On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 06:17:45 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[continued]
>GM>The Fossil
>>
>>Given the knowledge of paleontology at the time that Shute wrote his
>book, he was absolutely correct that there was no paleontological data
>regarding a half-scale/half-feather. But the same cannot be made for Gish,
>Morris and Parker. Gish, Morris and Parker, can not be excused from their
>responsibility to have known about But Gish, Morris and Parker, (and
>Davis and Kenyon below) can not be excused from their responsibility to
>have known about Longisquama insignis a fossil first reported in 1970 in
>the English language Paleontological Journal (Sharov, 1970).
First, there still is "no paleontological data regarding a half-scale/half-
feather"! Longsisquama is not a "half-scale/half-feather". It is 100% a
scale! It is no more a feather than a silicon wafer is a microprocessor.
Second, Glenn fails to point out that one of his own references says that
"...SHAROV DOES NOT CLAIM THAT LONGISQUAMA
POSSESSED `PROTOFEATHERS,'..." (Maderson P.F.A, "On How an
Archosaurian Scale Might have Given Rise to an Avian Feather," The
American Naturalist, Vol. 106 No. 950, 1972, p424. My emphasis.).
Therefore Glenn's claim that "Christian anti-evolutionary apologists have
for almost 30 YEARS...ignored and not mentioned" this "possible half-
evolved feather..." is grossly unfair, because Sharov, the original discoverer
30 years ago, did not claim it was a "protofeather"! This is another good
example of the depths Glenn will go to scrape the bottom of the barrel in
order to find some fault, real or imaginary, with "Christian anti-
evolutionary apologists", as part of what Jim Bell called Glenn's "inner war
with Whitcomb and Morris":
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 15 Sep 95 12:37:26 EDT, Jim Bell wrote [to Glenn Morton]:
[...]
JB>Put that aside for now. The main point is I can't distinguish your position
>from that of the atheistic Naturalist. Further, you ignore obvious problems
>[I didn't notice any substantive argument in your post to the points made],
>and I do think you let your inner war with Whitcomb and Morris color your
>judgments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>GM>Sharov (p. >112-115) wrote:
>>
>>"Comment. Judging from the relatively short shoulder and antebrachium,
>and also from the long hand, members of this family led an arboreal mode
>of life. The concrescent clavicles are evidence of the heavy load carried by
>the forelimbs. The structure of the dorsal appendages shows that they
>functioned as a kind of parachute, breaking the animal's fall as it jumped
>from branch to branch, or from the trees to the ground. The interlayers of
>air between the overlapping, elongate scales covering the body may have
>served for heat insulation. "In view of the absence of abdominal ribs and
>the shortness of the neck, with its small number of vertebrae, as well as the
>peculiar dorsal appendages, it is difficult to determine whether the
>Longisquamidae evolved before or after the earliest birds, but the scales
>covering the body and limbs of the bird ancestors were evidently of similar
>structure to those of the Longisquamidae, while the concrescent clavicles
>formed what was in reality already the typical bird furcula in members of
>this family. These peculiarites show that the Longisquamidae were fairly
>close to the as yet unknown Pseudosuchia from which birds derived."
See above. All Sharov claims here is that Longisquama's "dorsal
appendages functioned as a kind of parachute", which is not powered
flying. Also Sharov does *not* claim that they were ."protofeathers"
(Maderson, 1972, p424). And it is the "scales COVERING THE BODY
AND LIMBS" of "the bird ancestors" which Sharov says were "evidently
of similar structure to those of the Longisquamae", *not* the "dorsal
appendages" which Glenn is claiming are "half evolved feathers".
>GM>The scales are as long as the animal and each one is separate from the
>other scales and looks like a feather. But Feduccia shows a picture of the
>featherlike scales on page 134 and they do indeed look featherlike with a
>central ridge and perpendicular radiating.
Longisquama's scales only superficially "*look* featherlike". An in any
event, Glenn is conflating two different claims. Sharov was suggesting that
"the overlapping, elongate scales COVERING THE BODY" of
Longisquama were "of similar structure to those of the...scales covering the
body and limbs of the bird ancestors." Feduccia OTOH, is claiming that
Longisquama's "DORSAL APPENDAGES" were "wings:
"Specimens of the tiny arboreal thecodont Longisquama insignis (Late
Triassic of Kirghizia), in the collections of the Palaeontological Institute
Moscow. Above left, holotype showing the insertion of the DORSAL
APPENDAGES along the vertebral column; left, isolated distal end of a
dorsal appendage, showing the expanded extremity; above right, group of
close- set dorsal appendages, indicating the original outline of the WING.
