Is the usual BS news-cycle. The media take some messy science, compresses it down to a few basic immutable ‘factual diamonds’ then starts shrieking when new evidence comes along to refine the story.

For them it’s a win-win situation, the ‘facts’ make a good headline and so does the ‘controversy’.

Support your friendly neighborhood science bloggers.

Mind you, as Steve shows, misconceptions are often a chance to explain what is really going on, so thanks Steve.

Archaeopteryx is still the reigning champions of fossil finds and we knew it would be the only fossil to fill the bird-dinosaur transitions.

If there is no room for refinement of knowledge, it is dogma not science. Often the media tries to present the opposite, that science is dogma. In my opinion that misrepresentation is the reason why some lay persons belief that science is an arrogant modern religion like Scientology.
It is not just news reporting that misfires, science as arrogant dogma is also a reoccurring theme in entertainment as well.

Shining examples as products of a combination of the US education system and fundamentalist religion. Creationists are a neverending source of amusement and awesome displays of sheer and utter jaw-dropping ignorance and scientific illiteracy.

Jim – That’s basically what I am saying, but it is more complex than that, and I deliberately hedged because right now we just don’t know. This is what I think we can say based upon current evidence (but would love to chat with an actual expert about it).

Feathers developed very early in the theropod line. There are now many genera of feathered theropods.

These feathers developed to various degrees. In some lines feathers developed the typically anatomy of flight feathers – similar to modern birds.

In some of those lines actual flight evolved. It may have developed once, or more than once. If more than once, then it probably developed from theropod genera that already had feathers compatible with flight.

To make things more complicated, some species may have secondarily lost the ability to fly.

Microraptor is one candidate for an independent evolution of flight. It has four wings. From my reading it seems like this is still an open question.

So – I don’t think we know if Archaeopterxy branched off from the line that lead to birds before or after the common flying ancestor. But even if it was before and it evolved flight independently, it was probably close to the split because it shares “modern” flight feathers with all flying species.

Also – “flight” is not a black and white thing either. It’s a pretty broad continuum. Archaopteryx was a very bad flyer, by modern bird standards, and was definitely not far along the path to flight. I have read some dispute about whether it could sustain flight or not. But I think the consensus is it could fly to some degree.

The picture is still incomplete enough that there are likely more surprises in store.

This seems to me to be a result of a bias towards extant species, as if extinct species don’t count. This may be related to the incorrect perception that evolution is directional and progressive, and that this resulted in the animals we have today (and humans being the ultimate endpoint). It is not surprising that the people critical of evolution have this perspective and lack of understanding

Do I have that right, in your opinion?

Thanks for the write-up.