Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Photos referenced are from the paper you cited.

Have you read the paper that you cited? I forgot. You only select quotes from them found at creationist sources. Photos are at the heart of the paper. Their analysis of them is pretty shallow as was indicated by the other scientists critiquing the paper.

You won't accept evolutionist's findings. So where is your conclusive evidence?

Evolutionists (and TalkOrigins) claim that Sinosauropteryx was "covered with primitive feathers."

You do not accept the summary of the high-resolution microscopic images, even though they are from ARDENT evolutionists.

So, unless you can offer proof, it's your faith again.


November 2005:
“Our findings show no evidence for the existence of protofeathers and consequently no evidence in support of the follicular theory of the morphogenesis of the feather. Rather, based on histological studies of the integument of modern reptiles, which show complex patterns of the collagen fibers of the dermis, we conclude that "protofeathers" are probably the remains of collagenous fiber "meshworks" that reinforced the dinosaur integument. These "meshworks" of the skin frequently formed aberrant patterns resembling feathers as a consequence of decomposition. Our findings also draw support from new paleontological evidence. We describe integumental structures, very similar to "protofeathers," preserved within the rib area of a Psittacosaurus specimen from Nanjing, China, an ornithopod dinosaur unconnected with the ancestry of birds. These integumental structures show a strong resemblance to the collagenous fiber systems in the dermis of many animals.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16217748&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Have you read the paper that you cited? I forgot. You only select quotes from them found at creationist sources. Photos are at the heart of the paper. Their analysis of them is pretty shallow as was indicated by the other scientists critiquing the paper.

Thanks for repeating the quote that has already been addressed.

Have you read the article or are you simply going to continue to refer to the abstract. I have already shown you how Feduccia, et al. failed to address all of the evidence, i.e., ingument appearing on other parts of the body. They also fail to make an effective case for midline structures explaining the evidence they do address.

'The material was available for genetic testing.' I don't think so...

WiYC said:
"Please provide the genetic testing results of the material found that prove it was found to be feather related."

I'm not sure where you pulled this one from, but the material in question is rock. As far as I know you can't do genetic testing on rocks. There are other methods that might possibly be applied to the fossil. However, you would need permission of the Chinese to do it. Genetic testing would not be one of the tests.

Feduccia is an evolutionist. Why would you think we find his opinions 'compelling'?

The issue is NOT the fact that you believe Feduccia and ALL the other scientists that agree with him (about psuedo feathers) are equally archaic and uninformed.

The issue is that you have NO competing testimoney that claims the cross section and chemical analysis are 'feather related.'

Also, do you believe that cladistics could be considered 'evidence' or 'proof' of feathers? If so, please explain your rational.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"3. Because some evolutionists don't agree with Feduccia (an ardent evolutionist ), Feduccia's testimoney is a "extreme minority view and not taken seriously by other scientists." Again, if you wish to offer competing specific scientific analysis, go ahead. If not, don't waste our time with opinions."

You have turned to Feduccia as an authority. Why might that be? Do you find his position that birds evolved from some kind of archosaur compelling? Do you find his argument for protofeathers in Longisquama especially convincing? No. I think you simply take comfort in his attack on the more accepted theories of feather evolution. You don't accept his science, but you like his bile when he attacks other scientists.

Feduccia has cultivated an image as kind of a crank. He refuses to accept new ideas because they conflict with his idea of how he thinks birds evolved. A good example is provided in a review of his book "The Origin and Evolution of Birds". Kevin Padian talks about his aversion to cladistics which has revolutionized systematics.

"The success of phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) applied to nearly all branches of life in the past two decades has been revolutionary, although not infallible. It has provided a universal, testable method for establishing relationships among organisms, and a framework for anchoring and testing other evolutionary questions, including those of adaptation, ecology, behavior and biochemical change. Feduccia dismisses all these results because he cannot accept the theory that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs. Why? Because he knows that flight must have begun in trees, and so the first birds were arboreal, unlike the terrestrial predatory dinosaurs of the Mesozoic Era. How does he know this? Well, most birds today live in trees, and they are adapted for flight. And theoretically it is easier to evolve flight if you can already glide from an arboreal perch."
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919005208/www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Feduccia97-03.html

I have read a bit of Feduccia and find that he seems set in his ways and behind the times. He has done some interesting work. However, the relationship between theropods and birds is supported by more than the integumentary structures of Sinosauropteryx.

Feduccia suffers from the same problem creationists do.

I don't find his arguments particularly compelling. He is a scientist that seems to frequently ignore science when it doesn't agree with him. Creationists tend to do the same. You are willing to cite particular critisms he levels when you think they support your position. However, he is making them to support an alternative evolutionary scenario. Unfortunately for him, the fossils, cladistics and morphology don't support that position. He has no solid evidence.

