Creation / Evolution.

[Theland]

What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?

[beso]

Theland //Feathers from scales?
Fossilised scales are found, and fossilised feathers, but no transitional samples.//

Incorrect. Your information is out of date. There are many transitional fossils of dinosaurs with plumage consisting of proto-feathers. Feathers rarely fossilise but archaeologists are extremely dedicated to their work and such fossils have been found.

There is also extremely compelling genetic evidence.

Chicken embryos have literally been made to grow scales instead of feathers and alligator embryos made to grow feathers by simply altering gene switches at a particular time of development. The underlying genes for scales and feathers are the same.

Similarly, chicken embryos have been made to grow teeth by altering the expression of the same genes that are in both reptiles and birds. (The embryos are not allowed to fully develop into hatchlings because of ethical considerations.)

These are not assumptions but solid facts backed up by irrefutable evidence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5104527/Scientists-identify-genes-turn-scales-feathers.html

[Old_Geezer]

Relates back to my post from Monday @ 8:54.

"But that is just down to the fact that we are still ignorant of every factual detail, and it is unreasonable to insist every i is dotted and t crossed before grudging accepting the most likely, most supported by the evidence, explanation."

[Khandro]

The big big question is, (as always) not how, but why?
Why should an animal start to develop "proto feathers" ?

If you want to see evolution at work, you need look no further than the coronavirus, this isn't some blind accidental mutation, there is a clear design behind its striving for success - in this case to the detriment of humanity.

[beso]

Khandro // this isn't some blind accidental mutation, there is a clear design behind its striving for success //

Nonsense. The mutations that increase the fitness become prevalent. The ones that don't die out. It is that simple. No design involved.

We only see the results of the changes that succeed. There is no mechanism by which the mutations could to strive for benefit. You are back with Lemarck claiming the stretching of the giraffe's neck cause its genes to mutate for longer necks.

[beso]

Khandro //The big big question is, (as always) not how, but why?
Why should an animal start to develop "proto feathers" ?//

Because, one way or another, it increased its likelihood of reproducing and passing on the changes it inherited.

Feathers are more insulating than scales, allowing the animal to support a higher metabolic rate with less food. Maybe they looked more attractive to potential mates.

[jim360]

The *really* big question is why I've been awarded BA for laying into the OP's approach to all this.

A surprise, to be sure -- but a welcome one.

[Khandro]

beso // The mutations that increase the fitness become prevalent.//

Are you suggesting that the inescapable force underlying nature is a matter of blindly stumbling about & evolving through a chain of accidents?

[jim360]

Well, why would it need to be anything other than accident, guided by what works at the time?

[Khandro]

jim'
Do you believe that there was this creature covered in scales, which one day gave birth to an offspring whose scales were a bit odd - starting to look like they might be described as 'proto-feathers' (though no feathers existed) & this offspring grew up and gave issue itself, & there were generational accidents leading to these p.fs becoming actual real feathers, "and he went to the edge, and flew".
(apologies to Apollinaire)

[Old_Geezer]

"Why should an animal start to develop "proto feathers" ?"
There is no why. There is no predetermined purpose. Mutations are random. If they help, they stay, if not they may die out, it detrimental they will die out.

Early feathers may well have stuck around as insulation before becoming useful for gliding and then flight.

[Khandro]

My god, OG. you're really clutching at straws (or maybe feathers!)

[jim360]

It's not difficult to see the advantages that feathers, even proto-feathers, may pose. They can be good for insulation, for a start. They are quite light, less bulky than scales.

I'm not going to pretend that the narrative of evolution doesn't astound me at times, but I don't see that my inability to comprehend a given hypothesis counts as evidence against it.

[Khandro]

jim; I can comprehend the hypothesis all right, no problem there, it's simply that I don't believe it.

Have you ever wondered why so many of the world's greatest scientists are agnostics, with quite a few having leanings to religion even?

[jim360]

It stands to reason that if a lot of people are religious or tend that way, then at least some scientists would be too. I'm fairly sure I know a few personally, even if we don't speak about it all that often.

But it's possible to be religious/agnostic and scientific because the two don't have anything to say about each other.

[jim360]

Also, science is not a matter of belief. If you have an alternative hypothesis, then you're free to share it, providing evidence for it and against any competitors. That's the standard here. Belief has no place in science.

[Theland]

Jim - BA for your constructive honesty, and politely delivered.

I stand corrected regarding feathers, but in the spirit of the scientific method, as my knowledge is compromised, I move on to look further into it.
One way or another I am learning, but still a far way from convinced.

[TheDevil]

Not that my answers get much attention but...


The idea that there is something outside of this universe can be compared to schrodinger's cat.

[jim360]

I'd rather you were convinced now, of course, but better that you get there slowly but surely than not at all. As long as you're still learning, that's what asking questions is about!

[Khandro]

Devil; Interesting you should mention him 'cos he was a bit of an agnostic too: "Science is reticent when it comes to the question of the great unity of which we somehow form a part. The popular name for it in our time is God"
Erwin Schroedinger

[Old_Geezer]

Not at all, Khan. I'm simply being realistic and not dismissing the most probable explanations. I leave straw clutching to those with blind faith.

Evolution develops, gradually one thing finds a function, then further modifications make it useful for something else. It's how it works.