BIRDLIKE DINOSAURS
Looking at an ostrich, it is difficult not to see a link between dinosaurs and birds. Struthio camelus, with its large eyes, long, flexible neck, and long legs built for running is a dead ringer for almost any member of the group of small, omnivorous theropods known as the Ornithomimosauria. In fact, the name of one animal, Struthiomimus altus, means “Tall ostrich mimic.”
The line is blurred even further by Archaeopteryx lithographica. Some say it’s a dinosaur; others say bird. (Although, either way, it’s a dinosaur.) This small, crow-sized theropod was discovered over one hundred years ago in the Solnhofen limestone quarries of southern Germany. Beautifully preserved in the fine sediment were near-perfect flight feathers, as well as a set of feathers along the tail. This creature created quite a stir, as it had feathers, like a bird, but a long, bony tail, hooked, raptorial claws, and sharp teeth like a dinosaur. It has been used by either side, as evidence both for and against the existence of feathered dinosaurs.
About a century later, another discovery lent support to the feathered side. The find was Deinonychus antirrhopus, a man-sized predator nearly identical to Archaeopteryx in many respects. It too had the long arms, raptorial claws, bowed radius and ulna, retroverted pubis, semilunate carpal, and uncinate processes as Archaeopteryx.
Many skeptics cited the age discrepencies as flaws in the logic of the Deinonychus/Archaeopteryx relationship. Deinonychus came millions of years after the smaller, more birdlike Archaeopteryx. But this argument can work both ways. What if Deinonychus, a man-sized, terrestrial predator, was descended from something resembling Archaeopteryx, a small, arboreal proto-bird? What if Deinonychus, along with the rest of the Deinonychosauria, was essentially a very primitive flightless bird? While it may sound preposterous at first, detailed anatomical studies and new finds seem to support this view. (In all fairness, there are also arguments against it, but from what I understand both are based on different interpretations of the same evidence.)
PROOF
In recent years, new finds have been made which conclusivle prove that at least some dinosaur had feathers. Sinosauropteryx prima, Sinornithosaurus milennii, Beipaiaosaurus inexpectus, Caudipteryx zoui, Protarchaeopteryx robusta, and an as-of-yet unnamed find from China (possibly a juvenile S. milennii) distinctly show feather impressions. What’s more, Nomingia gobiensis, an Oviraptorosaur, posessed a pygostyle, which is used to support and manipulate tail feathers.
Along with these specimens, another fossil was described that substantially weakened the pro-feather argument. The specimen was Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, and it was found to be a fraud. The fossil was not an intentional hoax; that must be remembered. The Chinese farmer who found the pieces thought that collectors might pay more for a complete specimen, and so he glued together the slab and partial counterslab of a primitive bird, and the tail of a small dromaeosaur. He likely assumed the pieces all belonged to the same genus.
In the ruckus that followed, the specimen was shown to be a chimaera, reputations were soiled, and the other feathered specimens came under fire. Careless reporting by the media, who often seem to have no regard whatsoever for actual science, accused the other five feathered specimens of being fakes as well. This is not so. Every feathered dinosaur, with the exception of Archaeoraptor, is authentic.
A CRASH COURSE IS EVOLUTION
As I have stated before, many opponents of feathered dinosaurs do not understand evolution. This can be frustrating, because they simply cannot grasp what we’re trying to tell them. They believe that birds developed feathers for the sole purpose of flight. Phil Currie, in an article reprinted in Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs, addressed the issue.
Furthermore, if they were ancestral to birds, it would make sense that the first feathers would have appeared on dinosaurs as a form of insulation. Feathers could not have developed in birds the moment they sensed a need to fly. The feathers had to have been on the ancestors first, then adapted into a flight mechanism. Although we normally think of birds as being any animals covered with feathers, their form of powered flight was actually the novelty that set birds apart from all other animals.
Until this concept is understood, the subject of feathered dinosaurs cannot be discussed. A small theropod did not simply start flapping its arms in an attempt to fly, thus causing its offspring to be born feathered. Nor did every feathered dinosaur try to fly. I have become so fed up with arguing with people who not only fail to grasp the very concept of evolution, but have to resort to personal attacks and meaningless, flawed analogies in an attempt to get their point across that I have simply ceased discussing the subject with most of the “scalies” I know. One opponent of mine used flawed modern-day comparisons, then called my ideas “poorly thought-out” and accused me of falsifying information and lying. Others have accused our side of wanting so badly to be right that we see similarities that are not there. Still others flatly deny the existance of fossil evidence even as it is right before their eyes. It was only after these people frustrated me to the point of outright rage that I cut all ties. I no longer acknowledge the arguments of anyone who cannot convince me that they know what they are talking about on the subject of evolution and feathered dinosaurs.
Oh, and, one more thing: In no way does Thermodynamics affect evolution. Those who say it does are simply trying to impress us with their bogus “expertise,” while secretly hoping that none of their opponents are smarter than them. (AUTHOR'S NOTE: This last bit about Thermodynamics was written out of frustration. However, I don't see what the conservation of energy has to do with the process of evolution when the animals are not putting forth any conscious effort to evolve. But then I'm just a high school senior.)
FEATHERS ON T. REX?
As one of the few people that I know of that puts feathers on Tyrannosaurus rex, I felt I might as well address this issue. While I know that a full-body covering would overheat the animal, I would like to point out that none of my drawings, except for a pair of T. rex chicks, sport a full-body coat. The adults have only a ridge of down along the spine, as well as flashy display crests behind the head and on the arms.
I would also like to mention that it was recently brought to my attention by another Society member that T. rex may not have had scales, as was previously thought. While I am unsure how concrete this is, it weakens the “scaly rex” argument somewhat.
Written by Will Svensen.