New Feathered Dinosaur or Bird?
Paleontologists have discovered what they call a dinosaur tail encased in amber with juvenile feathers. And it is helping scientists to make up stories about how feathers evolved.
"A lot of what we know about the evolution of feathers we've pieced together from two-dimensional data," Alan Turner, a paleontologist at Stony Brook University, tells The Christian Science Monitor. Most ancient feathers are preserved in compression fossils, formed in shale where preserved material is flattened in the sediment. But living organisms are not flat. So "having something three-dimensional like this is nice because the three-dimensional geometry is preserved."
The amber specimen is described in a technical paper published December 8, 2016 in the journal Current Biology.
The fossil was from a young, sparrow-sized animal which, “…likely brushed up against a tree sticky with resin some 99 million years ago in the (Middle Cretaceous). The middle section of the feathery tail was stuck. Over time, that resin hardened and turned into amber, perfectly preserving the dinosaur's tail and the feathers on it.”
This quote is pure fantasy. Tree sap does not pull a bony tail off anything. I have studied tree sap and find that it is rare for tree sap to engulf anything. I videotaped ants streaming along next to oozing sap (these ants are common in amber) and there was absolutely no inclusions of anything. But when it turned into amber it commonly preserves small animals like lizards, feathers, leaves, flowers, rain drops, trapped air, small fish, and insects. Ants are common. Amber is often associated in rock strata where petrified fossils are found. Evolutionists describe the formation of amber: “Amber itself is formed from tree resin that, over thousands of years, fossilizes to produce first copal and then thousands or millions of years after that, amber.” This is ridiculous because if it took that long the remains would not be preserved. Preservation requires rapid preservation in a few years, not millions of years.
The fossil record reveals worldwide cataclysms. Fossilized tree sap also shows evidence of cataclysm. Ordinary tree sap today does not trap organisms. It is usually clear. Most of the Petrified Forest in Arizona is made up mainly of Araucaria mirabilis. Today we call it the Monkey Puzzle pine. They are common in the fossil record with Permian reptiles, and Mesozoic dinosaurs worldwide. Plant eating dinosaurs liked to eat the bottom branches. Their colorful petrified wood and dinosaur bones (red, green, yellow, orange, black colors are from volcanic ash minerals surrounding the fossils). These Araucaria pines produced petrified gems of wood, pine cones, and amber. This amber is commonly filled with debris from catastrophic impacts of volcanic eruptions and flooding.
Returning to the amber 'dinosaur.' "In this specimen, we're seeing barbs that are looking like they're branching off of each other" rather than a rachis, says study co-author Ryan McKellar, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum, in an interview with the Monitor. And the barbules don't seem to zip together like they do in the flight feathers of modern birds.
This would situate this dinosaur's feathers in a unique spot in feather development.
In the 1990s Richard Prum, an evolutionary (naturalistic based belief) ornithologist at Yale University who was not involved in the new study, concocted a model of feather development by studying modern birds. He found that feathers in birds start as a simple, hollow filament, called stage 1. Stage 2 is a tuft of several filaments, or barbs. Evolutionists go on to assume this development in modern bird feathers is how feathers evolved in dinosaurs. This speculation is all based on the assumed naturalistic belief that feathers had to evolve in order to exist in a world without a creator. Secular scientists assume everything was created by a physical natural process, which they can imagine happened using man’s materialistic based logic. However, from the creation viewpoint nothing evolved, everything was intricately designed by God, and design does not happen by naturalistic chance.
Stage 3 is broken up into stage 3a and stage 3b, separate versions which later merge to become stage 3a+b. In stage 3a, a central rachis has formed with barbs coming off it in a series, but no barbules. Stage 3b sees barbules, but no rachis. Stage 3a+b sees feathers with a rachis, barbs, and barbules, but the barbules don't interlace. Stages 4 and 5 see the complexity of the barbules increasingly becoming like the feathers seen on birds today. This is an evolutionary model not based on facts.
"The morphology that the authors are presenting provides a glimpse into something that fits overall into the developmentally based models for feather evolution," says Stony Brook's Professor Turner, who was not involved in the research. It is "a new data point that will, over time, help us refine the model."
Refine the speculation. This does not prove this is how feathers formed, it is only a just so story to fool the public.
Dr. McKellar and his colleagues assert that the amber-encased dinosaur feathers are a sort of hybrid between stage 3a and stage 3b, but not quite stage 3a+b because the central shaft has barbules coming off it more like a barb than a fully developed rachis. (Jeremy: This is simply speculation. The fact is this fossil is from a juvenile terrestrial bird and the feathers have not fully developed.)
But Dr. Prum disagrees. "To me, this is absolutely stage 3a+b," he tells the Monitor. "Maybe the fact that it does have barbules on its rachis may indicate that its rachis identity has not proceeded to that strong stage, but I don't see it as separate." Jeremy: Notice they disagree with each other because this is not science, it is speculation based on their assumption that evolution, which has never been proven, is a fact.
As such, Prum says the dinosaur's feathers are consistent with his model of feather evolution. (Jeremy: Notice it is a model, not a fact. And evolutionists always force everything to fit their preconceived assumptions.)
Strange, they did not mention why the modern bird feathers did not start from scales, like they claim dinosaur feathers started as reptile scales. See the speculation based on preconceived conclusions that evolution is a fact. It is not a fact, it is an assumption. Like a kangaroo court sentences an innocent man to hang without proof.
If this version of ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny (a baby goes through the stages of it ancestors evolution proven to be a total hoax perpetrated by Ernst Haeckel and his forged drawings still used in Biology textbooks. Haeckel was tried and found guilty of forging the pictures in the late 1800s. Haeckel was so convinced of his Biogenetic Law that he wilfully invented fake evidence to support it.
