Is there an official date of the surrender?

Open your eyes. Specifically have a look at the lower part of a chicken's legs and feet, as here. The chicken's body has feathers, but the lower legs and feet have scales. The same is true for all birds. Part feathers and part scales have been there all along. It is just that you failed to notice them.
The feet have scales. But it does not show the scales changing into feet.
 
That's because half scales and half feathers is not how evolution works. A tiny change in DNA produces a complete and permanent change from scales to feathers, as proved by experimentation in real time. This is not typical of evolutionary change, but it does illustrate that your half leg, half wing idea is crazy. Evolution works on success. An animal with half a leg and half a wing is unlikely to be successful in any environment. An animal with a wing-like leg on the other hand will be more successful than it's peers with less wing-like legs if wing-like legs suit the environment. Read about how evolution works instead of inventing this silly Strawman.
Yes it is how evolution works and you can not prove otherwise.
 
Yes it is how evolution works and you can not prove otherwise.
On what basis do you claim this? Does your extensive research into biology theory lead you to this conclusion? Are you quoting the ideas of eminent contemporary biologists? Have you carried out your own research based on field studies and experiments? Or are you just playing Pokémon and guessing?
 
The feet have scales. But it does not show the scales changing into feet.
A chicken, or any other bird, is in the process of changing from all scales, like a lizard, to all feathers. It has almost, but not quite, completed the change. Head, body, forelimbs and most of the hind limbs have changed to feathers. Just the extremities of the hind limbs have not changed yet and retain their scales.

That is exactly what you were asking for, something in the process of transition from A to B.
 
A chicken, or any other bird, is in the process of changing from all scales, like a lizard, to all feathers. It has almost, but not quite, completed the change. Head, body, forelimbs and most of the hind limbs have changed to feathers. Just the extremities of the hind limbs have not changed yet and retain their scales.

That is exactly what you were asking for, something in the process of transition from A to B.
Some chickens in fact do have feathers on their feet, but there the process of evolution has been speeded up by artificial selection.
 
No you 2 I am not asking for something that has full fledged feathers already on it.
What you are asking for is so silly and keeps changing, so we've all rather lost track.

Just to confirm, what you are asking for is nothing to do with evolution, but is your imagined product of what your total misunderstanding of the evolutionary process would produce in an individual organism fossilized while in the process of evolving from one species into another. That's right isn't it?
 
On what basis do you claim this? Does your extensive research into biology theory lead you to this conclusion? Are you quoting the ideas of eminent contemporary biologists? Have you carried out your own research based on field studies and experiments? Or are you just playing Pokémon and guessing?
Type in evolution in the dictionary. Show me any scientist that says scales, feathers and so forth were always fully formed and at no time should there be a fossil in transition showing the scale changing into a feather or any of the other transitions like from a fin to a foot?
 
Type in evolution in the dictionary. Show me any scientist that says scales, feathers and so forth were always fully formed and at no time should there be a fossil in transition showing the scale changing into a feather or any of the other transitions like from a fin to a foot?
Every individual organism that ever lived, was fully formed. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. In an evolving population, some individuals will have more feathers than others. Some will have fewer teeth than others. Dome will have more birdlike wings than others. Fossils are just random individuals taken from a population. There's no guarantee that they are representative of the whole population at that time. You won't see evolution happening on one fossil. You have to compare fossils of the same species to see the changes over time. The similarities and differences between fossils are what display evolution. It doesn't happen in one fossil.
 
Every individual organism that ever lived, was fully formed. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. In an evolving population, some individuals will have more feathers than others. Some will have fewer teeth than others. Dome will have more birdlike wings than others. Fossils are just random individuals taken from a population. There's no guarantee that they are representative of the whole population at that time. You won't see evolution happening on one fossil. You have to compare fossils of the same species to see the changes over time. The similarities and differences between fossils are what display evolution. It doesn't happen in one fossil.
Then provide your definition that, that is how evolution works?
 
Wrong. Some individuals thrive, some do not thrive. Evolution works because of the differences between these two groups.
I looked it up and you have to provide a definition that says the individuals in the populations do not evolve and only the populations evolve? How you think populations evolved if the individuals in the populations did not evolve?
 
I looked it up and you have to provide a definition that says the individuals in the populations do not evolve and only the populations evolve? How you think populations evolved if the individuals in the populations did not evolve?
Populations evolve as the overall genetics of the whole population changes. Individuals die, removing their genes from the population. New individuals are born/hatch/etc. adding their genes to the population.
 
Populations evolve as the overall genetics of the whole population changes. Individuals die, removing their genes from the population. New individuals are born/hatch/etc. adding their genes to the population.
Precisely the overall genetics changed as the individuals evolved so the populations could evolve.
 
Precisely the overall genetics changed as the individuals evolved so the populations could evolve.
Genetics don't change in individuals. How can individuals evolve when their genes remain the same from birth to death? It's the gene pool of available genes that changes.
 
Genetics don't change in individuals. How can individuals evolve when their genes remain the same from birth to death? It's the gene pool of available genes that changes.
Just admit it that the individuals in the populations had to evolve so the populations could evolve?
 
Precisely the overall genetics changed as the individuals evolved so the populations could evolve.
No. Individuals are born, reproduce (or not) and die. They do not evolve. The population evolves as a result of those births and deaths changing the overall genetics of the population.
 
Back
Top