Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Molecular evolution of feathers from fossils

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by rook View Post
    The facts, of course.
    So I am still not the least bit confused. Got it.
    You are still confused and Storrs Olson is correct, the idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists.
    So I am still not at all confused, and you are making up nonsense again.
    Educate yourself.
    Not untill 1983. How many times do I have to explain this?


    When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by D Laurier View Post
      So I am still not the least bit confused. Got it.

      So I am still not at all confused, and you are making up nonsense again.

      Not untill 1983. How many times do I have to explain this?

      Your fantasy fails again.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

        So many weasel words and speculation.
        So many weasel words I just chose to redact most of it so to spare the people from all the nouveau weasel-ness. \
        Put some of them fake degrees and imaginary expertise to use.

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

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by rook View Post
          Sorry amigo, but your OP is dead on arrival..
          You failed again. As you always do. You are dead on arrival.

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

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by rook View Post
            The facts, of course.



            You are still confused and Storrs Olson is correct, the idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists. Educate yourself.
            Retired and written more than 15 years ago - before many feathered dinos were found and was, by his writings, a noxious dotard long before that.

            Comment


            • #51
              Molecular evolution of feathers from fossils

              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.
              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
              This is not “science”, it is “scientism”. By nature, most atheists “worship” science as the only purveyor of “truth” and when they refer to it, it can apparently in their minds rise to the level of “revelation”. In a very real sense, “scientists”, as the “priests” of scientism, are freed from the shackles of “wherever the evidence leads” and allowed, ex cathreda, to proclaim where the evidence MUST and indeed WILL lead when they invoke their priestly authority and render their version of reality. And those who have fallen under the spell of scientism are blinded to the obvious disconnect between actual science and scientism when scientific research and study is predisposed to a particular conclusion, regardless of ANY scientific evidence to the contrary.

              And the heretical term commonly used here for those of us who are predisposed to see design in every facet of earth’s biosphere is “IDiots”. Yet, evolutionists themselves are compelled to admit that “life”, in its myriad forms, gives every impression of having BEEN designed, as in the aforementioned “ANY scientific evidence to the contrary”! Time will certainly eventually reveal who the real idiots are.




              Fight like a real man. Get on your knees and pray!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Arkycharlie View Post
                Molecular evolution of feathers from fossils

                [/INDENT]
                This is not “science”, it is “scientism”.
                You waste my time. It's "Molecular evolution of feathers from fossils" unless you talk about molecules don't bother
                "Kids & Adults love Fairy Tale Ark exhibit" - Ken Ham

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Arkycharlie View Post
                  Molecular evolution of feathers from fossils

                  [/INDENT]This is not “science”, it is “scientism”. By nature, most atheists “worship” science as the only purveyor of “truth” and when they refer to it, it can apparently in their minds rise to the level of “revelation”. In a very real sense, “scientists”, as the “priests” of scientism, are freed from the shackles of “wherever the evidence leads” and allowed, ex cathreda, to proclaim where the evidence MUST and indeed WILL lead when they invoke their priestly authority and render their version of reality. And those who have fallen under the spell of scientism are blinded to the obvious disconnect between actual science and scientism when scientific research and study is predisposed to a particular conclusion, regardless of ANY scientific evidence to the contrary.

                  And the heretical term commonly used here for those of us who are predisposed to see design in every facet of earth’s biosphere is “IDiots”. Yet, evolutionists themselves are compelled to admit that “life”, in its myriad forms, gives every impression of having BEEN designed, as in the aforementioned “ANY scientific evidence to the contrary”! Time will certainly eventually reveal who the real idiots are.



                  Where "scientism" is the dying gasp of shamanistic flock fleecers faced with the death of magicalism in the face of empirical sciences overwhelming success and religious supernaturalisticalisms utter failure to produce anything but rich powerful flock fleecers and their legitimate prey - illeducated and conworthy faithists...
                  Yet to present any "scientific evidence to the contrary" from the creIDists, just magical mystical supernaturalistical spiritualistic wooism.... and actual scientists understand that massively parallel and iterative vary/select mechanistic processes produce strong utterly natural "design" - often much more effectively than actual intelligent designers with all the obvious historical baggage of evolution and NONE of the disconnects of creative designers. So the judgement of IDiocy of the purely marketing-ministry (redundant I know) program that IS ALL creIDism has ever been is entirely appropriate. CreIDists do NO actual research (except marketing "research"), no actual science, make no contribution to human knowledge in fact subtract from it with every utterance, just an ongoing campaign to bring on a new dark ages...The best argument for atheism remains the utter intellectual antimatter that is supernaturalistical spiritualistic faithism..
                  Yes time will tell as creIDism goes the way of flat earthism, geocentrism, demons causing disease, whitch burning, unless flockies like yourself succeed in burning scientists at the stake and pillaging all modern libraries like you have before....
                  Last edited by cloudsrider; 02-20-19, 12:24 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Promethean View Post
                    You waste my time. It's "Molecular evolution of feathers from fossils" unless you talk about molecules don't bother
                    By all means excuse me for wasting your time. I was prepared to “talk about molecules” until I discovered that I couldn’t access the entire paper at the link that you posted without a subscription to the website hosting the article. But sensing your obvious interest in molecules, do I have an article for you. And you can access the entire article at the link below. It’s titled: “Model and Laboratory Demonstrations That Evolutionary Optimization Works Well Only If Preceded by Invention--Selection Itself Is Not Inventive”

