Bible and science?

[The Barbarian]

I doubt that mormons, JWs or SDAs are Christians.

They say they are. I can tell you, from my consulting work, that a number of SDAs I've worked with, are among the most Christian people I know of, as far as their behavior is concerned.

 

[trophy33]

They say they are. I can tell you, from my consulting work, that a number of SDAs I've worked with, are among the most Christian people I know of, as far as their behavior is concerned.

I was talking more about doctrine than behavior.

 

[dad]

But if the term bothers you, now that we know the creationist story of "degenerating DNA" is false, you could always use the scientific term:

"non-coding DNA"

How about that?

I am a creationist and never even heard of degenerating dna. Perhaps you credit some folks with quasi creation belief who also have 'scientific' ideas with too much.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am a creationist and never even heard of degenerating dna.

That's what's behind the creationist "Junk DNA" story.

Perhaps you credit some folks with quasi creation belief who also have 'scientific' ideas with too much.

That's what a YECs are: folks with quasi creation beliefs, who also have "scientific" ideas that don't fit the evidence.

 

[nolidad]

No. It also leads to scales in birds. Indeed the scutes (scales found in archosaurs like dinosaurs, birds and alligators) can be induced to form feathers.




Unless the genes for modifying scutes into feathers evolved only in dinosaurs and birds, but not in other archosaurs. Or conversely, if the gene for modifying feathers to scutes became fixed in crocodilians.



No. Gas bladders in fish are vestigial lungs (many fish still retain functional lungs, and lack gas bladders, which are merely lungs that no longer do respiration, but maintain bouyancy). There's nothing vestigial about the air sacs in birds and dinosaurs. They function as organs of respiration.



Theropod dinosaurs, some of which didn't have limbs remotely like wings, also had hollow bones. They turned out to be useful for reducing weight. Velociraptors, for example, had hollow bones.

Birds have fast metabolic rates thanks to their efficient way of extracting oxygen from the air. They have two lungs, as mammals do, but the airflow through them is controlled by a complex system of air sacs throughout the body. Most birds have nine such sacs, which also extend through their hollow bones.


Patrick O'Connor, of Ohio University in Athens, and Leon Claessens, of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, compared the structure of air sacs in M. atopus 's vertebrae to those in more than 200 living birds. The structures were very similar, they report in this week's Nature1.


"This study paints a clearer picture of how these organisms would have existed in their environment," says O'Connor. "It indicates that these animals had the potential for a high metabolic rate."
...
"This study forms part of an increasingly robust story that says birds are essentially dinosaurs, but smaller," says Paul Barrett, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London. "Using functional work in live animals is a nice addition, and perhaps now you could go as far as saying dinosaurs had a bird-like metabolism."


The study shows that the efficient breathing system of birds is older than previously thought, but Barrett thinks there is more to come: "To me it seems that a breathing system like this is of more ancient origin, from nearer the base of the dinosaur family tree." He says that finding older dinosaur fossils would support this, and perhaps show that other bird-like characteristics are older than suspected.

The study shows that the efficient breathing system of birds is older than previously thought, but Barrett thinks there is more to come: "To me it seems that a breathing system like this is of more ancient origin, from nearer the base of the dinosaur family tree." He says that finding older dinosaur fossils would support this, and perhaps show that other bird-like characteristics are older than suspected.


Some palaeontologists still dispute that dinosaurs were closely related to birds, and have suggested that their breathing systems were more like those of crocodiles. "This work is another nail in the coffin for that competing theory," says Barrett.
Dinosaurs breathed like birds : Nature News



As you see, the evidence is that they evolved first as a more efficient respiratory system, and only later to aid flight.

Maybe they can be induced, but that takes intelligent design and careful systematic work! Now show it done by random unguided mutation!

No and you cannot prove that. Fish are supposed to have evolved into amphibians not vice versa.

Fish had gills to process oxygen not lungs. Do you need to see the evolutionists who hypothesize that the bladder evolved to lungs?

But: The kinds of reptiles that evolutionists think "gave rise" to birds had bellows-style lungs and a diaphragm muscle to pump air. In stark contrast, birds breathe using one-way-airflow lungs suspended by a specially jointed skeleton and an interconnected series of air sacs. The birds' breathing apparatus takes up much more body space than the respiratory system of reptiles, and simultaneously contributes to birds’ light weight and streamlined shape.

Well once again with your Barrett article all you show is hypothesis with a lot of maybes, could be, suggests, we think, may haves eetc. And it also shows that for evolution you get to pick and choose which side you wish to believe!

If scaled dinos like T-REx and velociraptor had high metabolic rates with being scaled and not insulated- they would have been lousy predators as all their energy would bleed out being cold blooded!

There is simply no hard evidence other than the opinions of scientists who cannmot verify their opinions that any dinosaur was a mesotherm.

 

[trophy33]

Which accepted scientific method or measurement gives the age of the Earth or of the Universe to be 6,000 years?

Ice layers do not give it, tree rings do not give it, history of ancient nations does not give it, geology does not give it, astronomy does not give it, paleontology does not give it....

What gives it, except of summing genealogies in Genesis?

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe they can be induced, but that takes intelligent design and careful systematic work!

That excuse won't work for you. You see, the fact is, scutes and feathers are do alike genetically, biochemically, and anatomically, that a single mutation can reverse the process.

