That you think this is about opinions, and not about evidence, is enough for me to reject your opinion,
It is about opinions of the evidence. So your rejection fails.
I do not ignore the evidence as some here do, but i do not accept that there is enough or some of the outrageous progressions that seem to be pervading… Any Biologist who understands physiology would know that to change a cartilaginous gill slit into a bony lower jaw (Because it looks the same) is just ludicrous. Like wise the supposed ear bones. it just does not make biological sense…
Richard
That’s still an opinion.
You label fossils as optical illusions so you can ignore them.
Opinion and incredulity.
2 Likes
I have done the exageration quip.
I certainly do not think all fossils are optical illusions.
However, there is no way you can convince me a hinged jawbone can derive from a gill slit.
And as for a few feathers on a dinosaur? How do you know it was not a few fronds of plant?.(perhaps you have more than one example?)
At the end of the day, the interpretation of a fossil is an opinion It can’t be anything else. It might be a majority opinion, but nothing other than politics relies on majority ruling.
Richard
So we can add dogmatic.
Yet another example of ignoring the evidence.
What we can do is show that a fossil has impressions consistent with feathers. Oh, and biologists can tell the difference between a plant and feathers.
2 Likes
Interesting how things have progressed. When I was at college fossils were basically bones or hard shells. Soft tissue was considered beyond the scope of the process. The stem of a feather may be relatively hard but the fronds? You are talking almost microscopic individuality.
I know I have been out of the game for some tine, but you have to admit the changes in understanding since 1975 is astronomic.
Richard
Then you must have gone to school in the mid 1800’s, before the discovery of Archaeopteryx in 1861 which had feathers.
There are known fossils of soft tissue. What you seem to be unaware of is that fossils are like casts. The organic material rots away leaving a space where it used to be. This space is filled in by minerals.
4 Likes
Yes you do.
This is one example of you ignoring the evidence:
This is another example of you ignoring the evidence:
If you weren’t ignoring the evidence you’d know whether there was more than one example of a feathered dinosaur.
Last one:
Your opinion on what makes sense does not override the evidence you haven’t looked at.
1 Like
Coprolites were first described in 1829.
Fossil footprints of Cheirotherium were found in 1834.
Fossils of Archeaopteryx with feather impressions were discovered in 1861
Fossils of soft-bodied worms were being extracted from the Burgess shale in 1909.
When did you go to college?
1 Like
Soft-tissue fossils are very rare because skin, eyes, guts, and brains are much more difficult to preserve than skeletons. There are only a few deposits worldwide where the mineralogy of the rocks supports the preservation of these soft tissues.
Scientists discover Pristine collection of soft tissue fossils.
I won’t bother highlighting the appropriate text.
Richard
PS here is a quick search for Feather like plants
Yahoo image search
Feather like plants don’t project neatly outwards from bones that have preserved attachment points for muscles that control feathers. They also don’t have melanins in them.
2 Likes
There isn’t any appropriate text to highlight.
There is nothing in that article to support your inane claim that “When I was at college fossils were basically bones or hard shells. Soft tissue was considered beyond the scope of the process.”
There are, however, frequent references to the soft-tissue fossils from the Burgess Shale site, discovered more than a century ago. References which make it clear that you were wrong, have failed to admit you were wrong, and are instead trying to feign not being wrong.
1 Like
And how are you going to work out the make up from an impression?
Have you seen the fossil that is banded around? A few strands at the end of a bone. I doubt if there would be any muscles to move them, or that any muscle would be identifiable (see above). Orientation in relativity to the bone might work in feather’s favour…
To be honest, its not a game changer either way. The ancestry is through DNA not feathers. There can be no certainty that the particular creature was in direct lineage other than the presence of few feathery looking additions.
The point is actually that looking for feathers in dinosaurs is looking after the lineage has been decided.
It’s no longer about scientific method one way or the other.
Ok so I will highlight it.
The dissipation of scientific data, especially from China is only very recent. even if the finds you mentioned existed it may not have drifted down to a Teacher Training College in South London.
Richard
Melanin found in fossil feathers.
I’ve seen several of them.
You obviously haven’t, since a few hours ago you implied there was only one fossil of a dinosaur with feathers.
The doubts of some-one who can’t be bothered to look mean nothing.
“If” the finds I mentioned existed???
You are ignoring the evidence again.
I would be extremely surprised if a London teacher training course that covered fossil preservation didn’t mention Archaeopteryx or the Burgess Shale (which is in Canada, not in China, so your comment about data dissipation from China is just more of your ignorance). It’s far more likely that you weren’t paying attention.
Or that whatever course you took didn’t cover fossil preservation at all.
2 Likes
The theory of evolution predicts we should find fossils with a mixture of dinosaur features not found in modern birds and bird features not found in non-avian dinosaurs. These fossils match predictions, what we would call a supported theory in science. We don’t need to know the exact ancestry of any fossil to test these predictions, as noted by Darwin himself.
Your point seems to be that you reject the scientific method. Making predictions and testing them against data is the scientific method. It’s called “hypothesis testing”. If you reject these fossils because their features were predicted by theory, then you must also reject every theory in science because they are all supported by the same process.
As I stated in earlier posts, if there is one thing I would hope any student would learn in high school science class is how the scientific method works.
1 Like
Back in the ancient time of the 1970s Evolution was not the hot topic and thrust of Biology as it is now. In the good old days genetics was in its infancy, DNA mapping was a pipe dream, and evolutionary lineage was traced on physiological grounds. The main contention was whether there was a single primal land creature that spawned all the rest or whether the lineage went through Amphibian, Reptile and Mammal with birds diverting off . The idea of any continuance of Dinosaurs was not even on the table considering their size and dominance before their extinction. Mammals were thought to be very small so as to have gone unnoticed and also not been so affected by the meteor. Only relatively small dinosaurs might have survived and they were all thought to be ectothermic and continued as reptiles. So all your early stuff was basically background not ground breaking. DNA was not mapped until around the turn of the millenium. Yes it was still zero to Human but there was no DNA support or drive.
Maybe if you knew your history as well as you know ToE you would cut me some slack instead of insulting me.
Richard
If you want some slack, admit you were wrong. That soft tissue was not "considered beyond the scope of the [fossilisation] process” when you were at college. Don’t forget you said the scope of the process, not the scope of your college course.
1 Like
No I won’t, because it was never broached. Why can’t you see that Evolution was just not that important! Just because it is now does not change what it was then. You obviously weren’t there, so don’t tell me what I saw, heard or understood.
Richard
There are three signs of aging.
Loss of memory is the first
And I can’t remember the other two
(But that doesn’t entitle anyone to call me a liar)
Richard
1 Like
I resemble that remark! 
2 Likes