Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Well thank you for your opinion. Your Flintstone comment tells lots about your character.
But we have 0 fossils of all the stroy from fish to amphib.
And with all the supposed evolutionary jumps we do have fraud, deception (like the whale transitions)
Identify the speculation, with evidence, in any of the rhetorical questions in my post.Are you aware that you just wrote a bunch of speculative answers?
Irrelevant to the point under discussion. The alleged absence of intermediate fossils. If you repeat this practice of deviating from the point under discussion I shall regard it as an act of ill faith and shall cease this dialogue.Ande by this I assume you mean those indoctrinated in the beliefs of evolution and thus are considered the only ones capable of making an informed decision. IOW people who have never seen evolution actually taking place on the macro scale, who have never seen a flipper turn to a walking limb, or a limb tourn to a wing or a scale turn to a feather, but just guess that they did.
They can rip apart and very accuretaly report on the composition of scales, scutes and feathers, and they even tried to get a scute to become a feather by placing feather genes from a chick embryo into an alligator embryo. But it still failed.
YOur specialists are speculators. Thieu did not see the development of these animals, they cannot test the theory observe and repeat it. They can only make conclusions of the fossils they find based on their pre supposition indoctrination in evolutionary beliefs!
showing seals that have nothing to do with land animal to whale or fish to amphibian means nothing!
Seals and walruses have always been that way! In 25 million years- they have not developed limbs more suited for land or sea! But evolution demands that they should have.
Ande by this I assume you mean those indoctrinated in the beliefs of evolution and thus are considered the only ones capable of making an informed decision.
You say this kind of thing a lot. I think that you make a very good case that firm beliefs and indoctrination should be rejected. Everyone should join the skeptic bandwagon!
(But of course I won't hold it against people if they don't.)
If we were to look for such a fossil how would we go about it?
Well, the fossil record shows that earliest examples of tetrapods capable of walking on dry land, with fully formed limbs date to about 365 million years ago. We also have examples of fossils of tetrapod fish with fins with a similar bone structure but without wrists or fingers, which logically would have evolved into these land walkers which are aroun 385 million years old.
Unfortunately, there's a gap in the fossil record connecting these fish with the early land walkers.
Logically, we'd expect to find such a critter in rock that dated somewhere around 370 million years ago, we'd also expect it find it in what was a coastal, delta or flood plain environment.
Surely finding such a beast that exhibited "transitional" features in rock with the chronological and geographic features described would demonstrate a successful prediction for the theory of evolution right?
It shows a step between land and see that could easily have occurred in the distant ancestors of whales.
Should have? Why do you think that? If seals and walruses do quite well with what they've got, there's no reason to change much, is there? Different populations in different places can experience very different environmental pressures. Some could be pushed to the sea, some to land, and some to a combination.
Well you believe in evolution because you have been indoctrinated in its beliefs in your science classes.
How so?
"believers in evoltionism", "yeah it is a thing- it is the religion of evolution or the belief in the dogmas of evolution".
LOL, Mr Kettle, meet Mr Pot.
No. What could make you think so, other than a basic failure to understand the theory.
A mutation gives an advantage in that environment to a population of organisms. Another mutation arises that gives an even greater advantage in that environment. The older advantageous mutation is either replaced, or the two proceed to flourish side by side.
If you require a fuller explanation of this last point do ask some relevant questions to help you understand.
If were to admit that I would be lying. Struggling up a damp, muddy stream bed, sample collecting from overhanging cliffs on a sodden Scottish summer's day, then cataloguing and assessing ones finds always felt assuredly empirical to me.See I fully and freely admit that creation falls completely outside the realm of empirical science. But nearly all believers in evolutionism will not admit that Big E evolution and the BB also fall outside the realm of empirical science.
"evolutionism" isn't a thing, but anyway...
Here's what a couple of minutes on Google Scholar comes up with:
Shh-Bmp2 signaling module and the evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. Harris MP, Fallon JF, Prum RO.
Abstract
To examine the role of development in the origin of evolutionary novelties, we investigated the developmental mechanisms involved in the formation of a complex morphological novelty-branched feathers. We demonstrate that the anterior-posterior expression polarity of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) and Bone morphogenetic protein 2 (Bmp2) in the primordia of feathers, avian scales, and alligator scales is conserved and phylogenetically primitive to archosaurian integumentary appendages. In feather development, derived patterns of Shh-Bmp2 signaling are associated with the development of evolutionarily novel feather structures.
Sonic Hedgehog functions by localizing the region of proliferation in early developing feather buds.
McKinnell IW, Turmaine M, Patel K.