If he wants to overturn BAD, he needs evidence for his alternative scenario. Like creationists, he can only argue a rear-guard action against BAD. That doesn't support Feduccia's position and it certainly doesn't support a creationist one either.

You obviously didn't notice...

WiYC said:
"4. You obviously didn't notice that there are 6 additional palaeontologists cited in the two articles confirming there is NO evidence of feathers on Sinosauropteryx:"

You have two guys co-authoring with Feduccia. The other four are talking about another fossil as I demonstrated before you posted this.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/727903/

You can read this one for more detail on your fabulous for that were talking about another dinosaur in your quote.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/727926/

Another WiYC Blunder

WiYC quoted NewScientist and it seems that they are not talking about Sinosauropteryx here.

"Bones of Contention, the Fossil that Shook Science" by Paul Chambers talks about this incident on p. 228. The fossil in question was Protarchaeopteryx.
"While in China the western scientists were given a peek ath the shape of things to come. In a dark corner of the Chinese Geological Museumthey were shown what their host Ji Qiang, the museum's director, called his 'special specimen'. This turned out to be a turkey-sized skeleton which was laid out in some detail on a slab of Liaoning shale. It had long strong legs, wihg-like arms a toothed skull and , according to Ji feathers. When the team saw the animal they were amazed. It was indeed a well-preserveddinosaur with the same kind of fluffyu covering as had been seen in Sinsauropteryx. The 'special animal' immediately became the cetntre of attention, but a problem soon arose.

"All four westen scientists concluded that whatever the structures were, ther were not feathers in the same sense that we know them tday.

"Larry amrtin, who is not keen on the idea of feathered dinosaurs anyway, told me the structures 'didn't have a single feature whick we would normally use to diagnos a feather. All four of us agreed but the Chinese said that unless we announced these features as being feathers our trip was over.'"

It is important to note that there are at least seven different types of modern feathers recognized. Also, the paperes referring to the integument on Sinosauropteryx recognize them as 'primative feathers' or 'what appear to be feathers'. The BAD theorists would view this as the likely scenario. Feathers, in their view, evolved for other reasons, i.e., insulation, camoflage (in young), or display (for sexual selection). All are still seen in birds. I think the BAD scenario makes more sense for a couple of reasons. One, they have fossils of feathered dinosaurs. Two, the evolution of feathers in their approach seems more likely. Feduccia would argue that feathers evolved for flight more directly.

Would you like to retract your comment? Again, where is your evidence?

In regard to your comment:

"WiYC quoted NewScientist and it seems that they are not talking about Sinosauropteryx here."

Unless you think the same four when to China at the same time and announced two findings at the same press conference, it looks as though they ARE taking about Sinosauropteryx.
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/protosino.html

In regard to your last paragraph, we ARE NOT the least bit interested in your opinion. ONE MORE TIME, ARNESON:

Your postings will be delected unless they specifically address evidence of what we are covering (Not Protarchaeopteryx.)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC quoted NewScientist and it seems that they are not talking about Sinosauropteryx here.

"Bones of Contention, the Fossil that Shook Science" by Paul Chambers talks about this incident on p. 228. The fossil in question was Protarchaeopteryx.
"While in China the western scientists were given a peek ath the shape of things to come. In a dark corner of the Chinese Geological Museumthey were shown what their host Ji Qiang, the museum's director, called his 'special specimen'. This turned out to be a turkey-sized skeleton which was laid out in some detail on a slab of Liaoning shale. It had long strong legs, wihg-like arms a toothed skull and , according to Ji feathers. When the team saw the animal they were amazed. It was indeed a well-preserveddinosaur with the same kind of fluffyu covering as had been seen in Sinsauropteryx. The 'special animal' immediately became the cetntre of attention, but a problem soon arose.

"All four westen scientists concluded that whatever the structures were, ther were not feathers in the same sense that we know them tday.

"Larry amrtin, who is not keen on the idea of feathered dinosaurs anyway, told me the structures 'didn't have a single feature whick we would normally use to diagnos a feather. All four of us agreed but the Chinese said that unless we announced these features as being feathers our trip was over.'"

It is important to note that there are at least seven different types of modern feathers recognized. Also, the paperes referring to the integument on Sinosauropteryx recognize them as 'primative feathers' or 'what appear to be feathers'. The BAD theorists would view this as the likely scenario. Feathers, in their view, evolved for other reasons, i.e., insulation, camoflage (in young), or display (for sexual selection). All are still seen in birds. I think the BAD scenario makes more sense for a couple of reasons. One, they have fossils of feathered dinosaurs. Two, the evolution of feathers in their approach seems more likely. Feduccia would argue that feathers evolved for flight more directly.