No. Gas bladders in fish are vestigial lungs (many fish still retain functional lungs, and lack gas bladders, which are merely lungs that no longer do respiration, but maintain bouyancy).

No

Yep. Demonstrably so.

and you cannot prove that.

They are called "lungfish." They have both gills and lungs as we see in many fossil fish. In most modern fish, the lungs have become vestigial.

Fish are supposed to have evolved into amphibians not vice versa.

Lungs are the primitive state. Because you don't know what you're talking about, you got it mixed up again. Primitive coelacanths, for example, had lungs. Today, they respire only with gills, and the lungs are vestigial organs of bouyancy.

Before the dinosaur age, the coelacanth — a hefty, mysterious fish that now breathes with its gills — sported a well-developed lung, a new study finds.

This lung likely helped the fish survive in low-oxygen, shallow waters hundreds of millions of years ago, the researchers said.
Ancient Human-Size Fish Breathed with Lungs

There's nothing vestigial about the air sacs in birds and dinosaurs. They function as organs of respiration.

Fish had gills to process oxygen not lungs.

See above. You've been fooled yet again.

The kinds of reptiles that evolutionists think "gave rise" to birds had bellows-style lungs and a diaphragm muscle to pump air.

Nope:

As to the particular issue of a diaphragm in the common ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, paleontologists are skeptical. The paleontological evidence used by Ruben to support the claim that the ancestors of dinosaurs had a diaphragm is weak at best. He takes the coloration of rock within a fossil to reflect the location of the liver in the living organism, and then suggests that a liver in that position requires the sort of diaphragmatic breathing found in crocodiles. Even if he were correct that the color in the rock originated in the liver, and if that liver hadn't shifted as the organism decayed, it would still not support his final claim, since living birds have livers in exactly the same position, and do not have diaphragms (see discussion in Wedel, 2007, p. 128).


While crocodilians do breathe using a diaphragm, many reptiles do not use a diaphragm, and neither do the amphibians which are ancestral to reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs and birds. By examining the full range of paleontological evidence, scientists can reconstruct probable anatomies not seen in modern species, but which would provide the sort of functional intermediates which evolutionary theory predicts should exist.

In stark contrast, birds breathe using one-way-airflow lungs suspended by a specially jointed skeleton and an interconnected series of air sacs.

Pretty much the way dinosaurs did. As you learned earlier.

Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds

1. John A. Ruben,
2. Terry D. Jones*,
3. Nicholas R. Geist,
4. W. Jaap Hillenius

Science 14 Nov 1997:
Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds

The birds' breathing apparatus takes up much more body space than the respiratory system of reptiles

But not of dinosaurs like Compsognathus.

If scaled dinos like T-REx and velociraptor had high metabolic rates with being scaled and not insulated- they would have been lousy predators as all their energy would bleed out being cold blooded!

New Fossil Reveals Velociraptor Sported Feathers
New Fossil Reveals Velociraptor Sported Feathers

Since it's now known that other large theropod dinosaurs had feathers on their heads and tails, it's very likely that T. rex did also. Once again... what you don't know...

There is simply no hard evidence other than the opinions of scientists who cannmot verify their opinions that any dinosaur was a mesotherm.

Other than Haversian canals in the bones, insulating feathers (useless for exotherms), highly active running lifestyles, avian respiratory systems, and so on...

 

[nolidad]

That excuse won't work for you. You see, the fact is, scutes and feathers are do alike genetically, biochemically, and anatomically, that a single mutation can reverse the process.

No. Gas bladders in fish are vestigial lungs (many fish still retain functional lungs, and lack gas bladders, which are merely lungs that no longer do respiration, but maintain bouyancy).



Yep. Demonstrably so.



They are called "lungfish." They have both gills and lungs as we see in many fossil fish. In most modern fish, the lungs have become vestigial.



Lungs are the primitive state. Because you don't know what you're talking about, you got it mixed up again. Primitive coelacanths, for example, had lungs. Today, they respire only with gills, and the lungs are vestigial organs of bouyancy.

Before the dinosaur age, the coelacanth — a hefty, mysterious fish that now breathes with its gills — sported a well-developed lung, a new study finds.

This lung likely helped the fish survive in low-oxygen, shallow waters hundreds of millions of years ago, the researchers said.
Ancient Human-Size Fish Breathed with Lungs

There's nothing vestigial about the air sacs in birds and dinosaurs. They function as organs of respiration.



See above. You've been fooled yet again.



Nope:

As to the particular issue of a diaphragm in the common ancestor of birds and dinosaurs, paleontologists are skeptical. The paleontological evidence used by Ruben to support the claim that the ancestors of dinosaurs had a diaphragm is weak at best. He takes the coloration of rock within a fossil to reflect the location of the liver in the living organism, and then suggests that a liver in that position requires the sort of diaphragmatic breathing found in crocodiles. Even if he were correct that the color in the rock originated in the liver, and if that liver hadn't shifted as the organism decayed, it would still not support his final claim, since living birds have livers in exactly the same position, and do not have diaphragms (see discussion in Wedel, 2007, p. 128).


While crocodilians do breathe using a diaphragm, many reptiles do not use a diaphragm, and neither do the amphibians which are ancestral to reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs and birds. By examining the full range of paleontological evidence, scientists can reconstruct probable anatomies not seen in modern species, but which would provide the sort of functional intermediates which evolutionary theory predicts should exist.



Pretty much the way dinosaurs did. As you learned earlier.

Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds

1. John A. Ruben,
2. Terry D. Jones*,
3. Nicholas R. Geist,
4. W. Jaap Hillenius

Science 14 Nov 1997:
Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds



But not of dinosaurs like Compsognathus.



New Fossil Reveals Velociraptor Sported Feathers
New Fossil Reveals Velociraptor Sported Feathers

Since it's now known that other large theropod dinosaurs had feathers on their heads and tails, it's very likely that T. rex did also. Once again... what you don't know...



Other than Haversian canals in the bones, insulating feathers (useless for exotherms), highly active running lifestyles, avian respiratory systems, and so on...

Sorry but scutes and feathers are vastly different. Feathers start subdermally and scutes are bony plates on the surface. If one mutation could reverse it all, then why haven't they done it to prove it?
If they were identical genetically anatomically and biochemically- they would produce the same product! But scutes are different. In the embryonic stage they may look the same but the end result has always been different. DNA controls development and birds always produce feathers and crocs always produce scales.

BTW you have yet to show how scales changed to feathers nor proven the hypothesis that raptors were mesotherms instead of colds blooded like all other known reptiles of any size! You h ave just given postulations


Very few fish have lungs! And you can call the gas bladder anything you wish- but we need to see the evidence to support the postulations. There are huge differences between lungs and bladders. Once again amongst teh apologists of evolutionism we have multiple choices to pick from!

Fish do not have lungs. In order to be classified as a fish, the animal in question must use gills instead of lungs. Water flows over the gills and...

Most of the articles you present do what all believers in evolutionism do- post hypotheses, possibilities could be, "it is likely". Fact is they cannot know!

Even if velociraptor sported feathers- he still appears long after archeaoptryx in the supposed fossil revcord age!

Archy considered a bird or at worst the last transitional form between bird and dinosaur appears in the evolutionist time frame at approx. 150,000,000 years ago. OK?

Velociraptor lived approx 75 million years ago! So how can velociraptor be a transiton to a bird when birds lived 75,000,000 years before raptor was on the earth? Same with T-REx! So feathers were around long before raptors may have had them! by at least 75,000,000 years!

Seems you are the one who has been duped!

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry but scutes and feathers are vastly different. Feathers start subdermally and scutes are bony plates on the surface.

Nope. You've confused scutes (scales on birds, dinosaurs, and crocodiles) with "scutes" (boney plate in mammals) In formal names often mislead. You have to know what you're talking about. And as you know, you don't.

The problem here is that people tend to lump any scale or scute-like dermal structure that's not a hair or a feather into the category of "scale", despite long-documented and rather drastic differences in their structure and development.
DinoGoss: You're Doing It Wrong : Dino Foot Scales

If one mutation could reverse it all, then why haven't they done it to prove it?

Developmental Dynamics 231#1, September 2004–Special Issue on Avian Development
Evolutionary origin of the feather epidermis
Roger H. Sawyer Loren Roger Lynette Washington Travis C. Glenn Loren W. Knapp
Abstract
The formation of scales and feathers in reptiles and birds has fascinated biologists for decades. How might the developmental processes involved in the evolution of the amniote ectoderm be interpreted to shed light on the evolution of integumental appendages? An Evo–Devo approach to this question is proving essential to understand the observation that there is homology between the transient embryonic layers covering the scale epidermis of alligators and birds and the epidermal cell populations of embryonic feather filaments. Whereas the embryonic layers of scutate scales are sloughed off at hatching, that their homologues persist in feathers demonstrates that the predecessors of birds took advantage of the ability of their ectoderm to generate embryonic layers by recruiting them to make the epidermis of the embryonic feather filament. Furthermore, observations on mutant chickens with altered scale and feather development (Abbott and Asmundson [1957] J. Hered. 18:63–70; Abbott [1965] Poult. Sci. 44:1347; Abbott [1967] Methods in developmental biology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell) suggest that the ectodermal placodes of feathers, which direct the formation of unique dermal condensations and subsequently appendage outgrowth, provided the mechanism by which the developmental processes generating the embryonic layers diverged during evolution to support the morphogenesis of the epidermis of the primitive feather filament with its barb ridges.


A fully feathered enantiornithine foot and wing fragment preserved in mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber

• 
  
  
  • Lida Xing,
  • Ryan C. McKellar,
  • Jingmai K. O’Connor,
  • Ming Bai,
  • Kuowei Tseng &
  • Luis M. Chiappe

Scientific Reportsvolume 9, Article number: 927 (2019)
Abstract
Over the last three years, Burmese amber (~99 Ma, from Myanmar) has provided a series of immature enantiornithine skeletal remains preserved in varying developmental stages and degrees of completeness. These specimens have improved our knowledge based on compression fossils in Cretaceous sedimentary rocks, adding details of three-dimensional structure and soft tissues that are rarely preserved elsewhere. Here we describe a remarkably well-preserved foot, accompanied by part of the wing plumage. These body parts were likely dismembered, entering the resin due to predatory or scavenging behaviour by a larger animal. The new specimen preserves contour feathers on the pedal phalanges together with enigmatic scutellae scale filament (SSF) feathers on the foot, providing direct analogies to the plumage patterns observed in modern birds, and those cultivated through developmental manipulation studies. Ultimately, this connection may allow researchers to observe how filamentous dinosaur ‘protofeathers’ developed—testing theories using evolutionary holdovers in modern birds.

