Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, November 18, 2011

Top 10 Reasons Evolution is Wrong - Lori H. with comments added.

Educator and Art History Professor Lori Hutchinson, a reader of this blog, has sent me a guest post which begins below.  She also presents a link to a site she owns that matches up people to post-graduate educational opportunities.   Her ten reasons are all short statements which could all be individual blog posts but they are succinct and to the point.  Lori Hutchinson ~

Top 10 Reasons Evolution is Wrong

1. Birds – When you really think about the idea of natural selection and apply it to certain species, it doesn’t always make sense. For example, why would birds evolve wings if they didn’t need to fly before? What use were wings before they were big enough to get the bird off the ground? Until wings evolved  completely, they would be useless, and so why did birds supposedly spend millions of generations evolving a useful wing?


2. No Missing Links – If the species today evolved from other species millions of years ago, why aren’t we digging up fossils of all these missing links? Evolutionists will line up pictures of extinct ape skills and compare them to a human skull, but the gaps between each species are still too big.


3. Single Cell Complexity – Evolutionists believe that all life evolved from a single cell organism, which came about when molecules combined in a random way. Then the cell supposedly divided and ended up creating more sophisticated life forms. Yet scientists aren’t even sure how this occurred. No laboratory has ever been able to produce a single living cell.


4. The Human Reproductive System – We all know that a male and female each contribute one chromosome in the form of a sperm and an egg. This leads to the development of a baby in the mother’s womb. Although evolutionists claim that environmental factors change the chromosomes and cause small changes in the offspring, this is impossible. Environmental factors cannot change chromosomes in the ovaries or sperm cells.


5. DNA Repair – The DNA replication process includes an error-checking method and repair process to ensure it is performed correctly. Mutation does occur, but it is much rarer than evolutionists would have us believe.


6. Chaos from Organization – The Second Law of Thermodynamics expresses the universal principle of decay in nature. Chaos must come from organization, not the other way around as evolution suggests. God’s perfect creation has been moving toward chaos since the Fall of man.


7. Fixed Chromosome Count – All species have a fixed number of chromosomes that cannot be changed. This is why one species cannot mate with another. If an animal had one more or one less chromosome because of a mutation, it could not successfully mate. Scientists have mated lions and tigers in zoos to make “ligers,” but these animals are always sterile.


8. “Mitochondrial” Adam and Eve – Several different scientific studies have traced the DNA of the human race back to a single man and woman who lived about 6000 years ago. According to evolutionists, humans gradually evolved from monkeys. Yet the DNA the scientists have discovered hasn’t changed for over 6000 years.


9. The Cambrian Explosion – The deepest fossil layers contain simple bacteria, yet right about these layers is what’s known as the “Cambrian Explosion” – a fantastic variety of species, including vertebrates. Where’s the missing link between the bacteria and all those species?


10. The Human Race – The Bible tells us that God created man in His image. No other species even comes close to being as intelligent and sophisticated as we are. If we evolved from monkeys, shouldn’t there be species that come close to our level of intelligence?
This article was submitted by Lori Hutchison. She owns the site Masters in History Guide and is an Art History Professor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lori makes some good points.   There are more than ten good reasons why evolution is wrong.   In general, Occam's Razor is ignored because evolution is never the best explanation for any of the recent findings in science about life, about the makeup of the elements, about the objects observed in space, about dating methods, about the cell, about variations within organisms, about the surface features of the Earth, about the composition of the atmosphere, about the fossil layers, you name it, Darwinists have a convoluted story about it which is not by common sense nearly as reasonable as Creation by God. 

Let us elaborate on one of Lori's points, Point 5 - DNA Repair.

I remember when all GM cars had a little nameplate on the frame at the bottom of the driver's door opening that would proclaim "body by Fisher" and to this day, all cars have an ID tag usually on the dashboard near the junction of dash and windshield and also a tag on the inside of the driver's door where the door would meet the frame.   These tags identify the car so that one could know when it was assembled and at what factory.  Many of the components of the automobile will also have a number stamped on them.  Most automobiles driven in America were assembled here, even those with foreign names like Toyota and Subaru.   Some come from overseas and quite a few are assembled in Mexico.   

Body by Fisher

By the way, when our automobile parts plant had a "run" of Ford parts that were sub-standard but still usable, they were selected to ship to Mexico, where many of the Fords were made, often for shipment overseas but some would come back to the USA.   Everyone knew the Mexican plant had a reputation for poor workmanship and standards, so we could ship the parts there and get paid rather than having to try to recycle them and take what we could to blend with raw materials and get something out of them.  So if you are buying a Ford, check the serial number and use the internet to discover if it was assembled in the USA or Mexico.  If Mexico, just walk away, the automobile is probably going to be a lemon.

Lori's point five, DNA repair, is quite important.   You see, in the 1980's the automobile industry in America felt a virtual earthquake of realization as they finally began to understand why foreign makers like Toyota and Honda and Subaru and Volkswagen were kicking their butts.   American automakers still used old-fashioned quality control methods, in which now and again a random part was taken from the assembly line and checked against the specifications.   Quality Process Control had been taught by American engineers to the Japanese to help them rebuild their businesses after WWII.   But American industry had for the most part ignored the concept.  By the 1980's we had pitiful examples such as the Chrysler "K-body" cars that were unreliable, ugly hunks of soon-to-be-junk.   Bad engineering, careless quality control and an arrogant belief in the superiority of products simply because of the "Made in America" tag had become the norm.

In the Automobile industry in this country, the automakers implemented Quality Process Systems (aka Controls or Assurance) and Kaizen (basically a means of continuous improvement in methods and results) and required compliance with ISO 9001/2/3 and above standards by means of internal and external audits.  Assembly lines were now being sampled by specific methods designed to assure a consistent result and proactive controls were put in place so that each auto supplier had quality process controls in place from raw materials all the way to the assembly plants themselves (in the USA).   The results were manifold.   US-built automobiles regained their reputations as well-built, there were more management ears listening to the engineers and the industry was shaken and suffered losses but it survived.   Had the automobile unions been willing to make some concessions the US would have likely seen a resurgence in domestic auto sales and growth rather than loss of market share.   But while the automakers could improve their products, bad union contracts made the cost of labor tremendously higher for Detroit and therefore it was and still is hard for them to compete.

I was a certified ISO auditor once myself...

No matter, the point is that organisms had quality process controls built into them and we did not even know this until recently.  This knowledge alone should have clued Darwinists into the idea that cells are designed.  QPS as we called it in the auto industry is not something that one can imagine evolving, as it is sets of controls placed upon a system from outside the system itself.  It is a management tool that involves auditing and testing against standards and yet organisms have been apparently doing this from the beginning while mankind did not even begin using assembly lines until the 19th Century when Samuel Colt began using the concept in rudimentary form for producing weapons and then, famously, Henry Ford applied them on a bigger scale to produce his automobiles.   Decades later QPS (also called QPC, QPA and QP depending on the source) would be imposed on manufacturing systems to ensure standardized results.   

Organisms have been using assembly line concepts and QPS in order to reproduce.  Organisms have meta-information in the cells that are the assembly instructions for the child(ren) of the organism, and this meta-information is part of the system that assures that the same kind of organism will result.   DNA has continuous repair systems in place, seeking to eliminate mutations of any kind.   Algorithms that are often beyond human understanding are entered into the organism during reproduction as information is passed from generation to generation but not by teaching but rather as part of the reproductive process. The framework for the child is laid by the mother, assuring that the same kind of organism will result.   Some inbuilt switches allow for certain features to be quickly changed, such as the beaks of finches.   Ironic that finch beaks actually can vary quite a bit and change rapidly to adapt to conditions but this is a process inbuilt into the organism using genetic code already available for use.