Scale bars, 1 cm, diameter of coin, 20 mm. (From Haubold and Buffetaut
1987; courtesy L'Academie des Sciences, Paris), in Feduccia A., "The
Origin and Evolution of Birds," 1996, pp134-135. My emphasis.)
>GM>Other than a gentle curve to the
>whole scale and a nice gentle rounding at the end they look like this:
>>
>> ----------\
>> --------------- | | \
>>------------ | | | | | \
>> | | | | | | | |\
>>===========================================+)
>> | | | | | | | |/
>>------------ | | | | | /
>> --------------- | | /
>> ----------/
>>
>>Where | are ridges and = is the central stem.
As I have pointed out to Glenn before, there are plenty of examples of
scales in fish and reptiles which have central ridges and side-branches. If a
scale was to grow as long as Longisquamas it would have to have such
structural support. Sharov, who was in the best position to tell first-hand
what Longisquama's long back scales were really like, himself did not claim
that these "dorsal appendages" were "protofeathers".
>GM>If this scale is made of the same material as feathers the only real
>alteration which would be required is for the sides of the feather be
>fractally structured like the hooks and barbules of modern feathers
See above. This is like saying that "the only real alteration which would be
required" for a microprocessor " is for a silicon wafer to be "structured
like" a microprocessor"! This is known in the trade as a `just-so' story, or
what Mike Behe calles a "Calvin and Hobbes" story:
"Now, it appears to be a characteristic of the human mind that when it is
unconstrained by knowledge of the mechanisms of a process, then it seems
easy to imagine simple steps leading from nonfunction to function. A happy
example of this is seen in the popular comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. Little
boy Calvin is always having adventures in the company of his tiger Hobbes
by jumping in a box and traveling back in time, or grabbing a toy ray gun
and "transmogrifying" himself into various animal shapes, or again using a
box as a duplicator and making copies of himself to deal with worldly
powers such as his mom and his teachers. A small child such as Calvin finds
it easy to imagine that a box just might be able to fly like an airplane (or
something), because Calvin does not know how airplanes work." (Behe
M.J., "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design
Inference," Access Research Network, 1996. http:
//www.mrccos.com/arn/articles/behe924.htm)
Johnson comments:
"Many biologists call this kind of "explanation" a Just-So Story because it
belongs to the realm of children's literature, not science. Dawkins is like the
little boy who thought he could make an airplane by adding something that
looks like a pair of wings to something that looks like a fuselage. How do
you make a bat? No problem, boys and girls, and no need to consider the
complications of biochemistry, physiology, and development. Just wait for
a squirrel population to grow wings, which it might do one way or
another." (Johnson P.E, "The Storyteller and the Scientist," Joint review of
"Climbing Mount Improbable," by Richard Dawkins and "Darwin's Black
Box," by Michael Behe, First Things, October 1996.
http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/behedawk.htm)
Glenn is like Calvin in that he thinks that just because he can imagine that
all it takes for a feather to be made out of a scale "is for the sides of the
feather" to "be fractally structured like the hooks and barbules of modern
feathers." If Glenn thinks this is so easy, why doesn't he work up a
*detailed* description of how it was done, *fully naturalistically*, and sent
it in to a scientific journal? Who knows, he might win a Nobel Prize!
Even Maderson, though the title of his paper was "On How an
Archosaurian Scale Might have Given Rise to an Avian Feather," did not
actually explain *exactly how*, by fully naturalistic evolutionary
mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection, a reptile scale could
be transformed into a bird's feather:
"A morphological model for feather origins is presented here, but since the
selective pressures favoring the process are not germane to the argument,
those aspects of the problem are not discussed." (Maderson P.F.A, "On
How an Archosaurian Scale Might have Given Rise to an Avian Feather,"
The American Naturalist, Vol. 106 No. 950, 1972, p424).
Indeed (as Gish's quote of Maderson shows), Maderson actually concluded
by saying:
"WE CANNOT as yet OFFER ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR
THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIQUE SHAFT; BARBS, AND BARBULES
without which modern feathers would have neither aerodynamic nor
insulatory function." (Maderson P.F.A., "The American Naturalist Vol.
146, 1972, p427. My emphasis.).
The fact is that a feather is an irreducibly complex structure in that
intermediates would not work:
"It is not easy to see how an impervious reptiles scale could be converted
gradually into an impervious feather without passing through a frayed scale
intermediate which would be weak, easily deformed and still quite
permeable to air. It is true that basically a feather is indeed a frayed scale -
a mass of keratin filaments - but the filaments are not a random tangle but
are ordered in an amazingly complex way to achieve the tightly intertwined
structure of the feather. Take away the exquisite coadaptation of the
components, take away the coadaptation of the hooks and barbules, take
away the precisely parallel arrangement of the barbs on the shaft and all
that is left is a soft pliable structure utterly unsuitable to form the basis of a
stiff impervious aerofoil. The stiff impervious property of the feather which
makes it so beautiful an adaptation for flight, depends basically on such a
highly involved and unique system of coadapted components that it seems
impossible that any transitional feather-like structure could possess even to
a slight degree the crucial properties. In the words of Barbara Stahl...as far
as feathers are concerned: "how they arose initially, presumably from
reptiles scales, defies analysis." (Stahl B.J., "Vertebrate History: Problems
in Evolution," 1974, p349, in Denton M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, p209)
>GM>I don't
>know how anyone seeing the original photos could mistake their
>resemblance to feathers. Yet Sharov's article has never been cited to my
>knowledge in creationist books.
First, that some scales have a superficial "resemblance to feathers" is
interesting but that is not enough for them to be an "evolutionary pathway
to feathers":
"To show that any two species of organism are related in an evolutionary
sense, to show for example that one species A, is ancestral to B, ie A -> B
or that both species have descended from a common ancestral source, ie A
<- ->B, it is necessary to satisfy one of the following conditions. Either
one, to find a 'perfect' sequence of fully functional intermediate forms I1,
I2, I3 leading unambiguously from one species to another, ie A-> I1 -> I2-
> I3 -> B, or... two, to reconstruct hypothetically in great detail the exact
sequence of events which led from A to B or from a common ancestor to A
and B, including thoroughly convincing reconstructions of intermediate
forms and a rigorous and detailed explanation of how and why each stage
in the transformation came about." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis," 1985, pp55-56)
Second, it is possible that "Sharov's article" *has* "been cited...in
creationist books" but Glenn's "knowledge" of *all* "creationist books" is
limited. Such an argument from ignorance is no basis for Glenn's dogmatic
claims that "this..is a possible evolutionary pathway to feathers that anti-
evolutionists NEVER mention."
Third, even if Sharov's article was not "cited" in *any* "creationist books",
so what? Creationists are not obliged to cite *every* article in the
*thousands* of articles published by evolutionists. Creationist
organisations are small, private, non-profit organisations who do not have
anything like the resources that mainstream evolutionary science has. They
could not *possibly* cite every article that evolutionists put out. A hostile
critic of "Christian anti-evolutionary apologists" like Glenn could *always*
point to some articles that "creationist books" don't mention. But in any
event, in this case, Glenn has cited only *two* "book" in evolutionists
writings that mentions Longisquama. If Glenn was *really* interested in
"accountability" he should criticise evolutionists for ignoring Longisquama
in their books for 26 years!
>GM>After this discovery, other paleontologists immediately saw the
>potential of the elongated scales to explain the origin of feathers. Maderson
>published an article in 1972 in the American Naturalist entitled, "On How
>an Archosaurian Scale Might have Given Rise to an Avian Feather".
>Clearly from the title alone anyone seriously researching the origin of
>feathers should have found this article.
In fact Gish *did* find the article! (see above). Glenn has known about this
since at least 9 May 1998, but he still has this false claim in his web page
(which I downloaded in 27 August 1998). Apparently Glenn's criticisms of
lack of "Christian Accountability" does not apply to him!
>GM>Maderson (1972, p. 424) wrote:
>>
>>"The matrix around a new primitive archosaur from the Lower Triassic
>(Sharov 1970) shows impressions of overlapping elongated scales over
>much of the body surface. The longest have transverse thickenings arising
>from a longitudinal axis, suggesting a mechanical strengthening function.
>While Sharov does not claim that Longisquama possessed 'protofeathers,'
>we now have good evidence that a primitive archosaur,, possibly related t
>the unknown avian ancestor, possessed greatly elongated, specialized
>scales."
Yes. "...Sharov DOES NOT CLAIM THAT LONGISQUAMA
POSSESSED 'PROTOFEATHERS,'"! (My emphasis).
And Maderson does not even claim that Longisquama is an ancestor of
birds, just that it is "POSSIBLY related to the UNKNOWN avian
ancestor" (My emphasis). Big deal!
>GM>But if this wasn't enough
Well, frankly it *isn't*! That an "archosaur from the Lower
Triassic..possessed greatly elongated, specialized scales" is interesting, but
hardly worth creationists wasting their limited resources critiquing,
especially since evolutionists themselves never made much of it.
>GM>anti-evolutionary apologists have totally missed the cover of the
>April, 1975 Scientific American.
Glenn says that "Christian anti-evolutionary apologists have for almost 30
years have ignored and not mentioned" Longisquama. Then he says
"Sharov's article has never been cited to my knowledge in creationist
books." Now he switches back and says that "anti-evolutionary apologists
have totally missed the cover of the April, 1975 Scientific American." How
does he know that? How can he *possibly* know that? It is so highly
unlikely that *every* "anti-evolutionary apologists" in the *whole world*
"have totally missed the cover of the April, 1975 Scientific American", that
Glenn's claim is effectively bearing false witness against his Christian
neighbour (Ex 20:16), and so again Glenn fails to me his own standard of
"Christian Accountability" that he applies to others.
>GM>There in shades of green is a picture of Longisquama. This is pretty
>good for a 225 million year old cover girl from Russia. The caption inside
>on page 4 says:
>>
>>"The painting on the cover depicts Longisquama, a tiny (less than six
>inches long creature that lived in the Triassic period some 225 million years
>ago. It was a thecodont, a member of a group that was descended from
>early reptiles and included the ancestors of the dinosaurs. Unlike typical
>reptiles, most thecodonts were 'warm-blooded,' like mammals and birds.
>And so too, it appears, were the dinosaurs. (see 'Dinosaur Renaissance,' by
>Robert T. Bakker, p. 58) Longisquama had plumelike devices on its back
>and a covering of insulating scales; such scales were a stage in the
>evolution of feathers. Longisquama is part of the evidence that dinosaurs
>were not reptiles but a novel 'warm-blooded' group, and that they are not
>really extinct after all--that the birds are a living group of dinosaurs."
As Glenn's references point out, this was *not* writtent by Bakker but by
"Anonymous, "The Cover," Scientific American, April 1975, p. 4". Bakker
in his article does not say anything as positive as this about Longisquama
(indeed he does not say much about Longisquama at all!).
>GM>Bakker in his article has the following caption (Baker, 1975, p. 68):
>
>"Longisquama, a small animal whose fossil was discovered in middle
>Triassic lake beds in Turkestan by the Russian paleontologist A. Sharov,
>was a thecodont. Its body was covered by long overlapping scales that
>were keeled, suggesting that they constituted a structural stage in the
>evolution of feathers."
Yes. Note: "Its BODY was covered by long overlapping scales". Bakker.is
referring to Longisquama's BODY scales, not the long scales on its back
that Glenn is fixated on. That this is so is made clear by the next sentence
that Glenn left out, which downplays the significance of the long back
scales that Glenn is referring to, calling them just "long devices along the
back":
"The long devices along the back were V-shaped in cross section; they may
have served as parachutes and also as threat devices, as shown here."
(Bakker R.T., "Dinosaur Renaissance," Scientific American, April 1975,
Vol. 232, No. 4, p68)
I had explained this all to Glenn before, but he just ignores it. Glenn
preaches "Christian Accountability" for *others* but does not practice it
for *himself*!
>GM>And speaking of Longisquama (Bakker, 1968, p. 70),
>>
>>"More important is the covering of long, overlapping, keeled scales that
>trapped an insulating layer of air next to its body. These scales lacked the
>complex anatomy of real feathers, but they are a perfect ancestral stage for
>the insulation of birds."
Note that Bakker thinks that the "scales...next to its BODY" were "MORE
IMPORTANT" than the long back scales. This is the *complete opposite*
olf what Glenn is claiming.
>GM>Surely a researcher, writing in 1987 or 1993 should have had the
>opportunity to consult a 1975 issue of Scientific American and have been
>alerted to this possibility and then at least addressed it in their many, many
>books since 1975 which claim that there was no half-evolved feather. At
>what point do we say that they didn't do their job well?
Gish in fact *did* address it in *1995* by referring to Maderson's article.
As as for "many, many books since 1975", where are all the *evolutionists*
books on Longisquama? Glenn's references only show *two*!
>GM>Since 1975 Longisquama has been mentioned in many articles, both
>scientific and popular. Armand de Ricqles (1975), published a French
>article in La Recherche concerning Longisquama. Longisquama also
>appeared in a 1975 book on dinosaurs by L. B. Halstead.
Actually the"articles" on Longissquama, according to Glenn's references,
are few and far between. Since Sharov's 1970 article, there have only been
the following seven (7) articles that have mentioned Longisquama, and
there have been large gaps between them:
YEAR No. GAP (years)
1972 1 2
1975 1 3
1987 1 12
1993 1 6
1994 1 1
1998 2 4
Hardly a hot topic in evolution!
>GM>Haubold and Buffetaut (1987, p. 66) wrote:
>>
>>"Although the efficiency of such a device can be doubted, Sharov's
>interpretation has been followed by most subsequent authors who
>mentioned Longisquama as an important piece of evidence for the origin of
>feathers and of vertebrate flight."
Note: "THE EFFICIENCY OF SUCH A DEVICE CAN BE DOUBTED"!
And as for "most subsequent authors" *in "1987"* allegedly mentioning
"Longisquama as an important piece of evidence for the origin of feathers",
it is not regarded as important today. Indeed, in a recent Scientific
American article, Padian & Chiappe said that debate for Feduccia's position
(which includes Longisquama) "ceased to be scientific a decade ago"
"Feduccia and his colleagues, after 20 years of objecting to the dinosaurian
ancestry of birds, have no alternative ancestry for us to test; they ignore 90
percent of the evidence and refuse to use the methods of analysis that
everyone else uses. All their well-worn objections have been answered.
This "debate" CEASED TO BE SCIENTIFIC A DECADE AGO." (Padian
K. & Chiappe L.M., "Padian and Chiappe reply [to Feduccia A., et. al.],"
Letters To The Editors, Scientific American, Vol. 278, No. 6, June 1998,
pp6-7. My emphasis.)
>GM>While Haubold and Buffetaut do not believe that the elongated scales
>were gliding surfaces, the mere fact that they were forced to acknowledge
>that most authors do believe this should emphasize the glaring omission of
>anti-evolutionary apologists.
First, "Haubold and Buffetaut" do *not* "acknowledge that most
authors..believe that the elongated scales were gliding surfaces." All they
say is that "most subsequent authors...mentioned Longisquama as AN
IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE for the origin of feathers and of
vertebrate flight." This doesn't mean much because there was AFAIK *no*
other "evidence".
Second, "Haubold and Buffetaut" *themselves* "DO NOT BELIEVE that
the elongated scales were gliding surfaces".
Third, at least one of the "anti-evolutionary apologists", namely Gish,*did*
quote from an article that prominently discussed Longisquama.
>GM>Olshevsky (1994, p. 80-82), in a popularized article writes:
>>
>>"No feather or prefeather impressions were preserved with the
>Megalancosaurus specimens, but another similar sized archosaur,
>Longisquama from the Late Triassic of Russia, shows wonderful
>impressions of very long prefeathers, which had a thickened central ridge
>like the spine of a modern feather. Longisquama even had a wishbone like
>that of Archaeopteryx! Its longest prefeathers were arranged elegantly in a
>double row along the back and some paleontologists suggest that it could
>have lowered them horizontally to serve as gliding wings."
It is unclear here whether Olshevsky is referring to Longisquama's dorsal or
body scales. But whichever is meant, it is begging the question to call them
"prefeathers". Unless Longisquama's scales they can be positively linked to
birds feathers by a detailed and plausible line of ancestral fossil forms, they
are just *scales*.
>GM>Feduccia, (1996, p. 87) states:
>>
>>"Longisquama insignis is a remarkable, tiny (some 50 millimeters[2 in]
>long) presumed thecodont from the late Triassic of Turkestan and the only
>known reptile to possess scales that show a possible intermediacy with
>feathers. The tiny specimen is preserved in its entirety, crushed on a slab. it
>exhibits an antorbital fenestra, a well-developed furcula, and long keeled,
>overlapping body scales."
All this says is that Longisquama was "the only known reptile" whose
scales most nearly resembled feathers. Such resemblance can be mere
analogy (ie. similarity due to common function), not homology (ie.
similarity due to common ancestry).
>GM>The figure on page 88 has the following caption says that it possessed
>a unique gliding mechanism of "a double series of long scalelike structures
>that were unfolded in butterfly fashion to form a gliding wing." (Feduccia,
>1996, p. 88)
See above. Glenn is conflating two different claims. Sharov was suggesting
that "the overlapping, elongate scales COVERING THE BODY" of
Longisquama were what were "of similar structure to those of the...scales
covering the body and limbs of the bird ancestors." Feduccia is claiming
that what Sharov called Longisquama's "DORSAL APPENDAGES" were
"a unique gliding adaptation, a double series of long scalelike structures
that were unfolded in butterfly fashion to form a gliding wing." (Feduccia
A., "The Origin and Evolution of Birds," 1996, p88).
>GM>And this intriguing fossil continues to be discussed in relation to the
>origin of flight. The latest of which I am aware is from 1998 (Feduccia and
>Martin, 1998, p. 754-755; Norell et al. 1998, p. 754-755).
"Feduccia and Martin" these days are a bit half-hearted in their mention of
Longisquama, saying only that it had "long feather-like scales and
postulated arboreal habits":
"...the presence of a furcula-like structure in Longisquama, a primitive
Triassic archosaur with long feather-like scales and postulated arboreal
habits, indicates that structures of this type have developed more than once
in the archosauromorphs, which means they are weak evidence for a bird
link to theropods." (Feduccia A. & Martin L.D., "Theropod-bird link
reconsidered," Nature, Vol. 391, 19 February 1998, p754).
But "Norell et al" positively *reject* Longisquama, saying it "is a poor-
quality fossil" and "lacks other characters...that would ally it with birds":
"Longisquama is a poor-quality fossil, and the interpretation of single
elements is controversial. Longisquama lacks other characters- present in
non-avian Maniraptora-that would ally it with birds. Single features do not
overturn a hypothesis that is strongly supported by a plethora of character
evidence." (Norell M.A., et. al., reply to Feduccia A. & Martin L.D.,
"Theropod- bird link reconsidered," Nature, Vol. 391, 19 February 1998,
p754)
Moreover, Longisquama is way too early in the fossil record to be a bird
ancestor:
"Ironically, if one does use Feduccia and Martin's reasoning that
Longisquama is a close bird 'ancestor' as advocated elsewhere, the
temporal paradox increases. Longisquama comes from rocks about 220
million years old, creating a fossil-free gap of more than 80 million years
before the appearance of Archaeopteryx Any empirical measure of
stratigraphic fits will prefer a hypothesis of maniraptoran relationships over
this one." (Norell M.A., et. al., reply to Feduccia A. & Martin L.D.,
"Theropod- bird link reconsidered," Nature, Vol. 391, 19 February 1998,
p754)
>GM>Conclusion
>>
>>Now, the above should go some distance towards answering what
>Kenyon and Davis (1993, p. 106) ask of the fossil record,
>>
>>"If only we could find a fossil showing scales developing the properties of
>feathers, or lungs that were intermediate between the very different reptilian
>and avian lungs, then we would have more to go on. But the fossil record
>gives no evidence for such changes."
Longisquama is *not* "a fossil showing scales developing the properties of
feathers." And *no one* has claimed that it had "lungs that were
intermediate between the very different reptilian and avian lungs."
>GM>Since the first English language report on Longisquama appeared in
>
1972, 21 years prior to the publication of the second edition of Of Pandas
>and People, one must wonder why the authors could claim that the fossil
>record showed no evidence of scales turning into feathers.
There is no "wonder" about it at all. "Longisquama...showed no evidence
of scales turning into feathers."! All it shows is that scales can become long
and may even have helped some small reptiles to glide, as some small
mammals and even fish have.
>GM>Davis and Kenyon may disagree that the elongated scales of
>Longisquama are indeed transitional, but to claim that there is no
>evidence is quite erroneous.
This is doublespeak. If Longisquama is not "transitional" then its long
scales are not "evidence" for Longisquama being a bird ancestor.Glenn
seems to think that a long scale is "evidence" for a scale being transformed
into a feather, even if it isn't "transitional"!
>GM>This is an unfortunate example of Christians not doing a proper level
>of research on a topic about which they teach.
Actually, it is a *good* "example" of how "Christians" who are not
evolutionists were not blinded by the evolutionary paradigm and considered
the evidence on its merits. On Glenn's own admission, for many years
"most" evolutionist "authors who mentioned Longisquama" got it wrong
about it being "an important piece of evidence for the origin of feathers and
of vertebrate flight." Now the consensus is that it never was.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------