You're in way over your head here, trying to make some kind of determination of things about which you don't even know the basics. It's very obvious to everyone.

In the embryonic stage they may look the same but the end result has always been different.

Except when it's not...

DNA controls development and birds always produce feathers and crocs always produce scales.

Except when they don't...

Why not admit it? You really don't have any idea what any of this about, do you?

 

[The Barbarian]

Very few fish have lungs!

Nowadays, most don't. But that's not how it was. As you learned, ancient coelacanths had lungs, but modern ones have evolved to become deep-ocean fish, and the lungs are now vestigial, used for buoyancy.

And you can call the gas bladder anything you wish- but we need to see the evidence to support the postulations.

Some fish still use them for respiration. Goldfish can gulp air, and use that bladder to absorb the oxygen, and remove carbon dioxide.

In physostomous swim bladders, a connection is retained between the swim bladder and the gut, the pneumatic duct, allowing the fish to fill up the swim bladder by "gulping" air. Excess gas can be removed in a similar manner.

In more derived varieties of fish (the physoclisti) the connection to the digestive tract is lost. In early life stages, these fish must rise to the surface to fill up their swim bladders; in later stages, the pneumatic duct disappears, and the gas gland has to introduce gas (usually oxygen) to the bladder to increase its volume and thus increase buoyancy. In order to introduce gas into the bladder, the gas gland excretes lactic acid and produces carbon dioxide. The resulting acidity causes the hemoglobin of the blood to lose its oxygen (Root effect) which then diffuses partly into the swim bladder. The blood flowing back to the body first enters a rete mirabile where virtually all the excess carbon dioxide and oxygen produced in the gas gland diffuses back to the arteries supplying the gas gland. Thus a very high gas pressure of oxygen can be obtained, which can even account for the presence of gas in the swim bladders of deep sea fish like the eel, requiring a pressure of hundreds of bars.[5] Elsewhere, at a similar structure known as the oval window, the bladder is in contact with blood and the oxygen can diffuse back out again. Together with oxygen, other gases are salted out in the swim bladder which accounts for the high pressures of other gases as well.[6]
Swim bladder - Wikipedia

There are huge differences between lungs and bladders.

There are huge differences between arms and flippers, too. For the same reason. And there are, as you now realize, transitional forms. You've confused analogy and homology again.

Fish do

not have lungs.

You just said few fish have lungs. I would think you'd want to keep your story straight, at least in the same post. Do you even read these things before you cut and paste them?

In order to be classified as a fish, the animal in question must use gills instead of lungs.

Nope. As you learned, lungs are found in some fish. And many more use vestigial lungs for buoyancy, and occasionally for gas exchange.

Your confusion lies in that "fish" is a catch-all term for a diverse group of organisms that do not form a taxonomic unit. Some, for example, (hagfish) are not vertebrates, and some (sarcopterygians) are tetrapods.

Even if velociraptor sported feathers- he still appears long after archeaoptryx in the supposed fossil revcord age!

Archy considered a bird or at worst the last transitional form between bird and dinosaur appears in the evolutionist time frame at approx. 150,000,000 years ago. OK?

You still think that if you're alive, your uncle must be dead. As you learned, Archaeoptyrix is a dinosaur very close to the actual ancestor of birds. But it's not a bird. It's a dinosaur.

Velociraptor lived approx 75 million years ago! So how can velociraptor be a transiton to a bird

It's not. It's just a relative of the small dinosaurs that did give rise to birds. There's a good possibility that feathers preceded both birds and dinosaurs.

Seems you are the one who has been duped!

See above. You're all over the map on your last few posts, some of which contradict themselves. Slow down, do a little research, and think. You can do better than this.

 

[nolidad]

Nowadays, most don't. But that's not how it was. As you learned, ancient coelacanths had lungs, but modern ones have evolved to become deep-ocean fish, and the lungs are now vestigial, used for buoyancy.



Some fish still use them for respiration. Goldfish can gulp air, and use that bladder to absorb the oxygen, and remove carbon dioxide.

In physostomous swim bladders, a connection is retained between the swim bladder and the gut, the pneumatic duct, allowing the fish to fill up the swim bladder by "gulping" air. Excess gas can be removed in a similar manner.

In more derived varieties of fish (the physoclisti) the connection to the digestive tract is lost. In early life stages, these fish must rise to the surface to fill up their swim bladders; in later stages, the pneumatic duct disappears, and the gas gland has to introduce gas (usually oxygen) to the bladder to increase its volume and thus increase buoyancy. In order to introduce gas into the bladder, the gas gland excretes lactic acid and produces carbon dioxide. The resulting acidity causes the hemoglobin of the blood to lose its oxygen (Root effect) which then diffuses partly into the swim bladder. The blood flowing back to the body first enters a rete mirabile where virtually all the excess carbon dioxide and oxygen produced in the gas gland diffuses back to the arteries supplying the gas gland. Thus a very high gas pressure of oxygen can be obtained, which can even account for the presence of gas in the swim bladders of deep sea fish like the eel, requiring a pressure of hundreds of bars.[5] Elsewhere, at a similar structure known as the oval window, the bladder is in contact with blood and the oxygen can diffuse back out again. Together with oxygen, other gases are salted out in the swim bladder which accounts for the high pressures of other gases as well.[6]
Swim bladder - Wikipedia

There are huge differences between arms and flippers, too. For the same reason. And there are, as you now realize, transitional forms. You've confused analogy and homology again.