                    https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Not_Inventive

                    Below is an abstract of the article.
                    Abstract
                    Since biological inventions only benefit their possessors after they work, their origins cannot be attributed to their selective effects. One proposed solution to this conundrum is that selection perfects activities that already existed in rudimentary form before they became beneficial. An example of this idea for protein origins is the promiscuity hypothesis, which claims that minor aberrant side-reactions in enzymes can be evolutionary starting points for proficient new enzymes. Another example—the junk hypothesis—claims that proteins arising from accidental expression of non-genic DNA may likewise have slight activities that, through evolutionary optimization, lead to proficient enzymes. Here, we tested these proposals by observing how the endpoint of simple evolutionary optimization depends on the starting point. Beginning with optimization of protein-like constructs in the Stylus computational model, we compared promiscuous and junk starting points, where design elements specific to the test function were completely absent, to a starting point that retained most elements of a good design (mutation having disrupted some). In all three cases, evolutionary optimization improved activities by a large factor. The extreme weakness of the original activities, however, meant even large improvements could be inconsequential. Indeed, the endpoint was itself a proficient design only in the case where this design was largely present from the outset. Laboratory optimization of ampicillin-resistance proteins derived from a natural β-lactamase produced similar results. Our junk protein here was a deletion mutant that some-how confers weak resistance without the original catalytic mechanism (much of the active site having been lost). Evolutionary optimization was unable to improve that mutant. In contrast, a comparably weak mutant that retained the active site surpassed the natural β-lactamase after six rounds of selection. So, while mutation and selection can improve the proficiency of good designs through small structural adjustments, they seem unable to convert fortuitous selectable activities into good design
                    Below are professional bios of the authors. They’ve had numerous papers published in “The Journal of Molecular Biology”. And, as you can see, they are highly credentialed experts in their field. Enjoy!
                    Douglas Axe
                    is the director of Biologic Institute and author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (HarperOne). His research uses both experiments and computer simulations to examine the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. After a Caltech PhD, he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. His work and ideas have been featured in many scientific journals, including the Journal of Molecular Biology, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Nature, and in such books as Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer.

                    Ann Gauger
                    is a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute. Her work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways. She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.


                    Fight like a real man. Get on your knees and pray!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by cloudsrider View Post
                      … and actual scientists understand that massively parallel and iterative vary/select mechanistic processes produce strong utterly natural "design" - often much more effectively than actual intelligent designers.
                      You have truth staring you in the face and yet remain utterly oblivious to it. “Often” life appears to be more “effectively” designed than if created by man??? The function, beauty, complexity, wonder and dare I say perfection of living creatures far surpasses ANYTHING that man is capable of. And it most assuredly surpasses anything that random, undirected processes of chemistry and time could ever come remotely near to producing. And only a fool could think otherwise.
                      Fight like a real man. Get on your knees and pray!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Arkycharlie View Post

                        You have truth staring you in the face and yet remain utterly oblivious to it. “Often” life appears to be more “effectively” designed than if created by man??? The function, beauty, complexity, wonder and dare I say perfection of living creatures far surpasses ANYTHING that man is capable of. And it most assuredly surpasses anything that random, undirected processes of chemistry and time could ever come remotely near to producing. And only a fool could think otherwise.
                        Argument by incredulity, not taking into account imperfections like pseudogenes or the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
                        Regards, HRG.

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

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

                          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.
                          God knows no more than the people who invented him.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Arkycharlie View Post

                            You have truth staring you in the face and yet remain utterly oblivious to it. “Often” life appears to be more “effectively” designed than if created by man??? The function, beauty, complexity, wonder and dare I say perfection of living creatures far surpasses ANYTHING that man is capable of. And it most assuredly surpasses anything that random, undirected processes of chemistry and time could ever come remotely near to producing. And only a fool could think otherwise.
                            Yes your use of "perfection" proves utter faithist ignorance of actual biology. If humans are designed, the designer is obviously anything but intelligent. Human spines, kidney suspension, retinas, eye muscles, knees, broken vitamin C gene, laryngial nerve, blood types where mothers kill embryos, etc etc are just stupid as design, make perfect sense as evolutionary adequate adaptations of ancestral features. You really have no clue what youre talking about - Good preaching..

