Dinofuzz: What Is It?

To properly answer that question, we need to understand what we are talking about. The word feather is a loaded one because, when you hear it, you think the things you see on modern birds. But when an evolutionist (or even some creation scientists) says feather, it can mean things that may resemble stringlike filaments, modern feathers, or both. There are some fossils that have been found with undisputed modern feathers. A famous example (but hardly the only one) is Microraptor. Evolutionists call it a dinosaur, but research published in our own Answers Research Journal shows it was likely a bird.1 This explanation is probably true of all the disputed creatures found with modern feathers: They represent an extinct, unique form of bird.

This explanation is probably true of all the disputed creatures found with modern feathers: They represent an extinct, unique form of bird.

However, there are some organisms that are indisputably not birds that have what evolutionists call feathers. For example, Psittacosaurus is a dinosaur that looks vaguely like a small Iguanadon with a beak but has been found with what are termed bristles.2 Depending on the source, they have also been termed dinofuzz, filaments, or protofeathers. I’ll use filaments as they most closely resemble what we observe.

So what are these filaments? It is often argued that they are a form of feather. A characteristic of modern feathers is a protein called keratin. Keratin is the hard material that we find in our fingernails, rhinoceros horns, reptile scales, and other places. There are two forms of keratin: alpha and beta. The different kinds are found primarily in different tissues and organisms, with feathers consisting primarily of beta-keratin.3 Birds do have both kinds of keratin, however, as do reptiles.4^,5 We know beta-keratin is not limited to feathers because a study of beta-keratin genes found them in odd places like turtles, crocodiles, and great white sharks, none of which are feathered.6

Importantly, some people have argued that feathers are composed only of beta-keratin.7^,8 This is simply false and assumes that the present is the key to the past. Feather composition varies depending on the species,9 consisting of both alpha- and beta-keratin,10 and keratin is only roughly 90% of a given feather.11 Even if we assumed that feathers were the only structures composed of solely beta-keratin, there is only one example of beta-keratin being found in a filament,12 and that example is disputed.13 So we simply do not know what these filaments are made of. Without that information, it is impossible to say with any authority that these filaments are feathers or feather precursors. Even if we discovered they are made of beta-keratin and nothing but beta-keratin, that would not prove they are feathers because there is good evidence that keratin can change forms under certain conditions that mimic the conditions of flood burial.14 Keratin content alone is not enough to identify a fossilized structure as a feather.

Melanosomes have also been proposed as a mechanism of feather identification. Melanosomes are the primary mechanisms of melanin pigment production in animal cells. They are found only in integumentary tissue (aka skin and other surface-level tissue like scales), not collagen, the commonly proposed alternative to keratin. Thus, if melanosomes are present, it should rule out the possibility of the filaments being made of collagen.

Some readers with a logic background may already have spotted the hole in the argument. For those that did not, just because something has melanosomes does not necessarily make it a feather. It turns out that melanosomes are found in more than just feathers. They are also found in reptile scales.15^,16 That means that melanosomes are only diagnostic of integumentary tissue. They are not diagnostic of feathers.

That means that melanosomes are only diagnostic of integumentary tissue. They are not diagnostic of feathers.

Even if we assume that melanosomes are completely diagnostic of feathers, the existence of melanosomes in fossilized filaments is disputed. The purported fossilized melanosomes look more like rod-shaped bacteria than they do modern melanosomes.17 The evolutionists themselves are divided on this point, with people like Mary Schweitzer on the side of bacteria biofilm being the source of the purported melanosomes, while others argue not only that melanosomes exist, but we can tell what color they were!18 Unfortunately, the only way to tell if the purported melanosomes are true melanosomes is transmission electron microscopy, which has not been used on fossil filaments and is rare in fossils in general.19

If melanosomes and keratin composition are not sufficient to tell us whether something is a feather, then what is? Right now, the short answer is nothing. There is no definitive chemical test we can do that will tell us if the filamentous structures are feathers. All we can go by is morphology.

The morphology of the structures does not resemble that of modern feathers. It more closely resembles collagen fibers that have been partially decayed.20 Collagen has long been suggested as an alternative to keratin in explaining these filaments, though it is a minority position. Organisms obviously lacking feathers, like Mosasaurs, have been found with these filaments.21 It makes no sense to argue that the filaments must be feathers in all cases if a water creature like a Mosasaur has them as well. Unless we want to suggest that Mosasaurs had feathers.

It is possible that a battery of tests could be developed to determine whether a filament is a feather or not. But such a procedure does not exist at present. It is unlikely that evolutionists will prioritize the creation of such a procedure. After all, they “know” that the structures are protofeathers because evolution tells them so. Creationists should be very discerning regarding claims of feathers and protofeathers (though I do not expect the young-earth evolutionists [YEE] to do so. They have shown no discernment or restraint so far). The evidence does not currently support the classification of these filaments as feathers. They are unknowns in need of more research, not evidence of feathered dinosaurs.