Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Index > General > Who Is Your Creator message forum > You won't accept evolutionist's findings. So where is your conclusive evidence?
Forum: Who Is Your Creator message forum
This forum is locked and posting is not allowed
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
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.

Email