. rex about the size of a sparrow. The tail piece is undoubtedly covered with tiny feathers that are essentially identical to those of modern birds, but is this in fact a dinosaur tail rather than a bird tail?
Again downplaying the significance of the find by saying it’s too small. There’s also a hint at subterfuge in this quote. “Presumed relative of T. rex”: Xing et. al. never claim it is a first or second cousin of the T. rex. The implied argument is a straw-man. “Essentially identical to those of modern birds” is likewise not a claim of Xing’s but an uncritical, undocumented statement on the part of Dr. Menton. In fact, Xing et. al. claim quite the opposite. I quote from their “Supplemental Information” pages 10-11:
Additional details on taxonomic placement
There are several lines of evidence pertaining to the systematic position of the specimen. First, based on the preserved length of the tail and available measurements of the preserved caudal vertebrae, we estimate that a complete caudal series is likely to comprise more than 25 caudal vertebrae, which indicates the specimen more likely to be a non-avialan theropod as there is only one known avian species (i.e., Jeholornis) with more than 25 caudal vertebrae. Second, there is a distinctive ventral groove on the caudal centra of the specimen, which is widely distributed among non-avialan theropods but which has yet to be reported in avialans (though the possibility of its presence in the two known long-tailed birds Archaeopteryx and Jeholornis cannot be excluded). Third, all preserved tail feathers lack closed vanes, a defining character of flight feathers within the Pennaraptora. This suggests that the new specimen is probably more stemward than known pennaraptorans, a systematic inference consistent with osteological criteria. Furthermore, the presence of open vanes (indicated by the barb arrangements on either side of the rachis and the presence of barbules) suggests that the specimen is more crownward than compsognathids and tyrannosauroids (and maybe even ornithomimosaurs, which have been suggested to have some kind of pennaceous feathers). Taken together, the available osteological and integumentary features suggest that the specimen is probably a maniraptoran more crownward than compsognathids and tyrannosauroids (maybe even ornithomimosaurs) and perhaps more stemward than oviraptorosaurs.
However, the juvenile nature of the specimen might weaken this systematic hypothesis. The extremely small size of the specimen suggests that it is a juvenile. The longest measurable caudal is about 4 mm and we believe it is from the posterior part of the caudal series (because the succeeding caudals start to decrease the size). All known adult theropods including the two known long-tailed birds Archaeopteryx and Jeholornis have much longer posterior caudal vertebrae (e.g., 17 mm in J. palmapenis [S11]). If the specimen is a juvenile maniraptoran, it is possible that it may exhibit less complex feathers as a result of its ontogenetic stage. However, there are three lines of evidence that suggest the plumage is representative of the adult morphology regardless of the juvenile nature of the specimen. First, Similicaudipteryx fossils show that even juveniles of non-avialan theropods have pennaceous feathers (the late juvenile individual has typical flight feathers with closed vanes). Second, in extant birds the flight feathers (including tail feathers) have closed vanes with pennaceous barbules once they have replaced the plumulaceous neoptile feathers. Third, there is no evidence from modern feathers to support the idea that the largely symmetrical and somewhat pennaceous barbules seen in DIP-V-15103 might transform into a different type of pennaceous barbules (i.e., asymmetrical pennaceous barbules capable of forming a flight feather with closed vanes) during a later moult.
My thought was, bird or dinosaur? To-may-toe , to-maa-to, as maybe birds are dinos, but then to just discard the age of the specimen without scientific support for an alternate date is not good. Of course, since there is no scientific support for a young earth date…
It does really call into question our ideas of what dinosaurs looked like. Perhaps a wide range of colors and patterns, some with plumes, some just furry with down, some with feathers that bristled when aroused or angered, some with scales with feathery edges. Amazing to consider.
We do have a good idea of what dinosaurs looked like. There are very good reconstructions, and these can be updated with new discoveries. We know that the dino Microraptor had iridescent feathers in hues of black and blue, just like a crow. Read about it here, where you can get a copy of the pdf. This is from 4 years ago.
I recommend checking out the posts by YEC scientists linked in the BioLogos post. Even they think that AiG, ICR, and others were hasty and sloppy in their rejection of the dino identification. Fascinating.
That is certainly the likely case, as we see strong evidence of poorer flight ability in the earliest fossil relatives of birds, and stronger dromaeosaurian characteristic to their anatomy
I have a vague recollection that I have seen the movie about a park grown from some remains inside amber - have I missed the sequel? the last movie scared me and just before Xmas
I don’t keep up with movies or shows, so I don’t know how the media typically depict dinosaurs. I just remember watching Jurassic World last year and being disappointed that their Velociraptors still have no feathers. At least Dinosaur Train on PBS has a feathered Velociraptor.
Before @beaglelady gave me this link - http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs-among-us - I used to think that Dromaeosauridae or raptors were the only dinosaurs to have feathers. I’m surprised that a Tyrannosaur species, Yutyrannus huali, had feathers too. If scientists discovered that T-rex also had feathers, I still can’t quite imagine a fluffy T-rex.
A lot of professional paleontologists were mad about the lack of feathers also! But then again, these animals in the movie were the product of a lot of genetic engineering.
There is new articles on dinosaurs to birds available in print.
Taking Wing in Scientific American, January 2017, pp. 48-55.
The ecological guidance of the transition of dinosaurs to birds is noted in this sentence.
“Exactly what drove this trend [in the reduction of size of proto-birds] is unclear, but on possibility is that the ever shrinking physiques of these feathery dinosaurs gave them entry to new ecological niches —trees, brush, perhaps even underground caves or burrows which were inaccessible to giants…” Ecology guides evolution.
Some Dinosaur Eggs Took 6 Months Or More to Hatch found in New York Tmes, January 3, 2017.
The larger the dinosaur, the larger the egg, and the longer it took to hatch. This gave large dinosaurs a distinct disadvantage, and smaller feathered dinosaurs the advantage in the face of cooling climate change.
