[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: MORE "Dinosaur Planet"dinosaurs!!!(This time with feathers)
----- Original Message -----
From: "TIMOTHY BRIDGEMAN" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: MORE "Dinosaur Planet"dinosaurs!!!(This time with feathers)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:03 PM
> Subject: Re: MORE "Dinosaur Planet"dinosaurs!!!(This time with feathers)
> > Okay, I couldn't resist being the first....
> > P.S. Sorry if I sound a bit confrontational, I've just done my fair
> > arguing against your viewpoint in the past.
> I have no problem with anyone arguing against any of my viewpoints.If you
> can prove me wrong,then by all means do so.What's the worst that can
> happen?I'll have a better understanding of the animals in question?
> So in your own words,"LET THE FIRING BEGIN!"
> > TIMOTHY BRIDGEMAN wrote-
> > > The
> > > evidence for feathered dromaeosaurs,such as "Dave" and the recent
> > > winged dinosaur"is questionable to me,because they came from the same
> > source
> > > (even the same quarry)as the infamous"Archaeoraptor".The feather
> > impressions
> > > on the fossils may have been doctored prior to being sold at those
> > > shows.
> > First, the "Archaeoraptor" specimen (Yanornis + Microraptor tail) has
> > feather remains, so there is no history of faked feather remains from
> > quarry.
> True.The feather remains were from the top half,which is the
> should have been more specific in my statements.That specimen was faked by
> other means(by grafting two specimens together).
> > Second, one of the feathered specimens of Microraptor was NOT purchased,
> > was discovered by an expedition of the IVPP.
> > In addition, when the IVPP prepared the specimens, some feathers were
> > underneath the matrix, so were definitely not faked. Unless you want to
> > call those paleontologists liers.
> > The Microraptor specimens also came from different localities, so they
> > hardly from the same quarry as "Archaeoraptor".
> > This was all explained in Xu et al. (2003), you should really read the
> > before you question the evidence.
> I was not referring to every specimen of Microraptor ever found,I meant
> best evidence in favor of feathered dinosaurs,specimens like"Dave"which
> come from the same source as "Archaeoraptor".The reason I have no doubts
> to validity of Caudipteryx was because that had not come from the same
> source.However,some of the patches of preserved integument on the
> of Microraptor could possibly have been from birds and gotten preserved
> the same matrix.
> > > There are ways to do this as demonstrated on a cheesy show made by
> > > Arthur C.Clark,claiming that Archaeopteryx was a hoax.* (We all know
> > > claim was not true,but a method of making feather impressions on
> > > using modern feathers was shown.)
> > The feather preservation is completely different in the Yixian
> > where carbonaceous material is preserved, not just impressions like the
> > skeletal Archaeopteryx specimens. So the same methods wouldn't work,
> > would be INCREDIBLY difficult to fake the feathers.
> The plumage seen on the recent specimen of Microraptor,(M.gui,the "four
> winged"dinosaur)was not part of the original fossil.The plumage seen on it
> now is said to be based on the holotype and referred specimen,which was
> top half of the "Archaeoraptor"specimen,the birdYanornis(not
> Microraptor).Therefore,while it may be"INCREDIBLY difficult to fake the
> feathers",it certainly is not impossible.
> > > The only Chinese fossils with feather
> > > impressions that I totally beleve are those like Caudipteryx and
> > > Protarchaeopteryx,which I am not totally convinced are
> > than
> > > primitive flightless birds.
> > Mind giving reasons why you think they are birds? Or more importantly
> > you think they aren't dinosaurs?
> > I've shot down Feduccia's, Martin's, Czerkas' and more....
> They show more avian features than those of dinosaurs to me.Caudipteryx
> example is closer to Archaeopteryx than to the oviraptorsauria,to which it
> seems to have been classified.
> (I've noticed that no two paleontologist's view of how the dinosaurs are
> related one another is the same.There are always variations.In that
> are not likely to convince each other here.)
> > > As for the "protofeathers"of the likes of
> > > Sinosauropteryx, I believe that there is as much of a chance that the
> > traces
> > > of what appears to be some kind of integuement are actually traces of
> > > decayed connective tissue.
> > Lingham-Soliar's recent papers on this have not been well accepted, to
> > the least.
> I personally find the objections to the use of an animal with such an
> enormous amount of connective tissue for their study irrelevent,because it
> still shows the extreme similarity of decayed connective tissue to what
> been referred to as"protofeathers".
> > A couple questions....
> > 1. Why do other Yixian vertebrates not show collagen remains? Not
> > Psittacosaurus, or Hyphalosaurus, or the turtles, or mammals....
> For the same reason that not all Sinosauropteryx prima specimens show
> collagen remains(or "protofeathers",whichever floats your boat).Some
> specimens fossilise better than others.
> > 2. Why are the collagen remains of coelurosaurs nearly identical to
> > preserved Yixian bird and dromaeosaur feathers? What's the reason to
> > believe they are collagen?
> For the same reason that the decayed connective tissues of the buried
> dolphin are nearly identical to preserved Yixian bird and dromaeosaur
> feathers.The similarities mentioned above is my reason to suspect the
> possibility that the preserved Yixian dromeaosaurs especially,show
> traces.(I include "Dave"in this,as you are right about it not being
> do not see a single identifiable feather in this specimen,only fibrous
> around the body and under the arms and fibers around the head and neck.)
> > Mickey Mortimer