Medieval monks knew science

[Outrider]

Another example is archaeopteryx. This is the oldest known bird with flight feathers (correct me if I'm wrong). It has pennaceous feathers, with asymmetrical barbs (a characteristic of modern flight feathers) and also barbules.
So pennaceous feathers with barbules appear abruptly around 150 million years ago.

How do you conclude that it's an abrupt appearance, when the crux of your argument is that we don't have the complete record? We don't know how many predecessors of archaeopteryx had similar formations, or the precursors to them, we simply know that at one point dinosaurs didn't have feathers and then, at a later point, they did.  Exactly when in that sequence they appeared we can only estimate.

There are no transitional links from dinosaurs.

Comparative anatomy would suggest otherwise for the early dinosaurs, direct genetic comparisons for more modern dinosaurs would definitively contradict that.

O.

[Anchorman]

Even if I accepted everything this article says (and I don't because creation.com is a lying propaganda site), it's supposed to be even the slightest dent in the mountainous evidence for evolution, how exactly?

At the most it's a rethink of a particular detail.

   

With you on creation.com.
The only rival in innacuracy is Answers in Genesis.

[Spud]

How do you conclude that it's an abrupt appearance, when the crux of your argument is that we don't have the complete record?

That is also the crux of the evolutionist's argument, as complex feathers could also be found in earlier* strata than archaeopteryx. As things currently stand, complex feathers appear abruptly (unless you want to argue that "anchiornis" is a transition).

We don't know how many predecessors of archaeopteryx had similar formations, or the precursors to them, we simply know that at one point dinosaurs didn't have feathers and then, at a later point, they did.  Exactly when in that sequence they appeared we can only estimate.

But if I recall correctly, most if not all of the non-feathered dinosaurs that archaeopteryx is supposed to be a link to from modern birds, post-date it. Eg Deinonychus which is tens of millions of years younger.

Comparative anatomy would suggest otherwise for the early dinosaurs, direct genetic comparisons for more modern dinosaurs would definitively contradict that.

O.

*earlier = by conventional dating

[Outrider]

That is also the crux of the evolutionist's argument, as complex feathers could also be found in earlier* strata than archaeopteryx. As things currently stand, complex feathers appear abruptly (unless you want to argue that "anchiornis" is a transition).

No, my point is that no-one I'm aware of is suggesting that we have anything even vaguely approaching a complete fossil chain - to presume that the presence of feathers on archaeopteryx represents a sudden emergence is to fail to acknowledge that we have no idea how many species for which we've no fossil evidence comprise the chain of evolutionary development from (presumably) scales to these more complex feathers.

But if I recall correctly, most if not all of the non-feathered dinosaurs that archaeopteryx is supposed to be a link to from modern birds, post-date it. Eg Deinonychus which is tens of millions of years younger.

*earlier = by conventional dating

And this establishes what?  Presuming that you're right, and there are purported relationships, and that we have an accurate enough fossil record of deinonychus to suggest whether or not it had feathers, and whether or not those feathers were complex... so what?  Modern felines have a range of claws, some of which are retractable, some of which aren't - they are all undoubtedly related... this is the nature of evolution, some traits are expressed strongly and others aren't, it's one of the things that makes our attempts to definitively classify organisms into rigidly defined boxes so difficult.

O.

[Spud]

No, my point is that no-one I'm aware of is suggesting that we have anything even vaguely approaching a complete fossil chain - to presume that the presence of feathers on archaeopteryx represents a sudden emergence is to fail to acknowledge that we have no idea how many species for which we've no fossil evidence comprise the chain of evolutionary development from (presumably) scales to these more complex feathers.

"The chain of evolutionary development..." How do you know there is one?
The scale to feather hypothesis is not a good one, from what I've read.

And this establishes what?  Presuming that you're right, and there are purported relationships, and that we have an accurate enough fossil record of deinonychus to suggest whether or not it had feathers, and whether or not those feathers were complex... so what?  Modern felines have a range of claws, some of which are retractable, some of which aren't - they are all undoubtedly related... this is the nature of evolution, some traits are expressed strongly and others aren't, it's one of the things that makes our attempts to definitively classify organisms into rigidly defined boxes so difficult.