Darwinists have no explanation for the rich genetic code within DNA, let alone DNA itself.  They have no explanation for switching, for quality process control, for meta-information or for algorithms that are inbuilt.   All of these features are design features.  They are all evidence that the organisms were designed and built to be able to reproduce while having an abundance of choices within the gene pool to conserve the kind while adjusting to variations in ecosystems.  "Junk" DNA turns out to be not only functional but necessary as scientists learn more about how DNA actually works and discover more and more complexity and design and information within cells of all kinds.  "Vestigal" organs turn out to have uses.  ERVs turn out to be highly functional rather than being leftovers from the past.  In fact, the variation within kind has been revealed to be just what Edward Blyth thought it was, the selection of features available to the organism is simply part of the design of the organism.  God turns out to be a great engineer.   


Organisms are not evolving, they are devolving.  Mankind is accumulating mutations despite the QPS processes built in to DNA.   No doubt science will discover that mutations are accumulating within most populations.   Despite the Darwinist myth that mutations are the drivers for the evolution of organisms, the fact is that it goes in the other direction.  Mutations are the enemy of the organism, not the builder.   You should be able to see this logically.   There are companies that build automobiles.  We call them manufacturers.  There are also companies that take automobiles and strip them for parts and then crunch the remains into small metal cubes.  We call them junk yards or wreckers.   

Consider your home.  I will use mine as an example.  We purchased land, approved a blueprint for the design of the home with some variations to the standard according to our personal preferences.   Various crews produced the foundation, built the house from scratch using lumber and nails and drywall and brick and mortar and so on.  That crew also built the back deck.  Other crews put in the wiring and plumbing.  Yet another crew put in the doors and painted the walls and put on the trim.   Meanwhile a crew installed the siding and roofing and soffits and gutters.   One of the crews put in the windows and overhead lights and ceiling fans.  A crew poured the floor of the garage, put in the driveway and the sidewalks and the front porch.    We then ourselves got the sod laid for the lawn, built the dog run and put in the gravel, added trees and shrubs and gardens in front and back for decorative purposes, plus a garden in back for things like peppers and tomatoes.   We had a shed built in back.  With all of this, it took raw materials and design and intention and effort to build a house.

How about number 6, Chaos from Organization?

When a house is ready to be demolished, a wrecking crew comes in to perhaps take anything that appears to be of value, then knock the house down to the ground and smash it into small enough pieces to be thrown away in a big dumpster.   They may separate out pipe and wiring from the rubble of wood and insulation and other junk.   For the most part the house is converted to junk and hauled away to the dump.   A wrecking crew tears things down and breaks things up and turns a house into a couple of dumpster loads of trash destined for the dump, where the remains will continue to be broken down by the elements and any organisms that may feed on what is left.   The Second Law of Thermodynamics works on finishing the job.

building turning to rubble in Cairo, IL


If a house is left alone and not maintained, it will tear itself down.   Over time the paint wears away and the roof begins to degrade.   Eventually a storm will rip off a section of rotting roof and the ravages of nature get access to the interior.  Likely any windows will be vulnerable to the rock-throwing bored teenagers of the neighborhood and the weather.   The gutters will fill with junk and fall off.   If there is siding rather than paint it will begin to rip off from age and weathering.  After a few years the house will become so ugly and ravaged the neighborhood kids will declare that it is "haunted" and a few will dare to break in and spray paint their initials on the walls and perhaps break a few things.   It may be that drug users will inhabit the place to use as a refuge from the outside where they can shoot themselves up and then lay around dazed from the fix.  It may be that kids will choose it as a party house and go there to drink beer and wine and other things they could not do at home.  Inevitably the day will come when the work of vandals and age and weather will cause the roof to cave in and the house to being to lean to one side and finally it will be overcome by nature.  Soon it will be an abandoned property with weeds and brush and trees beginning to take over the spot a house once covered.  Moss will thrive where the roof once was, small animals will take shelter in the wreckage, over time the casual observer may have difficulty even seeing any sign that a house was ever there without investigation.

Another Cairo building going, going, almost gone

Darwinists credit the wreckers and the ravages of time for being the builders of organisms.  They tell stories about how this took place, but in real life we never see it happening.  When we see mutations change an organism, it is always because of information copying or information loss.  No matter how many square miles of verbiage they throw at you, real science sees design and information in organisms and no natural source of either in the material world.  Intelligence produces information and intelligence produces design.  Random mutations break things.  In a nutshell, this is why Darwinism is a myth rather than science.  It cannot give us a naturalistic source for information or design, it cannot account for life, and it certainly has the direction of Thermodynamics reversed.   Organized things are becoming disorganized.  Energy is being converted to entropy.   Blowing things up doesn't build them and leaving them out in the elements doesn't build them.  Logic!  Science!


house giving in to 2LOT in Cairo, IL



At one time, between the time of the War of 1812 and around the time of the Civil War some folks proposed that Cairo, Illinois become the US Capitol.   Being right at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, the tail of Illinois was going to be close to the center of the nation once completely expanded to the Pacific.   With waterways being of utmost importance at the time, it was a reasonable idea.  Of course it never happened.   Now Cairo is a backwater that is literally falling apart.  There are collapsed, abandoned houses all over, streets in need of repair, rusty cars and empty lots.  The energy of the Sun has been shining on Cairo all this time, but undirected energy will never build things.  


 A once-proud hotel empty and still standing in Cairo

The once-possible center of government of the USA is now a monument to the Laws of Thermodynamics.   Natural things go from energy to entropy, from order to disorder.  Only directed energy with intentionality can make things in spite of the LOT.   Mankind has to work hard to offset the continual process of order to disorder.  There are no new businesses coming to Cairo to save it.  There is not enough tax money to fix the streets, there are not enough investors to salvage and reopen abandoned businesses, there are not developers seeking to tear down old houses and build a new subdivision, there are just a few businesses hanging on, farmers farming, some shipping and a few small manufacturers keeping the place from disappearing from the map.   You can go back and forth from Illinois to Kentucky and then from Illinois to Missouri by means of the two bridges that cross the Ohio and Mississippi before they come together and wear one name.   At that point you have done the most interesting thing one can do in Cairo, Illinois.  Unless, of course, your name is Cairo Water Co. and you are looking for a missing check?

So who is exactly $22.66 short on your accounts?


Cairo makes me think of Darwinism.   It was once considered foundational, just like Cairo was considered as our nation's Capitol.  But it is all falling apart.

41 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Lori makes some good points.

No, she doesn't. She succeeds only in displaying her ignorance of the subject. For example:

For example, why would birds evolve wings if they didn’t need to fly before? What use were wings before they were big enough to get the bird off the ground?

Ms Hutchinson is apparently unaware of the numerous recent discoveries of dinosaurs that had arms with long forearm feathers, which they used in brooding their nests.

If the species today evolved from other species millions of years ago, why aren’t we digging up fossils of all these missing links?

We are.

Although evolutionists claim that environmental factors change the chromosomes and cause small changes in the offspring, this is impossible. Environmental factors cannot change chromosomes in the ovaries or sperm cells.

a) that's not what evolutionists claim.

b) doctors have found that certain environmental chemicals can jump Weismann's barrier.

All species have a fixed number of chromosomes that cannot be changed... If an animal had one more or one less chromosome because of a mutation, it could not successfully mate.

Unless it encountered another individual with the same mutation .. as happens often with Robertsonian translocations, for example.

Where’s the missing link between the bacteria and all those species?


Where you'd expect them to be: in late Precambrian rocks.

And so on and so forth. I note that Ms Hutchinson contradicts one of your own favorite lines

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, and this:

“Mitochondrial” Adam and Eve – Several different scientific studies have traced the DNA of the human race back to a single man and woman who lived about 6000 years ago. According to evolutionists, humans gradually evolved from monkeys. Yet the DNA the scientists have discovered hasn’t changed for over 6000 years.

is flatly false. Hear that, Ms Hutchinson? If you didn't know this was false you're ignorant; if you did, well ... being a charitable soul, I prefer to think you didn't.

First, mitochondrial DNA can't be used to trace the male side of a line of descent. That work was done using the Y chromosome.

Second, both "Y-chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve" are far older than 6,000 years. "Mitochondrial Eve" is placed at about 200,000 years ago. "Y-chromosome Adam" is not as well fixed; he may have lived anywhere between about 140,000 and 60,000 years ago.

Third, the technique of tracing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) back to common ancestors does not mean that the DNA in question "hasn't changed." In mammals, mtDNA is inherited only from the mother and accumulates point mutations at a fixed, predictable rate. By comparing two samples of mtDNA and measuring the differences between them, you can calculate how long ago the two female lines had identical mtDNA -- in other words, the last time they had the same female ancestor. In simpler terms, mtDNA analysis doesn't depend on the fact that "mtDNA doesn't change." It depends explicitly and specifically on the fact that mtDNA does change over the generations, at a predictable rate.

Grantus said...

Jon Woolf Get up to date. There are NO repeat NO reptiles found with feathers. Some fraudulant fossils from China mean nothing. If you think there are name them. Name one. Also ever hear of "the missing link"? It's still missing. Again name one. Don't bother with Lucy ,Ardi, Ida, Ambulocetu Natans, Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx blah blah - all now living in Piltdown Man's rubbish bin.

Also "recent" research has shown mtDNA can also be passed from the father.

And you accuse others of ignorance!

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Also ever hear of "the missing link"? It's still missing. Again name one."

Define "missing link" as you understand it.

"Don't bother with Lucy ,Ardi, Ida, Ambulocetu Natans, Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx blah blah - all now living in Piltdown Man's rubbish bin."

Piltdown Man was a hoax that was later exposed (by scientists, as it happens). In what way would you consider, say, Tiktaalik a fraud?

AmericanVet said...

Tiktaalik was simply not relevant. In fact, there are animals that resemble it living today. But a European salamander was found in "older" rocks, thus dispensing of good old Tik as a transitional form. In fact, it was a complete animal. We never seem to find fossils of animals beginning to become something else. Yep, you could take dogs today and arrange them by size and shape and claim that you have demonstrated evolution and that is what Darwinists do. They take fully developed animals and try to present them as transitionals when really the fossil record would be a continuum of changing animals step by step if evoluton was true!

Grantus said...

Tiktaalik is supposed to have had features intermediate between fish and tetrapods. In other words the fish that crawled out of the sea onto the land and became a land dweller. New fossil footprint finds now predate Tiktaalik by at least 18 million tears. Making Tiktaalik irrelevant. Also remember an artist's rendition of what the creature looked like is nothing to base anything on. It's only a guess. Very similar claims were made for the Coelacanth as well. They are still swimming around.

Grantus said...

My (probably!) last word on evolution. If it is true then why do we see so many genetic disorders and diseases in humans? These could be (of at least 1800+ that are known) ones like Down syndrome, Huntington’s, Parkinson’s and know of so few, if any, positive changes? Add to this there are also many genes which also affect predisposition toward certain diseases. The human genome project recorded that about 1% of mutations to be positive. The rest are damaging or neutral. Also only two changes can be made in any generation out of over three billion genes, as a third is always fatal. DNA has a copying error rate of one in ten billion. So it would really take three generations for an error to occur anyway. Then there is a very high chance the error would be harmful. Combine this with the fact we know the error copying mechanism in DNA tries it's best to keep the organism in it’s original state. This means it will remove any genetic mutation it can, even the ones we may see as beneficial. Take dogs as AmericanVet has suggested. All dogs such as German Shepherd, Labrador, Poodle, Chihuahua, just to mention some, descended from the wolf. They have over time been specially bred by man to achieve the desired characteristics. Each change however represents a loss of genetic information, never a gain. There is no naturalistic explanation of how new information gets onto DNA other than supposedly by mutations, which I have pointed out are overwhelmingly deleterious. . Ever heard of Genetic Entropy? We are following genetically what we find elsewhere in science. A brand new Porsche bought today will be a pile of rust in 20,000+ years no matter how hard someone looks after it. In other words it will go from order to disorder just like everything else around it.

AmericanVet said...

Grantus, quite so...DNA and the cell have quality control processes designed to discover and discard mutations but a few get past them. As you said, this is deleterious to the organisms. The piling up of mutations leads to more disease and syndromes over time.

If only all the tinfoil hat people would spend time helping us combat disease and work on perhaps even helping DNA repair itself instead of shooting mud with electrity like a bunch of Frankensteins. Remember, it was Dr. Frankenstein who created the monster and all around the world his disciples try to figure out how to get life from non-life. Others are trying to find transistional fossils, others spend their entire day censoring non_Darwinist information and fighting against ID teaching in schools. Still others are waiting and spending big bucks listening and hoping ET will phone home. Still more spend their days concocting fanciful fairy tales with lots of fudge factors and complex equations so they can sell more books.

Science still gets done, but Darwinism has brought on Scientism and it is like massive numbers of leeches taking strength from the animal called "Attainment of Knowledge, Attainment of Truth."

Dawkins, Myer, Hitchens, talkorigins, the NCSE...leeches.

Jon Woolf said...

Grantus: "There are NO repeat NO reptiles found with feathers."

I didn't say reptiles, laddie. I said dinosaurs. Sinosauropteryx, Oviraptor, Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Velociraptor, Shuvuuia, and Microraptor are just a few of the dinosaurs that have been found with evidence of feathers. Of these, Oviraptor, Caudipteryx, and Protarchaeopteryx certainly had long forearm feathers that would have been useful in brooding behavior.

"Also ever hear of "the missing link"? It's still missing. Again name one."

Sphecomyrma freyi

"Don't bother with Lucy ,Ardi, Ida, Ambulocetu Natans, Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx blah blah - all now living in Piltdown Man's rubbish bin."

Interesting. Piltdown Man was a complete fraud -- not a genuine fossil misinterpreted, but an actual fake created with the intent to deceive. Are you suggesting that the other fossils you list are intentional frauds too?

Grantus said...

Jon Woolf
Scientific Classification (Linnaean):
“Reptilia include all land-dwelling vertebrates which lay eggs with shells except for birds (Aves) and mammals (Mammalia)”.
So I guess dinosaurs are in fact reptiles.
Sphecomyrma freyi: A wingless ant with wasp like jaws and antennae. What gives this one away? I think the word “wingless” might just be the key word or clue here because as far as I know there are no “wingless” wasps. There are 11,800 species of ant by the way, many have very, very different body shapes. Google “ant stuff” for some good pictures of different ants. Remember morphology – looks similar – does not mean related. A dog and a cat share similar body shape, have four legs and a tail. They are not related in any way.
Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor and Protarchaeopteryx have all come from China. They are still being classified and are all in dispute. Might pay to remember Archaeoraptor – the hoax that fooled National Geographic came from there too.
Sinosauropteryx New analysis shows that the creature was actually bald. The lumps under the skin have been found to be collagen.
Caudipteryx by the way is most likely to be reclassified as a true flightless bird.

