Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
The 'Let's See How Evolution Works' game continues - How did feathers 'evolve'?

Since evolutionists believe that theropod dinosaurs (or reptiles) evolved into birds, we are going to let them present the hypothetical scenario of the genetic step-by-step mutational development of feathers from scales.

The beauty of this is that evolutionists will have complete license for fantasy, although their scenario must be within known biological limits.

Being as this is JUST one of 100 or so major changes necessary for the completion to modern birds, we will see how they get through this one first before we go on to the next change.

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/4/455
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/2610

Re: The 'Let's See How Evolution Works' game continues - How did feathers 'evolve'?

(Cut and paste of)Paul Keck's recounting of How the interlocking mechanism on feathers probably developed (Not how they DID develop, just how they CAN develop):


In past times, feathers were probably first used as insulation, much like hair in mammals, and were probably hair-shaped, as some of types of feathers still are. At some point, some of the proto-birds developed branching projections from the early feathers. These were better at insulating, and so natural selection favored those animals that possessed them.
The next step was probably selection for barbules which curled at the ends, hooking the barbules into the adjacent ones and thus making a better wind-shedding surface, like a windbreaker. (The underfeathers would make better insulators by staying fluffy and unhooked, so the downy type of feather would be retained.) At this point the barbules were probably still pretty much round in cross-section, with no grooves. Since the limited interlocking mechanism was an improvement over non-interlocked feathers, there would be a competitive advantage to having the hooks.

So, now we have hamuli hooked around barbule "petioles". Now go back to one of Darwin's assumptions - variation. Some of these proto-birds had "petioles" slightly oval, or squarish, or crescent-shaped, as opposed to round. Please stress the "slightly" there! Now, one of these shapes was better than the others at holding the interlocking mechanism together (another idea of Darwin's). So, that proto-bird's offspring would survive better than offspring of the others, and so eventually replace them.

Fast forward a couple of hundred million years of the same variation, mutation, and selection, and you end up with modern bird feathers. Simple, no? Just time-consuming. The groove and hook did not evolve separately, as has been contended, but one in response to the other. The hooks were not useless without the grooves, they just work better with the grooves. You find this same pattern all through the living world. Eyes are another example.

Thank you! Now for the next step of proving its possibility.

Thank you for the overview of what the morphological process of developing feathers might look like.

Now, please describe:

1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection.

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

Replying to:

(Cut and paste of)Paul Keck's recounting of How the interlocking mechanism on feathers probably developed (Not how they DID develop, just how they CAN develop):


In past times, feathers were probably first used as insulation, much like hair in mammals, and were probably hair-shaped, as some of types of feathers still are. At some point, some of the proto-birds developed branching projections from the early feathers. These were better at insulating, and so natural selection favored those animals that possessed them.
The next step was probably selection for barbules which curled at the ends, hooking the barbules into the adjacent ones and thus making a better wind-shedding surface, like a windbreaker. (The underfeathers would make better insulators by staying fluffy and unhooked, so the downy type of feather would be retained.) At this point the barbules were probably still pretty much round in cross-section, with no grooves. Since the limited interlocking mechanism was an improvement over non-interlocked feathers, there would be a competitive advantage to having the hooks.

So, now we have hamuli hooked around barbule "petioles". Now go back to one of Darwin's assumptions - variation. Some of these proto-birds had "petioles" slightly oval, or squarish, or crescent-shaped, as opposed to round. Please stress the "slightly" there! Now, one of these shapes was better than the others at holding the interlocking mechanism together (another idea of Darwin's). So, that proto-bird's offspring would survive better than offspring of the others, and so eventually replace them.

Fast forward a couple of hundred million years of the same variation, mutation, and selection, and you end up with modern bird feathers. Simple, no? Just time-consuming. The groove and hook did not evolve separately, as has been contended, but one in response to the other. The hooks were not useless without the grooves, they just work better with the grooves. You find this same pattern all through the living world. Eyes are another example.

Re: Thank you! Now for the next step of proving its possibility.

