Feathered dino for Kleinman

[RonO]

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1

The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage. They can
tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.

It had a banded tail like a pheasant, but since it was a long bony tail
it was more like a raccoon tail with shorter hair. It sounds like it
had a bandit mask like a bobwhite quail and a lighter under belly.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

This is going to be a short thread.
.
Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer into a feather producing replicator.

[RonO]

Why would I need to know all that? Feathers evolved. They weren't the
feathers for flight, but they did serve some purpose. Just like hair on
the first mammal like reptile that evolved hair. What more do you need?

What do you not get. The paper would tell you that the feathers were
likely insulation (conserving body heat). Evidence is accumulating that
some dinos were warm blooded. What do mammals use fur for? The
feathers had pigment in them. They formed patterns. These patterns are
used today by animals for selective purposes. Camouflage, distraction
when fleeing etc.

What more do you want? The dino wasn't using feathers for flight.
Flight evolved later. Feathers did not evolve so that birds could fly.
Feathers obviously first evolved for the same reasons that hair evolved
on mammals.

The raccoon has the same banded tail pattern and the bandit mask over
the eyes. So do other existing birds and mammals.

When what you have is not as good as what you claim is not good enough,
what should that mean to you? What do you have that is better than this
dino fossil? It is what you claim we need. It demonstrates that
feathers did not evolve for flight, but that they had other functions
when they were first evolving. What do you not get? Hair and feathers
evolved from reptilian like scutes. Scutes are not the same as snake
and lizard scales. Dinos had scutes and so did mammal like reptiles.
Alligators, turtles and birds still have scutes.

Try to learn something. Willful ignorance is dishonest and stupid.

Ron Okimoto

[Rolf Aalberg]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ou796e$vhj$1...@dont-email.me...

Some people cultivate their ignorance.

Rolf

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Like I said, a very short thread. But I do appreciate Ronnie pointing out that feathers make good insulators. It gives me opportunity to use my line: "So you think that blizzards turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards?"

[RonO]

Like I said willful ignorance is stupid and dishonest. What do you not
get about these results. They are what you wanted, but all you have is
denial. How stupid do you have to be. You have the evidence right in
front of you, but what do you choose to do? What would the selective
pressures have been? Why deny that? What is one of the reasons mammals
have fur? What else do they do with the fur? What did these dinos do
with feathers? These dinos were obviously using feathers the same way
that mammals use fur.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?

[RonO]

Why is willful ignorance your only out? This is exactly what you
wanted, so why deny it? We don't know everything, but you have nothing
by comparison. How does this fit into your alternative?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

And fertilize it with their bull shit. The stupid thing is that
Kleinman knows that willful ignorance is stupid and dishonest, but it is
all he has left.

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Why didn't dinosaurs grow fiberglass? That's good insulation.

[ed wolf]

Do you have this arrogant disdain for facts presented
to you also in your claimed profession as "MD Phd"?
(The begging for respect by adding a title to the name
is embarassing for the audience, anyway)
By your sense of bullshit humor and dumb handwaving
I guess you are rather a salesman of medicine products
than someone making a living treating people.
Ed

[RonO]

Is that your alternative? It sound more like what you would expect to
happen. Biological evolution is constrained by nature. Scutes evolved
into feathers, but the same material (keratin) was used to make scutes
and feathers.

Willful ignorance is stupid and dishonest. Why is that all that you
have left?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

More of your spam. Do you intend to ever post anything intelligent?

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?

When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
feathers?

[John Harshman]

On 11/11/17 11:19 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
>> My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>
> When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
> feathers?

Bird tongues generally aren't made for licking. But they certainly run
the feathers through their mouths. The thing is that feathers are large,
well-anchored structures and generally don't come off or get swallowed
during the process.

Alan descends into kindergarten humor when he has nothing sensible (or
what even he would consider sensible) to say.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

I don't have disdain for facts, I have disdain for mumbojumbo and reptiles growing feathers is mumbojumbo.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Why aren't their scales made of silicon?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>
>
> When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
> feathers?

