[snip]
Dario writes:
>I hope that the claim that was made that no biologist is making the case for
>creationism without using evolution is put to rest now.
Did I miss something? I didn't see anyone say that no biologist argued for
creation. Gary Parker is a biologist and a YEC.
Of Archaeopteryx, I see that Pitman agrees with what I said. The teeth are
reptilian. Pitman writes:
> Reptilian
>features include teeth in the bill, claws on the wings and a long bony
>feathered tail.
Reptiles have homodont teeth. This means, as I understand it, that all the
teeth from front to back look the same. Mammals have heterodont teeth
because we have molars, incisors etc. Archaeopteryx had homodont, reptilian
teeth.
Pitman continues,
>
>Are these features so reptilian ? Just as Pteranodon is seen as a distinct,
>extinct type of reptile, so the creationist regards Archaeopteryx as a
>distinct,
>extinct type of bird. He argues that the 'reptilian features' fall within the
>sphere of variability of a bird. We ourselves have arm-bones similar to
>those of a bird, a whale and a bat, but are distinct from these types.
>
>All birds have feathers: no other organisms do. Archaeoptesyx has
>feathers. There exists absolutely no evidence for the evolution of feathers.
Technically this is may no longer true. A downy feathered dinosaur might
have been found in China last year. (see Science News 10-26-96, p. 260)
That article quotes Phillip J. Currie, one of the few westerners to see the
fossil. He says,
"'They look so much like the feather impressions seen in the bird
fossils at the same site that you can't come to any conclusion
other than the fact that you'r dealing with features,' say
Currie. "Now, they may not be features. they may be featherlike
scales, they may be hair they may be something else. Until the
detailed work is done on it, you can't really tell. But the
bottom line is that, now, I don't think there is any question
that these dinosaurs had insulation of some kind, and in all
probability it was feathers.'" R. Montastersky, "Hints of a Downy
Dinosaur in China," Science News, 10-26-96, p. 260
It will be interesting to see how this comes out.
See also November 15, 1996 New York times,"An Early Bird Mars Theory on
Dinosaurs" By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Pitman continues.
>What about the teeths No living birds have socketed teeth but some fossil
>ones did. Some reptiles have teeth, some have not. The same applies to
>fishes, amphibia and mammals. Following the analogy that toothless birds
>are more advanced, the toothless duck-billed platypus, or spiny anteater
>should be considered more advanced than humans.
>
>In an interesting experiment' outer tissue was taken from the first and
>second gill arches ofa five-day-old chick embryo and combined with inner
>embryonic tissue (mesenchyme) of a mouse, taken from the region where
>the first molar teeth form. Normally, the enamel layer of a tooth forms
>from the outer tissue and the underlying dentine and bone from the
>mesenchyme - if that tissue can interact with the outer tissue. The dentine
>can then induce the formation of a tooth.
>
>Chick mesenchyme cannot form dentine so that its outer tissue never
>gets the chance to form a tooth - but in the experiment, where it was art-
>ificially exposed to the dentine-producing mesenchyme of mice embryos,
>it did. And it formed teeth! Teeth in a bird! This startling fact is explained
>by evolutionists as 'atavism', a doctrine of reversion: in this case the
>'ancestral' genes for teeth are present, but suppressed by a mutation. A
>modification to the genetic programme for vertebrate mesenchyme has, in
>birds, disconnected it from the production of dentine and, therefore, teeth.
>If, as in the above-mentioned experiment, it can be reconnected, it will
>produce teeth.
>
A point against this is the rumor that no one seems to have been able to
duplicate it. There is speculation that this may be due to contamination.
Denis Lamoureaux are you listening? Can you add anything?
See, I am not as one sided as you might think.
Dario writes:
>That is all. Let's hope that we stop using Archaeopteryx as some type
>of transitional fossil between reptiles and birds. I guess, old habits are
>hard to break.
All I said was that Archaeopteryx had reptile teeth and I get all this?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm