How can a blind man know where a path "really" leads?
How about actually critiquing the paper and it's findings rather than just advancing an adjectival philippic that lacks any actual support for your claim?
What background do you have to hold yourself up as an authority on the evolution of feathers?
Do you know anything whatever about this rather rarified topic save when you have swallowed hook, line and sinker from unsupportable, uncritical and might I note, unknown and unreferenced cretanist websites?
Sapiens - You are reading too much into this. My use of the words "sound bite" and "pop-sci" and "culturally popular" were too emotional, and for that, I apologize.
I'm simply imploring someone to actually look at the data--not just the title, the abstract, or the simplified conclusions--and to use their own critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence rather than allow the author to do all the thinking for them (and lead them astray with overly ambitious titles, abstracts, etc.).
I'm sure, as a polymath, you are aware that the peer-review process is not flawless (and can be downright weak in some publications). It is not uncommon to see papers that have titles, abstract conclusions, discussions, etc. that go well beyond the data. It is also not uncommon for scientists to challenge each other's published conclusions after a healthy review of the data, a process I've been involved with. It is not uncommon, too, here on RF, to have people citing papers in support of their position based on the title alone and without checking if the data (or the paper more broadly) actually supports their argument.
It doesn't require a specialized background to identify analytic leaps or notice when something is characterized speculatively in one paragraph and as fact in the next.
In the end, should we not analyze everything in life in such a manner, and encourage each other to do so? Shouldn't we look at the evidence and objectively follow wherever it may lead? Cross check analysis and conclusions to ensure that they remain honest to the data, unbiased by pre-held notions?
This is all outside the scope of this thread. The OP holds up transitional fossil forms as a good evidence for evolution, and invites comment. I threw out one longstanding conundrum--the rapid appearance in the fossil record of feathers and a lack of any fossil specimen showing a skin appendage that is between a scale and a feather, a true scale-to- feather transitionary form. Several people have added comment or cited papers (like this one) or provided links to abstracts regarding everything but the very narrow topic at hand--fossil record, a physiological representation of scale-to-feather transitionary form. I've asked several to help surface and post one (just one) example that would allow us to check this box solved. Is that unreasonable? The replies have been insults, people stepping out of the conversation in a huff, and all manner of wild accusations about religious affiliation and visited websites. It has been fascinating to observe.