Walking with Feathers

Ken Ham posted a blog about the movie, Walking with Dinosaurs in which he quoted from an upcoming review of the movie soon to be posted on Answers in Genesis.  

The film is set in what evolutionists call the Late Cretaceous period—and the influence of evolutionary ideas is evident in the way the dinosaurs are portrayed. The Troodon, Hesperonychus, and Chirostenotes are all feathered dinosaurs that appear in the film. On many occasions Answers in Genesis has responded to the claims that dinosaurs had feathers. One of the more recent responses can be found on our website. But there’s no evidence that dinosaurs had feathers. Such claims are just the evolutionists’ way of making the evolutionary story seem true. They so want kids to believe in evolution, this claim of dinosaurs having feathers is made very often in our day—through movies, museums, books, newspaper articles, documentaries, etc.

I saw the movie today and could not help but think that there should be evidence that any member of the ceratopsian "kind" existed with the crow "kind", elephant "kind", bear "kind"... Just look at all the types of mammalian and avian "kinds" that were supposed to be coexisting and herding with ceratopsians. The evidence for a cretaceous crow "kind" is not there.

Two members of the family Troodontidae have been found with feathers. In fact, I've found a couple of articles on AiG claiming that Anchiornis huxleyi was actually a bird. If "kinds" are generally families, then why can't other members of the Troodon "kind" have feathers or simply be considered avian "kinds" created on Day 5?

Likewise other members of the Dromaeosauridae family have been proclaimed "birds" by AiG and the evidence seems to suggest that Velociraptor might have had feathers. Why can't other members of the Dromaesauridae family/"kind" like Hesperonychus have feathers?

At least two species of the clade Oviraptorosauria are considered "flightless birds" by AiG. Why would it be so great a leap for Chirostenotes to have feathers? Typing this out, it amazes me how many members of different dinosaur clades are considered birds by AiG.

ICR should know that strawmen are not your friends.

These blatant misrepresentations of the Theory of Evolution have no place in our schools and definitely no place in our churches.  I do not understand why Brian Thomas insists on making things up.

The same can be said about cormorants. The flightless Galapagos variety has stunted wings. Though they are effective divers, they can no longer fly like other cormorants. Loss of wing size, loss of flight wing feather structure, and loss of flight are the opposite of Darwinian evolution. [1]

Evolution maintains that as more time passes, living things evolve to acquire better and more useful traits. As such, shouldn't the loss of a useful trait, such as eyesight, be regarded as the opposite of evolution? Not so, say recent news reports on blind fish...

...But obtaining the fish sight system required an input of a massive quantity and quality of information. And making the fish blind merely required the loss of some of that information. How could attributing these opposite processes to "evolution" be scientifically accurate?

The study of blind cavefish can undoubtedly contribute valuable insight into the genetics of trait variations and the fishes' potential to adapt and survive in varied environments. But because evolution is supposed to make new traits or develop new and useful genetic information, mere losses and variations should not be called evolution. [2]

The Theory of Evolution has maintained since the beginning that attributes can be loss through "disuse".