davidH

Anyone read the Scientific American March 2003 pg 84-93 ?

"Which came first, the feather or the Bird"

It's pretty interesting how this article dismisses a lot of stuff, that I am sure people will have discussed on this website - and it introduces some new stuff.

In the opening 2 paragraphs:

Then:

Then basically say that evolutionists made a false assumption that 'the primative feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale'.

Don't know if anyone else has read it - but it seems as if they are listening to what creationists are saying.

Some interesting stuff there. Any thoughts?

Majestyk

You mean any thoughts, besides; "That's the great thing about science, its conclusions are open to revision in the face of new evidence."? Or. "Yeah, paleontology is a lot of conjecture, but it still has a more credible foundation than 'Intelligent Design"?

KC

Creationists never had anything specifically useful to say, other than they didn't see how feathers-- or any other feature-- could evolve. But I'm sure creationists think that arguments from personal incredulity are useful in science.

KC

Valentine Pontifex

DavidH has not read the Scientific American article as he has dishonestly copied and pasted from an article that Answers in Genesis posted yesterday. Notice the timing, the same quotes, and the use of similiar prose like "in the opening 2 paragraphs" versus "in the opening two pargraphs."

Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot

That article is nothing more then more creationist quote mining and distortions.

The Lone Ranger

davidH:

What you've posted seems an awful lot like "quote mining."

Quote:

'How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight, amazingly intricate appendages evolve?

Prum and Brush then go on to provide a plausible, evidence-based explanation for how feathers evolved. It's not as if they're suggesting that the evolution of feathers is unexplainable.

Quote:

… Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.’

Despite what you seem to be implying, this is not a weakness in evolutionary theory. It's easy to see small-scale evolution in real time, and test what factor(s) might favor a particular adaptation. It's much harder to guess what selective forces might have favored the preservation and enhancement of novel features that arose in the distant past, like proto-feathers.

Quote:

‘Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds.’ Then basically say that evolutionists made a false assumption that 'the primative feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale'.

Note that what they say is that Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers (not birds) evolved. What you've conveniently failed to mention is that the entire article is devoted to a discussion of how well-preserved fossils of dinosaurs like Sinornithosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, and Microraptor do provide new insights on how feathers evolved.

It has been known for quite some time that Archaeopteryx had essentially-modern feathers. Therefore, no one was proposing that Archaeopteryx could tell us much about the evolution of feathers. The evolution of birds, on the other hand, is a different story -- one into which Archaeopteryx provides considerable insight.

Quote:

Don't know if anyone else has read it - but it seems as if they are listening to what creationists are saying.

Yes, I did read it. You cannot possibly be serious in this claim, can you?

Quote:

‘Creationists and other evolutionary skeptics have long pointed to feathers as a favorite example of the insufficiency of evolutionary theory. There were no transitional forms between scales and feathers, they argued.’

You failed to mention that the article is devoted to a discussion of how feathers apparently evolved, including plenty of evidence of "transitional forms." True, feathers apparently did not directly evolve from modification of reptilian scales, but that's not terribly surprising. You did pay attention to their discussion of how feathers develop from the same epidermal tissues that reptilian scales do, right? Also, some of the same genes (e.g. Shh and Bmp2) regulate the development both of reptilian scales and bird feathers.

Exactly. And so our understanding of the world around us continues to grow and be refined.


Cheers,

Michael

Nic Tamzek

The Scientific American article is a popular version of a very long and detailed article by the same authors in the peer-reviewed literature:

This is exactly what Behe et al claims doesn't exist, a detailed and testable scenario for the origin of a novel, complex structure with many interdependent parts.

Albion

Well, I've read it, but I'm having a hard time recognising the article I read in the stuff you've posted, I must say.

Have you actually read it? Because if so, I think the above quote you gave is dishonest. If you haven't read it, then the person who extracted that quote from its context is the one who's being dishonest.

Here it is in context:

"Creationists and other evolutionary skeptics have long pointed to feathers as a favorite example of the insufficiency of evolutionary theory. There were no transitional forms between scales and feathers, they argued. Further, they asked why natural selection for flight would first divide an elongate scale and then evolve an elaborate new mechanism to weave it back together. Now, in an ironic about-face, feathers offer a sterling example of how we can best study the origin of an evolutionary novelty: focus on understanding those features that are truly new and examine how they form during development in modern organisms, This new paradigm in evolutionary biology is certain to penetrate many more mysteries. let our minds take wing."

See how contexts make a difference and how, if you want to know what someone's really saying, you shouldn't rely on their enemies to tell you?

lpetrich

Feathers are essentially hollow shafts which have smaller shafts branching from them, which in turn have even smaller shafts branching from them. Which simplifies the problem of feather origins, since there is only one structure to be accounted for: a shaft that can sprout smaller shafts along its length.