Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[chad kincham]

And?
Your point is?

The blatantly, ridiculously, obvious point is it’s not faked.

No one counterfeited 100 dollar bills centuries before they existed, and no one faked a photographic negative on the shroud centuries before photography existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have already been told that NO. Your "Joe the Reporter" did NOT name it.

That is correct.

A sci_en_tist named it, didn't he?

Are scientists in the habit of giving scientific names to things in the tabloids?

 

[Speedwell]

That’s laughable - just read National Geographic or Time magazine, or a litany of other publications, and apologists for evolution continually make claims that it’s all proven fact, beyond dispute.

Of course you are unable to quote any yourself.

 

[chad kincham]

We are talking about evolutionary biology. One of the most studied fields of science in the world.

Which hinders science progress, due to the assumptions they make, such as assuming various parts of the human body to be vestigial leftovers from evolution, such as the pancreas, because their functions weren’t blatantly obvious.

Then there’s the assumption that DNA that they thought had no purpose, had to be a viral insertion, or junk DNA, which wasn’t the case at all.

 

[chad kincham]

Your up to *1* expert now. I read that letter after you posted it and I see a criticism of what he sees as a undercautious identification of feather like features on dinosaur fossils.

I also see an senior guy who doesn't like these findings taking every shot he has at their methodology, while confidently asserting that they will all look bad in the future. (Who hasn't run in to that.) There have been 20 years of discovery since then and the rest of the bird paleontology community would seem to differ with Mr. Olson.

Avian experts aren’t paleontologists and vice verse.

 

[chad kincham]

Your up to *1* expert now. I read that letter after you posted it and I see a criticism of what he sees as a undercautious identification of feather like features on dinosaur fossils.

I also see an senior guy who doesn't like these findings taking every shot he has at their methodology, while confidently asserting that they will all look bad in the future. (Who hasn't run in to that.) There have been 20 years of discovery since then and the rest of the bird paleontology community would seem to differ with Mr. Olson.

You obviously missed this:

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

Sincerely,

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

And there are other notable bird experts who show theropods didn’t become birds:

However, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disagrees with assertions like those of ‘Doug’:

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’ not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.‘Feathered’ dinos—no feathers after all!, J. Creation 26(3):8–10, 2012.]

Another famous alleged dino-bird link was Mononykus, claimed to be a ‘flightless bird.’Gen. 1:20–23).

The differences between reptiles and birds
All evolutionists believe that birds evolved from some sort of reptile, even if they can’t agree on the kind. However, reptiles and birds are very different in many ways. Flying birds have streamlined bodies, with the weight centralized for balance in flight; hollow bones for lightness which are also part of their breathing system; powerful muscles for flight, with specially designed long tendons that run over pulley-like openings in the shoulder bones; and very sharp vision. And birds have two of the most brilliantly designed structures in nature—their feathers and special lungs.

chapter 2 we showed that every structure or organ must be represented by information at the genetic level, written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information had to arise in the bird’ DNA which was not present in that of its alleged reptile ancestor.

As usual, natural selection would not favor the hypothetical intermediate forms. Many evolutionists claim that dinosaurs developed feathers for insulation and later evolved and refined them for flight purposes. But like all such ‘just-so’ stories, this fails to explain how the new genetic information arose so it could be selected for.

Another problem is that selection for heat insulation is quite different from selection for flight. On birds that have lost the ability to fly, the feathers have also lost much of their structure and become hair-like. On flightless birds, mutations degenerating the aerodynamic feather structure would not be as much a handicap as they would be on a flying bird. Therefore, natural selection would not eliminate them, and might even select for such degeneration. As usual, loss of flight and feather structure are losses of information, so are irrelevant to evolution, which requires an increase of information. All that matters is that the feathers provide insulation, and hair-like structures are fine—they work for mammals.

See the contrast here between the detailed structures of a feather (left) and scales (right), both magnified 80 times.

Finally, feather proteins (Φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (α-keratins), as well. One researcher concluded:

At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis [shape/form generation], gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); margin-bottom: 4px; border-bottom-style: none; cursor: pointer;">24

The avian lung
Drastic changes are needed to turn a reptile lung into a bird lung. In mammalian lungs, the air is drawn into tiny sacs (alveoli, singular alveolus) where blood extracts the oxygen and releases carbon dioxide. The stale air is then breathed out the same way it came in. Reptiles have the same bellows system, but their lungs are septate; i.e. like one big alveolus divided by centrally directed ingrowths called septa (singular septum) coming from the walls. The gas exchange occurs mostly on the septa. Birds also have septate lungs, but their breathing is much more complex. But birds, in addition to their lungs, have a complicated system of air sacs in their bodies, even involving the hollow bones. This system keeps air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi, singular parabronchus) in the lung, and blood moves through the lung’ blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake,Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 199–213; K. Schmidt-Nielsen, How birds breathe, Scientific American, December 1971, p. 72–79." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">25 an excellent engineering design.principle of counter-current exchange which is common in living organisms as well—see P.F. Scholander, The wonderful net, Scientific American, April 1957, p. 96–107." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">26

How would the ‘bellows’-style lungs of reptiles evolve gradually into avian lungs? The hypothetical intermediate stages could not conceivably function properly, meaning the poor animal would be unable to breathe. So natural selection would work to preserve the existing arrangement, by eliminating any misfit intermediates.

Also, even assuming that we could construct a theoretical series of functional intermediate stages, would natural selection ‘drive’ the changes? Probably not—bats manage perfectly well with bellows-style lungs—some can even hunt at an altitude of over two miles (three km). The avian lung, with its super-efficiency, becomes especially advantageous only at very high altitudes with low oxygen levels. There would thus have been no selective advantage in replacing the reptilian lung.Blown away by design, Creation 21(4):14–15." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">27

We should probably not be surprised that Alan Feduccia’ major work on bird evolution doesn’t even touch this problem.The Origin and Evolution of Birds (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996). However, this book shows that the usual dinosaur-to-bird dogma has many holes." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">28

Some recent researchers of Sinosauropteryx’ lung structure showed that ‘its bellows-like lungs could not have evolved into high performance lungs of modern birds.’Science 274:720–721, 1996." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">29

 

[chad kincham]

I'm dubious, do you have a source?

Here’s two notable bird experts:

However, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disagrees with assertions like those of ‘Doug’:

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’ not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.‘Feathered’ dinos—no feathers after all!, J. Creation 26(3):8–10, 2012.]

Another famous alleged dino-bird link was Mononykus, claimed to be a ‘flightless bird.’Gen. 1:20–23).

The differences between reptiles and birds
All evolutionists believe that birds evolved from some sort of reptile, even if they can’t agree on the kind. However, reptiles and birds are very different in many ways. Flying birds have streamlined bodies, with the weight centralized for balance in flight; hollow bones for lightness which are also part of their breathing system; powerful muscles for flight, with specially designed long tendons that run over pulley-like openings in the shoulder bones; and very sharp vision. And birds have two of the most brilliantly designed structures in nature—their feathers and special lungs.

chapter 2 we showed that every structure or organ must be represented by information at the genetic level, written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information had to arise in the bird’ DNA which was not present in that of its alleged reptile ancestor.

As usual, natural selection would not favor the hypothetical intermediate forms. Many evolutionists claim that dinosaurs developed feathers for insulation and later evolved and refined them for flight purposes. But like all such ‘just-so’ stories, this fails to explain how the new genetic information arose so it could be selected for.

Another problem is that selection for heat insulation is quite different from selection for flight. On birds that have lost the ability to fly, the feathers have also lost much of their structure and become hair-like. On flightless birds, mutations degenerating the aerodynamic feather structure would not be as much a handicap as they would be on a flying bird. Therefore, natural selection would not eliminate them, and might even select for such degeneration. As usual, loss of flight and feather structure are losses of information, so are irrelevant to evolution, which requires an increase of information. All that matters is that the feathers provide insulation, and hair-like structures are fine—they work for mammals.

See the contrast here between the detailed structures of a feather (left) and scales (right), both magnified 80 times.