Some major problems for the dino to bird theory:
Every animal that has walked on land, including humans, elephants, lizards and theropod dinosaurs - a family that includes the T Rex, had a moveable thigh bone. Except birds. Theirs is fixed – they are knee walkers.
Warm blooded versus cold. Consider this: Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, meaning that their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending upon the outside temperature. They wait for their prey rather than chasing it. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal temperature regardless of the temperature outside. They are also probably the most active of the animal kingdom. The general view is still as Robert Jastrow (well know evolutionary scientist) observes: "Dinosaurs, like all reptiles were cold-blooded animals."
Heart Chambers. Fish have two, reptiles three, mammals and birds four. How do you evolve another chamber by undirected chance?
Lungs: Mammals and reptiles breathe by way of a diaphragm lung system. Birds have the avian lung where air flows through the lungs. How does a totally different lung system evolve by undirected chance?
Bones: Mammals and reptiles have solid bones. Birds have hollow bones for two reasons. One – reduce weight for flight. Two – aids in the transfer of oxygen two the circulatory system. How does this evolve?
Dating: Some of the earliest bird fossils predate the theropod they are supposed to have evolved from. Heard of Protoavis? The fossils of Protoavis are consistent with the existence of Triassic birds. If Protoavis was a bird – and there is some controversy as with any fossils of this type - that would challenge the theory that birds evolved from theropods whose fossils are 100 million years. And then there are the Triassic bird footprints which have been found, again adding weight to birds appearing first. Archaeopteryx: Most of the dinosaurs claimed to be ancestors to birds are found in rocks much younger than Archaeopteryx - which is as we now know is a true bird. Dinosaurs like Velociraptor and Deinonychus are found in rocks of the Cretaceous Period. These rocks are 75 million years younger than the Late Jurassic Period rocks containing Archaeopteryx.

“Interesting. Piltdown Man was a complete fraud -- not a genuine fossil misinterpreted, but an actual fake created with the intent to deceive. Are you suggesting that the other fossils you list are intentional frauds too?”
My point was not that the others were fraudulent, but they all – including Piltdown Man - were at some point held up to support evolutionary theory and have all
failed

Grantus said...

AmericanVet:
"If only all the tinfoil hat people would spend time helping us combat disease and work on perhaps even helping DNA repair itself instead of shooting mud with electrity like a bunch of Frankensteins. "
I laughed but unfortunately it is all too true.

It's design isn't it.
I mean if I found the latest rolex watch out in a feild I - and most others - would assume it was made by someone intelligent and accidently dropped there. A scientist could examine the watch and in about six months tell you all you need to know about it - weight, strength of spring, the exact size of all the gears etc. Right next to it is a blade of grass. In that blade of grass are cells. One cell would be at least a millions times more complex than the watch. Scientists still only have rudimentary or basic knowledge of how cells operate.

A scientist will then tell you about the marvellous design of the watch and the skills of the watch maker, but then proceed to say how the cell was all some sort of accidental by product of nature.

Jon Woolf said...

Grantus: "Scientific Classification (Linnaean):
“Reptilia include all land-dwelling vertebrates which lay eggs with shells except for birds (Aves) and mammals (Mammalia)”.
So I guess dinosaurs are in fact reptiles."

Yeah, that's about what I expected you to say. As with Radar, you base your arguments on high school science, and have no concept of either the higher levels of taxonomy that public school classes never discuss, or about how much taxonomy has advanced since you left school.

Dinosaurs are reptiles only in the same sense that mammals are fish. Technically, the clade Pisces contains the clade Mammalia. But no one actually says 'mammals are fish'. They carefully talk around it, because while Pisces does contain Mammalia, there are so many essential differences between a fish and a lion that saying "a lion is a highly evolved fish" is very misleading.

So it is with reptiles and dinosaurs. Reptiles are:
* primarily four-legged animals;
* use a sprawling or semi-erect gait;
* lay eggs;
* grow slowly;
* have an ectothermic, poikilothermic, bradymetabolic metabolism;
* have no capacity for long-term high-energy activity;

Dinosaurs are:
* primarily bipedal (all four-legged dinosaurs are descended from two-legged types);
* always have an upright gait;
* lay eggs;
* grow rapidly;
* have an endothermic, homeothermic, tachymetabolic metabolism;
* engaged in many kinds of long-term high-energy activity including migration;

So when I talk about dinosaurs as a group, I'm talking about animals that don't look like reptiles, and don't act like reptiles. For all practical purposes, dinosaurs aren't reptiles and no one calls them reptiles anymore. Well, no one who knows what they're talking about.

Jon Woolf said...

"Sphecomyrma freyi: A wingless ant with wasp like jaws and antennae. What gives this one away? I think the word “wingless” might just be the key word or clue here because as far as I know there are no “wingless” wasps."

Well, except for the large family of wasps known as Mutillidae, in which all the females are wingless. And isn't that interesting -- the common name for mutillid wasps is velvet ants.

The important thing about Sphecomyrma freyi is that it has some traits that appear only in modern wasps and other traits that appear only in modern ants; it appears at the right time in the fossil record to be transitional between wasps and ants; and (perhaps most important) when it was discovered, it matched previously-made predictions about what a primitive ant might look like.

Jon Woolf said...

On the subject of dinosaurs and birds:

"Sinosauropteryx New analysis shows that the creature was actually bald. The lumps under the skin have been found to be collagen."

Not according to any source I can find online. One study suggested that the feathers along Sinosauropteryx's body were actually collagen fibers. The vast, vast majority of people who have looked at the three Sinosauropteryx fossils do not agree. Neither, for that matter, do I.

"Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor and Protarchaeopteryx have all come from China. They are still being classified and are all in dispute. Might pay to remember Archaeoraptor – the hoax that fooled National Geographic came from there too."

Might also pay to remember that "Archaeoraptor" was an obvious fake, and the people who were fooled by it have been a long time living it down. The other Chinese feathersaurs are genuine fossils, as far as anyone known. All of them would be classified as small theropods without any argument if not for the fact that they have feathers.

Radar and I went a round on this a few months ago, although he never understood what I was getting at. There isn't any reliable way to distinguish between dinosaurs and birds anymore. Oh, you can tell the difference between a turkey and a tyrannosaur, but when you get right down to the ragged edge, the line between dinosaur and bird is as blurry as the line between dog and wolf. Almost every one of the supposedly distinguishing features you give for birds - warmblooded, pneumatized bones, feathers, etc. - has also been found in dinosaurs. The only exception is the fixed thighbone, which is a new one to me, but at first glance doesn't look like an insurmountable obstacle. In fact it looks like precisely the kind of Rube Goldberg anatomy that evolution is notorious for: take a bone that was originally used for something else and turn it into a support for the lung, meanwhile making it useless for its old function and inflicting a serious limitation on the animals that have it. Those who claim that this feature immediately and forever falsifies BADD (the theory that Birds Are Dinosaur Descendants) are guilty of staggering overreach.

Jon Woolf said...

"Dating: Some of the earliest bird fossils predate the theropod they are supposed to have evolved from. Heard of Protoavis? "

Yeah. No one knows for sure what it is.

"And then there are the Triassic bird footprints which have been found,"

Correction: Triassic footprints that resemble bird footprints. They also strongly resemble small-theropod footprints.

"Archaeopteryx: Most of the dinosaurs claimed to be ancestors to birds are found in rocks much younger than Archaeopteryx - which is as we now know is a true bird."

Is it? Can you prove that? I can't.

The timing issue has always been a problem for the BADD theory ... but then, it's also a problem for BCF (Birds Came First). We know there were primitive maniraptoran theropods around at the time of Archaeopteryx, because one of them was found in the same Solnhofen limestones: Compsognathus, a turkey-size dinosaur that is so like archy, at first glance, that one of the known archy specimens was first classified as a compy until somebody looked closely at it and found faint feather impressions. There are also scattered bits of other maniraptoran dinosaurs known from the Mid-Jurassic. I remain confident that we will find good fossils of advanced Jurassic maniraptorans at some point. We just need to look in the right places.

Grantus said...

Archaeopteryx and the others.
Archaeopteryx feathers are those of a flying bird - the shaft is not in the center. Feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo. A person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology. This means the feathers were not an evolutionary extension of scales, but had to appear all on their own. The reptilian features in Archaeopteryx is either found to exist in true birds, or is absent in many reptiles
Most land dwelling vertebrates has the embryo development based on the five-fingered hand. In the case of birds and theropod dinosaurs, two of the five fingers are and three are retained during development of the embryo. If birds evolved from theropods, we would expect the same three fingers to be retained in both birds and theropod dinosaurs. Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb” is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4.
Feathers are markedly different from scales in both structure and growth. Feathers grow individually from tube-like follicles similar to hair follicles. Reptilian scales are not individual follicular structures but comprise a sheet on the surface of the body.

“Yeah, that's about what I expected you to say. As with Radar, you base your arguments on high school science, and have no concept of either the higher levels of taxonomy that public school classes never discuss, or about how much taxonomy has advanced since you left school.“
Regarding your supposedly higher education, I think whoever paid for it should ask for their money back. Lol.
The Velvet Ant:
Mutillidae are a family of more than 3000 species of wasp whose wingless females resemble ants. Their common name velvet ant refers to their dense pile of hair which most often is bright scarlet or orange but may also be black, white, silver, or gold. (Wiki)
Key words here – “resemble ants”
Not truly a wingless species is it? For it to be a true wingless species neither male nor female would fly.
An animal’s name doesn’t always reflect what it is. It may reflect what it looked like at the time – in many cases – centuries ago.
The cougar derives its name from a couple of words that, put together and translated, mean something like “false deer” or “resembling a deer,” the American Robin is really a type of thrush . The American Buffalo is a Bison, the pronghorn antelope is a member of the goat family and not an antelope at all, the dingo whose name means “tame dog” to the natives is in fact a wild dog.
So velvet ant means nothing other than it looks like an ant. Nice try tho.

“Almost every one of the supposedly distinguishing features you give for birds - warm-blooded, pneumatized bones, feathers, etc. - has also been found in dinosaurs. The only exception is the fixed thighbone, which is a new one to me, but at first glance doesn't look like an insurmountable obstacle.”

Warm-blooded: Only theorized. This means someone’s opinion and not fact. Not really something to base true science on.
Thighbone: “but at first glance doesn't look like an insurmountable obstacle” Well you shift yours to your back and your knee into your pelvis then. How would any animal be mobile during this phase of its existence? How would it survive?

“I remain confident that we will find good fossils of advanced Jurassic maniraptorans at some point. We just need to look in the right places. “

So you ARE a man of faith then?!! Darwin thought they would turn up too. Still waiting……..zzzzz.

Jon Woolf said...

Grantus, I kinda hope you hang around a while. It's as much fun to watch you struggle with this material as it is to watch Radar. Like him, you seem to get all your information from creationist sources, and you've never realized that creationist sources have a habit of taking any dissenting view, no matter how many (or how few) people hold it, and presenting it as proof-beyond-a-doubt that the entirety of conventional science doesn't know what it's talking about.

For example, consider the digits argument in bird origins. Some ornithologists say that bird digits are II-III-IV and theropod digits are I-II-III, and never the twain shall meet. However, there's a really, really big problem with that claim: nobody actually knows which digits form the avetheropod (advanced theropods, closely related to birds) hand, because we don't have an avetheropod embryo series to study. The fossils we do have suggest very strongly that avetheropod hands are made of digits I, II, and III .... but on the basis of adult morphology, bird digits were originally identified as I-II-III as well, and only after extensive embryological studies did it become clear that the avian hand is made up of digits II-III-IV. On the other hand, we know -- for a fact, without a doubt -- that the hand of an adult dromaeosaur like Deinonychus is so similar to that of Archaeopteryx, which everyone calls a bird or almost-a-bird, that it takes an expert to tell the difference. We even have that wonderful hoatzin, whose juvenile-hand anatomy (though secondarily derived) is strikingly similar to the anatomy of both Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx. Given all the evidence, which is more likely: that birds are derived dinosaurs, or that during their evolution, birds replicated even uninteresting, unimportant details otherwise known only from advanced theropod dinosaurs?

As long as there are possible explanations for the 'digits' issue that fit into BADD, the digits issue is not a killer argument against BADD.

So it is with your other claims too: you pick and choose bits here and bits there to criticize, and refuse to see the overall picture. Scales on birds and reptiles, for example. There's an interesting fact about them: while lizards and snakes have only scales, the archosaurs (that's crocodilians, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and birds) all possess both scales and scutes. Scutes look like large scales, but they develop via a different process. And it turns out that while scales are not related to feathers, scutes most definitely are. This in turn suggests that the scutes of crocodilians, the feathers of birds, and the 'fur' of pterosaurs are all derived from a single underlying structure that originated as an apomorphy during the evolution of early archosaurs.

Jon Woolf said...

"Warm-blooded: Only theorized. This means someone’s opinion and not fact. "

Heh. So you accept opinion as God's Own Truth when it says what you want to hear, but let someone else express an opinion based on just as many facts, if not more, and you rule it out. Nice try, lad, but it doesn't work that way. In modern paleontology, the warmbloodedness of dinosaurs is regarded as proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What with growth rates, bone histology, posture, predator/prey ratios, and evidence of high-energy lifestyle, there simply isn't any room left for doubt. Oh, maybe they weren't warmblooded in quite the same way we are, but they were warmblooded.

As for ants and wasps: the reference to 'velvet ants' was a throwaway intended mainly to prove that you were wrong about wingless wasps. Whether you accept that Sphecomyrma is an actual transitional ant or not, even you can't deny that it looks like one:

"Wilson put the fossils [of two insects in amber] under the microscope and began to sketch and measure them from all sides. After several hours he picked up the telephone and called William L. Brown at Cornell University. Brown was a fellow specialist in ant classification who had for years shared his dream of finding a Mesozoic ant and thereby, perhaps, to learn the identity of the missing link to the ancestral wasps. Both men had guessed from comparisons to living species what traits the ancestral form might, or, if evolutionary theory is correct, SHOULD possess. Wilson reported that the ants were indeed as primitive as expected. They had a mosaic of anatomical features found variously in modern ants or in wasps as well as some that were intermediate between the two groups. The diagnosis of the Ur-ant was astounding: short jaws with only two teeth, like those of wasps; what appears to be the blisterlike cover of a metapleural gland - the secretory organ (located at the thorax, or mid-part of the body) that defines modern ants but is unknown in wasps; the first segment of the antennae elongated to give them the elbowed look characterizing ants, yet here, in the Mesozoic fossils, only to a degree intermediate between modern ants and wasps; the remaining, outer part of the antennae long and flexible, as in wasps; the thorax with a distinct scutum and scutellum (two plates forming the middle part of the body); also a trait of wasps; and an antlike waist; yet one that is simple in form, as though it had only recently evolved." -- from Journey to the Ants by Edward Wilson, pp. 75-78, emphasis added

Grantus said...

Jon Woolf

Scipionyx samniticus was a Cretaceous period theropod (from about 113 million years ago), perhaps a maniraptor. It is known from a single, extremely detailed specimen of a hatchling that includes fossilized soft tissues, including muscles and internal organs. It was 9.5 inches (24 cm) long and had a very large head.
John A. Ruben, a vertebrate paleobiologist from Oregon State University, used an 80-watt ultraviolet (UV) lamp to help reveal outlines of Scipionyx's fossilized internal organs. Ruben found that the position of Scipionyx's colon (intestines) and liver were similar to that of modern crocodilians (which are cold-blooded), and unlike that of birds (which are warm-blooded). The position of the liver also gives information about the lungs, since a muscle that runs by the liver helps the lungs to expand and contract in crocodilians. Scipionyx probably had reptilian-style lungs (and not highly efficient bird lungs).
Although Ruben's work is not absolutely conclusive, it looks like the small theropod Scipionyx may be cold-blooded.
Source:January 22; 283: 514-516 (1999) issue of the magazine Science.

Heat-Regulating Devices: Some dinosaurs seem to have had heat regulating structures on their bodies. For example, Spinosaurus and Ouranosaurus had large sails on their backs, and Stegosaurus had numerous plates. These devices were probably used for the collection and dispersion of heat. This suggests that they needed these structures to regulate their body heat and that they were cold-blooded.

High-energy lifestyle:

We do not know how fast dinosaurs really moved. No one has ever seen one move therefore only a guess can be made.

Posture:
Erect posture has not been shown to be necessary for endothermy, or vice versa. The two factors seem to be correlated, but cannot be assumed to always occur together. Some endotherms have a more sprawling posture (such as many small mammals); the earliest mammal relatives (the basal synapsids) certainly did not have an erect posture. Similarly, some modern ectotherms, chameleons for example, have an erect posture.


Predation ratio:

Many problems. The ecological studies taken as a "given" are not flawless. Most importantly, dinosaur fossils are not the best source to get predator/prey ratios — many sampling errors are inevitable, since our knowledge of the fossil record is far from complete, and many animals were never fossilized. Theropods (the predators) are usually rare, but they have also been found in huge accumulations, and their thin bones probably didn't preserve as well as the herbivores' bones. The fact is, we don't have good evidence yet what the dinosaur predator/prey ratios were like.

Bone History:

Bone structure does vary a lot throughout the life of an individual, at different sizes, and under different conditions. Bone that is similar in structure to bone of an endotherm has not been established to always be bone of an endotherm.
Just a sample for you. Most of what I have read says the jury is still out on this one. So as you can see it is not proven beyond reasonable doubt as you suggest.

“As long as there are possible explanations for the 'digits' issue that fit into BADD, the digits issue is not a killer argument against BADD.”

Can also be labeled as “clutching at straws” “seeing what I want to see” “scraping the barrel”

Grantus said...

A scute is a bony plate or shield-like scale found on the skin of some reptiles, birds, and mammals. Although similar in appearance to scales, scutes have different origins and properties. Some scientists speculate that the structures may provide clues to the early evolution of feathers, since many dinosaurs, widely considered as closely related to birds, also had scutes.
Reptiles with prominent scutes include crocodiles, alligators, and turtles. Scutes on alligators and crocodiles are the bony, ridged plates that make up the animal’s tough skin, protecting it from predators and possibly helping it regulate its temperature. These scutes have a bony base and are known as osteoderms. (Wise Geek)

Now let’s read it carefully:
“some scientists speculate that the structures may provide clues to the early evolution of feathers” Not exactly fact then with words like “speculate”, “may” is it?
“Reptiles with prominent scutes include crocodiles, alligators, and turtles.” When you find one of these with feathers I might start believing.

“It's as much fun to watch you struggle with this material as it is to watch Radar.”
The only thing you have proven in this whole debate is that there is a wingless wasp. I am happy for you; it must have been a huge personal triumph. Finally you won a point.

“So it is with your other claims too: you pick and choose bits here and bits there to criticize, and refuse to see the overall picture.”
All I can say to that is “Ditto”

Jon Woolf said...

You've got the attitude, Grantus, but it would really help if you had the facts on your side too.

Correlation between upright posture and endothermy: 100%.

Correlation between high-energy active predation (read: stalking) and endothermy: 100%.

Correlation between other high-energy behavior, such as migration in land animals, and endothermy: 100%.

Correlation between rapid growth and endothermy: 100%.

Correlation between altricial young and endothermy: 100%.

Dinosaurs did all these things, as do birds and mammals. You can pick nits here and there ... or rather, you can blockquote from sources you don't understand that pick nits here and there. But you miss the forest for the trees. The totality of the evidence says that dinosaurs were endothermic. Perhaps not in the same way that mammals are -- in fact, almost certainly not in the same way mammals are. But endothermic they were.

Scipionyx samniticus is an interesting fossil, but I view all claims of soft tissue preservation in vertebrate fossils with skepticism. Ruben's claims about a hepatic-piston diaphragm in Scipionyx is questionable, and in fact has been questioned by a number of paleontologists.

"Scutes on alligators and crocodiles are the bony, ridged plates that make up the animal’s tough skin, protecting it from predators and possibly helping it regulate its temperature. These scutes have a bony base and are known as osteoderms."

There is, however, another type of scute, which turtles don't have, but all archosaurs do: dermal scutes. It is only dermal scutes that are connected to primitive feathers.

AmericanVet said...

Jon's list is wrong. Plenty of animals migrate that are NOT endothermic, including fish and insects.

You do not have good evidence for rapid growth and endothermy. Again, insects often grow at an amazing rate. Also, dinosaurs may have grown very large but no one can say how fast their growth was. Larger specimens may have been extremely old. Many reptiles continue to grow until death and they are not endothermic. Examination of the largest dinosaurs indicates they could not live in today's world because there is not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support their size, which indicates that the atmosphere was different before the flood.

Many assumptions about dinosaur behavior are being questioned, including the famous T Rex, who may have been primarily a scavenger rather than a predator. Note I am saying primarily and this is still early in the study of dinosaur remains. Yes, now we have multiple fossils that have flesh rather than stone remains, thus millions of years should be out the window.

Also, predation is found in virtually all forms of life, fish, insects, reptiles, and so many of them are not endothermic at all. Massive fail, Jon.

Jon Woolf said...

You really should stay away from subjects you don't understand, Radar. Then again, if you did that, you wouldn't have anything to say about evolutionary theory at all. Or a lot of other subjects.

"Also, dinosaurs may have grown very large but no one can say how fast their growth was."

Yes, actually, we can. One of James Horner's finds at the Willow Creek anticline dig was a gigantic herd of maiasaurs - ten thousand or more dinosaurs in a single huge bone bed, including both adult and juvenile animals. All the juveniles were approximately the same size, about nine feet long. Adult maiasaurs were about thirty feet long. Elsewhere in the same area, Horner found nests with smaller maiasaurs: hatchlings at 18 inches, younger juveniles at 5 feet or so. For reasons outlined in his book Digging Dinosaurs, Horner concluded that the five-foot juveniles were yearlings, and the nine-footers were in their second year. So Maiasaura grew from 1.5 feet to about 5 feet long in its first year, from 5 to 9 feet in its second year, and reached full size of 30 feet in about five to eight years. That's a rate of growth that no cold-blooded animal in the world can attain. In the modern world, only warm-blooded animals can grow at such rates.

"Plenty of animals migrate that are NOT endothermic, including fish and insects."

Point. I should have been specific that I was only considering terrestrial vertebrates. Fish aren't terrestrial, and insects aren't vertebrates. Among terrestrial vertebrates, however, migration correlates with a high-energy metabolism.

"Yes, now we have multiple fossils that have flesh rather than stone remains, thus millions of years should be out the window."

No, we don't. Not one dinosaur fossil has been found with actual flesh on the bones.

"Also, predation is found in virtually all forms of life, fish, insects, reptiles, and so many of them are not endothermic at all."

Predation is ... but not active predation. Again, we're talking about vertebrates here, so the insects and spiders can be set aside. And we're talking about land vertebrates, so dispense with the fish and marine reptiles. All predatory land reptiles and amphibians use short-range low-energy hunting methods such as ambush hunting. Dinosaurs apparently did not. The huge foot claw on dromaeosaurs is generally interpreted as a hunting weapon. For a bipedal animal to use its feet as weapons suggests a very high degree of energy and coordination -- much higher than any cold-blooded reptile can sustain. For other examples, look at the horns on ceratopsids, the tail-club on an ankylosaur, or the thagomizer on a stegosaur.

Jon Woolf said...

Regarding the above: I really should add that the last sentence is examples of other dinosaurs with high-energy, high-coordination behavior, not specifically predatory dinosaurs with those features. Ceratopsids, ankylosaurs, and stegosaurs were all plant-eaters.

Oh, and I note I forgot to respond to this from Grantus:

"Heat-Regulating Devices: Some dinosaurs seem to have had heat regulating structures on their bodies... This suggests that they needed these structures to regulate their body heat and that they were cold-blooded."

Agreed on the first point, not on the second. Three reasons:

First, Spinosaurus and Ouranosaurus both have many relatives who did not have sail-backs. This implies that whatever the sail-back was used for, it was not generally necessary to the dinosaur metabolism.

Second, even some mammals develop body features that are primarily for thermoregulation -- elephants' ears, for example. As far as I know, the handful of sail-back dinosaurs are all known from habitats that were tropical when they were alive.

Third, some groups of mammals have developed stunningly complex methods of thermoregulation -- but not to keep their temperature up. Rather, these mammals expend much physiological energy on keeping their temperature down. Dolphins are one example. A dolphin's body generates so much heat as it swims that even in the cold waters of the North Atlantic, the animal risks permanent damage to temperature-sensitive tissues and cells if it can't rapidly dissipate that heat. So dolphins have a very complex heat-exchange system that sends blood into dermal blood vessels so it can be quickly cooled by the ocean water. Then the cooled blood goes on about its regular business in the body.

Grantus said...

Jon Woolf

There are many reptiles today that have a fast growth rate. Bearded dragons and other lizards can grow very fast. Also some snakes. Available food will have far more to do with a growth rate in an animal that never stops growing. (A feature of reptiles)

Don’t write – “correlation between blah blah and blah blah: 100%” You look silly making these sort of broad sweeping statements when you have already been shown in one of my previous posts that there is considerable doubt to these claims. My source regarding the question of warm blooded vs cold blooded was Berkeley University. Hardly a creationist web site - that you accuse me and others of using.

Here’s one more:

Given: Studies indicate that large brain size is correlated with endothermy. Hypothesis: Theropod and ornithopod dinosaurs had larger than normal brains (for "reptiles"), so they must have been endothermic. Problem: Large brain size may be correlated with endothermy, but it is correlated with many other features not necessarily related to endothermy. Not an empirically supported "if...then" relationship. Also, the data on dinosaur brain size is scant at best; being measured from the few complete skulls available. Many dinosaurs had quite typical reptile-sized brains. (Berkeley)

Key words here: “Not an empirically supported "if...then" relationship.”

Get my point about generalizing? They don’t know. But here you are saying it is 100% fact.

Grantus said...

Jon Woolf

Meet Alan Feduccia & A.H. Brush

A.H. Brush is a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut.

Alan Feduccia is a paleornithologist, specializing in the origins and phylogeny of birds. He is now Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina. Feduccia's principal authored works include two books, The Age of Birds[1] and The Origin and Evolution of Birds,[2] and numerous papers in various ornithological and biological journals. (Wiki)

Paleornithologist: Studies follised birds

The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds, was the winner of the Association of American Publishers 1996 award for Excellence in Biology.

Present at the Eichstatt Archaeopteryx Conference, a major international meeting on the interpretation and significance of Archaeopteryx, as well as on the origin and early evolution of birds and avian flight, held in Eichstatt, Germany, Feduccia criticized hypotheses for the evolution of feathers in non-aerodynamic contexts in endothermic small theropod dinosaurs. He argued that these hypotheses failed to account for the elaborate aerodynamic architecture of the feather vane and rachis, and that thermoregulatory functions would have been adequately served by hair, which is a developmentally simpler structure. (Wiki)

Dino Fuzz:

According to Dr. Feduccia, "dino-fuzz" also appears in fossils that can have absolutely nothing to do with birds:
Most important, ''dino-fuzz'' is now being discovered in a number of taxa, some unpublished, but particularly in a Chinese pterosaur [flying reptile](Wang et al. 2002) and a therizinosaur [a carnivorous dinosaur class]... Most surprisingly, skin fibers very closely resembling dino-fuzz have been discovered in a Jurassic ichthyosaur [marine reptile] and described in detail (Lingham-Soliar 1999, 2001). Some of those branched fibers are exceptionally close in morphology to the so called branched protofeathers (''Prum Protofeathers'') described by Xu et al. (2001). That these so-called protofeathers have a widespread distribution in archosaurs [a Mesozoic reptile class] is evidence alone that they have nothing to do with feathers.

Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:
“Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.”
More recently, Feduccia, quoting Brush, has the following passage on the origin of feathers:
Even birds' most scale like features-the leg scutes (scales), claws, and the epidermally derived beak-are formed from a single category of protein, the -keratins. As Alan Brush has written regarding feather development, "The genes that direct synthesis of the avian -keratins represent a significant divergence from those of their reptilian ancestor." (Note that the authors assume a reptilian ancestor for birds, but accept the genetic gap between these.

A.H. Brush is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]." Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates."
There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds. Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.

Grantus said...

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied a series of live ostrich eggs and, once again, concluded that, there can not be an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. EurekAlert, a scientific portal held by the American Association for the The Advancement of Science (AAAS), reports the following:

Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs"...

Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said... "Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three... Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." (i)
In the same report, Dr. Feduccia also made important comments on the invalidity-and the shallowness-of the "birds evolved from dinosaurs" theory:
"There are insurmountable problems with that theory," he [Dr. Feduccia] said. "Beyond what we have just reported, there is the time problem in that superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old."

Jon Woolf said...

"Given: Studies indicate that large brain size is correlated with endothermy. "

So what? If you look back and read my comments above very carefully, you might notice that I didn't make that claim. That's because I don't accept that claim as valid ... precisely because the evidence doesn't support it.

In passing, I note that the Berkeley webpage misstated the argument. Brain size doesn't correlate with anything except body size. What matters with regard to intelligence is the brain-to-body size ratio, also known as the encephalization quotient (EQ). High EQ seems to correlate with intelligence and mental acuity, but not necessarily with endothermy. EQ curves seem to be different for every vertebrate class, so you can't analyze dinosaurs using a reptile-based EQ curve any more than you can analyze mammals using a bird-based EQ curve.

Jon Woolf said...

Now, as for Alan Feduccia: you could have saved yourself a lot of typing. I don't accept Feduccia's word on this subject, because he's so vehemently opposed to BADD that it curdles his judgement. Case in point:

"Most important, ''dino-fuzz'' is now being discovered in a number of taxa, some unpublished, but particularly in a Chinese pterosaur"

Not news. Pterosaur fur has been known for forty years, since the first description of a fossil called Sordes pilosus. That it's related to dino-fuzz isn't exactly unexpected, given that both groups are advanced archosaurs.

"and a therizinosaur [a carnivorous dinosaur class]"

Minor aside: one of the things that makes therizinosaurs (also called segnosaurs) weird is that they weren't carnivorous. In any case, the therizinosaurs belong to the Maniraptora, a subclade of Coelurosauria, which in turn is a subclade of Theropoda. Primitive coelurosaurs (such as Sinosauropteryx) are known to have had 'dino-fuzz', so it's not at all surprising to find 'dino-fuzz' in advanced coelurosaurs. Including therizinosaurs.

Grantus said...

"Now, as for Alan Feduccia: you could have saved yourself a lot of typing. I don't accept Feduccia's word on this subject, because he's so vehemently opposed to BADD that it curdles his judgement.

No it's because he dosen't agree with you - that's the real reason isn't it?

Jon Woolf said...

[snork]

(Means 'no', in case you missed it)

Grantus said...

The answer is yes. If Alan Feduccia agreed with you, you would be quoting him proudly as his credentials are just about the best to deliver intelligent comment. That is the truth. And you know it. Try it, it's refreshing lol


Hey Jon Woolf hope you don't go away - we still have to debate "The Cambrian Period" "DNA" “Missing Links” “Single Cell Complexity” “Chaos from Organization” “Fixed Chromosome Count” etc. You have much to learn Grasshopper lol

Grantus said...

Jon Woolf

Then we can move on to the Multiverse Theory vs the Anthropic Principle. One just theory, the other a known set of scientific facts.

Jon Woolf said...

Someone has much to learn, young padawan, but it isn't me. At least, not at reading between the lines.

Someday you might actually find me quoting Feduccia on other topics. The man is scary good at what he specializes in: fossil birds from the Cretaceous and Cenozoic. But on the subject of bird origins, I haven't taken him seriously since 1997, when he derisively labeled Sinosauropteryx prima as "the Pilt-down dinosaur" when he hadn't even seen the specimen yet. Rational and objective men do not compare a fossil they haven't examined with the greatest paleontological fraud of the twentieth century. Not in public, anyway.

Feduccia's got a burr up his butt about dinosaurs and the origin of birds; I don't know why, but I know it's there, so I don't accept him as a source on the subject anymore.

"we still have to debate "The Cambrian Period" "DNA" “Missing Links” “Single Cell Complexity” “Chaos from Organization” “Fixed Chromosome Count” etc."

I've been all through most of those with Radar over the past year or so. He couldn't even understand my arguments, much less counter them coherently. What makes you think you can do any better?

AmericanVet said...

Oh, Jon...you think that people who do not agree with Darwinism do not understand it. You deride Feduccia and accept Gingerich? This casts doubts on your ability to reason.

Darwinism is built on stories and suppositions. Arguing against it is like nailing jello to the wall. So I prefer to present evidence FOR ID and Creationism for the most part. Real scientists doing real science and depending upon observable results, history and logic? You will find them on the ID/Creationist side.

Meanwhile organizations like the NCSE censor Creationism and ID for fear that people will compare that evidence to Darwinism and reject Darwinism. This is a reasonable fear. Also, talkorigins is a boilerplate factory, cranking out "answers" that are not correct and have been disproven but confident that most people will not dig deeper and simply accept what they are fed.

Jon Woolf said...

"you think that people who do not agree with Darwinism do not understand it."

In my experience, most of them don't.

"You deride Feduccia and accept Gingerich?"

I accept the facts. Gingerich had them. Feduccia doesn't. At least, not on the topic of bird origins.

"So I prefer to present evidence FOR ID and Creationism for the most part. "

It's odd, then, that "evidence for creationism" is one thing that has never appeared on your blog. All you do is try to shoot holes in evolutionary theory, then proclaim the false dichotomy of "evolution fails, therefore YEC wins by default."

AmericanVet said...

Concerning lies, Gingerich is an expert. But Jon Woolf, you lie when you say no dinosaurs have been found with remains rather than straight fossilized remnants. Mary's T Rex is one example. Darwinistst have fallen over one another trying to assert that it did NOT have remains but it does and only liars will say otherwise.

So I am calling you out, Jon Woolf. I posted proof that the Mary S. T Rex has remains. You did not give us any proof that I was wrong. I doubt you can do it. I missed what you said but I was reviewing old posts today and saw this.

Jon Woolf said...

You claimed: "Yes, now we have multiple fossils that have flesh rather than stone remains,"

I answered, "Not one dinosaur fossil has been found with actual flesh on the bones."

You're wrong and I'm right, and Schweitzer's own data proves it. Mary Schweitzer's T-rex did not have flesh on the bones. It had traces of organic material, including hemoglobin and preserved molds of erythrocytes, in an open space in the interior of the femur. No other dinosaur fossil has been found with flesh either. Traces of organic material, yes. Exterior muscle/fat/ epidermal tissue visible to the eye, no.

Gina said...

I read all of these comments. Thank you :)

zuma said...

The following is the website in which it explains how single cells (unicellular organisms), could be transformed into a multicellular organism in the process of evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/

In this website, it mentions that single cells should have secreted enzymes initially so as to pull all the cells together to cause the ultimate formation of multicellular organism.

The explanation to link up single cells to the formation of multicellular organism seems to be logical at a glance. However, detailed examination would have caused many queries to be brought forth.

a)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the sea in the beginning of its evolution be hardened so as to cause them to be bound up to the ultimate formation of multicellular organism, i.e. algae? By logic, it could only be possible for unicellar organisms to be bound up in the dry place when many of them would have come together at a fixed place. When they finished the food supplies, the place dried up and so they stuck together. It was not possible to the formation of multicellular orgainism in the sea especially scientists assumed many were formed in the sea. The reason is simply that sea water was wet and it was not possible for numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly as a result of the existence of surrounding sea water. As that could be so, how could multicellular organism, i.e. algae, be able to be formed in the sea? The existence of the surrounding sea water would not cause numerous unicellular organism to be bound up tightly especially the existence of sea wave.

b)How could those unicellular organisms that lived in the land be able to be pooled up together if they would be located in different area in the land? It was also impossible for multicellular organisms to be pooled up in the land especially the existence of friction of rocks and sands.

c)In the wide sea, it is impossible for numerous unicellular organisms to come together despite of their secreting. Let’s give an example. An unicellular organism in the North Pole would not be able to be pooled up to another unicellular organism that would be located in the South Pole. How could numerous unicellular organisms be able to come together so as to form multicellular organism when they were located different regions in the wide sea? The existence of sea wave would hinder them to come together as a pool. Besides, the existence of sea wave would also cause the secreted enzymes to spread all around the sea. As the discharge of enzymes could be spread all around the sea easily as a result of sea wave, it would not be possible for them to come together so as to form multicellular organism.

d)By logic, when unicellular organism combined to turn up to multicellular organism, the function of each unicellular organism within the multicellular organism would remain the same. This is by virtue of every unicellular organism would react the same way in habit or in routine movement after the formation of multicellular organism. There should not be any reason why there should be any discrepancy of their behaviour between unicellular organism and multicellular organism especially multicellular organism, i.e. algae, has been treated by scientists to have its origin from unicellular organism. For example, how could it be possible that the capacity of regeneration for unicellular organism was present and yet there was a reduction in the capability for regeneration for multicellular organism? The presence of discrepancy between nunicellular and unicellar has caused us to ponder whether multicellular organism in the beginning of the creation should have its derivation from unicellular organism.

Refer to the website address below pertaining to all the discrepancies between unicellular organisms and multicellular organisms:

http://bankofbiology.blogspot.sg/2012/03/comparison-between-unicellular-and.html


radar said...

Zuma,

Plenty of organisms, even higher organisms like birds and fish and porpoises can work together. It is wondrous and amazing to see a flock of birds seems to move when endangered by a raptor as if of one mind. Much has been written about how these organisms computer the distances between themselves and the closest similar organisms at all times and thereby the group can move in concert.

But there is NO support for an organism to arise from natural causes.

You have not identified a way that individual organisms working in harmony at least part-time suddenly become on big organism. We inspect their reproduction methods and see that this is not happening and has no evidence of ever happening.