One thing Christians and Evolutionists have in common is the ability to boast in our weaknesses. But even this common skill is different between us. With Christians, our boast is ultimately in the strength of our God. As our brother Paul writes in the Lord, "And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). Thus, when we, as Christians, boast in our weakness, we are saying "we are weak, but our God is strong".
When Evolutionists boast in their weakness, however, it is not "I am weak, but Evolution is strong". Rather, it is an attempt to disguise that weakness as strength. It is like a puppet, propped up by sticks and strings. On its own, the puppet is weak, frail, and lifeless, but when a string is pulled, or a stick is raised, the puppet springs to life. The boast of the Evolutionist? "There are no strings on me".
But strings there are, and not very well hidden. Evolutionists may well boast about their "mountains of evidence", but in truth, their so-called theory is so full of holes, it changes on a weekly basis. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than the dino-bird myth. As paleornithologist, and notably non-Creationist, John Alan Feduccia, puts it, "The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of “dinosaurian science” as evidence against the theory of evolution" (1).
To quote Feduccia's Wikipedia page, "Feduccia opposes the overwhelming scientific consensus that birds originated from and are deeply nested within Theropoda, and are therefore living theropod dinosaurs." Aside from being such a hilarious example of bias at Wikipedia, this is an illustration of just how committed Evolutionists are to put their worst foot forward. See, while Wikipedia is willing to argue from "overwhelming consensus", I am not here to argue from Feduccia's authority. This, after all, would be both equally fallacious, and also an appeal to hostile authority. Feduccia, after all, remains committed to Evolutionary mythology, he just proposes alternative suggestions.
But I am going to strongly contend that Feduccia's statement is entirely correct, and based on evidence, of course minus the implications that Creationists are pesky quacks who will exploit the first sign of weakness to oppose a scientific theory. However, I will contend that the Evolutionary mythology regarding the relationship between birds and dinosaurs is riddled with holes, so much so that even an amateur Creationist may contend with even a highly educated Evolutionary scientist.
Did dinosaurs have feathers?
One of the hinges on which this debate swings is whether or not dinosaurs had feathers. It's commonly believed, and frequently claimed, that they did. This is reinforced by their portrayal in artistic media, with a recent example being the admittedly beautiful design of the pyroraptor in Jurassic World Dominion (2022), as seen in the header image.
Now, ultimately, the question as to whether or not dinosaurs had feathers is irrelevant. Biblically speaking, if God wants to put feathers on a reptile, He has as much right to do so as He did to put a bill on a mammal, or a pouch on a rat. As even Evolutionists are now forced to admit, similar features do not require similar ancestry.
Nevertheless, the feathered dinosaur debate continues (whether Evolutionists like it or not) because the evidence ranges from questionable to outright non-existent. To begin with, the aforementioned pyroraptor is known primarily from a handful of small bones and teeth (2). More notably, no evidence of feathers were found. The same is true for Variraptor, a similar (possibly identical) species, which is known primarily from scattered, incomplete remains.
It is worth noting that situations such as the above are very common. As Michael Benton noted, species being named on the basis of incomplete specimens is "the bane of the dinosaurologist's life". (3).
But this goes far beyond merely giving two names to one dinosaur. It also results in the supposed features of one dinosaur being superimposed upon another.
This is precisely what happened with another popular dinosaur that found its way into the Jurassic World franchise in 2022. While the movie, and many other popular media, display therizinosaurus as a 10 tonne scissor chicken, the animal itself was found with no evidence of feathers. In fact, it wasn't found with much at all. Instead, it is known only from its forelimb (4), including those famous scythe-like claws, from which it gets its name. But if we have so little of its actual remains, why do we have such a high confidence in what it looked like?
Though very little of therizinosaurus has been found, similar creatures have been found that are more complete. Beipiaosaurus, for example, is a smaller therizinosaur that genuinely does sport some rod-like fibrous structures on its head, neck, and posterior half of its trunk. It is not only assumed that therizinosaurus would have shared these features, but that they are a type of feather called "Elongated Broad Filamentous Feathers".
What exactly is a feather?
Before we continue to address the question as to whether or not dinosaurs had feathers, it's important to define what a feather actually is. To illustrate the importance of this, imagine if we defined "feather" as a "membranous tissue forming the external covering or integument of an animal". By this definition, dinosaurs had feathers, and so do you, because I actually just gave a fairly standard definition of skin. Thankfully, no Evolutionist had yet gone so far as to define "feather" so broadly as to place feathers on every animal species since the origins of life. But while they haven't expanded the definition quite that much, they have expanded the definition to include a number of things that show little to no resemblance to an actual feather.
When you think of feathers, you probably think of something like the ostrich feather quill in the image to the left. This is a real, easily recognisable feather found in both living and fossil birds. However, dinosaur feathers, like the so-called "Elongated Broad Filamentous Feathers" found on the aforementioned beipiaosaurus, are quite unlike anything we find on a bird. As Alan Feduccia wrote, "...the only problem is that there is no evidence that the rodlike structures have anything to do with feathers; nor is there any evidence that the structures are hollow." (5).
So what is a feather? Well, to begin with, they are the defining characteristic of birds (6). Actual feathers are fantastically engineered structures unique to birds, and contrary to the Evolutionary idea that they evolved from reptilian scales, they are actually more similar to hairs - though they are much more complex. They are light, flat structures, composed of a central shaft, called the "rachis", with numerous barbs attached. Feathers have a number of functions, most famously flight, but also protection from the elements, courtship, and in some cases, waterproofing. It is insufficient to simply define a feather as a "filamentous structure", just as it is insufficient to define a smartphone as "a pocket sized computer device". You can't text your mother on a tamagotchi....
Explanations for feathered dinosaurs
For centuries now, there have been legends about a "fur bearing trout", a mythical fish that is allegedly covered in fur to protect it from the cold. To this day, no live specimens of this cryptid have been discovered, and all claimed corpses have turned out to be hoaxes, often by way of taxidermy. But there is usually some truth to legends. Where could the fur bearing trout have come from? One theory is that it developed as a result of sighting a trout infected with saprolegnia, a type of bacterial infection which can give a fish the appearance of having spots of fur. While it is possible the fur bearing trout does exist (after all, it wouldn't be the first cryptid to be verified), current evidence suggests it does not, and any evidence for it has been explained in other ways.
Much like the fur bearing trout, it's possible that feathered dinosaurs actually existed. However, there are no dinosaur specimens, living or dead, that have feathers. Furthermore, as we will see shortly, there are explanations for claims to the contrary. There are three main explanations. The first, as Evolutionists are unfortunately prone to do, is simply fraud. The second is fossil dinosaurs with what may be interpreted as evidence of feathers, but there are other explanations. Finally, there are fossils with indisputable feathers, but these feathers belong to birds, not dinosaurs.
Frauds
As Evolution is, itself, a lie, there is no shortage of lies that back it up. These include the famous Piltdown Man, a human skull modified with an orangutan jaw, and intentionally (not to mention badly) aged. A combination of factors, ranging from a lack of due diligence to the absolute desperation of Evolutionists to produce evidence for their religion, resulted in the exposure of this fraud being delayed for 40 years.
In November 1999, National Geographic ran a story entitled "Feathers for T-Rex?", which featured the legendary "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis". Archaeoraptor, according to the original article, was a missing link that allows us to "...say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals." (7). This drew a lot of criticism even shortly after it was published, with Storrs Olson, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution, accusing National Geographic of reaching "...an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated tabloid journalism." (8).
But dragging the publication even lower is the simple fact that archaeoraptor later turned out to be a fraud, and an illegally smuggled one at that. Many publications came to label the creature "piltdown bird", as ultimately, it is a compilation of at least two species. One, a bird, the other, a dromeosaur.
Unlike Piltdown man, "Piltdown bird" took less than a year to be exposed and retracted, but the whole ordeal raises two important points. First, note the pattern of presentation. The initial rollout of this "missing link" was hyped and sensationalised. How many people saw and believed that story, and now believe the dino-bird Evolution story is settled science? Probably a lot more people than saw the sheepish retraction.