O.

It's the increase in complexity, from microscopic to great big, that I have a problem with. Not minor variation like claw types or feather types. You can line up a group of species and demonstrate an evolutionary progression, based on comparative anatomy or geological context. You can equally conclude, based on the many examples of stasis in the fossil record, that evolution only exists within boundaries such as genus or family.

[Gordon]

"The chain of evolutionary development..." How do you know there is one?
The scale to feather hypothesis is not a good one, from what I've read.

I'm no expert, Spud, but if you've been reading creationist shite again then neither are you.

It's the increase in complexity, from microscopic to great big, that I have a problem with. Not minor variation like claw types or feather types. You can line up a group of species and demonstrate an evolutionary progression, based on comparative anatomy or geological context. You can equally conclude, based on the many examples of stasis in the fossil record, that evolution only exists within boundaries such as genus or family.

Your qualifications for being so certain about this, to the extent that the 'concerns' you have would be serious obstacles for evolutionary science, are what exactly?

[Spud]

I'm no expert, Spud, but if you've been reading creationist shite again then neither are you.

Your qualifications for being so certain about this, to the extent that the 'concerns' you have would be serious obstacles for evolutionary science, are what exactly?

I used to be a member of the YOC (young ornithologist's club), Gordon. 
It was a non-creationist website that said the scale-to-feather theory is wrong.

[Stranger]

"The chain of evolutionary development..." How do you know there is one?

The evidence for evolution isn't secret, it's easy to find. This is one of the most secure theories in the whole of science - the only controversy surrounding it is artificially generated by religious fundamentalists. The science is as solid as it gets.

The scale to feather hypothesis is not a good one, from what I've read.

It wouldn't matter a jot if there wasn't any direct evidence for scale to feather. It wouldn't be as much as a grain of sand out of the mountain of evidence for evolution.

It's the increase in complexity, from microscopic to great big, that I have a problem with. Not minor variation like claw types or feather types. You can line up a group of species and demonstrate an evolutionary progression, based on comparative anatomy or geological context. You can equally conclude, based on the many examples of stasis in the fossil record, that evolution only exists within boundaries such as genus or family.

Except that wouldn't actually explain the all evidence of the fossil record. And again, genetics alone gives us enough evidence for common descent. It was a dramatic confirmation of what had been deduced from the other evidence - including the fossil record, of course.

And yet again, if you're talking about YEC, evolution is only one of the many sciences that falsify it.

[Enki]

I used to be a member of the YOC (young ornithologist's club), Gordon. 
It was a non-creationist website that said the scale-to-feather theory is wrong.

And I used to be a YOC leader, Spud. The YOC was simply the young person's offshoot of the RSPB, and was focussed on creating an interest in birds amongst people under 18, particularly of school age. Are you seriously quoting someone from the YOC as an authority on bird origins? I don't remember anything of the sort but as I could obviously have overlooked something, as far as I am concerned, you will have to produce evidence from this YOC website to substantiate your claim, so that we can all look at the credentials of the person stating that the scale to feather theory is wrong, when he/she made it etc. Remember the YOC started in 1965.

[Gordon]

I used to be a member of the YOC (young ornithologist's club), Gordon. 

That's nice, but hardly sufficient to pontificate on evolutionary theory relating to avian species.

It was a non-creationist website that said the scale-to-feather theory is wrong.

Which one?

[Stranger]

It was a non-creationist website that said the scale-to-feather theory is wrong.

I do hope you're not referring to the one you linked to before, that said no such thing.

[Outrider]

"The chain of evolutionary development..." How do you know there is one?

Genetic comparisons, comparative morphology, predictions from the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection being repeatedly borne out by subsequent discoveries.  It's, technically, a provisional understanding as all scientific claims are, but it's proven remarkably robust over the past century and a half.