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Arkycharlie View Post

                              By all means excuse me for wasting your time. I was prepared to “talk about molecules” until I discovered that I couldn’t access the entire paper at the link that you posted without a subscription to the website hosting the article. But sensing your obvious interest in molecules, do I have an article for you. And you can access the entire article at the link below. It’s titled: “Model and Laboratory Demonstrations That Evolutionary Optimization Works Well Only If Preceded by Invention--Selection Itself Is Not Inventive”

                              https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Not_Inventive

                              Below is an abstract of the article.
                              Abstract
                              Since biological inventions only benefit their possessors after they work, their origins cannot be attributed to their selective effects. One proposed solution to this conundrum is that selection perfects activities that already existed in rudimentary form before they became beneficial. An example of this idea for protein origins is the promiscuity hypothesis, which claims that minor aberrant side-reactions in enzymes can be evolutionary starting points for proficient new enzymes. Another example—the junk hypothesis—claims that proteins arising from accidental expression of non-genic DNA may likewise have slight activities that, through evolutionary optimization, lead to proficient enzymes. Here, we tested these proposals by observing how the endpoint of simple evolutionary optimization depends on the starting point. Beginning with optimization of protein-like constructs in the Stylus computational model, we compared promiscuous and junk starting points, where design elements specific to the test function were completely absent, to a starting point that retained most elements of a good design (mutation having disrupted some). In all three cases, evolutionary optimization improved activities by a large factor. The extreme weakness of the original activities, however, meant even large improvements could be inconsequential. Indeed, the endpoint was itself a proficient design only in the case where this design was largely present from the outset. Laboratory optimization of ampicillin-resistance proteins derived from a natural β-lactamase produced similar results. Our junk protein here was a deletion mutant that some-how confers weak resistance without the original catalytic mechanism (much of the active site having been lost). Evolutionary optimization was unable to improve that mutant. In contrast, a comparably weak mutant that retained the active site surpassed the natural β-lactamase after six rounds of selection. So, while mutation and selection can improve the proficiency of good designs through small structural adjustments, they seem unable to convert fortuitous selectable activities into good design
                              Below are professional bios of the authors. They’ve had numerous papers published in “The Journal of Molecular Biology”. And, as you can see, they are highly credentialed experts in their field. Enjoy!
                              Douglas Axe
                              is the director of Biologic Institute and author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed (HarperOne). His research uses both experiments and computer simulations to examine the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. After a Caltech PhD, he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. His work and ideas have been featured in many scientific journals, including the Journal of Molecular Biology, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Nature, and in such books as Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer.

                              Ann Gauger
                              is a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute. Her work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways. She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
                              Gauger - the Discotute shill of "blue screened" into stock lab footage fame, because the "Biologic Institute" Axe pretends to direct doesnt actually exist except as a flock fleecing marketing scam. None of their limited legitimate publications hint at creIDism. Only after they abandoned real science and prostituted themselves to the Disco ministry did they preach creIDism.
                              Last edited by cloudsrider; 02-20-19, 09:28 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Arkycharlie View Post
                                Molecular evolution of feathers from fossils

                                [/INDENT]This is not “science”, it is “scientism”. By nature, most atheists “worship” science as the only purveyor of “truth” and when they refer to it, it can apparently in their minds rise to the level of “revelation”. In a very real sense, “scientists”, as the “priests” of scientism, are freed from the shackles of “wherever the evidence leads” and allowed, ex cathreda, to proclaim where the evidence MUST and indeed WILL lead when they invoke their priestly authority and render their version of reality. And those who have fallen under the spell of scientism are blinded to the obvious disconnect between actual science and scientism when scientific research and study is predisposed to a particular conclusion, regardless of ANY scientific evidence to the contrary.

                                And the heretical term commonly used here for those of us who are predisposed to see design in every facet of earth’s biosphere is “IDiots”. Yet, evolutionists themselves are compelled to admit that “life”, in its myriad forms, gives every impression of having BEEN designed, as in the aforementioned “ANY scientific evidence to the contrary”! Time will certainly eventually reveal who the real idiots are.



                                Time has already "revealed who the real idiots are" - the gullible fleecies who support the creIDist flock fleecers. The repeated abysmal failure of creIDists to produce ANYTHING but marketing scams, legal disasters, and pathetic embarrasments like "Dissent", "Expelled", Dover, etc. proves conclusively the utter idiocy of the creIDist political and flock fleecing and totally anti-scientific and antirational magical mystical supernaturalist spiritualist creIDist enterprise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X