Dinosaurs, Birds, Evolution and Desperation

It is acknowledged that members of the media will run off with sensational science stories and exaggerate information, sometimes even making claims of which the scientists themselves are unaware. This brings two questions to my mind. First, should science publications show some restraint? Second, should they do some checking to make sure they are not contradicting their own worldview, even if scientists did make off-the-wall speculations?

Image sources: Wikimedia Commons / PD / US
morgueFile / dee37
In this case, evolutionists are up to their old tricks, imagining a connection (homology) so they can bolster their belief system even though the connection is unwarranted. Plus, claiming that birds evolved from hadrosaurs...oh, my. Never mind that they are continuing the mythology that dinosaurs evolved into birds, because dinosaurs ate birds, and bird fossils are found with dinosaur fossils. Then they have to explain how a fleshy appendage lasted for an alleged 65 million years. But like the rest of evolution, why let the facts stand in the way of a good, profitable story, n'est-ce pas?
An apparent fleshy appendage on the head of a hadrosaur does not mean it is an evolutionary link to birds. A specimen of Edmontosaurus was discovered with impressions of what might have been a fleshy appendage, about 8 inches tall, on the skull. Most of the science news sites could not help likening the feature to the cock’s comb of a rooster.
You can comb the rest of this brief article at "A Dinosaur Is Not a Rooster".