Letters to the Editor
Evidence for animals are also preserved there.5 in Juravenator does not substantiate Silvestru asserts that anatomical a lack of feathers in all dinosaurs. feathered dinosaurs? similarities between theropods found Juravenator may have had feathers with feathers and those preserved that were not preserved or Juravena- eathered dinosaur specimens are without feathers should not be used tor and Sinosauropteryx may belong to Fbecoming common (table 1). In to assume that the latter had feathers separate baramins. a recent article, Dr Emil Silvestru (abstract, p. 47). However, the fossils Silvestru argues that the presumed critiqued evidence for feathered of most small theropods preserve no feathers of Liaoning theropods were dinosaurs presented in a Royal Ontario integument whatsoever.6 Thus, arguing not their own. He speculates that these Museum exhibit.1 While creationists that absence of preserved feathers is structures were either ‘bird feathers should address these specimens, it was evidence for a lack of feathers is erro- which are preserved with the dinosaur disappointing to find factual errors and neous. Absence of evidence for feath- fossils’ or ‘the remains of a water plant unsupported assertions in this article. ers is not evidence of their absence. that grew in those ancient lakes’ (p. 44). Silvestru claims that since the The same argument could be applied An examination of the feathers of most Chinese province of ‘Liaoning is the to the featherless fossils of some birds,7 of these specimens renders such ideas only site where “feathered dinosaurs” yet these birds were unquestionably incredible, because their arrangement have been found’ (abstract, p. 42), the feathered. When a feathered thero- coincides with that of modern feathered dinosaurs preserved there probably pod is discovered, creationists should animals. They consistently project out only appear to be feathered due to the expect other members of that baramin from the skin in semiparallel fashion. conditions under which they were fos- to be feathered as well, regardless of The pennaceous structures visible in silized. However, feathered dinosaurs where they are found or whether or not certain specimens9 are oriented so that have also been found elsewhere: Jin- feathers were preserved. they round off at their distal ends. The fengopteryx was discovered in the Chi- One such theropod is Juravena- simple fibres of other specimens10 thin nese province of Hebei,2 Pedopenna in tor,8 which is similar to the feathered from their bases to their tips.11 Their the Mongolian Autonomous Region,3 Sinosauropteryx but preserved without length varies depending on location, and Shuvuuia in Mongolia.4 Also, one feathers and with patches of scales with longer structures consistently on should expect the Liaoning deposits to on its tail and hind legs. This was the trailing edges of the forelimbs. The preserve details of dinosaurian soft tis- unexpected due to its presumed close chances of bird feathers or plants being sue that were hitherto unknown since relationship to Sinosauropteryx. Al- preserved this way are incredibly small, hair, feathers, scales, internal organs though viewed by Silvestru as confirm- especially in multiple specimens. and even colour patterns of other ing his assertions, the lack of feathers Furthermore, these structures do
Table 1. Feathered dinosaur specimens.
# Feathered Taxon Reference Specimens Currie, P.J. and Chen, P., Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 38(12):1705–1727, Sinosauropteryx 3 2001. Shuvuuia 1 Schweitzer, M.H. et al., Journal of Experimental Zoology 285:146–157, 1999. Protarchaeopteryx 1 Ji, Q. et al., Nature 393:753–761, 1998. Caudipteryx zoui 2 Ji, Q. et al., Nature 393:753–761, 1998. Caudipteryx dongi 1 Zhou, Z. and Wang, X., Vertebrata PalAsiatica 38(2):111–127, 2000. Beipiaosaurus 1 Xu, X. et al., Nature 399:350–354, 1999. Microraptor zhaoianus 1 Xu, X. et al., Nature 408:705–708, 2000. Microraptor gui 6 Xu, X. et al., Nature 421:335–340, 2003. Czerkas, S.A. et al.; in: Czerkas, S.J. (ed.), Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Cryptovolans 2 Flight, The Dinosaur Museum, Blanding, Utah, pp. 97–126, 2002. Sinornithosaurus 1 Xu, X. et al., Nature 410:200–204, 2001. NGMC 91 (juvenile 1 Ji, Q. et al., Nature 410:1084–1088, 2001. Sinornithosaurus?) Czerkas, S.A. and Yuan, C.; in: Czerkas, S.J. (ed.), Feathered Dinosaurs and the Scansoriopteryx 1 Origin of Flight, The Dinosaur Museum, Blanding, Utah, pp. 63–95, 2002. Epidendrosaurus 1 Zhang, F. et al., Naturwissenschaften 89:394–398, 2002. Yixianosaurus 1 Xu, X. and Wang, X., Vertebrata PalAsiatica 41(3):195–202, 2003. Dilong 1 Xu, X. et al., Nature 431:680–684, 2004. Ji, Q. et al., Geological Bulletin of China 24(3):197–205, 2005;
58 JOURNAL OF CREATION 21(1) 2007 Letters
not resemble plants; they look like question is unnecessary from an evo- 4. Chiappe, L.M., Norell, M.A. and Clark, J.M., feathers. Their preservation is often lutionary perspective. Unlike birds, The skull of a relative of the stem-group bird so good that distinct quills, rachises, pterosaurs did not rely on feathers for Mononykus, Nature 392:275–278, 1998. and vanes with individual barbs may flight; each wing was composed of a 5. Norell, M.A., Unearthing the Dragon, Pi Press, be discerned.12 They are also virtually membrane that stretched from a greatly New York, pp. 60–61, 2005. indistinguishable from the undisputed elongated fourth finger back to the 6. Paul, G.S., Dinosaurs of the Air, The Johns feathers of fossil birds such as Confu- body.17 Recent studies have concluded Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, p. 65, 2002. ciusornis.13 that pterosaurs were excellent fliers.18 Regarding the specimens preserved Why would they need to evolve a new 7. For example: Zhou, Z. and Zhang, F., Anatomy of the primitive bird Sapeornis chaoyangensis with simple fibres covering the body, flight system to replace one that was from the Early Cretaceous of Liaoning, the possibility of plants masquerading already highly effective? China, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences as feathers has been ruled out in at least In an attempt to explain dinosaur 40:731–747, 2003. one instance. The fibres surrounding and pterosaur extinction, Silvestru 8. Göhlich, U.B. and Chiappe, L.M., A new Shuvuuia are uncrushed, three dimen- states that the post-Flood environment carnivorous dinosaur from the Late Jurassic sional, and hollow. High-resolution ‘favoured the warm-blooded birds Solnhofen archipelago, Nature 440(7082):329– electron microscopy and chemical and mammals, while the dinosaurs 332, 2006. analysis of the beta-keratin within the and pterosaurs were very quickly 9. I am referring specifically toMicroraptor gui, fibres has shown them to be some form demised’ (p. 47). However, the Bible Cryptovolans, Jinfengopteryx, Pedopenna, of epidermal structure, feathers being does not explain how these animals Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx. the most likely candidate.14 went extinct, and numerous studies 10. Here I am referring to Sinosauropteryx, Dilong, Describing a Psittacosaurus speci- have concluded that many dinosaurs19 Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor zhaoianus and Shuvuuia. men, Silvestru states that it is said to and all pterosaurs20 were likely warm- have ‘“strand-like bristles” (primitive blooded. 11. Paul, ref. 6, p. 68. feathers) on its tail.’ He then scoffs at The evidence for feathered thero- 12. Details of such complex feathers are preserved this interpretation: ‘It must have been pods is very strong. I suggest that, with Microraptor gui, Cryptovolans, the quite a fashion in those days!’ (p. 45). unnamed NGMC 91, Jinfengopteryx, rather than focusing primarily on Pedopenna, Protarchaeopteryx and Ridicule is no substitute for argument. morphological differences between Caudipteryx. Regardless of whether the bristles are theropods and birds as whole groups, 13. Chiappe, L.M., Ji, S., Ji, Q. and Norell, simple feathers, paleontologists who creationists should use similarities and M.A., Anatomy and systematics of the studied these structures concluded that differences between specific theropods Confuciusornithidae from the late Mesozoic of they are genuine. The soft tissue pres- and between specific birds to determine northeastern China, Bulletin of the American ervation on this specimen is exquisite, their various baramins. A picture Museum of Natural History 242:1–89, 1999. authenticating the porcupine-like quills should eventually emerge that, rather 14. Schweitzer, M.H., Watt, J.A., Avci, R., Knapp, and revealing other details previously than confirming evolutionary expecta- L., Chiappe, L.M., Norell, M.A. and Marshall, unknown in Psittacosaurus: its body tions, is in perfect accord with the Bi- M., Beta-keratin specific immunological was covered in plate-like scales sur- reactivity in feather-like structures of the ble’s account of the amazing diversity Cretaceous alvarezsaurid, Shuvuuia deserti, rounding roundels and quadrangular designed by our creative God. Journal of Experimental Zoology 285:146– tubercles, and a horny sheath covered 157, 1999. 