On feathers not sure what your talking about there, fossils predate birds by a LONG time, heck some evidence that feathers could predate sauropods or least link back that far, though it's scant at the moment, just some really old fossils from the split that seem they might have feathers. Plus your talking about reptiles, some of the evidence in dinosaurs has shown that actually they are very much like birds, the t-rex that caused that stir a few years back shows some evidence, like it hints that she was pregnant, in the same way birds are, though not sure how conclusive that is yet. Heck there was that recent dinosaur caught in amber with it's feathers intact we found.
The Dinosaur “feathers” you refer to are probably elongated scales. Bird feathers on the other hand are a different kettle of fish all together. If what is found on a fossil are indeed feathers, that is well and good, but the fossil evidence shows us nothing about the biological origin of feathers, only that they exist a very long time ago perhaps much longer ago than anybody previously expected (which can also be problematic for Darwinism).
Thor Hanson wrote: There is a fundamental structural difference between scales and feathers and how they grow. Scales form like plates, flat ridges protruding outwards as extensions of the epidermis. It’s like the contrast between a napkin and a straw. Fold the napkin and you have a scale, with the outer surface – the epidermis – covering both top and bottom…(But in the case of feathers they) … flatten by opening up. The outer surface becomes the top and the inside is revealed to become the bottom. So while a mature feather and a scale may both appear flat, their surfaces simply don’t correspond. (Feathers the Evolution of a Natural Miracle, 2011)
Richard Prum and Alan Brush wrote: Over the last half of the 20th century, neo-Darwinian approaches to the origin of feathers, exemplified by Bock (1965), have hypothesized a microevolutionary and functional continuum between feathers and a hypothesized antecedent structure (usually an elongated scale). Feathers however, are hierarchically complex assemblages of numerous evolutionary novelties – the feather follicle, tubular feather germ, feather branched structure, interacting differentiated barbules – that have no homolog in any antecedent structures. (Prum and Brush “The Evolutionary Origin and Diversification of Feathers”)
Barbara Stahl commented: “How they arose initially … defies analysis.” (Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution)
So incremental functionalism fails to explain the origin of feathers.
We haven't yet found a fossil that isn't explainable by evolution, we might find that animals evolved earlier then we first thought, but were not going to find any true chimera's and haven't, we find fishapods where we expect, we found feathered dinosaurs like we expected, decades long before they appeared. We have recently found that the types of lizards that snakes evolved from have venom, as do all snakes and so on. All the things that we predicted long before the evidence was fully in is coming to fruitiion.
Here you reveal your considerable faith, trust and belief in the Scientistic doctrine of Neo-Darwinian Evolution but very little depth of understanding.
For example; no biological fossil is explainable by evolution, rather it is explained by the presence of a living form that dies, is preserved in a fossilized state. Whether the previously living creature evolved or was designed and created is irrelevant to the fossil.
There is no doubt that Natural selection (aka Darwins molecular fiddler) has contributed extensively to the adaption of already existing forms and so we can indeed expect to find the sort of thing you refer to above.
Nevertheless there are a great many identifiable biological features that are either non-adaptive and/or have not antecedent and must have arisen in a saltational manner that defies Darwinism at its core, and it is these that need to be addressed.
On the red blood cells, actually there is....mammal red blood cells, they start with a nulceus then lose it after it's matured, most likly as it allows more room for hemoglobin and this could easily be step by step, maybe a process that causes less blood cells to have a nucleus but doesn't stop all and so on.
You sound confident of your position (be it one of shallow understanding).
The enucleated blood cell is one of the “simplest” of all taxa-defining novelties, yet Wang et al. can still remark that “most molecular events in enucleation remain unclear.”
Denton (who’s PhD thesis at Kings College, London was on the development of the mammalian red blood cell) writes: The whole remarkeable “choreography of the red cell exit” poses a self-evident and obvious challenge to incremental functionalism. Between a nucleate and an enucleate cell is a quantum jump. There is no known intermediate type of cell midway between the enucleate mammalian red cell and the nucleated red cells of any other vertebrate species.
Because the examples are new, but the arguments are old, as was done in the dover trial, ireducible complexity was new, but everything he claimed that was iredicbly complex had tons of literature already explaining how it came about.
This is the nature of the scientific endeavor; that we continually revisit the old arguments, challenging them with the new evidence and discarding or modifying the things that don’t stand up in the light of the new examples. That Evolutionary devotees regard the field as being beyond subsequent reproach, revision and falsification discredits the whole of science itself.
On closer investigation the tons of literature that serve to satisfy the faithful often boil down to tons of … just so stories.
And yeah, if their information is as poor as what you've been giving then not interested. I've yet to see anything by guys like them that even know what evolution is.
Please do explain, I am willing to learn. What is the mechanism of unintelligent biogenesis? What is the process by which new biological novelties, that have neither adaptive value nor antecedent, may arise?
And you can think what you want, I understand how evolution works and read up alot about it, nothing you've said even qualifies as evidence.
Its ok. You are a true believer I see.
But as Douglas Axe recently posted (commenting on the movie “Hidden Figures” in a post found at
What Every Darwinist Could Learn From Hidden Figures | The Stream):
Most Darwin followers are more earnest than that. From what I can tell, they really believe in their cause. Because the biology departments of the most revered research institutions are chock-full of professing Darwinists, they feel certain that anyone challenging Darwinism must be a deluded zealot. They long for the day when those smart professors from the big universities finally care enough about all the anti-Darwin nonsense to join forces and put the Flying Spaghetti Monster of intelligent design through the grinder of scientific reality.
What these ordinary Darwinists don’t realize, however, is that the professors know better than to go anywhere near that grinder. That’s the
last place you want to be if your own theory is a quivering blob of gelatin — “a messy guess — baggy, boggy, soggy and leaking all over the place,” as
Tom Wolfe put it.
Here’s the steel-hard fact they most want to avoid:
The evolutionary explanation of life
cannot stand up to NASA-style engineering scrutiny.
If you doubt this, please join me in testing it. Hand pick your Darwin sympathizers from the most esteemed places. It doesn’t matter who they are, because all the pomp and prestige of the academic world is powerless to change hard facts. All claims of Darwin having discovered the only scientifically valid explanation of life get torn to tiny bits when you put them in the grinder.
The response to this challenge is sure to be either silence or protest. There won’t be a nerdy evolutionary biologist who marches up to the chalkboard and does the math that saves the theory. The math has been done; the theory
undone. Nor will there be a lab test that shows natural selection to be a worker of wonders. We’ve been there. Too many tests to count, and the blind watchmaker never showed up.
The protest will be familiar, organized around the usual defensive themes.
Different sciences work differently! — they’ll say.
It isn’t reasonable to hold a historical science to engineering standards! — they’ll say.
No practicing evolutionary biologist would accept your proposal as valid! — they’ll say.
Let them speak. Then remind them that the difference is simply one of
seriousness. When we really need to know that something will work, tested-and-approved certainty has always been the standard. Evolutionists ignore that standard because they can. Storytelling works for them because they’re all telling stories together. Their grand stories are all wrong, but as long as no one is dying in orbit, most people are content to let them carry on.
- See more at:
Doug Axe: Hidden Figures and the Engineering Challenge to Darwinism – Evolution News
As for me? I retain a very healthy skepticism of anything that challenges the plain revelation of the One who I trust.