1. That is what research is being conducted on. There probably very valuable data in reptiles which have hairs (there are a few). But the fact is he presented a perfectly plausible hypothesis.

2. He did explain how they were favored by natural selection. It was its value as insulation, remember? He explained it rather well.

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

Replying to:

Thank you for the overview of what the morphological process of developing feathers might look like.

Now, please describe:

1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection.

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

Replying to:

(Cut and paste of)Paul Keck's recounting of How the interlocking mechanism on feathers probably developed (Not how they DID develop, just how they CAN develop):


In past times, feathers were probably first used as insulation, much like hair in mammals, and were probably hair-shaped, as some of types of feathers still are. At some point, some of the proto-birds developed branching projections from the early feathers. These were better at insulating, and so natural selection favored those animals that possessed them.
The next step was probably selection for barbules which curled at the ends, hooking the barbules into the adjacent ones and thus making a better wind-shedding surface, like a windbreaker. (The underfeathers would make better insulators by staying fluffy and unhooked, so the downy type of feather would be retained.) At this point the barbules were probably still pretty much round in cross-section, with no grooves. Since the limited interlocking mechanism was an improvement over non-interlocked feathers, there would be a competitive advantage to having the hooks.

So, now we have hamuli hooked around barbule "petioles". Now go back to one of Darwin's assumptions - variation. Some of these proto-birds had "petioles" slightly oval, or squarish, or crescent-shaped, as opposed to round. Please stress the "slightly" there! Now, one of these shapes was better than the others at holding the interlocking mechanism together (another idea of Darwin's). So, that proto-bird's offspring would survive better than offspring of the others, and so eventually replace them.

Fast forward a couple of hundred million years of the same variation, mutation, and selection, and you end up with modern bird feathers. Simple, no? Just time-consuming. The groove and hook did not evolve separately, as has been contended, but one in response to the other. The hooks were not useless without the grooves, they just work better with the grooves. You find this same pattern all through the living world. Eyes are another example.

I will give you this one pass ONLY

Did you understand that we weren't discussing whether the scenario was a "perfectly plausible hypothesis"?

We are taking about proving it could have biologically occurred. Otherwise, the scenario is completely fictional.

Why don't you give it a whirl?

Describe:

1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection.

Re: I will give you this one pass ONLY

1. The purpose and behavior of all genes under mutations is still not complete. There's a lot we have left to learn. Also, where are we supposed to find info on all these genes?

2. That was already covered in the hypothesis that was given to you I suggest you read it over.

This is exactly what we've been saying. You ask for something. Then, when we give you an answer, you raise the bar. "How would mutations make a feather?" *answers* Give me each and every gene that would have to mutate, and describe how they would mutate.

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

Replying to:

Did you understand that we weren't discussing whether the scenario was a "perfectly plausible hypothesis"?

We are taking about proving it could have biologically occurred. Otherwise, the scenario is completely fictional.

Why don't you give it a whirl?

Describe:

1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection.

Let us know when you find out how evolution works ...

1. In regard to your comment:

"The purpose and behavior of all genes under mutations is still not complete. There's a lot we have left to learn. Also, where are we supposed to find info on all these genes?"


Are you now asking us to explain how evolution is supposed to work?

If so, please explain in detail why you think that the responsibility of explaining evolution and providing proof for it is our responsibility, not the evolutionist's.

2. In regard to your comment:

"This is exactly what we've been saying. You ask for something. Then, when we give you an answer, you raise the bar. "How would mutations make a feather?" *answers* Give me each and every gene that would have to mutate, and describe how they would mutate."


My most recent request was:

"Now, please describe:
1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection."
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/729506


I actually lowered the bar from my original request.

So, are you admitting that you have NO answer?

Your response is either "yes" or you need to provide the descriptions. Those are your ONLY two options.

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

Replying to:

1. The purpose and behavior of all genes under mutations is still not complete. There's a lot we have left to learn. Also, where are we supposed to find info on all these genes?

2. That was already covered in the hypothesis that was given to you I suggest you read it over.

This is exactly what we've been saying. You ask for something. Then, when we give you an answer, you raise the bar. "How would mutations make a feather?" *answers* Give me each and every gene that would have to mutate, and describe how they would mutate.

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

Replying to:

Did you understand that we weren't discussing whether the scenario was a "perfectly plausible hypothesis"?

We are taking about proving it could have biologically occurred. Otherwise, the scenario is completely fictional.

Why don't you give it a whirl?

Describe:

1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection.

Re: Let us know when you find out how evolution works ...

Will you stop deleting my links to articles already! Deleting them doesn't make them non-existant!

1. I said no such thing. I said that there is too much that we do not know about genes.

2. Here are the links to articles you continue to delete on teh subject of feather evolution.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX0-4N3GFRW-1&_user=5908723&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2007&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=2&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=7144&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=66c0d86bf513d97494a0bd402ca30539
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDG-4N2KTJD-5&_user=5908723&_coverDate=05%2F01%2F2007&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=6766&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=79a81a12564e8c8a534426c17693d492
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRW-4M4KK5D-1&_user=5908723&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=3&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=6245&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=6930394eb57ddf3bf04d3ec604921ccd

Now either acknowledge that they exist or stoip acting high and mighty.

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

Replying to:

1. In regard to your comment:

"The purpose and behavior of all genes under mutations is still not complete. There's a lot we have left to learn. Also, where are we supposed to find info on all these genes?"


Are you now asking us to explain how evolution is supposed to work?

If so, please explain in detail why you think that the responsibility of explaining evolution and providing proof for it is our responsibility, not the evolutionist's.

2. In regard to your comment:

"This is exactly what we've been saying. You ask for something. Then, when we give you an answer, you raise the bar. "How would mutations make a feather?" *answers* Give me each and every gene that would have to mutate, and describe how they would mutate."


My most recent request was:

"Now, please describe:
1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection."
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/729506


I actually lowered the bar from my original request.

So, are you admitting that you have NO answer?

Your response is either "yes" or you need to provide the descriptions. Those are your ONLY two options.

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

Replying to:

1. The purpose and behavior of all genes under mutations is still not complete. There's a lot we have left to learn. Also, where are we supposed to find info on all these genes?

2. That was already covered in the hypothesis that was given to you I suggest you read it over.

This is exactly what we've been saying. You ask for something. Then, when we give you an answer, you raise the bar. "How would mutations make a feather?" *answers* Give me each and every gene that would have to mutate, and describe how they would mutate.

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

Replying to:

Did you understand that we weren't discussing whether the scenario was a "perfectly plausible hypothesis"?

We are taking about proving it could have biologically occurred. Otherwise, the scenario is completely fictional.

Why don't you give it a whirl?

Describe:

1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection.

How soon you forget ...

Since you have a very short memory, I'll give you ONE more pass.

Since when have I allowed links only?

If you have a quote you would like to highlight in the article or whatever you are citing, go ahead and use it. Otherwise, postings with links only will be deleted.

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

Replying to:

Will you stop deleting my links to articles already! Deleting them doesn't make them non-existant!

1. I said no such thing. I said that there is too much that we do not know about genes.

2. Here are the links to articles you continue to delete on teh subject of feather evolution.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX0-4N3GFRW-1&_user=5908723&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2007&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=2&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=7144&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=66c0d86bf513d97494a0bd402ca30539
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDG-4N2KTJD-5&_user=5908723&_coverDate=05%2F01%2F2007&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=6766&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=79a81a12564e8c8a534426c17693d492
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRW-4M4KK5D-1&_user=5908723&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=3&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=6245&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=6930394eb57ddf3bf04d3ec604921ccd

Now either acknowledge that they exist or stoip acting high and mighty.

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

Replying to:

1. In regard to your comment:

"The purpose and behavior of all genes under mutations is still not complete. There's a lot we have left to learn. Also, where are we supposed to find info on all these genes?"


Are you now asking us to explain how evolution is supposed to work?

If so, please explain in detail why you think that the responsibility of explaining evolution and providing proof for it is our responsibility, not the evolutionist's.

