Yeah, I watched that TV program. The one that tried to convince me a hinged jaw was an ossified front of a gill.
I was talking about the primary function of a feather. If you have them then they can diversify in function. Penguins and Ostriches are exceptions, and higher up the Evolutionary chain, within its parameters. With a few minor exceptions, feathers are a prerequisite of flight. Like I said earlier. TOE cannot design, nor prepare, nor build. To suggest that feathers were created without flight in mind is absolutely ridiculous. Besides the structure of an avine is also a prerequisite of bird flight, so which came 1st? The feather or the light bone? And why didn’t any other creature get a light bone? Or feathered wings? Or a gizzard? Super strong sternum? Hyper efficient metabolism. Do you think they could fly with a diaphragm?
If you look at Nature there are parameters for each creature that only partially overlap. Much is class-specific. And for some strange reason creatures such as Unicorns, Pegassi, Griffins, even Dragons do not exist. Why? If Creation was so haphazard and flukey they would. (probably)
Richard
Actually, it is estimated that there are 100-200 mutations per generation when dna is passed on from parents to child, the overwhelming majority of which are neutral. A rare few are deleterious, a rare few are beneficial.
That is exactly my point TOE is development and improvement and at times building. It breaks its own rules to achieve what it is trying to. It starts with the result and fits together a way for it to happen. And it will take any convolution or connection as proof.
Richard
If subject to selection, true. Aside from incidental drift, biologists would not fundamentally dispute this, so it is a bit of a straw man.
Epistasis - adaptations which follow from other successful adaptations - is well recognized and established. So it would be expected from evolutionary principles that particular features of reptiles and mammals would work as part of the whole. The pattern of SARS-19-cov variants has demonstrated that independent mutations are selected which would not have been favored except for the presence of other mutations.
Feathers derive from scales, which do not have flight as a basic function. Warmth and display are easily selectable traits.
You know that how?
Similarity? Structure? epidermis? Or just convenience! They had to come from somewhere and scales were the closest?
Funny, this whole notion of avines from reptiles, is relatively recent, and ignores all the other changes I mentioned above. I just loved the simulation of a bird-like ancestor floating gracefully to the ground. I wonder who pushed the 1st one, or did it just fall! (and how did it get up there in the 1st place?)
If only you could take a step back and look at what you are trying to get me to believe.
Richard
It sounds to me like your saying because you can’t see how it happened, it can’t have happened and the rest of us need to wake up and see things from your perspective.
Unfortunately, incredulity and the limitations of human imagination are not grounds for discrediting a highly predictive scientific model.
Scales and feathers are formed from the same essential material - α- and β-keratins. The genes are related. Birds still have scales on their legs and feet. You are presenting a chicken and egg argument that the reason feathers exist must be due to flight, so there is no intermediate use for them and therefore nascent feathers would not find any immediate purpose. But even if you think that the relationships between scales and feathers are coincidental, you are wrong to maintain that no path exists for the development of feathers that does not necessitate flight along the way; a flight path so to speak.
Actually, that is sort of how nature works. Adapting what is at hand.
As I pointed out in my prior post, evolution is constrained. That cats and dogs have a common ancestor is consistent with evolution. That cats cannot change into dogs is consistent with evolution. That horses and dragons cannot have wings is entirely consistent with the evolutionary fact that horses belong to the superclass of tetrapods, and it is not evolutionists but YECs such as AiG who believe in dragons. It is not evolution, but rather creation that is free from constraint.
You might want to be narrow that down.
There is no evolutionary chain. Evolution doesn’t proceed like a ladder. Feathers clearly evolved before flight. They were probably used for insulation or sexual display before being co-opted for flight. For a clear explanation see this video: Great Transitions: The Origins of Birds I just know you will find it informative. coursera.org has a good course on the origin of birds, and the American Museum of Natural History had a very nice exhibit on the evolution of birds. You should read more and try to visit a natural history museum.
And what has any of this got to do with God incarnate?
Most mutations are “this protein gets produced slightly more/less”, and are essentially insignificant. Most mutations that make large changes are negative. Some mutations that make large changes are positive in some situations.
Perhaps to evade predators? But you could ask the mudskippers that. They are fish that can live on land. Here’s a short video
I think they’re pretty cool.
The jump from mudskipper to amphibians is pretty enormous.
Look, you either buy into it or you don’t, and I don’t.
Richard
You seem to think that I have no idea what I am talking about. I did Biology to degree equivalent. I do not find these things informative I find them laughable and incredulous. Feathers have one primary characteristic: they are very light. So are the bones of birds. You are going to tell me that light bones have other advantages as well as for flight? Not forgetting the ridiculously strong sternum and the muscles attached to it. Where did that come from?
Richard
But then so is the amount of time natural selection has been at work.
That’s not true. And there are different types of feathers.
The keeled sternum evolved.
Here is a wonderful video lecture discussing the evolution of birds:
How Did Birds Get Their Wings? Feathered Ornithomimids from Alberta and the Origin of Wings
You will learn much in this course on bird evolution:
Yeah I know you believe that and nothing I say will change that. Please do not keep trying to “teach” me. I have seen more than enough evolution propaganda.
Richard
Nobody is saying that amphibians evolved from mudskippers. Mudskippers are modern fish.
You don’t have good information. You should not ask questions here if you don’t want answers.
My information is gleaned from 63 long years of life. And I have been discussing Evolution and Creation for most of them. The examples change but the dogma and tunnel vision does not. You are not given the option to think, you are told how to interpret what you see. I do not believe it, period.
Richard
You are making assertions in a public forum. What are you expecting in terms of response?
I think for myself, thank you.