TPO31

Both the reading passage and professor's lecture discuss whether the fine lines were feathers or not. The reading passage shows that the fine lines were not the feathers because they might be the fibers' decomposition, remains of frills, or mis-located. However, the professor discords with the issues in the reading passage. He thinks that three theorems presented in the reading are questionable, offering several refutations to oppose the article.

First of all, the reading mentions that the fine lines were skin fibers in the fossils. Yet, the lecturer severely challenges the theory by arguing that we did not see any other animals' decomposition buried at the same time. Furthermore, he contends that many other animals' fossils were well-preserved in volcanic ash. That is, if the fine lines were the feathers, it must be well-preserved as well.

Secondly, the passage suggests that the fine lines were remains of real structures, which were more likely to be frills than feathers. Nevertheless, the scholar seriously contradicts the hypothesis by asserting that the feathers had a lot of special proteins and the frills did not contain those special proteins, Moreover, the chemical analyses showed the Sinosauropteryx structures did contain the particular proteins, so it might be the feathers rather than frills.

Last but not least, the reading article indicates that the structures were mostly located along the backbone and the tail of the animal, so it might not be the feathers. Once again, the speaker casts doubt on the issue by maintaining that feathers can be used for other functions. In addition, the professor takes peacock for example, and he points out that the peacock's feathers are used for attracting mates. Also, we discovered that the Sinosauropteryx's structures were colorful. Thus, it might be also used for display, just like peacock does.