2. In regard to your comment:

"This is exactly what we've been saying. You ask for something. Then, when we give you an answer, you raise the bar. "How would mutations make a feather?" *answers* Give me each and every gene that would have to mutate, and describe how they would mutate."


My most recent request was:

"Now, please describe:
1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection."
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/729506


I actually lowered the bar from my original request.

So, are you admitting that you have NO answer?

Your response is either "yes" or you need to provide the descriptions. Those are your ONLY two options.

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

Replying to:

1. The purpose and behavior of all genes under mutations is still not complete. There's a lot we have left to learn. Also, where are we supposed to find info on all these genes?

2. That was already covered in the hypothesis that was given to you I suggest you read it over.

This is exactly what we've been saying. You ask for something. Then, when we give you an answer, you raise the bar. "How would mutations make a feather?" *answers* Give me each and every gene that would have to mutate, and describe how they would mutate.

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

Replying to:

Did you understand that we weren't discussing whether the scenario was a "perfectly plausible hypothesis"?

We are taking about proving it could have biologically occurred. Otherwise, the scenario is completely fictional.

Why don't you give it a whirl?

Describe:

1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection.

Re: How soon you forget ...

Okay. Fine. Apparently going to a web-page and reading a 1-2 paragraph abstract of an article is too much. Fine.

"Mammary glands and feathers:next term Comparing two skin appendages which help define novel classes during vertebrate previous termevolutionnext term

Randall B. Widelitza, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Jacqueline M. Veltmaatb, Julie Ann Mayera, John Foleyc and Cheng-Ming Chuonga
aDepartment of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
bInstitute of Molecular and Cell Biology, 61 Biopolis Drive, Proteos, Singapore 138673
cDepartments of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Dermatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Medical Sciences Jordan Hall 101 Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

Available online 20 February 2007.



Abstract

It may appear counter-intuitive to compare previous termfeathersnext term and mammary glands. However, through this Evo–Devo analysis, we appreciate how species interact with the environment, requiring different ectodermal organs. Novel ectodermal organs help define evolutionary directions, leading to new organism classes as exemplified by previous termfeathersnext term for Aves and mammary glands for Mammals. Here, we review their structure, function, morphogenesis and regenerative cycling. Interestingly, both organs undergo extensive branching for different reasons; previous termfeathernext term branching is driven by mechanical advantage while mammary glands nourish young. Besides natural selection, both are regulated by sex hormones and acquired a secondary function for attracting mates, contributing to sexual selection. "

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX0-4N3GFRW-1&_user=5908723&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2007&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=2&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=7144&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=66c0d86bf513d97494a0bd402ca30539

"he Edar subfamily in feathernext term placode formation

Caroline F. Drewa, Chih Min Linb, Ting Xin Jiangb, Geoff Blunta, Chunyan Moua, Cheng Ming Chuongb and Denis J. Headona, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
aFaculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK
bDepartment of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
Received 24 October 2006; revised 17 January 2007; accepted 9 February 2007. Available online 16 February 2007.



Abstract

A subgroup of the TNF receptor family, composed of Edar, Troy and Xedar, are implicated in the development of ectodermal appendages, such as hair follicles, teeth and sweat glands. We have isolated chicken orthologues of these three receptors and analysed their roles in early previous termfeathernext term development. Conservation of protein sequences between mammalian and avian proteins is variable, with avian Edar showing the greatest degree of sequence identity. cXedar differs from its mammalian orthologue in that it contains an intracellular death domain. All three receptors are expressed during early previous termfeathernext term morphogenesis and dominant negative forms of each receptor impair the epithelial contribution to previous termfeathernext term bud morphogenesis, while the dermal contribution appears unaffected. Hyperactivation of each receptor leads to more widespread assumption of placode fate, though in different regions of the skin. Receptor signaling converges on NF-κB, and inhibiting this transcription factor alters previous termfeathernext term bud number and size in a stage-specific manner. Our findings illustrate the roles of these three receptors during avian skin morphogenesis and also suggest that activators of previous termfeathernext term placode fate undergo mutual regulation to reach a decision on skin appendage location and size. "

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDG-4N2KTJD-5&_user=5908723&_coverDate=05%2F01%2F2007&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=6766&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=79a81a12564e8c8a534426c17693d492

"Molecular signaling in feathernext term morphogenesis

Chih-Min Lina, Ting Xin Jianga, Randall B Widelitza and Cheng-Ming Chuonga, E-mail The Corresponding Author
aDepartment of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2011 Zonal Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033 USA

Available online 17 October 2006.



The development and regeneration of previous termfeathersnext term have gained much attention recently because of progress in the following areas. First, pattern formation. The exquisite spatial arrangement provides a simple model for decoding the rules of morphogenesis. Second, stem cell biology. In every molting, a few stem cells have to rebuild the entire epithelial organ, providing much to learn on how to regenerate an organ physiologically. Third, previous termevolutionnext term and development (‘Evo-Devo’). The discovery of feathered dinosaur fossils in China prompted enthusiastic inquiries about the origin and previous termevolution of feathers.next term Progress has been made in elucidating previous termfeathernext term morphogenesis in five successive phases: macro-patterning, micro-patterning, intra-bud morphogenesis, follicle morphogenesis and regenerative cycling."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRW-4M4KK5D-1&_user=5908723&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=3&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=6245&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=6930394eb57ddf3bf04d3ec604921ccd

Is it really too much for you to check a website?

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

Replying to:

Since you have a very short memory, I'll give you ONE more pass.

Since when have I allowed links only?

If you have a quote you would like to highlight in the article or whatever you are citing, go ahead and use it. Otherwise, postings with links only will be deleted.

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

Replying to:

Will you stop deleting my links to articles already! Deleting them doesn't make them non-existant!

1. I said no such thing. I said that there is too much that we do not know about genes.

2. Here are the links to articles you continue to delete on teh subject of feather evolution.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX0-4N3GFRW-1&_user=5908723&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2007&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=2&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=7144&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=66c0d86bf513d97494a0bd402ca30539
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDG-4N2KTJD-5&_user=5908723&_coverDate=05%2F01%2F2007&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=6766&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=79a81a12564e8c8a534426c17693d492
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRW-4M4KK5D-1&_user=5908723&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_alid=621592783&_rdoc=3&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=6245&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=41&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5908723&md5=6930394eb57ddf3bf04d3ec604921ccd

Now either acknowledge that they exist or stoip acting high and mighty.

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

Replying to:

1. In regard to your comment:

"The purpose and behavior of all genes under mutations is still not complete. There's a lot we have left to learn. Also, where are we supposed to find info on all these genes?"


Are you now asking us to explain how evolution is supposed to work?

If so, please explain in detail why you think that the responsibility of explaining evolution and providing proof for it is our responsibility, not the evolutionist's.

2. In regard to your comment:

"This is exactly what we've been saying. You ask for something. Then, when we give you an answer, you raise the bar. "How would mutations make a feather?" *answers* Give me each and every gene that would have to mutate, and describe how they would mutate."


My most recent request was:

"Now, please describe:
1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection."
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/729506


I actually lowered the bar from my original request.

So, are you admitting that you have NO answer?

Your response is either "yes" or you need to provide the descriptions. Those are your ONLY two options.

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

Replying to:

1. The purpose and behavior of all genes under mutations is still not complete. There's a lot we have left to learn. Also, where are we supposed to find info on all these genes?

2. That was already covered in the hypothesis that was given to you I suggest you read it over.

This is exactly what we've been saying. You ask for something. Then, when we give you an answer, you raise the bar. "How would mutations make a feather?" *answers* Give me each and every gene that would have to mutate, and describe how they would mutate.

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

Replying to:

Did you understand that we weren't discussing whether the scenario was a "perfectly plausible hypothesis"?

We are taking about proving it could have biologically occurred. Otherwise, the scenario is completely fictional.

Why don't you give it a whirl?

Describe:

1. The step-by-step genetic process for which mutations began to evolve barbules. (The first three hypothetical mutations are sufficient.)

2. How and why each mutations would be preserved by natural selection.