You just said few fish have lungs. I would think you'd want to keep your story straight, at least in the same post. Do you even read these things before you cut and paste them?



Nope. As you learned, lungs are found in some fish. And many more use vestigial lungs for buoyancy, and occasionally for gas exchange.

Your confusion lies in that "fish" is a catch-all term for a diverse group of organisms that do not form a taxonomic unit. Some, for example, (hagfish) are not vertebrates, and some (sarcopterygians) are tetrapods.



You still think that if you're alive, your uncle must be dead. As you learned, Archaeoptyrix is a dinosaur very close to the actual ancestor of birds. But it's not a bird. It's a dinosaur.





It's not. It's just a relative of the small dinosaurs that did give rise to birds. There's a good possibility that feathers preceded both birds and dinosaurs.



See above. You're all over the map on your last few posts, some of which contradict themselves. Slow down, do a little research, and think. You can do better than this.

Well if one wants to follow your experts swim bladders are vestigial lungs. But other evolutionary experts differ. Once again we have a buffet to choose from in evolution dogma.

Saying swim bladders are vestigial lungs are supposition and not science.

Even your article shows that swim bladders were considered part of the digestive system and not the respiratory system! So maybe it went from digestion to respiration to being a buoyancy bladder???????

You : "Some fish still use them for respiration. Goldfish can gulp air, and use that bladder to absorb the oxygen, and remove carbon dioxide."

this is false! goldfish are gill breathers and gulp air to fill their bladder for buoyancy and not respiration!

From a fish expert:
"The goldfish is a common household pet and a favorite among children because it is an easy-to-care-for hardy freshwater fish. Of course, because goldfish live under water, they have a very different respiratory physiology than mammals have. For example, like most other aquatic fish, goldfish are adapted to breathe water instead of air, using a one-way-flow respiratory system."



One-Way Flow


A one-way-flow respiratory system means that water is pumped in one direction across the fish’s breathing organs, the gills. The water flows into the mouth, over the filaments in the gills, and out through the gill slits in the sides of the fish’s head. Thus, the water flows in one continuous stream.



Oxygen Exchange


Goldfish need oxygen just like humans, and they obtain oxygen from the water. The fish need to transfer the oxygen from the water into their bloodstream. This transfer of oxygen occurs over a large surface area of capillary membranes contained in the feathery filaments of the gills. According to Dr. Raylman at West Virginia University, only 3 percent of the amount of oxygen in the air is found in the same volume of water, so fish have had to evolve to efficiently push the dense volume of water over their gills to get the oxygen that they need. In fact, fish are able to extract 85 to 90 percent of the oxygen from the water that flows over their gills, whereas humans extract only about 25 percent from the air.

You write: "You still think that if you're alive, your uncle must be dead. As you learned, Archaeoptyrix is a dinosaur very close to the actual ancestor of birds. But it's not a bird. It's a dinosaur."

Well you can presume what you wish but that means nothing!

But you better check your college professors they say differently! After all it was you who showed the transitons from raptor to bird and they all appear after archy. so they could not be transitions. Everything else is just you trying to save face!

If archy has hollow bones that are part of the respiration system like a bird, lays egg like a bird, is feathered like a bird and is warm blooded like a bird .............


You " It's not. It's just a relative of the small dinosaurs that did give rise to birds. There's a good possibility that feathers preceded both birds and dinosaurs. "

Then go back and correct your lineage of bird!

If I am all over the place- it is trying to answer you!

And croc scutes are bony plates depite you saying they are not!

From wiki:
The dermal exoskeleton consists of bony scutes that underlie the epidermal scales of the dorsal surface of the trunk and anterior part of the tail. The overlying scales, except in very young animals, are always rubbed off, so that the bony scales are exposed. The ventral or inner surface of the scutes is flat, while the outer surface is strongly keeled and in old animals is often rough and pitted. The plates are nearly square in outline and are closely joined together in most places.

You " You're in way over your head here, trying to make some kind of determination of things about which you don't even know the basics. It's very obvious to everyone."

Well I am not a biologist. So I have to look up alot of things you write. I do not use that technical language on a daily basis. But what you write from your experts- I can find others who disagree who believe in evolutionism. Like I said we have a buffet of ideas to choose from!

 

[nolidad]

They say they are. I can tell you, from my consulting work, that a number of SDAs I've worked with, are among the most Christian people I know of, as far as their behavior is concerned.

Well behavior does not a Christian make!

 

[nolidad]

For Barbarian:

I find it alarmingly curious that your pot showing the supposed evolution of archeaoptryx and the transitions prior and my response showing that all those transitions appeared after archy disappeared are gone! Did you remove the damning evidence???

 

[nolidad]

Which accepted scientific method or measurement gives the age of the Earth or of the Universe to be 6,000 years?

Ice layers do not give it, tree rings do not give it, history of ancient nations does not give it, geology does not give it, astronomy does not give it, paleontology does not give it....

What gives it, except of summing genealogies in Genesis?

And there is the trick question. "what accepted scientific method'? accepted by who? those indoctrinated into evolutionary thought or those thousands who gave their lives to Christ and by research concluded the bible is true as written!

Ice layers are inaccurate, dendochronology is inaccurate, geology does prove a young earth, astronomy proves neither, paleontology when corrected supports it, history also lends far more support than it does to old ages.

biology also proves it despite the blizzard of evolutionary techno speak.

 

[trophy33]

geology does prove a young earth

No.

paleontology when corrected supports it,

"corrected"

history also lends far more support than it does to old ages.

Hardly, some nations have such long history that they are older than the YEC dating of the global Flood.

biology also proves

No.

But more specifically, what scientific method, measurement gives 6,000 years?

 

[nolidad]

No.


"corrected"


Hardly, some nations have such long history that they are older than the YEC dating of the global Flood.


No.

But more specifically, what scientific method, measurement gives 6,000 years?

Yes

Yes corrected. Much of it is interpretation in evolution.

And all that have been thoroughly researched have found false dates.

Yes biology is a big support of YEC!


Which method?
using just the human genome- mtEve is calculated at 6,500 years!

 

[nolidad]

For Barbarian:

You can ring cirles around me with all the technical language. But when ZI do some research, I find that it is just one school of thought in the dogmas of evolution.

Like scutes and feathers!

"Researchers investigating the ancestry of birds have used scutes as a possible lead in finding the origin of feathers. It has been theorized that feathers evolved from reptilian scales, but testing has revealed that feathers and scales are genetically and chemically different. Scutes, on the other hand, may be genetically more closely linked with feathers. It is even possible that scutes evolved from feathers, rather than vice versa."

Nope. You've confused scutes (scales on birds, dinosaurs, and crocodiles) with "scutes" (boney plate in mammals) In formal names often mislead. You have to know what you're talking about. And as you know, you don't.

The problem here is that people tend to lump any scale or scute-like dermal structure that's not a hair or a feather into the category of "scale", despite long-documented and rather drastic differences in their structure and development.
DinoGoss: You're Doing It Wrong : Dino Foot Scales



Developmental Dynamics 231#1, September 2004–Special Issue on Avian Development
Evolutionary origin of the feather epidermis
Roger H. Sawyer Loren Roger Lynette Washington Travis C. Glenn Loren W. Knapp
Abstract
The formation of scales and feathers in reptiles and birds has fascinated biologists for decades. How might the developmental processes involved in the evolution of the amniote ectoderm be interpreted to shed light on the evolution of integumental appendages? An Evo–Devo approach to this question is proving essential to understand the observation that there is homology between the transient embryonic layers covering the scale epidermis of alligators and birds and the epidermal cell populations of embryonic feather filaments. Whereas the embryonic layers of scutate scales are sloughed off at hatching, that their homologues persist in feathers demonstrates that the predecessors of birds took advantage of the ability of their ectoderm to generate embryonic layers by recruiting them to make the epidermis of the embryonic feather filament. Furthermore, observations on mutant chickens with altered scale and feather development (Abbott and Asmundson [1957] J. Hered. 18:63–70; Abbott [1965] Poult. Sci. 44:1347; Abbott [1967] Methods in developmental biology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell) suggest that the ectodermal placodes of feathers, which direct the formation of unique dermal condensations and subsequently appendage outgrowth, provided the mechanism by which the developmental processes generating the embryonic layers diverged during evolution to support the morphogenesis of the epidermis of the primitive feather filament with its barb ridges.


A fully feathered enantiornithine foot and wing fragment preserved in mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber

• 
  
  
  • Lida Xing,
  • Ryan C. McKellar,
  • Jingmai K. O’Connor,
  • Ming Bai,
  • Kuowei Tseng &
  • Luis M. Chiappe

Scientific Reportsvolume 9, Article number: 927 (2019)
Abstract
Over the last three years, Burmese amber (~99 Ma, from Myanmar) has provided a series of immature enantiornithine skeletal remains preserved in varying developmental stages and degrees of completeness. These specimens have improved our knowledge based on compression fossils in Cretaceous sedimentary rocks, adding details of three-dimensional structure and soft tissues that are rarely preserved elsewhere. Here we describe a remarkably well-preserved foot, accompanied by part of the wing plumage. These body parts were likely dismembered, entering the resin due to predatory or scavenging behaviour by a larger animal. The new specimen preserves contour feathers on the pedal phalanges together with enigmatic scutellae scale filament (SSF) feathers on the foot, providing direct analogies to the plumage patterns observed in modern birds, and those cultivated through developmental manipulation studies. Ultimately, this connection may allow researchers to observe how filamentous dinosaur ‘protofeathers’ developed—testing theories using evolutionary holdovers in modern birds.

You're in way over your head here, trying to make some kind of determination of things about which you don't even know the basics. It's very obvious to everyone.



Except when it's not...

Except when they don't...

Why not admit it? You really don't have any idea what any of this about, do you?

for our feathery footed friend? there are several species of birds (eagles owls chickens and pigeons) that have feathers instead of scutes

Of pigeons, dinosaurs and early birds

Most birds have scales on the feet and toes and feathers elsewhere. Some – like snowy owls, golden eagles and ptarmigans – have foot feathers. Only chickens and domestic pigeons – with 146 and over 350 breeds, respectively – have breeds with and without foot feathers in a single species.

They think they may know how!

The genes that caused scales to become feathers in the early ancestors of birds have been found by US scientists. By expressing these genes in embryo alligator skin, the researchers caused the reptiles' scales to change in a way that may be similar to how the earliestfeathers evolved.Nov 22, 2017
How dinosaur scales became bird feathers - BBC News

But we don't see the random undirected mutation in nature that changed scales to feathers! All you have shown is feathered dinos. and they all appeared in teh evolutionary geologic record long after birds were already on the scene. Once again no transitions!

 

[nolidad]

No.


"corrected"


Hardly, some nations have such long history that they are older than the YEC dating of the global Flood.


No.

But more specifically, what scientific method, measurement gives 6,000 years?

Here is a link to a research paper showing mt Eve

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Eve-Mitochondrial-Consensus-Sequence.pdf

Mother of All Humans Lived 6,000 Years Ago
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. * | TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2010
Share Email Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Inside a human cell's mitochondria--the tiny organelles that provide energy--there is a small and unique chromosome. This loop of DNA is passed from mother to child in every generation and provides an intriguing source of information about mankind's past. Geneticists are using that information in an attempt to determine exactly when the "mother" of all humans lived.

Studies involving this mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, raise a number of questions. First, is it possible to reconstruct a putative first mother's mtDNA sequence? And if so, how does it compare to that of modern humans--her many descendants? Also, is there enough information in today's mtDNA to deduce when the figurative first mother--named "Mitochondrial Eve"--lived?

When investigations into these questions began a few decades ago, optimism was high regarding the possibility of pinpointing that first mother's date. But studies have since shown that the data alone are not enough to provide an answer. A certain number of starting assumptions are required, and when researchers' different assumptions are applied, the data can yield very different "ages" for Mitochondrial Eve. A review of the earliest calculations, published in the evolutionary journal Science in 1998, showed that:

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that's the case, but at what point should models switch from one mtDNA time zone to the other?1

So, to align the age with current evolutionary theories of human origins, subsequent calculations have started with assumptions that ensure at the outset that Mitochondrial Eve would have lived more than 100,000 years ago. Thus, evolution-inspired Mitochondrial Eve research is largely characterized by circular reasoning--evolutionary assumptions of deep time are used as an interpretive filter that (not surprisingly) then yields deep-time results.

This was made abundantly clear in a Rice University press release regarding the latest attempt to determine when Mitochondrial Eve lived. Researchers used a new statistical method that supposedly assured that the "Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago."2

But in explaining how they obtained this number, the researchers inadvertently admitted their bias that partially determined the outcome before they even began calculating. The press release described some of the steps required to interpret DNA base differences "into a measure of time."2

"And how they evolved in time depends upon the model of evolution that you use,"2 according to study co-author Krzysztof Cyran of Poland's Institute of Informatics at Silesian University of Technology. Of course, when one begins with an evolutionary model, one must expect evolutionary results.

Each model added coefficients that are numerically expressed answers to key questions, such as the rate of DNA base change, the effect of mutational hot spots, what DNA sequence to use for comparison (which, for evolutionists, is often from the chimpanzee), and the time between each generation.3 But many of those numbers were assumed:

Each model has its own assumptions, and each assumption has mathematical implications. To further complicate matters, some of the assumptions are not valid for human populations. For example, some models assume that population size never changes.2

But the best available data are still most consistent with the earlier studies that showed that the age of Mitochondrial Eve coincided well with the biblical age of the historical Eve.

For example, a 2008 study of the mitochondrial chromosome found that "on average, the individuals in our dataset differed from the Eve consensus by 21.6 nucleotides."4 The investigators did not expect to find so few differences between their over 800 samples of modern DNA and the calculated sequence for "Eve."

Further, for so few--only 21.6 nucleotides out of 16,569--DNA differences to have accumulated at anything near the measured mutation rates, a much shorter time than "200,000 years" must have transpired since Mitochondrial Eve arrived on the scene.

To stretch out across evolutionary time the occurrences of so few DNA changes requires a gymnastic juggling of the coefficients used in the various models, and appears to require a biologically unrealistic, super-slow mutation rate. Making the data fit vast timescales requires the use of a broken, circular-reasoning-based, evolutionary "clock."

References

1. Gibbons, A. 1998. Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock. Science. 279 (5347):28-29.
2. Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago. Rice University press release, August 17, 2010, reporting on research published in Cyran, K. A. and M. Kimmel. Alternatives to the Wright-Fisher model: The robustness of mitochondrial Eve dating. Theoretical Population Biology. Published online ahead of print June 19, 2010.
3. Mutational hot spots are areas in the mitochondrial chromosome that experience base changes between generations so rapidly that all four DNA bases may have cycled through in only thousands of years, thus skewing attempts at reconstructing mitochondrial DNA clocks. See Galtier, N. et al. 2006. Mutation hot spots in mammalian mitochondrial DNA. Genome Research. 16 (2): 215-222.
4. Carter, R. W., D. Criswell, and J. Sanford. 2008. The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism. Snelling, A. A, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 111-116.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

 

[The Barbarian]

For Barbarian:
You can ring cirles around me with all the technical language.

That's because I actually know what I'm talking about...

But when ZI do some research, I find that it is just one school of thought in the dogmas of evolution.

Like scutes and feathers!

Well, let's take look...

From your (uncited link):

"Researchers investigating the ancestry of birds have used scutes as a possible lead in finding the origin of feathers. It has been theorized that feathers evolved from reptilian scales, but testing has revealed that feathers and scales are genetically and chemically different. Scutes, on the other hand, may be genetically more closely linked with feathers. It is even possible that scutes evolved from feathers, rather than vice versa."