Finally, feather proteins (Φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (α-keratins), as well. One researcher concluded:

At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis [shape/form generation], gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); margin-bottom: 4px; border-bottom-style: none; cursor: pointer;">24

The avian lung
Drastic changes are needed to turn a reptile lung into a bird lung. In mammalian lungs, the air is drawn into tiny sacs (alveoli, singular alveolus) where blood extracts the oxygen and releases carbon dioxide. The stale air is then breathed out the same way it came in. Reptiles have the same bellows system, but their lungs are septate; i.e. like one big alveolus divided by centrally directed ingrowths called septa (singular septum) coming from the walls. The gas exchange occurs mostly on the septa. Birds also have septate lungs, but their breathing is much more complex. But birds, in addition to their lungs, have a complicated system of air sacs in their bodies, even involving the hollow bones. This system keeps air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi, singular parabronchus) in the lung, and blood moves through the lung’ blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake,Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 199–213; K. Schmidt-Nielsen, How birds breathe, Scientific American, December 1971, p. 72–79." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">25 an excellent engineering design.principle of counter-current exchange which is common in living organisms as well—see P.F. Scholander, The wonderful net, Scientific American, April 1957, p. 96–107." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">26

How would the ‘bellows’-style lungs of reptiles evolve gradually into avian lungs? The hypothetical intermediate stages could not conceivably function properly, meaning the poor animal would be unable to breathe. So natural selection would work to preserve the existing arrangement, by eliminating any misfit intermediates.

Also, even assuming that we could construct a theoretical series of functional intermediate stages, would natural selection ‘drive’ the changes? Probably not—bats manage perfectly well with bellows-style lungs—some can even hunt at an altitude of over two miles (three km). The avian lung, with its super-efficiency, becomes especially advantageous only at very high altitudes with low oxygen levels. There would thus have been no selective advantage in replacing the reptilian lung.Blown away by design, Creation 21(4):14–15." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">27

We should probably not be surprised that Alan Feduccia’ major work on bird evolution doesn’t even touch this problem.The Origin and Evolution of Birds (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996). However, this book shows that the usual dinosaur-to-bird dogma has many holes." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">28

Some recent researchers of Sinosauropteryx’ lung structure showed that ‘its bellows-like lungs could not have evolved into high performance lungs of modern birds.’Science 274:720–721, 1996." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">29

There’s a third from the Smithsonian institute.

 

[chad kincham]

Here’s the third bird expert on claims of theropods evolving into birds:

OPEN LETTER TO:

Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary PRaven@nas.org

Committee for Research and Exploration

National Geographic Society

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Peter,



I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.

With the publication of "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.

Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas "will later name" the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so. Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen "accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon," the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.

Sloan's article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that "the Czerkases now plan to return it to China." In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation. There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.

Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.



Sincerely,



Storrs L. Olson

Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, DC 20560

Ph. 202-357-33212

FAX 1-202-633-8084

email: olson.storrs@nmnh.si.edu

 

[disciple Clint]

Your opinion is noted.
So why is the shroud so important to you?

Why would we think the body in the Shroud was that of Jesus? As explained above, it is exceedingly improbable that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. First, there are no paints, dyes or other pigments on the Shroud (except for the small flecks coming from the sanctification of icons and paintings which touched it). Secondly, the anatomical precision of the blood stains—which are real human blood that congealed on the Shroud before the formation of the image—are in precise anatomical correlation to the image itself. How could a medieval forger have accomplished this? Thirdly, it is exceedingly difficult to explain how pollen grains indigenous to Palestine appeared in abundance on a shroud of probable Semitic origin (if it originated in medieval Europe) and how coins minted in 29 A.D. in Palestine appeared on the eyes of the man on the Shroud. How could a medieval forger have duplicated these first century Palestinian characteristics of the Shroud? Fourthly, the five enigmas of the image on the Shroud almost certainly preclude a forgery. How could a medieval forger have used vacuum ultraviolet radiation to discolor the cloth on the uppermost surface of the fibrils? How could he have created a perfect photographic negative image? How could he have created a double image on the frontal part of the Shroud? And how could he have known how to duplicate the interior and exterior of the hands in perfect proportion to each other? Thus, it does not seem reasonable or responsible to believe that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. Beyond this, there are three probative kinds of evidence pointing specifically to Jesus’ place and time of origin and to his unique crucifixion and resurrection:1.The material of the Shroud, the pollen grains on it, and the coins on the man’s eyes, all have their origin in First Century Palestine –the place where Jesus was purported to have died.2.The blood stains come from a crucifixion event identical to the one described in the four Gospels –which was very unusual, if not unique, in many respects –such as being crowned with thorns, being flogged, and being pierced with a Roman pilium (see above –the Introduction to this article).3.The five enigmas of the Shroud’s image point to a transphysically caused burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation from a mechanically transparent body. This is suggestive of the transformation of Jesus’ body from a physical one to a spiritual-glorified one(asreported by St.Paul and the fourGospels).The spiritual-glorifiedtransformation of Jesus’ body was unique to the Christian view of resurrection.180It was 180N.T. Wright elucidates several Christian mutations of Second Temple Judaism’s doctrine of resurrection. One of these mutations is the change from a merely corporeal resurrection (like a resuscitated corpse) in Jewish doctrine to a spiritual-corporeal resurrection (“spiritual body”--“pneumatikon soma”—1 Cor.15:44) in the Christian view. This is remarkable in view of the fact that early Christians did not want to separate themselves from the doctrine of Second Temple Judaism. Why then, did the early Christians do this? After an exhaustive analysis, Wright concludes there is CCBB - Volume 3 - Evidence for the History and Divinity of Jesus Christ98

not known in Judaism (which held to a resuscitation of the flesh) or pagan cults (which held to ethereal or ghostlike views of immortality). Thus, the enigmas on the Shroud’s image point to the uniquely Christian view of resurrection implied by Jesus’ risen appearance. The odds of this First Century Palestinian burial shroud --with the unique features of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection --being that of anyone else is exceedingly remote. Inasmuch as the image is not a forgery, and it originated from a real person living at the time of Jesus, crucified in the unique way of Jesus, and producing a burst of intense vacuum ultraviolet radiation from his decomposing body, who else would it be? Given all this, we might reasonably infer that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus which contains not only a relic of his crucifixion, but also his resurrection in glory. If so, it shows both the truth of the most significant event in human history as well as the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of it.

https://www.crediblecatholic.com/the-7-essential-modules/#big-book

 

[Shemjaza]

Here’s two notable bird experts:

However, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disagrees with assertions like those of ‘Doug’:

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’ not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.‘Feathered’ dinos—no feathers after all!, J. Creation 26(3):8–10, 2012.]

Another famous alleged dino-bird link was Mononykus, claimed to be a ‘flightless bird.’Gen. 1:20–23).

The differences between reptiles and birds
All evolutionists believe that birds evolved from some sort of reptile, even if they can’t agree on the kind. However, reptiles and birds are very different in many ways. Flying birds have streamlined bodies, with the weight centralized for balance in flight; hollow bones for lightness which are also part of their breathing system; powerful muscles for flight, with specially designed long tendons that run over pulley-like openings in the shoulder bones; and very sharp vision. And birds have two of the most brilliantly designed structures in nature—their feathers and special lungs.

chapter 2 we showed that every structure or organ must be represented by information at the genetic level, written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information had to arise in the bird’ DNA which was not present in that of its alleged reptile ancestor.

As usual, natural selection would not favor the hypothetical intermediate forms. Many evolutionists claim that dinosaurs developed feathers for insulation and later evolved and refined them for flight purposes. But like all such ‘just-so’ stories, this fails to explain how the new genetic information arose so it could be selected for.

Another problem is that selection for heat insulation is quite different from selection for flight. On birds that have lost the ability to fly, the feathers have also lost much of their structure and become hair-like. On flightless birds, mutations degenerating the aerodynamic feather structure would not be as much a handicap as they would be on a flying bird. Therefore, natural selection would not eliminate them, and might even select for such degeneration. As usual, loss of flight and feather structure are losses of information, so are irrelevant to evolution, which requires an increase of information. All that matters is that the feathers provide insulation, and hair-like structures are fine—they work for mammals.

See the contrast here between the detailed structures of a feather (left) and scales (right), both magnified 80 times.

