David Tyler: Used to be horse feathers, but now it's dinosaur feathers?

In "Feathered dinosaurs - speculation and controversy", British physicist David Tyler tells you what the pop science tabs don't, about feathered dinosaurs.

Popular science magazines, television programmes and many educational resources convey the message that birds are descendants of the dinosaurs. Every year brings new evidence from the Jehol Biota of northeastern China that is claimed to strengthen the scientific case. Feathered dinosaurs have started to adorn the pages of National Geographic and elsewhere. A lavishly illustrated book with the title Feathered Dinosaurs has been published recently by Oxford University Press. For many the issue is settled: any dissent is regarded as inexcusable. So it is noteworthy that a leading dissenter, Alan Feduccia (from the Department of Biology, University of North Carolina), has reviewed the book in Trends in Ecology & Evolution.

It's always what they don't tell you that you need to watch out for. And Feduccia promptly points out,

... that the selective reading of evidence, together with ignoring of counter evidence, has led to an imaginary world masquerading as science. "Although Long and Schouten promote the orthodoxy of 'feathered dinosaurs', compelling evidence for any proto-feathers in these fossils has always been lacking, and new evidence shows that the filamentous fibers on the small 'feathered dinosaur' Sinosauropteryx represented a complex mesh work of supportive skin collagen fibers; and the body outline on the specimens encloses the fibers. Furthermore, new evidence suggests that feathered microraptors and other groups of plumed maniraptorans are derivatives of the early avian radiation that produced an aviary at all stages of flight and flightlessness." "The small theropod Compsognathus, 'compys' of Jurassic Park, is depicted with a covering of down-like proto-feathers, and modeled after the roadrunner; it is given an expanded throat sac 'critical for temperature regulation' and a pattern of small spots and bars for camouflage. Yet, there is no evidence for any type of feathers in the 'compys' (and, in fact, evidence to the contrary) or for endothermy; unfortunately, no references are provided in the text to papers marshalling evidence contrary to the dogma of feathered dinosaurs, part of an alarming trend in paleontology towards censorship by lack of citation."

Go here for more.

See also: Tyler, D.J. Dino skin shows no trace of protofeathers, ARN literature Blog (11 January 2008)

Darwinism and pop culture: Birds are really dinosaurs! now doubted

According to Science Daily,

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.

The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.

"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed."

I'm kind of disappointed, because I had always hoped that birds were descended from dinosaurs. It would mean that they never really died out. But they did. And it has become permissible to say so.

The fun part is that - if this finding holds up - all the dinobird nonsense fronted by pop science mags as The Latest Truth is fishwrap. And Feduccia, long a sort of "denialist" in the fishwraps for doubting the popular legend, is vindicated.

I always say that - outside of mathematics - a proposition that can't be denied can't be believed either.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: