The professor makes a strong and convincing argument to cast doubt on the writer's claim which states the line which found in the sinosauropteryx's fossil in volcanic ash, are not sign of feather or they were not functional feather.

The professor makes a strong and convincing argument to cast doubt on the writer's claim which states the line which found in the sinosauropteryx's fossil in volcanic ash, are not sign of feather or they were not functional feather. The three reasons that the professor argues with come in following. First, the article claims that the critics showed that these line formed after sinosaur's dead and they don't represent functional structures. In contrast, the professor refutes this idea by explaining that after decomposition of dinosaur their body preserved well in volcanic ash like other animal'a fossil in that place. he states that these well preserved fossil related to well functional feathers no frils. Secondly, the article points out that if these were feather, scientist cann't tell with certainty which part of dinosaur body were. However, the professor argues this idea by explaining that the chemical structure of feather and frills are different and beta caroten in feather is a very good sign for them where the frills do not have beta caroten protein. he asserts certainly that these line are related to feathers. Third and last, the article stated taht feathers have known function as thermoregulation or flying for birds and the place that they found in these fossils don't match with this application. Conversly, the porfessor adds some more applicatioin such as display in mating for some feathers and said an example of this usage by calling Picac bird which has some orange and white feather. he inferes that these line can be related to some displaing feathers which sinosauropteryx used for mating.