Abstract
Feathers are formed following a series of reciprocal signals between the epithelium and the mesenchyme. Initially, the formation of a dense dermis leads to the induction of a placode in the overlying ectoderm. The ectoderm subsequently signals back to the dermis to promote cell division. Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) is a secreted protein expressed in the ectoderm that has previously been implicated in mitogenic and morphogenetic processes throughout feather bud development. We therefore interfered with Shh signaling during early feather bud development and observed a dramatic change in feather form and prominence. Surprisingly, outgrowth did occur and was manifest as irregular, fused, and ectopic feather domains at both molecular and morphological levels. Experiments with Di-I and BrdU indicated that this effect was at least in part caused by the dispersal of previously aggregated proliferating dermal cells. We propose that Shh maintains bud development by localizing the dermal feather progenitors.
Review: cornification, morphogenesis and evolution of feathers.Here's the problem I have with 99.5% of creationists - they don't do the work. Not even the basics.
Alibardi L1.
Abstract
Feathers are corneous microramifications of variable complexity derived from the morphogenesis of barb ridges. Histological and ultrastructural analyses on developing and regenerating feathers clarify the three-dimensional organization of cells in barb ridges. Feather cells derive from folds of the embryonic epithelium of feather germs from which barb/barbule cells and supportive cells organize in a branching structure. The following degeneration of supportive cells allows the separation of barbule cells which are made of corneous beta-proteins and of lower amounts of intermediate filament (IF)(alpha) keratins, histidine-rich proteins, and corneous proteins of the epidermal differentiation complex. The specific protein association gives rise to a corneous material with specific biomechanic properties in barbules, rami, rachis, or calamus. During the evolution of different feather types, a large expansion of the genome coding for corneous feather beta-proteins occurred and formed 3-4-nm-thick filaments through a different mechanism from that of 8-10 nm IF keratins. In the chick, over 130 genes mainly localized in chromosomes 27 and 25 encode feather corneous beta-proteins of 10-12 kDa containing 97-105 amino acids. About 35 genes localized in chromosome 25 code for scale proteins (14-16 kDa made of 122-146 amino acids), claws and beak proteins (14-17 kDa proteins of 134-164 amino acids). Feather morphogenesis is periodically re-activated to produce replacement feathers, and multiple feather types can result from the interactions of epidermal and dermal tissues. The review shows schematic models explaining the translation of the morphogenesis of barb ridges present in the follicle into the three-dimensional shape of the main types of branched or un-branched feathers such as plumulaceous, pennaceous, filoplumes, and bristles. The temporal pattern of formation of barb ridges in different feather types and the molecular control from the dermal papilla through signaling molecules are poorly known. The evolution and diversification of the process of morphogenesis of barb ridges and patterns of their formation within feathers follicle allowed the origin and diversification of numerous types of feathers, including the asymmetric planar feathers for flight.
If you're going to make claims about scales and feather evolution, investing 15 minutes to make sure your claims are vaguely in the ballpark might be worthwhile.
If were to admit that I would be lying. Struggling up a damp, muddy stream bed, sample collecting from overhanging cliffs on a sodden Scottish summer's day, then cataloguing and assessing ones finds always felt assuredly empirical to me.
Do you imagine that all evolutionists are experts in every aspect of evolution? Surely not. Do you have any reason to think I am an expert in the evolution of feathers? (I'll give you a hint, I'm not.)So whenever , whatever creature started evolving feathers, they had to undergo the following: and they all had to give it an advantage
1. Genetic recoding to grow a feather follicle sub dermally
2. Genetic recoding to grow a quill.
3. recoding for the inferior umbilicus
4. recoding for after feathers and/or downy barbs.
5. recoding for the rachis
6. REcording for the vane
7. recoding for the barbs.
8. recoding for the barbules
9. recoding for the hooklets.
10 recoding to have it instinctly preen feathers
11. recoding to create the oil or uropygial gland
12. The creation of of the oil
13. Recoding instinct to teach the creature to learn to press to release the oils and then hold it to spread while preening.
14. Going from cold blooded (endo thermic heat regulation) to wartm blooded (entothermic heat regulation.
I know another guy who makes silly comments like that on another site. He goes by "Jorge" there. You're not Jorge, are you? The guy used to keep calling me a naturalist. It was really annoying.
Interesting, but wholly unsubstantiated opinion refuted by an examination of any of the thousands of peer reviewed papers dealing with transitional forms. Your opinion is thus contradicted by the evidence.Well that is empirical work- but looking at bones and then saying it is a transitional step between X and Y is more imagination than information!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?