Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Molecular evolution of feathers from fossils

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by D Laurier View Post

    mutations.
    Mutations do not increase information. It only works with what is already there. Besides, the overall effect of mutations is deleterious. Any so-called positive benefit would be overrun by the negative consequences of mutations. You are flying blind and operating under faith. An increase in information is the fingerprint of intelligence.

    Even if all the data point to an Intelligent Designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Dr. Scott Todd

    ‘Science...is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm—in this case neo-Darwinism—so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard..... Evelleen Richards.
    Last edited by lightbeamrider; 02-01-19, 11:11 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lightbeamrider View Post

      Mutations do not increase information.
      Of course they do.

      Start with a genetic sequence AAAC.
      It undergoes a duplication event AAACAAAC
      The duplicate has a single point mutation AAACAAGC

      There you have it, a completely new genetic sequence = new information.

      It only works with what is already there.

      That's as dumb as claiming no one can write a new book because all the words existed before.
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by lightbeamrider View Post

        Mutations do not increase information.
        Except when they do.
        When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tim H View Post

          Of course they do.

          Start with a genetic sequence AAAC.
          It undergoes a duplication event AAACAAAC
          The duplicate has a single point mutation AAACAAGC

          There you have it, a completely new genetic sequence = new information.

          That's as dumb as claiming no one can write a new book because all the words existed before. :rolleyes:

          This is from a fellow who believes the book can be written absent an intelligent designer for no objective reason or purpose.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by D Laurier View Post

            mutations.
            that was easy.. it's like he forgets every time he's told.
            "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by D Laurier View Post
              Except when they do.
              Call on your wizards to demonstrate that.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

                Call on your wizards to demonstrate that.
                you are the one who employs "sorcory"
                "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lightbeamrider View Post
                  This is from a fellow who believes the book can be written absent an intelligent designer for no objective reason or purpose.
                  This is from a fellow who believes that intelligent designers (who must be more complex than the results of their actions) can exist absent an intelligent designer-designer for no objective reason or purpose.

                  And just to remind you: books do not replicate themselves. Nor do the kind of designers that you envision.

                  Regards, HRG.

                  "The universe doesn't care what happens to its inhabitants, but its inhabitants do" (Tyrrho).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by HRG View Post

                    This is from a fellow who believes that intelligent designers (who must be more complex than the results of their actions) can exist absent an intelligent designer-designer for no objective reason or purpose.

                    And just to remind you: books do not replicate themselves. Nor do the kind of designers that you envision.
                    Reptiles to birds including feathers with no increase in genetic information? In other words the Reptiles had no genetic basis for the appearance of feathers other than mutations. If that is so then why can't humans get feathers? How about horses? Winged Pegasus since no increase of information and horses do not have a genetic basis any more than reptiles. How bout this reptiles did not evolve into feathered creatures in the first place? Then you have the audacity to joke about talking donkeys. At least that was around three thousand yrs ago. You fellers believe all this nonsense right now. And this is science? What this really is is fairy tales for adults. Since you believe in all these mystery creatures then how do you know a talking donkey was simply a result of mutations?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lightbeamrider View Post

                      Reptiles to birds including feathers with no increase in genetic information?
                      Birds didn't evolve directly from reptiles. Birds evolved from maniraptoran dinosaurs. The maniraptors had already evolved non-flight feathers for thermoregulation and/or display tens of millions of years before feathers were co-opted for flight. We also know how evolutionary processes increase genetic information.

                      How long are you going to dodge my questions about did tigers and house cats share a common ancestor?
                      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tim H View Post

                        Birds didn't evolve directly from reptiles. Birds evolved from maniraptoran dinosaurs. The maniraptors had already evolved non-flight feathers for thermoregulation and/or display tens of millions of years before feathers were co-opted for flight. We also know how evolutionary processes increase genetic information.

                        How long are you going to dodge my questions about did tigers and house cats share a common ancestor?
                        They do not share a common ancestor. You like to ask questions but you never answer any.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lightbeamrider View Post

                          Reptiles to birds including feathers with no increase in genetic information?
                          The whole "genetic information" is your delusion. I wont' bother with it.


                          In other words the Reptiles had no genetic basis for the appearance of feathers other than mutations.
                          Other than the fact they already made keratin and feathers are modified keratin. And both scale and feathers originate in placodes


                          If that is so then why can't humans get feathers?
                          They could with the right changes to their genetic code. After all I already showed hair scale and feathers have common origin.


                          Winged Pegasus since no increase of information and horses do not have a genetic basis any more than reptiles.
                          The "increase in information" is your delusional problem. A Pegasus is a hexapod. A horse is a tetrapod.


                          How bout this reptiles did not evolve into feathered creatures in the first place?
                          They already do. Reptiles with feathers are called birds




                          "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Promethean View Post

                            that was easy.. it's like he forgets every time he's told.
                            indeed.
                            When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

                              Call on your wizards to demonstrate that.
                              Show that I have wizards.
                              Please show any evidence that I have any wizards... or that wizards even exist.
                              When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Promethean View Post
                                As revealed in previous threads of mine, scales, hair and feathers have a common evolutionary origin.as do mammary glands. This paper and a few others help elucidate the molecular evolution of feathers. Specifically looking to seen when feathers - rather the keratin - changed to accommodate flight. They find the Anchiornis had both alpha and beta keratin. Modern birds are mostly populated by beta.


                                The molecular evolution of feathers with direct evidence from fossils

                                Significance


                                During the dinosaur–bird transition, feathers of bird ancestors must have been molecularly modified to become biomechanically suitable for flight. We report molecular moieties in fossil feathers that shed light on that transition. Pennaceous feathers attached to the right forelimb of the Jurassic dinosaur Anchiornis were composed of both feather β-keratins and α-keratins, but were dominated by α-keratins, unlike mature feathers of extant birds, which are dominated by β-keratins. Data suggest that the pennaceous feathers of Anchiornis had some, but not all, of the ultrastructural and molecular characteristics of extant feathers, and may not yet have attained molecular modifications required for powered flight. Abstract


                                Dinosaur fossils possessing integumentary appendages of various morphologies, interpreted as feathers, have greatly enhanced our understanding of the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs, as well as the origins of feathers and avian flight. In extant birds, the unique expression and amino acid composition of proteins in mature feathers have been shown to determine their biomechanical properties, such as hardness, resilience, and plasticity. Here, we provide molecular and ultrastructural evidence that the pennaceous feathers of the Jurassic nonavian dinosaur Anchiornis were composed of both feather β-keratins and α-keratins. This is significant, because mature feathers in extant birds are dominated by β-keratins, particularly in the barbs and barbules forming the vane. We confirm here that feathers were modified at both molecular and morphological levels to obtain the biomechanical properties for flight during the dinosaur–bird transition, and we show that the patterns and timing of adaptive change at the molecular level can be directly addressed in exceptionally preserved fossils in deep time.
                                So many weasel words and speculation.

                                God didn't read any of your mess before building complete birds, airworthy from the beginning.
                                The shapes were for reduced drag coefficients. Folding wings, Retracting landing gear. Proper propulsion. Compact design launched from eggs.

                                The weight/loads/propulsion factors just right.

                                Bird brains pre loaded with migration software. Software to follow thermals for lift.

                                God did not need a wind tunnel for a design group.

                                God used great engineering principles for feather location. He placed feather pointing aft on the tail edge of the wing structure.

                                Your biochemical "discussion"shows God knew more than yu'all about growing wings.

                                If you grew feathers from your bingo wings, you still could never fly.

                                Praise the LORD

                                Our aviation industry totally relies on knocking off aeronautical engineering concepts from Birds.

                                Sailboat propulsion systems knock off God's creation. Sailboats copy leach, luff foot and batten principles from avian wings.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X