Now this is a picture on the right, of what a real human embryo looks like. Like a miniature baby.
That the dinosaur was a juvenile "introduces a little bit of uncertainty as to whether or not it might have had a different feather structure as an adult," McKellar admits. (Jeremy: Exactly what I said. This ‘dinosaur tail’ is from a juvenile terrestrial bird, like all the other assumed dinosaurs with feathers found in China) Birds today undergo molts as they grow, losing their baby feathers and replacing them with differently structured adult feathers.
But, he says, "the feathers that we're seeing in this particular specimen match up better with adult contour feathers in modern birds than they do with the downy, first coat of feathers that most birds produce. So we think we're dealing with adult-like feathers." Adult-like? He admits he doesn’t know.
At one time, a specimen like this one would have been controversial, says Mark Norell, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History who was not involved with this study. Scientists didn't always realize (Jeremy: Convinced to assume this speculation is a fact.) that birds are dinosaurs (Jeremy: Which has not and cannot be proven. They have found dinosaurs with spicules they call proto-feathers which has been identified as the decomposition of collagen by other secular scientists. And they have found terrestrial birds with feathers which they call dinosaurs), so finding a dinosaur with feathers would have been a big surprise. (Jeremy: Evolutionists have been trying to convince everyone that their story about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs is a fact.)
Now the pictures on the right below are fossil birds. The first one is my cast of the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx. I sold hundreds of them all over the world. This one is in the Museum at the California State University in Berkley.
Notice the long thinner legs for perching on branches, the bony eye ring, the streamlined head, the wings out front out of joint for a dinosaur, warm blooded, tiny teeth or no teeth, and with true aerodynamic designed flight feathers.
But now it's an understood relationship among the vast majority (Jeremy: Unscientific Majority Rule, this pseudo-science is called Consensus science. If a conclusion cannot be found, the majority decide to agree with whatever the majority believe.) of scientists that "birds are a kind of dinosaur and dinosaurs other than birds have feathers," Dr. Norell tells the Monitor. It's so unsurprising to find (Jeremy: Jump to the conclusion of finding) a dinosaur with feathers now, he says, "It's like predicting that a fossil mammal would have hair." (Jeremy: Hitler said if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Comparing a dinosaur with feathers to finding a mammal with hair is a straw man approach comparing apples to tennis balls.)
McKellar and his colleagues checked to be sure that this specimen was not actually an early bird. "Modern birds and their close relatives have something called a pygostyle, which is a fused series of tail vertebrae where they form a rod that supports the tail plumage," he explains. "And we're not seeing this in this particular specimen. We've got a flexible, whip-like tail instead of one of these big, sort of plowshare-shaped tails that we see in modern birds." (Jeremy: Because it was a flightless juvenile terrestrial bird.)
With just a handful of vertebrae and feathers preserved, the scientists know little about the fossil. But based on other fossils of incorrectly identified fossil terrestrial birds, they have assigned it to be a coelurosaur theropod, a type of two-legged dinosaur.
Dinosaur-era feathers have been found encased in amber. Some were attached to entire bird wings, what a surprise, but most of these preserved feathers were not associated with the flesh or bones of the animal.
"It's stunning to see these beautifully formed feathers from a representative that is clearly a coelurosaur," Prum says simply from assumptions based on a few tail vertebrae and feathers. Evolutionists have made similar assumptions on fossil fragments and were proven wrong. Like the case of the tooth of Nebraska Man used in the Scopes Trial as proof of human evolution, which turned out to be a pigs tooth. Then there was the "Archaeoraptor" a fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine in 1999. The magazine claimed that the fossil was a "missing link" between birds and dinosaurs. It turned out to be a fake. A pterosaur rear section was glued to the front half of a Coelurosaurian dinosaur. Evolutionists read evolution and naturalistic processes into everything in a form of circular reasoning. In this way they convince themselves they are right. And they ignore any evidence to the contrary.
They found the chemical signature of ferrous iron in the thin carbon film where the animal's soft tissues would have been. That form of iron comes from blood proteins, like hemoglobin and ferritin. Further evidence that soft tissue is preserved in many fossils. This 'fact' is contradicted by the fact that this cannot last more than 7 million years, much less 99 million.
"It's thought, based on other specimens in the vertebrate fossil record, that traces of this particular form of iron might be linked to decay products from things like blood or tissue left behind," McKellar says. So this could allow researchers to study the soft tissues that (almost never) survive a hundred million years. They mean soft tissue NEVER survives more than a few million and never 65 million years any more than Carbon 14 which has also been found in many of the same fossils, proving they are thousands of years old, not millions.
McKellar agrees with me and says, "Research has shown that DNA cannot last in the fossil record for nearly long enough to survive from the age of the dinosaurs. With a half-life of about 521 years, it would take less than 7 million years for an organisms' DNA to be completely destroyed. The non-avian dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago. However, research has discovered incomplete damaged DNA in many dinosaur bones with collagen. This tail fossil with feathers is assumed to be 99 million years old!"
McKellar contradicts himself saying, with all kinds of debris and insects also stuck in the tree resin, the DNA sampled from an amber specimen may be from another organism. Excuse me, you just said DNA cannot last that long! And once amber hardens it cannot envelope an organism millions of years later. These amber fossils contain Mesozoic fossils which is buried in Mesozoic strata. It never gets mixed with organisms after fossilization that forms in the Mesozoic in a matter of a few years or less.
Conclusion: This NEW discovery of a dinosaur with feathers is a terrestrial bird not a dinosaur. And they will never find one because dinosaurs are cold blooded reptiles not warm blooded birds.
See my books for more information on subjects like this: