Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: How did feathers evolve? (next question pls)

Expand Messages
  • Truman
    ... No Kamran. First, the natural world is observed and hypotheses are tested. Hypotheses that are tested so many times that they are accepted as fact by those
    Message 1 of 76 , Jun 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Kamran <forkamran@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: David <mephili@...>
      > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:49 PM
      > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How did feathers evolve? - Carl Zimmer
      >
      >  
      >
      >  
      > David Williams: The keratin in hair, nails, claws, beaks, and feathers is the same as the keratin in skin and scales. Hair and feathers are outgrowths of skin. It is scientifically plausible that hair and feathers evolved from skin. Just because scientists cannot say for certain about each and every step in the evolutionary process is not a justification to throw up their hands and say that their favorite sky daddy designed and made it that way with his special magic.
      >
      >
      >  
      > Kamran: Right, so here is the sequence: first we claim that an evolutionary process exists, and when asked to explain the process, we declare  that each and every step can not be described.  Finally not a single step in the alleged process is actually described with an evolutionary explanation, but there still remains a theory of evolution, which is as important as the  entire institution of science !!!!!!!!!!!! 
      >

      No Kamran.

      First, the natural world is observed and hypotheses are tested. Hypotheses that are tested so many times that they are accepted as fact by those that actually test them are called theories.

      Keep in mind, that in reality, they are not absolute truths. The nature of science makes it impossible to know for sure.

      So anyway, on of those theories is called evolution. Creationists belittle it to microevolution, or variety change, or adaptation. Whatever they call it, that know that life forms change.

      So both sides of this issue regarding creation/evolution agree that changes occur in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.

      What baffles scientists (of the evolutionary kind) is where this micro evolutionary process started and ends.

      Do you know? Are you saying that presence of feathers means that the organism can only share common ancestry with other feathered organisms? I don't demand every single step in this alleged process. I just demand some steps to have some confidence that ID is a real scientific theory, and that IDer's really want to offer an explanation to the phenomena in question.

      If not, I am going to leave this virtual world of reality and go back to the dream world found at the University, where they teach evolution as if it actually happened. The only problem is that they don't continually trash ID, pointing out everything it can't explain. What they do there is completely ignore it as if it has nothing worthwhile to offer. Its like there is no ID theory to consider.

      I mean what kind of theory is that a better explanation to certain things is itself? Scientists at the University here just aren't smart enough to wrap their heads around that type of advanced logic.

      They need help Kamran. Are feathers a characteristic that has no evolutionary precursors? Are they irreducibly complex?

      Truman
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: gluadys To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 4:02 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How did feathers evolve? - Carl Zimmer ...
      Message 76 of 76 , Jul 14 2:29 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: gluadys
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 4:02 PM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How did feathers evolve? - Carl Zimmer




        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Truman
        > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:36 AM
        > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How did feathers evolve? - Carl Zimmer
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Darwin did not have his own definition and relied on what naturalists at the time called groups of organisms that closely resembled each other. Species were units that described variants of a continuous series in of descent with modification.
        >
        >
        >
        > LA> Your comment seems to show that you are not aware that Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" concluded that there is a LAW which he called "the law of Reversion". Speaking of pigeon breeding Darwin wrote;
        >
        > ------------------------------
        >
        > "We can understand these facts, on the well-known principle
        > of reversion to ancestral characters, if all domestic breeds
        > have descended from the rock pigeon."
        >
        > ". . . .Lastly, the hybrids or mongrels from between all
        > the domestic breeds of pigeons are perfectly fertile. I can
        > state this from my own observations, purposely made on the
        > most distinct breeds."
        >
        > (Origin of species, Charles Darwin, "Variation Under
        > Domestication", (Avenel Books, New York, 1979), p. 85)
        >
        > =======================
        >


        GLU: As you can see clearly from these paragraphs, Darwin was indeed speaking exclusively of domestic breeds of pigeons and notes that all domestic breeds are interfertile.

        So, unlike his contemporaries, he traced them all back to one common wild ancestral species.

        He is not disputing at all that there are also hundreds of wild species of pigeons in addition to the ancestor of the domesticated breeds. Species that are not interfertile.

        Noah would indeed need a pair (actually seven pairs) of each of them if all those species needed to be preserved separately.

        The other alternative is one species on the ark, evolving with super-rapidity into hundreds of different (not interfertile) species (of which one was the ancestor of domesticated breeds).



        LA> If you follow that concept then you are beginning to better understand Biology as well as the explanation of the reallity of Noah and the Flood. You will also begin to understand what the "Gould/Eldredge" "New and General Theory of Evolution" is all about and why atheists like Richard Dawkins and others have admitted that Punctuated Equilibrium has "delighted the creationists"!


        Laurie.

        "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
        (Niles Eldredge, 1995)

        ..

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.