I guess my chickens are part of the reptiles grow feathers crowd because I often see them preening.

[John Harshman]

Are dinosaurs reptiles? Did they have feathers? If they are, and they
did, how did they get them other than by growing them?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 07:08:52 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> >> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
> >>
> >> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
> >> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage. They can
> >> tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.
> >>
> >> It had a banded tail like a pheasant, but since it was a long bony tail
> >> it was more like a raccoon tail with shorter hair. It sounds like it
> >> had a bandit mask like a bobwhite quail and a lighter under belly.
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >
> >This is going to be a short thread.
> >.
> >Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer into a feather producing replicator.
>
>
> More of your spam. Do you intend to ever post anything intelligent?

For you, I will always post my Special Purpose Applied Mathematics.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 11/11/17 11:19 AM, jillery wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> > wrote:
> >
> >> My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
> >
> > When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
> > feathers?
>
> Bird tongues generally aren't made for licking. But they certainly run
> the feathers through their mouths. The thing is that feathers are large,
> well-anchored structures and generally don't come off or get swallowed
> during the process.
>
> Alan descends into kindergarten humor when he has nothing sensible (or
> what even he would consider sensible) to say.

I scale my discussion to the audience. For example, I wouldn't try to discuss probability theory with someone who thinks there is only one rule, the addition rule. And what is there sensible to say to someone who thinks that reptiles grow feathers? Of course, other than there, there, we will find another job for you, like science fiction writer or uber driver.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

That's your area of fiction John, my thing is correctly describing how rmns works and it doesn't work in such a way that reptiles (or any other progenitor which didn't have the alleles which make feathers) grow feathers.

[RonO]

What does your designer say about that? Scutes are modified skin. Look
it up. Skin, scutes and feathers all have keratin. Why did your
designer make it look as if scutes had evolved from skin (look at
amphibians and compare them to reptilians). Why did the designer make
it look like scutes evolved into feathers? You are the one that has to
answer those questions because real science already has an answer that
makes sense. Why doesn't your answer make as much sense? Why didn't
your designer make scutes out of silicon or aluminum or whatever you can
think of. Silicon would have likely been lighter and stronger. The
scutes could have been thinner and tougher. Put your alternative
forward and compare. Science just has to claim that evolution works
with what already exists. Scutes evolved from the material skin is made
of. Feathers evolved from the material scutes are made of. Your
designer doesn't have that limitation, so what is your alternative
explanation?

[RonO]

Why are dinos with feathers fiction? Willful ignorance is stupid and

[RonO]

Birds do eat feathers, but they have gizzards that grind up their food
(dinos had gizzards too, so they likely didn't have featherballs), so
you don't usually get featherballs unless the bird is sick and doesn't
process the food correctly. Birds like chickens eat sand and gravel to
help grind up their food, so did dinos (look up dino gastroliths). Owls
barf up furballs (well, bones and fur) when they eat mammals, but their
gizzards are modified to retain the bones and fur.

Cats don't have gizzards. Must be another designer flaw.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

[John Harshman]

As usual, you fail to answer questions and just repeat one of your mantras.

[John Harshman]

On 11/11/17 12:28 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 11/11/2017 1:33 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 11/11/17 11:19 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>>>
>>> When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
>>> feathers?
>>
>> Bird tongues generally aren't made for licking. But they certainly run
>> the feathers through their mouths. The thing is that feathers are
>> large, well-anchored structures and generally don't come off or get
>> swallowed during the process.
>>
>> Alan descends into kindergarten humor when he has nothing sensible (or
>> what even he would consider sensible) to say.
>>
>
> Birds do eat feathers, but they have gizzards that grind up their food
> (dinos had gizzards too, so they likely didn't have featherballs), so
> you don't usually get featherballs unless the bird is sick and doesn't
> process the food correctly.

Actually, some birds do get featherballs, grebes for example. They eat
their own feathers, which collect in their stomachs. There's a proposed
adaptive reason, but nobody really knows.