Finally, feather proteins (Φ-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (α-keratins), as well. One researcher concluded:

At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis [shape/form generation], gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); margin-bottom: 4px; border-bottom-style: none; cursor: pointer;">24

The avian lung
Drastic changes are needed to turn a reptile lung into a bird lung. In mammalian lungs, the air is drawn into tiny sacs (alveoli, singular alveolus) where blood extracts the oxygen and releases carbon dioxide. The stale air is then breathed out the same way it came in. Reptiles have the same bellows system, but their lungs are septate; i.e. like one big alveolus divided by centrally directed ingrowths called septa (singular septum) coming from the walls. The gas exchange occurs mostly on the septa. Birds also have septate lungs, but their breathing is much more complex. But birds, in addition to their lungs, have a complicated system of air sacs in their bodies, even involving the hollow bones. This system keeps air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi, singular parabronchus) in the lung, and blood moves through the lung’ blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake,Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 199–213; K. Schmidt-Nielsen, How birds breathe, Scientific American, December 1971, p. 72–79." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">25 an excellent engineering design.principle of counter-current exchange which is common in living organisms as well—see P.F. Scholander, The wonderful net, Scientific American, April 1957, p. 96–107." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">26

How would the ‘bellows’-style lungs of reptiles evolve gradually into avian lungs? The hypothetical intermediate stages could not conceivably function properly, meaning the poor animal would be unable to breathe. So natural selection would work to preserve the existing arrangement, by eliminating any misfit intermediates.

Also, even assuming that we could construct a theoretical series of functional intermediate stages, would natural selection ‘drive’ the changes? Probably not—bats manage perfectly well with bellows-style lungs—some can even hunt at an altitude of over two miles (three km). The avian lung, with its super-efficiency, becomes especially advantageous only at very high altitudes with low oxygen levels. There would thus have been no selective advantage in replacing the reptilian lung.Blown away by design, Creation 21(4):14–15." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">27

We should probably not be surprised that Alan Feduccia’ major work on bird evolution doesn’t even touch this problem.The Origin and Evolution of Birds (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996). However, this book shows that the usual dinosaur-to-bird dogma has many holes." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">28

Some recent researchers of Sinosauropteryx’ lung structure showed that ‘its bellows-like lungs could not have evolved into high performance lungs of modern birds.’Science 274:720–721, 1996." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">29

There’s a third from the Smithsonian institute.

Here’s the third bird expert on claims of theropods evolving into birds:

OPEN LETTER TO:

Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary PRaven@nas.org

Committee for Research and Exploration

National Geographic Society

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Peter,



I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.

With the publication of "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.

Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas "will later name" the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so. Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen "accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon," the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.

Sloan's article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that "the Czerkases now plan to return it to China." In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation. There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.

Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.

Prior to the publication of the article "Dinosaurs Take Wing" in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that "hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers" is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.



Sincerely,



Storrs L. Olson

Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, DC 20560

Ph. 202-357-33212

FAX 1-202-633-8084

email: olson.storrs@nmnh.si.edu

Interestingly, neither is in any way up to date with modern paleontological findings.

One being a publication in a non peer reviewed creationist website and the other being over twenty years old informal letter from a retired expert... several years before discoveries of feathers in non avian dinosaurs confirmed the earlier ideas.

 

[Bradskii]

See the contrast here between the detailed structures of a feather (left) and scales (right), both magnified 80 times.

Gee. If only we could find some creature that laid eggs like dinosaurs, could sorta fly and had both feathers and scales...

 

[driewerf]

Almost everyone believes in sin. If there's any action any human could take that you believe is wrong, you believe in sin.

Nope.
There is no sin.

 

[driewerf]

No.
"Sin" is about transgression of " divine" rules.

Why should there be any standard of right or wrong if there's no ultimate authority?

Is it a sin to drive at 125 km/h on the highway?

 

[driewerf]

Is polygamy okay?

If all people involved are consenting adults? yes.

 

[driewerf]

I once tried to get a Taoist here to tell me why Hurricane Katrina occurred.

Despite all my efforts, he hid behind a scientific explanation of how it happened; rather than answer from his religious perspective.

I'm sure you would do the same, so I won't ask.

Why did Katrina happen in your opinion?

I remember AV1611VET posting a list of hurricanes that all were somehow linked to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. God hates peace or something.

 

[driewerf]

No comment.