This is a standard pattern for Evolutionists. Whenever a "missing link" is discovered, whether it is as fraudulent as archaeoraptor, or as genuine as Tiktaalik, it is paraded in front of the public. Then, over time, and with study, it turns out it doesn't quite support Evolution as much as Evolutionists wish it did. But the trickling streams of a retraction are eclipsed by the tsunami of the initial hype. Many missing links are still widely regarded as "no longer missing", even though science has long since moved on, and we now know none of them support Evolution at all.
The second important takeaway is the prominence of dodgy fossils, and not just the sensational ones that show up in media headlines. Run-of-the-mill fossils are often, at the very least, "enhanced" for sale. Especially in China, from whence archaeoraptor came, fossil forgery is a very lucrative business, and one which has tripped up even the most skilled paleantologists. Even relatively recently, peer reviewed journal Acta Geologica Sinica published an article on mongolarachne chaoyangensis, a fake spider fossil from the Liaoning Province of China, which it turned out was actually a crayfish (9).
The anatomy of dinosaurs and birds
But another problem with fossils, when we ignore the fake ones, is what we say about the real ones. As I have mentioned, while there are no indisputable examples of dinosaur remains with feathers, there are many claims that there are. These include, but are not limited to, archaeopteryx, caudipteryx, sinosauropteryx, and microraptor. It is claimed that these are, at the very least, transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.
There is one difficulty in that fossils leave a lot to the imagination. This is why feathers are not the only anatomical dispute you will find when it comes to dinosaurs. Did they have lips, or were their teeth exposed? What color were they? What are the purposes of the mysterious cavities many of them are found with? Movies and similar media even add fictional features, such as the famous frill of Jurassic Park's venom-spitting dwarf of a dilophosaurus. These debates exist because fossils don't tell the whole story. They're limited in what they preserve, they're often known from only a few specimens (that's if we're lucky enough to have more than one), and sometimes, all we have are fragments.
With that being said, there are still noticeable differences between dinosaurs and birds. As we've said, one easy way to tell the difference is feathers. Feathers, as far as we know, are unique to birds, whereas dinosaurs have scaled skin. This observation is based not only on what we observe in live animals today, as well as their fossil counterparts, but also based on incredibly well-preserved remains of dinosaurs. This includes skin impressions of various species (10), and in some cases, mummies (11). In spite of the vast array of well-preserved dinosaur remains we have, in none of them do we find indisputable feathers.
Of course, it would be circular reasoning to argue exclusively from feathers, as this is among the points I am trying to defend. It would also be the no true Scotsman fallacy, as finding even the most indisputable dinosaur with the most indisputable feather would, by this reasoning, turn said dinosaur into a bird. However, I am going to contend there are 3 main features which, when taken together, easily distinguish dinosaurs from birds:
Dinosaurs | Birds |
Scales | Feathers |
Straight wrists | Swivelled wrists |
Large tail | Small tail |
Feathers
Feathers are found quite frequently in the fossil record, and as we will see later on, often in places Evolutionists don't want them to be. As with beipiaosaurus, Evolutionists do attempt to make certain structures out to be feathers which, put simply, are not provably related. But many fossils are found which are virtually identical to the feathers of extant birds. Without exception, all of these feathered fossils have the following two characteristics as well.
Wrists
Another feature unique to birds is their wrists. Imagine, for a moment, you could bend your wrist sideways to such an extent that your pinky finger makes contact with your ulna. Because of a number of bones in your wrist, this is impossible (at least, without a lot of pain and breakage that would no doubt require a swift trip to A&E). However, birds can do this with ease, owing to a special bone called the semilunate carpal. This allows birds to fold their wings against their bodies, as well as aiding in a number of flight maneuvers. This bone, and therefore this ability, is not present in dinosaurs, but is present in fossils with the other two features.
Tails
The final major difference between dinosaurs and birds is the tail. While walking, dinosaurs moved their legs from the hips, which required large tails with large muscle attachments from the tail to the thighs. This was essential for balance, which was particularly important in larger dinosaurs, such as t-rex, as a fall would likely result in death (12). Birds, by contrast, do not need such large muscle attachments. Their primary movement comes from their knees, rather than their hips. Thus, birds have small tails, with the last few vertebrae fused together into what's called a pygostyle. This allows the tail feathers to move as a unit.
These three anatomical features always occur together, allowing us to confidently separate birds from dinosaurs based on observable anatomy, rather than imaginary history. Thus, as we are about to show, there are no bird-like, or even feathered dinosaurs.
Non-feathered Dinosaurs
If we ignore the possibility of fraud, there are three other explanations for feathered dinosaur claims. First, of course, is that we are genuinely looking at a dinosaur, but there are no feathers present. This is the case with, for example, sinosauropteryx.
Sinosauropteryx, whose name means "Chinese Reptilian Wing", was discovered in 1996, and is so named because of its alleged connection to birds. Specifically, the fossil displayed bristley fibers along the back of the neck and tail. This is assumed to be "protofeathers", i.e. not yet fully evolved, but ancestral to, bird feathers.
But as Alan Feduccia notes in his book "Romancing the Birds and Dinosaurs" (13), sinosauropteryx is not unique in this regard. The same fuzz is found in, among other things, dolphins, which notably lack feathers. He also notes that the basilisk lizard has thick "dino fuzz" of the same sort beneath transluscent scales. This reflects an earlier study in which Feduccia took part, in which the researchers contended the so-called protofeathers are actually frayed collogenous fibers (14).
It's worth noting that sinosauropteryx is so well preserved that it allows us to see an extra distinguisher between dinosaurs and birds. With a few exceptions, most reptiles have similar lungs to our own. Air is breathed in, blood collects oxygen, carbon dioxide is expelled the same way the air came in. In birds, by contrast, the air flows a single direction via a convoluted system of air sacs. When a bird breathes in, air flows to the rear air sacs, which then flows through the lungs, which then flows to the front air sacs, which is finally expelled when the bird breathes out.
What's particularly special about sinosauropteryx is it not only lacks feathers while having the straight wrist and thick tail common to other dinosaurs, but also has remarkably preserved, reptilian lungs.
What this means is that, in spite of its name, sinosauropteryx has nothing to do with birds, or feathers, or wings. It is a dinosaur, with all the features of a dinosaur, and none of the features of a bird - including feathers.
Feathered birds
That's not to say there are no feathered fossils at all, however. In fact, there are many. But as we are about to see, these can all be classified as birds, and not as dinosaurs. Let us take the classic example, archaeopteryx.
Due to its unique nature - what might be described as a "mosaic" of numerous species - many Evolutionists consider archaeopteryx to be an example of a transitional form. The conspicuous absence of transitional forms in the fossil record has been a problem for Evolutionists since Darwin's day, and will continue to be so until either Evolution is forgotten, or Jesus returns. But Evolutionists claim archaeopteryx as a transitional form mainly because they do not understand the objection. What they need is large numbers of transitional forms, showing a gradual transition. What they instead present are examples of fully-formed organisms with similar features.
In that regard, archaeopteryx certainly qualifies as a contender. It could easily be picked out from among a range of different farm birds. Among its unusual features are the teeth in its beak, the claws on its wings, and its unusually long tail. No bird today has such a tail, few birds have wing claws, and only extinct birds have teeth (though it seems modern chickens have dormant genes for teeth).
Disqualifying archaeopteryx as a transitional form, however, is the simple fact that "no amount of 'paleobabble'" is going to change archaeopteryx from a perching bird into an earthbound dinosaur. Focusing only on our three criteria, archaeopteryx has unambiguous feathers, swivelled wrists, and a small (though admittedly rather long) tail. On top of this, other parts of its anatomy place it quite firmly within the bird category:
- Perching feet (requiring sophisticated wings to allow delicate landing).
- Large wishbone (serving as an anchor point for large muscles associated with downward flapping).
- Pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis (indicating the presence of air sacs)
- Evidence suggesting a very avian brain.
In spite of its distinguishing features, archaeopteryx is undoubtedly a bird, and is neither a dinosaur, nor transitional between the two. It is a bird, with all the features of a bird, and none of the features of a dinosaur.
Questionable discoveries
Of course, there is a third category. We know a lot about the specimens discovered above, but as humans lack omniscience, sometimes, we'll find things and not really know what's going on. I remember one particular example a few years ago. Social media erupted with the claim that a feathered dinosaur tail had been found in amber. It was supposed to prove, once and for all, that the Bible is wrong, and birds did evolve from dinosaurs.