[Bill Rogers]

Wait, you complain that we don't know which mutations and which selection pressures lead to the evolution of feathers from scales, right?

Well, how can you apply your model to the problem, if you don't know either the required mutations or the fitnesses of all the intermediates?

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 7:10:03 AM UTC-8, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> > http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
> >
> > The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
> > flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage. They can
> > tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.
> >
> > It had a banded tail like a pheasant, but since it was a long bony tail
> > it was more like a raccoon tail with shorter hair. It sounds like it
> > had a bandit mask like a bobwhite quail and a lighter under belly.
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> This is going to be a short thread.
> .
> Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer into a feather producing replicator.
>

Alan's point----and its a good one----says macro-mutations and single-step selection do not exist. How then did feathered creatures come to exist? Since Alan is a Theist we can say that Alan holds to the view that God created the first feathered creatures. If true then Darwinian RMNS, which Alan accepts, suffers falsification.

Ray

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

My model tells which evolutionary trajectories by rmns have reasonable probabilities of occurring. Clearly, the trajectories which only require a sequence of single beneficial mutations are the most probable but even for these trajectories, for a mutation rate of e-8, it will take about e8 replications for each beneficial mutation. Microbes can easily attain these types of population growths but for large vertebrates, that's a lot of biomass. And if a double mutation is required to improve fitness, you might as well learn the tune "16 tons and what do you get".
.
How many genes do you think it takes to form feathers? Thermal stress is certainly not a targeted selection pressure.

[Ray Martinez]

And yes, I agree with Alan, this will be a short thread.

Ray

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:40:45 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 07:08:52 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>> >> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
>> >>
>> >> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
>> >> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage. They can
>> >> tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.
>> >>
>> >> It had a banded tail like a pheasant, but since it was a long bony tail
>> >> it was more like a raccoon tail with shorter hair. It sounds like it
>> >> had a bandit mask like a bobwhite quail and a lighter under belly.
>> >>
>> >> Ron Okimoto
>> >
>> >This is going to be a short thread.
>> >.
>> >Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer into a feather producing replicator.
>>
>>
>> More of your spam. Do you intend to ever post anything intelligent?
>For you, I will always post my Special Purpose Applied Mathematics.

There's nothing mathematical about reptiles growing feathers.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:33:37 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 11/11/17 11:19 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>>
>> When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
>> feathers?
>
>Bird tongues generally aren't made for licking. But they certainly run
>the feathers through their mouths. The thing is that feathers are large,
>well-anchored structures and generally don't come off or get swallowed
>during the process.

Although preening and licking are both means of personal grooming, the
procedures are different enough that it would be a gross
misrepresentation to equate the two except in that most general sense.

>Alan descends into kindergarten humor when he has nothing sensible (or
>what even he would consider sensible) to say.

You noticed that, too. He also spams a lot. Both demonstrate equal
wit.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:43:37 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:
>>
>> >My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>>
>>
>> When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
>> feathers?
>I guess my chickens are part of the reptiles grow feathers crowd because I often see them preening.

Of course, a bird preening is nothing like a cat licking its fur. For
one thing, cats aren't smart enough to have a special licking gland.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:27:21 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 7:10:03 AM UTC-8, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>> > http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
>> >
>> > The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
>> > flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage. They can
>> > tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.
>> >
>> > It had a banded tail like a pheasant, but since it was a long bony tail
>> > it was more like a raccoon tail with shorter hair. It sounds like it
>> > had a bandit mask like a bobwhite quail and a lighter under belly.
>> >
>> > Ron Okimoto
>>
>> This is going to be a short thread.
>> .
>> Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer into a feather producing replicator.
>>
>
>Alan's point----and its a good one----

No, it isn't.

>says macro-mutations and single-step selection do not exist.

No, it's not.

>How then did feathered creatures come to exist?

Since you asked, because you and the good DrDr are wrong. You're
welcome.