(And before you huff and puff about it, notice I didn't recuse to a collegiate explanation to avoid answering.)

No list of hurricanes somehow linked to peace negotiations anymore?

 

[Speedwell]

Why would we think the body in the Shroud was that of Jesus? As explained above, it is exceedingly improbable that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. First, there are no paints, dyes or other pigments on the Shroud (except for the small flecks coming from the sanctification of icons and paintings which touched it). Secondly, the anatomical precision of the blood stains—which are real human blood that congealed on the Shroud before the formation of the image—are in precise anatomical correlation to the image itself. How could a medieval forger have accomplished this? Thirdly, it is exceedingly difficult to explain how pollen grains indigenous to Palestine appeared in abundance on a shroud of probable Semitic origin (if it originated in medieval Europe) and how coins minted in 29 A.D. in Palestine appeared on the eyes of the man on the Shroud. How could a medieval forger have duplicated these first century Palestinian characteristics of the Shroud? Fourthly, the five enigmas of the image on the Shroud almost certainly preclude a forgery. How could a medieval forger have used vacuum ultraviolet radiation to discolor the cloth on the uppermost surface of the fibrils? How could he have created a perfect photographic negative image? How could he have created a double image on the frontal part of the Shroud? And how could he have known how to duplicate the interior and exterior of the hands in perfect proportion to each other? Thus, it does not seem reasonable or responsible to believe that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. Beyond this, there are three probative kinds of evidence pointing specifically to Jesus’ place and time of origin and to his unique crucifixion and resurrection:1.The material of the Shroud, the pollen grains on it, and the coins on the man’s eyes, all have their origin in First Century Palestine –the place where Jesus was purported to have died.2.The blood stains come from a crucifixion event identical to the one described in the four Gospels –which was very unusual, if not unique, in many respects –such as being crowned with thorns, being flogged, and being pierced with a Roman pilium (see above –the Introduction to this article).3.The five enigmas of the Shroud’s image point to a transphysically caused burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation from a mechanically transparent body. This is suggestive of the transformation of Jesus’ body from a physical one to a spiritual-glorified one(asreported by St.Paul and the fourGospels).The spiritual-glorifiedtransformation of Jesus’ body was unique to the Christian view of resurrection.180It was 180N.T. Wright elucidates several Christian mutations of Second Temple Judaism’s doctrine of resurrection. One of these mutations is the change from a merely corporeal resurrection (like a resuscitated corpse) in Jewish doctrine to a spiritual-corporeal resurrection (“spiritual body”--“pneumatikon soma”—1 Cor.15:44) in the Christian view. This is remarkable in view of the fact that early Christians did not want to separate themselves from the doctrine of Second Temple Judaism. Why then, did the early Christians do this? After an exhaustive analysis, Wright concludes there is CCBB - Volume 3 - Evidence for the History and Divinity of Jesus Christ98

not known in Judaism (which held to a resuscitation of the flesh) or pagan cults (which held to ethereal or ghostlike views of immortality). Thus, the enigmas on the Shroud’s image point to the uniquely Christian view of resurrection implied by Jesus’ risen appearance. The odds of this First Century Palestinian burial shroud --with the unique features of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection --being that of anyone else is exceedingly remote. Inasmuch as the image is not a forgery, and it originated from a real person living at the time of Jesus, crucified in the unique way of Jesus, and producing a burst of intense vacuum ultraviolet radiation from his decomposing body, who else would it be? Given all this, we might reasonably infer that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus which contains not only a relic of his crucifixion, but also his resurrection in glory. If so, it shows both the truth of the most significant event in human history as well as the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of it.

The 7 Essential Modules - Credible Catholic

You've obviously spent a lot of time and effort on this, When are you going to tie it to the OP?

 

[renniks]

Is it a sin to drive at 125 km/h on the highway?

You mean if the speed limit is less? It's breaking the law, so yes.

 

[renniks]

Nope.
There is no sin.

So child abuse is cool with you?

 

[driewerf]

You mean if the speed limit is less? It's breaking the law, so yes.

Is it a sin or a crime?
In Belgium the speed limit is 120 km/h. In France it is 130 km/h. Is driving 125 km/h a sin? Do you break any divine rule at 125 km/h?