15 the horns on the side of the skull. Robert O. Clark 15. Norell, ref. 5, p. 164. Silvestru points out that the exhibit Pittsburg, CA does not explain ‘how and why scales 16. Prum, R.O. and Brush, A.H., The evolutionary UNITED STATES of AMERICA origin and diversification of feathers,Quarterly would evolve into feathers’ (p. 45), Review of Biology 77(3):261–295, 2002. observing that its version of feather References 17. Shipman, P., Taking Wing, Simon & Schuster, evolution begins with a filament. This New York, pp. 221–222, 1998. is easily explained: some paleontolo- 1. Silvestru, E., Flying dinosaurs, flightless dinosaurs and other evolutionary fantasies, 18. Unwin, D.M., The Pterosaurs, Pi Press, New gists no longer consider scales precur- Journal of Creation 20(2):42–47, 2006. York, pp. 164–195, 2006. sors to feathers. It is now proposed 2. Ji, Q., Ji, S., Lu, J., You, H., Chen, W., Liu, 19. Glut, D.F., Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia, that feather evolution was similar to Y. and Liu, Y., First avialan bird from China Supplement 3, McFarland & Company, Inc., modern feather development, begin- (Jinfengopteryx elegans gen. et sp. nov.), Jefferson, North Carolina, pp. 114–117, 2003. ning with a thickening of the outer lay- Geological Bulletin of China 24(3):197–205, Glut, D.F., Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia, ers of skin, followed by the formation 2005. For reasons why Jinfengopteryx was Supplement 2, McFarland & Company, Inc., of a bud that lengthened into a tubercle probably a theropod, see
JOURNAL OF CREATION 21(1) 2007 59 Letters
Emil Silvestru Replies: were surprised that despite the excellent to the exhibit at the Royal Ontario preservation conditions (similar to the Museum where the case was made for ones at Liaoning or nearby Solnhoffen feathers having evolved from scales. I would like to thank Mr Clark for where the Archaeopteryx feathers have It’s hardly as if this evo-devo theory critically reading my article. It is most been preserved) there were no feathers that Mr Clark explains was news to encouraging for me to know that our preserved on Juravenator. As for the me—indeed, did he even check my Note work is scrutinised—not only read and two fossils being different baramins, the 9 which was a semi-popular account of left on shelves. I have erroneously stat- assumption in the article (based on the the paper in his Note 16? And there was ed in the abstract, as Mr Clark pointed references) is that in fact they were the no need to repeat what other creationists out, that feathered dinosaurs were only same baramins. have already pointed out about this new found in the Liaoning province. In this I Mr Clark rebuts my suggestion that theory (and the grudging concession to did contradict myself, since in the para- some of the feather-like features in the creationists that the scales-to-feathers graph called ‘History’ I also mentioned exhibit may not be feathers after all. idea doesn’t work).2 that the real star of the exhibit came In doing so he refers to other fossils, Secondly, I will chose to believe from Inner Mongolia. making a general case. Once again, that by making this argument, Mr Clark Although I have stated from the my article was explicitly written as an is playing the devil’s advocate here and beginning of the article that it was alternative guide to a particular exhibi- does not actually believe in the evolu- meant to offer the perspective of the tion and the specimens exhibited there tion of feathers which he says ‘is easily visitor to one particular exhibit, Mr did not convince me. I would have explained’. Yet there is still a problem Clark is extending his critique to the expected Mr Clark to refer to that spe- with this ‘easy explanation’ Clark in- general case of feathered dinosaurs. cifically and the exhibits on display. vokes: in order for the skin, rather than Hence I am forced to use some argu- I was quite surprised by Mr Clark’s scales to evolve into feathers, one has to ments that I have not presented in the indignation with my use of what I see a postulate that somehow some dinosaurs article proper. as a sarcastic comment (primitive feath- first lost their scales, existing for a time I would like to address first a classi- ers being ‘… quite a fashion in those without them and subsequently evolved cal type of argument Mr Clark is using: days’) of which he says ‘ridicule is no feathers. Now why would dinosaurs he is summing up a case I made based substitute for argument’. To start with, lose scales first? Not for better protec- on recent discoveries from Germany that was never intended to be an argu- tion purposes for sure! From a strict using the following: ‘Silvestru asserts ment, simply a sarcastic remark. Christ evolutionary point of view, a scaleless that anatomical similarities between has taught us to be humble but not in dinosaur (theropod) would be less theropods found with feathers and the face of ridicule and hypocrisy! After adapted and more vulnerable. those found without feathers should all, He called Pharisees and Sadducees There is one last thing that I would not be used to assume that the latter had ‘generation of vipers’ (Matthew 3:71) . like to mention and that is inspired by feathers.’ The classical case of ‘lack I would invite Mr Clark to read some Mr Clark’s critique: I am convinced that of evidence is not evidence for lack’ of the vitriol and ridicule that passes whatever feathered vertebrates were concludes Mr Clark. for much anti-creationist reasoning and found and will be found in the fossil Well, I totally agree with this continue to use against us and hope his record, they represent birds and no other principle if applied in congruent cir- indignation will match when consider- category, regardless the continuing con- cumstances. Nice as it may sound ing them. tortion of cladistics in order to accom- (vastly abused in my view by many I am now getting to the most im- modate them as precursors to birds. evolutionists), I believe this adagio portant (for me at least) statement that All the same, some of my col- should be preceded by ‘in poor condi- Mr Clark is making in his critique, this leagues agree with Mr Clark that a tions of preservation’. But in the cases time regarding the evolution of feathers feathered dinosaur is not ruled out by invoked in my article, the conditions from scales. He states: the creation model, but are yet to be of preservation are exquisite. So one ‘This is easily explained: some convinced that any have been found.3 may safely assume that if Juravenator paleontologists no longer consider A number of prominent evolution- was preserved without feathers it did scales precursor of feathers. It is ary paleo-ornithologists are likewise not have feathers. Mr Clark states that now proposed that feather evolution sceptical of feathered dinosaurs, e.g. ‘the fossils of most small theropods was similar to modern feather Dr Alan Feduccia,4 but Mr Clark has preserve no integument whatsoever.’ development, beginning with a ignored both sets of dino-bird sceptics Correct if one adds: ‘because of poor thickening of the outer layers of the and seems far too willing to accept the preservation conditions.’ Yet Mr Clark skin followed by the formation of a pronouncements of the evolutionary simply asserts that ‘Juravenator may bud that lengthened into a tubercle consensus. have had feathers that did not preserve and then a filament [emphasis The case of Archaeopteryx is symp- or Juravenator and Sinosauropteryx added].’ tomatic for this—this had fully-formed may belong to different baramins.’ First I would like to remind Mr flight feathers, an avian braincase and Yet the discoverers of the Juravenator Clark again that the text I wrote refers through-flow lungs. Dinosaurs will
60 JOURNAL OF CREATION 21(1) 2007 Letters
always remain dinosaurs, just as God sedimentary rock. Heat and/or pres- has created them. And I believe God sure are required for the metamor- created them without feathers. Al- phism. If we assume that the sedimen- though I am perfectly aware that this is tary rocks were laid down during the not a scientific argument, I believe that Genesis Flood, and it is believed that a featherless Deinonychus as recon- the quartzite boulders were scattered structed by paleontologists before the by the receding waters of the Flood, discoveries in Liaoning, is more logical then we are talking of: a creature than the heavily feathered one • sedimentary layers being laid down they believe in now. Mr Clark uses the at the beginning of the Flood, expression ‘feathered theropods’ which • hardening to such an extent that still means ‘feathered dinosaurs’ and sequential differential uplifting of he states their existence is a proven the land produced enough heat to fact. This is where we are definitely at cause metamorphism of the sedi- variance. ments, producing the quartzites at the top of the layers, Emil Silvestru • further uplifting of the continents Chilliwack, British Columbia CANADA to start the recession of the waters to scatter the boulders, and
References • all of this in more or less one year Photo by Michael J. Oard while being under water. and the top has been eroded. About 1. See further documentation of the biblical Is all of this feasible or is challenge-riposte method in Sarfati, J., 10% of the Belt is quartzite, the other Refuting Compromise pp. 20 ff, Master Books, there another possible source of 2004. heat and pressure for the required 90% being mostly argillite, a lightly 2. Matthews, M., Scientific American admits metamorphism? metamorphosed shale. So, the depth creationists hit a sore spot: Need for a of deposition is good enough for the ‘new paradigm’ in bird evolution,
JOURNAL OF CREATION 21(1) 2007 61