The scale to feather hypothesis is not a good one, from what I've read.

It was presumption on my part, I confess, I'm not aware of any particular theories regarding the emergence of feathers.

It's the increase in complexity, from microscopic to great big, that I have a problem with. Not minor variation like claw types or feather types. You can line up a group of species and demonstrate an evolutionary progression, based on comparative anatomy or geological context. You can equally conclude, based on the many examples of stasis in the fossil record, that evolution only exists within boundaries such as genus or family.

Except that there are examples from the DNA comparisons where we can show common ancestry - DNA elements that show distinctive mutations in comparable sections in organisms as diverse as plants and mammals, that allow us to gauge when certain branches of the tree of life split off.

O.

[Spud]

I do hope you're not referring to the one you linked to before, that said no such thing.

From http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

Because birds evolved from reptiles and the integument of present-day reptiles (and most extinct reptiles including most dinosaurs) is characterized by scales, early hypotheses concerning the evolution of feathers began with the assumption that feathers developed from scales, with scales elongating, then growing fringed edges and, ultimately, producing hooked and grooved barbules (Figure 6 below). The problem with that scenario is that scales are basically flat folds of the integument whereas feathers are tubular structures. A pennaceous feather becomes ‘flat’ only after emerging from a cylindrical sheath (Prum and Brush 2002). In addition, the type and distribution of protein (keratin) in feathers and scales differ (Sawyer et al. 2000). The only feature shared by feathers and scales is that they both begin development as a morphologically distinct placode – an epidermal thickening above a condensation, or congregation, of dermal cells (see Figure 8 below). Feathers, then, are not derived from scales, but, rather, are evolutionary novelties with numerous unique features, including the feather follicle, tubular feather germ (an elevated area of epidermal cells), and a complex branching structure

Again, my problem with the evolutionary model is its claim that some creatures apparently evolved into entirely new forms over millions of years, while others remained basically the same over the same period. The thing about the creationist model is that it makes sense of this phenomenon.

Are you seriously quoting someone from the YOC as an authority on bird origins?

No, it was a joke, Enki. I was a member but wasn't intending to imply they were teaching YEC. Sorry to cause confusion.

[Stranger]

From http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

More recently: How dinosaur scales became bird feathers

It's difficult to piece together exactly what happened - that's why these sorts of details keep on getting revised. This is science, the picture gets revise in line with new evidence.

And you keep on ignoring the point that this kind detail has no impact whatsoever on the mountains of evidence that exists for (macro)evolution. The pretense that picking away at something like this will call into question the theory itself is a creationist misrepresentation.

Again, my problem with the evolutionary model is its claim that some creatures apparently evolved into entirely new forms over millions of years, while others remained basically the same over the same period.

And this is another creationist misrepresentation. If you knew the first thing about the real theory of evolution, rather than the creationist misrepresentation, you'd know why this is entirely consistent with said theory.  Why don't you go away and find out why some creatures stay very similar over long periods? You might even learn something.

The thing about the creationist model is that it makes sense of this phenomenon.

Literal young earth creationism is a non-starter because it is contradicted by multiple types of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines.

[Spud]

And this is another creationist misrepresentation. If you knew the first thing about the real theory of evolution, rather than the creationist misrepresentation, you'd know why this is entirely consistent with said theory.  Why don't you go away and find out why some creatures stay very similar over long periods? You might even learn something.

I know why: supposedly a lack of selective pressure. In other words, while the fish were evolving into amphibians, reptiles, mammals then whales, the jelly fish were watching the whole thing and thinking, "was that really necessary?"

[Stranger]

I know why: supposedly a lack of selective pressure.

Good start but then...

In other words, while the fish were evolving into amphibians, reptiles, mammals then whales, the jelly fish were watching the whole thing and thinking, "was that really necessary?"

...the creationist propaganda takes over. Here's a hint: different species have different environments, even if they live in the same geographical location. You need to forget everything you think you know from creationist sources and start again.