Looks as though you made my case for me. That quote looks awfully familiar, BTW (Barbarian checks) Ahh...

Each scute forms in a lower layer of the skin, the dermis, under the epidermis. It may contain bone at its base, in which case it is known as an osteoderm. The rest of the scute consists of a fibrous protein, also found in horns, known as keratin. Unlike snakes and lizards that shed their entire outer layer of skin, animals with these structures shed only the outer layer of keratin. Scales are distinct from scutes in that they develop out of the epidermis rather than the dermis.

Researchers investigating the ancestry of birds have used scutes as a possible lead in finding the origin of feathers. It has been theorized that feathers evolved from reptilian scales, but testing has revealed that feathers and scales are genetically and chemically different. Scutes, on the other hand, may be genetically more closely linked with feathers. It is even possible that scutes evolved from feathers, rather than vice versa.


Fossil discoveries have indicated that many dinosaurs likely had feathers, and that feathers themselves may be a more primitive characteristic than previously thought. If this is true, it is possible that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common feathered ancestor. Some scientists speculate that the scute could have developed from an early feather structure on an ancestral organism of this type.
What Is a Scute? (with pictures)

Which is what I showed you before. Did you even read this before cutting and pasting?

for our feathery footed friend? there are several species of birds (eagles owls chickens and pigeons) that have feathers instead of scutes

You've been misled once again...

Bald eagle foot. Note the scutes.

Chicken foot. Notice scutes on top of digits, reticualae on the bottom.

But we don't see the random undirected mutation in nature that changed scales to feathers! All you have shown is feathered dinos.

As you learned quite a while ago, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

and they all appeared in teh evolutionary geologic record long after birds were already on the scene.

Yep. Feathered dinosaurs before feathered birds. Maybe even feathered thecodonts. First known theocodont/dinosaur transition had feathers. One more transitional form. You got misled yet again.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well if one wants to follow your experts swim bladders are vestigial lungs.

Some of them even still function as gas exchange organs.

But other evolutionary experts differ.

But you can't find any to cite? I think I know why.

Saying swim bladders are vestigial lungs are supposition and not science.

No, you got that wrong, again....
Trends in Cell Biology
Published:June 02, 2018
Nkx2.1 and Sox2 are critical in lung and esophageal development.


Wnt signaling and Bmp signaling play pivotal roles in the fate of lung and esophageal organogenesis.

The lung and esophageal basal cells share common properties.


Lung and esophageal basal cells participate in regeneration after injury. This has been also observed in differentiated lung cells.
...
Lung and esophageal development and organogenesis involve a complex interplay of signaling pathways and transcriptional factors. Once the lung and esophagus do separate, their epithelial proliferation and differentiation programs share certain common properties that may fuel adaptive responses to injury and subsequent regeneration.
https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(18)30071-0

Even your article shows that swim bladders were considered part of the digestive system and not the respiratory system!

In primitive chordates, like tunicates and cephalochordates, respiration is a function of the digestive system.

Vertebrates retain traces of a feeding apparatus like that of tunicates and cephalochordates. The gill slits, however, ceased to function as feeding structures, and then later as respiratory devices, as the vertebrate structure underwent evolutionary changes.
chordate | Definition, Characteristics, & Facts

In vertebrates the gullet continued to exchange gases. In some early fish, the gullet became folded to increase the surface area. And later formed pockets which became lungs.

We still have fish with that primitive arrangement of pouches...

Evolution of lung breathing from a lungless primitive vertebrate
Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2016 Apr; 224: 11–16.

M. Hoffman, B. E. Taylor, and M. B. Harris

Lamprey are cartilaginous and jawless fish reminiscent of the basal vertebrate lineage. The larval (ammocoete) stage is considered among the most “primitive” living vertebrates, resembling non-vertebrate chordates. Ammocoetes are microphagous suspension feeders that form burrows in soft sediment. Water flow is generated by continuous rhythmic ventilation of the pharyngeal pouch, which acquires nutrients but also satisfies metabolic gas exchange requirements. O2 diffuses from water across the surface areas of exchange epithelia including the pharynx and gills (Hsia et al., 2013; Mallatt, 1981; Rovainen, 1996), and metabolically produced CO2 easily diffuses across all body surfaces and dissipates into surrounding water.

So maybe it went from digestion to respiration to being a buoyancy bladder???????

I should be charging you for this education you're getting, you know.

Barbarian observes:
Some fish still use them for respiration. Goldfish can gulp air, and use that bladder to absorb the oxygen, and remove carbon dioxide.

this is false! goldfish are gill breathers and gulp air to fill their bladder for buoyancy and not respiration!

Nope. You've been misled one more time...

Eventually, the fish will begin gasping at the surface of the water. This surface breathing should not be confused with fish feeding at the surface or fish that can normally take some air at the surface, such as labyrinth fish. Certain species of fish, such as bettas and gouramis, will periodically take a leisurely gulp of air from the surface. That is perfectly normal behavior, and the fish will not remain on the surface taking breath after breath. When fish go to the surface of the water for oxygen, they will gasp repeatedly, often with a wide open mouth.
Low Oxygen in Aquarium Water

If the oxygen level in the water drops too far, goldfish will gulp air to make up the difference. But they aren't adapted to doing this, and they will be stressed and vulnerable to disease of you let that go on.

But fish don't have to gulp air to keep bladders inflated. They can exchange gases in water just as well.