Fluffy Dinos
Some scientists believe the supposed “proto-feathers” are really just collagen fibers

Fluffy Dinos


BBC News: “Fossil Hints at Fuzzy Dinosaurs” A fossilized feathered dinosaur found in China—are they serious this time?

Reporting in Nature, Chinese paleontologists tell of a fossilized dinosaur that was apparently found surrounded by “dino-fuzz”: filaments the team call “protofeathers.”

There is no easy way to confirm or deny the proposition.

The twist is that the dinosaur doesn’t belong to the group (theropods) that scientists claim modern birds evolved from! Thus, instead of interpreting the discovery as supporting dino-bird evolution, the fossil “muddies the waters” of feather origins, according to paleontologist Lawrence Witmer of Ohio University. “Maybe all dinosaurs, even the predominantly scaled ones, had fuzzy parts,” he added. An (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=090318-tianyulong-02.jpg) artist’s impression shows what some evolutionists imagine.

The Bible doesn’t declare that dinosaurs didn’t have feathers, and assuming none are alive today, there is no easy way to confirm or deny the proposition. Most creationists have been skeptical of “feathered dinosaur” claims for several reasons, since the evidence is circumstantial and tenuous, and this certainly appears to be the case here, with strange filaments assumed to be “protofeathers” because evolutionists presuppose dinosaurs evolved into birds (and that feathers could have easily evolved, despite their complexity and great difference from scales—see Did Dinosaurs Turn into Birds?).

Also in the news is a chicken-sized dinosaur that might look like the latest “evidence” that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. Identified by just six small pelvic bones found in Canada, Hesperonychus was a carnivorous raptor that likely fed on insects and perhaps small mammals, amphibians, and perhaps even baby dinosaurs. It also pushes the alleged origin of this type of dinosaur back 45 million years.

And what’s the twist in this story? The fossil has been known for decades, but for 25 years was thought to have belonged to a lizard rather than a dinosaur. Yet take a look at the artist’s illustration of the fossil! Take six bones, add evolutionary dogma and some artistic license, and they’ve got it: more visual proof of dino–bird evolution, despite any evidence of feathers. Even if the drawing were to wind up being close, it would only prove that such an animal existed, was catastrophically buried, and subsequently fossilized—and how is that any different from what a creationist would say?

Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us.

(Please note that links will take you directly to the source. Answers in Genesis is not responsible for content on the websites to which we refer. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.)


Get the latest answers emailed to you or sign up for our free print newsletter.

I agree to the current Privacy Policy.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Learn more

  • Customer Service 800.778.3390