In spite of the initial hype, this "amazing" discovery seems to have all but fizzled out today, as I haven't heard of it since. One would think, if this was such conclusive proof, Evolutionists would keep it in the spotlight. Every time Creationists "jump all over" the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, they would flourish this well-preserved feathered dino tail.
Perhaps the reason the hype died is because we still don't actually know what kind of animal the tail belongs to. As the original research paper admits (15), "...many diagnostic and comparative osteological details remain obscured." In other words, there's an awful lot of guesswork involved.
The primary argument for the identification of the tail stems from estimations regarding the vertebrae. "...two vertebrae are clearly delineated ventrally (...) Extrapolating lengths of these vertebrae, the preserved tail section contains at least eight full vertebrae and part of a ninth."
Based on the estimations of the number of vertebrae, and the assumption that they are not fused, the researchers identified the tail as belonging to a dinosaur. However, as even many living birds have between 5 and 9 unfused vertebrae before the pygostyle, and we can't guarantee the vertebrae we can't see are unfused, this argument fails.
So what kind of creature does this tail belong to? It would be too dogmatic to assert it is a bird, but Evolutionists have a weaker case that this is a dinosaur.
Fossils in the wrong place
So as we can see, the fossil evidence doesn't show that dinosaurs had feathers. Nor does it reveal any transition from earthbound dinosaurs to flying (or even flightless) birds. But this shouldn't surprise even the most ardent Evolutionist, given that birds are so often found with dinosaurs. And I don't mean just the extinct ones, like the aforementioned archaeopteryx. I mean birds we would instantly recognise today. Parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets, are just a few of the many that have been discovered with dinosaurs, yet this is not widely publicised (16).
Anatomical problems and natural selection
As we have discussed above, there are a number of anatomical differences between birds and dinosaurs which do not overlap. This, however, is because ultimately, they cannot overlap. See, in a movie, anything is possible. You can drop a feathered dinosaur in a frozen pond, and it will gracefully swim around, playing with the protagonists whom we all know aren't about to fall prey to this prancing parakeet. But real life doesn't have plot armor, for people or for dinosaurs. That pyroraptor would have died of hypothermia, but a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds wouldn't need a glorified ice bucket challenge to suffer an agonising death.
See, every feature described today, to one degree or another, plays an important part in the survival of the species. It's even possible that the unusual morphology of certain extinct animals is why they couldn't survive in a post-flood world.
Of course, not all features are equally required for survival. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in flightless variants of flighted birds, such as cormorants. Rather than retaining their fantastic flight design, some cormorants have developed feathers geared more towards insulation. This loss of information (i.e. the opposite of Evolution) shows us what would happen to flight feathers if such features were ever present on land-dwelling dinosaurs, especially if they happened to be swimmers. Natural selection, see, is a selective process. It doesn't take a dinosaur and turn it into a bird, it takes from what already exists. In this case, it takes highly specialised feathers and turns them into significantly less complex, hair-like feathers.
But there is quite some difference between something as relatively trivial as the ability to fly, and the oh so vital ability to walk. Remember, a key difference between birds and dinosaurs is the tail. Specifically, birds do not need their tails to balance, and so their tails are small, with smaller muscle attachments. Dinosaurs, by contrast, absolutely need large tails for balance, which requires huge muscle attachments. Shrink the tail, throw off the balance. For larger dinosaurs, such as t-rex, that would be a death sentence. Even for smaller dinosaurs, which could survive a fall, it's obvious that a fitter dinosaur of normal proportions will be significantly more capable than a clumsy dinosaur. How does a dinosaur catch prey, or avoid becoming prey, if it does a forward roll every time it picks up its foot?
This ignores the lungs, which are of course far more essential than any of the other features discussed so far. Pausing one's breath is possible, and especially for diving birds, essential, but the inability to breathe is an immediate death sentence. Yet, any gradual transition between these two radically different respiratory systems would fail to function. It simply isn't possible, and many Evolutionists know this. In fact, the only reason Evolutionists cling so desperately to the idea that bird lungs are descended from dinosaur lungs is because they don't have a better alternative. It's like drinking sea water because there's no fresh water around. You're thirsty, and you need to drink something, but the more seawater you drink, the thirstier you'll get. Anatomically speaking, it is impossible to gradually evolve anything remotely dinosaurian into anything remotely avian.
The real motive
But if all the evidence so militates against the dino-bird myth, why do Evolutionists boast as if it is the strongest theory since gravity? The answer is found in the book of Genesis. For thousands of years, God has made the truth about origins known. Specifically, He says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11). Genesis 1 describes those 6 days in some detail, specifically showing us that birds were created on the 5th day of creation, whereas land animals (like dinosaurs) were created on the 6th. That is the complete reverse of what Evolutionists want us to believe. Or rather, their view is the reverse of what God wants us to believe.
The book of Genesis goes on, not only to describe the origins of man (from the dirt, not from a monkey), but also our fall. When God created Adam, our ultimate forefather, He gave him one simple command: Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, lest you die. But by this time, the devil had already forsaken his Heavenly role and tried, of course unsuccessfully, to take over God's throne. He tempted Adam and Eve, and they also disobeyed God. The result? The very same death God had promised them.
But this wasn't limited to them. God cursed the entire creation as a result. Now, everything dies, up to and including us. Though we do not all sin in the same way as Adam, we do still sin, and the punishment is the same: Death.
But this death is reversible. From the very beginning, God foresaw and accounted for our rebellion, and put a plan in action by which we may be saved. Just as we all fell into sin and death via Adam, we may all be forgiven and raised to life in Christ, our substitute. On the cross, Jesus suffered the full penalty for our sin, so now all we need to do is believe in Him and receive His reward for His righteousness.
But why would you do that if the Bible is so wrong about... well... everything? If it's so wrong that it places birds and dinosaurs in the wrong order, why would we believe the rest of it? Why would we believe in the last Adam if the first one is just bronze age mythology? In truth, the devil didn't call it quits in Eden. He still wants you to suffer, because you are made in the image of God. But he can't touch God. Thus, like a photo on a dart board, he goes after God's image. You. Me. He just wants to keep us out of the Kingdom, and he's willing to put feathers on a dinosaur to do it. But as we have seen in this article, you have no intellectual reason to do so. You can trust the Bible from the very first verse, right up until the last. And if you do that, it will bring you into a restored relationship with the God who created dinosaurs, birds, and you.
References
1. Williamson, D., Latest study: scientists say no evidence exists that therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill News Release, March 8th 2006
2. Natural History Museum - Pyroraptor (link)
3. Amos, Jonathan - Will the real dinosaurs stand up?, BBC News, September 17th 2008 (link)
4. Natural History Museum - Therizinosssaurus (link)
5. Feduccia, Alan - Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: Hidden Birds of China, Yale University Press, July 1st 2012
6. Klappenbach, Laura - Feather Anatomy and Function, ThoughtCo, February 1th 2019 (link)
7. Sloan, Christopher - Feathers for T. Rex?, National Geographic, November 1999.
8. Olson, Storrs L. - open letter dated November 1, 1999, to Peter Raven at National Geographic Society.
9. Robinson, Phil - Fake spider fossil passes peer review!, Creation Ministries International, April 23rd 2020 (link)
10. Katz, Brigit - ‘Exquisitely Preserved’ Skin Impressions Found in Dinosaur Footprints, Smithsonian Magazine, April 11th 2019 (link)
11. Black, Riley - Incredible dinosaur ‘mummy’ reveals a surprisingly hoof-like foot, National Geographic, October 13th 2022 (link)
12. Hecht, Jeff - The bigger they come, the harder they fall, New Scientist, October 7th 1995 (link)
13. Feduccia, Alan - Romancing the Birds and Dinosaurs, November 16th 2020
14. Lingham-Soliar - Theagarten et al. - A new Chinese specimen indicates that ‘protofeathers’ in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are degraded collagen fibres, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, May 23rd 2007 (link)
15. Xing, L.D. et al., A feathered dinosaur tail with primitive plumage trapped in Mid-Cretaceous amber, Curr. Biol. 26(24):3352–3360, 19 December 2016 (link)
16. Batten, Don - Modern birds found with dinosaurs: Are museums misleading the public?, Creation Ministries International, July 2012 (link)