[Boogieman]

Typical how the writer waits until the last paragraph to admit that they have absolutely no evidence that this “fuzz” came from dinosaurs, or that it represents “protofeathers”. Just another “science” fairy tale.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "Typical how the writer waits until the last paragraph to admit that they have absolutely no evidence that this “fuzz” came from dinosaurs, or that it represents “protofeathers”. "

Responding:

From the article, paragraph 6: " 'We don't absolutely know what they are, but we're pretty sure what they're not,' he notes.
They could be protofeathers, McKellar says, because they resemble the carbonized structures found in some Chinese fossils preserved in sediments..."

Paragraph 8: "Although the evidence suggests the filamentary structures are protofeathers, he notes, the lack of any other remains in the amber—a distinctive bit of bone, say, or a shred of skin—leaves open the possibility that the structures aren't associated with dinosaurs at all."

So, the article does not say it the way you reported.

In a few years, somebody will do DNA analysis on those structures, someone else will find related material in other pieces of amber and a better picture will emerge.
That's how science works.

In the meantime, in scientific-ese, the hypothesis that those are "dino-fuzz" remains unconfirmed.

Allowing for just a little journalistic hype, the story is pretty straight-forward.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "Typical how the writer waits until the last paragraph to admit that they have absolutely no evidence that this “fuzz” came from dinosaurs, or that it represents “protofeathers”. "

Responding:

From the article, paragraph 6: " 'We don't absolutely know what they are, but we're pretty sure what they're not,' he notes.
They could be protofeathers, McKellar says, because they resemble the carbonized structures found in some Chinese fossils preserved in sediments..."

Paragraph 8: "Although the evidence suggests the filamentary structures are protofeathers, he notes, the lack of any other remains in the amber—a distinctive bit of bone, say, or a shred of skin—leaves open the possibility that the structures aren't associated with dinosaurs at all."

So, the article does not say it the way you reported.

In a few years, somebody will do DNA analysis on those structures, someone else will find related material in other pieces of amber and a better picture will emerge.
That's how science works.

In the meantime, in scientific-ese: the hypothesis that those are "dino-fuzz" remains unconfirmed.

Allowing for just a little journalistic hype, the story is pretty straight-forward.

[BunnySlippers]

I want a cute fluffy, fuzzy dinosaur.