>Since Alan is a Theist we can say that Alan holds to the view that God created the first feathered creatures. If true then Darwinian RMNS, which Alan accepts, suffers falsification.

Correct, the key word above being "If".

[ed wolf]

Do you think talk origins is your audience, you are some sort of
lecturer here?
You completely fail to address the original finding of a fossilised
feathered creature that might not have been a bird.
This creature existed at some point in time and it is at least
interesting how it is related to creatures already known, or still
around.
Just stating it can not be a reptile because reptile do not grow
feathers because you know they cant does not really explain much.
What do you make of that creature, what was it? Feel free to use
simple language with me, I am a mechanical engineer and a welder,
so no fancy title to my name, but I am a resident of reality.
ed

[Ray Martinez]

Ed: What is intermediary between scales and feathers? If the answer is nothing then most people recognize the difference as requiring a macro-mutation or single-step selection event.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Good, then maybe you find the time to post all the other responses you
said you were going to do "asap", on threads from which you seem to have
disappeared altogether for over a week.


>
> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> Ed: What is intermediary between scales and feathers? If the answer is nothing then most people recognize the difference as requiring a macro-mutation or single-step selection event.
>
> Ray
>

Here is a good overview of the intermediate steps in feather evolution.

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

Note that while in the past, it was thought that feathers evolved from
scales, this idea has now been abandoned in the light of more data, and
they are now seen as an independent developments from a shared ancestor.

A rather nice example how the ToE generates testable, "local" hypotheses
that then direct research activity and lead to new experiments, an din
turn increase our knowledge and understanding.

[ed wolf]

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 7:05:03 PM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Ed: What is intermediary between scales and feathers? If the answer is nothing then most people recognize the difference as requiring a macro-mutation or single-step selection event.
>
> Ray

I can not answer this, I thought scales are not "related" to feathers,
and know little else about it. Even birds with scaly legs do not seem
to carry any intermediate structure. Luckily Burkhard sent a beautiful link.
BTW I do not know the exact difference between the usually proposed many small
steps of RMNS and a macro-mutation, if you look at fossils with enough
age difference you could argue for both, find a new fossil inbetween and
your macro-evolution just gets a little minor and twice as frequent,
agreed. Only macro- evolution , if it means multiple changes in one
generation leading to increased fitness, is nothing any informed person
would propose as an explanation. Life just doesnt work that way, never did.
ed

[Ray Martinez]

You are of course correct. The problem I'm having is the length of these messages created by my opponents requires a commensurate amount of time to create a reply----amounts of time that I haven't had lately. I am not abandoning any thread because I only speak on subjects that I've studied and I know the facts support my position.

Ray

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Nov 12, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<d08fe824-14f7-4954...@googlegroups.com>):

oh, my.
>
>
> Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 12:39:50 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 11/11/2017 12:22 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2017 11:20 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 8:45:05 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:

>>>>> On 11/11/2017 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
>>>>>>> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage. They can
>>>>>>> tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It had a banded tail like a pheasant, but since it was a long bony tail
>>>>>>> it was more like a raccoon tail with shorter hair. It sounds like it
>>>>>>> had a bandit mask like a bobwhite quail and a lighter under belly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is going to be a short thread.
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer into a feather producing replicator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>

>> My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>>
>

>Why is willful ignorance your only out?

It's all he has, and apparently all he will ever have.

> This is exactly what you
>wanted, so why deny it? We don't know everything, but you have nothing
>by comparison. How does this fit into your alternative?

He has no alternative; he only has a "fundamental equation"
of evolution which fails to include competition or selection
(the biology/evolutionary sort, not the "random selection"
familiar to statisticians).
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:39:07 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 11:05:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>> On 11/11/2017 12:49 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:

>> >> Why is willful ignorance your only out? This is exactly what you

>> >> wanted, so why deny it? We don't know everything, but you have nothing
>> >> by comparison. How does this fit into your alternative?
>> >>

>> >> Ron Okimoto
>> >
>> > Why didn't dinosaurs grow fiberglass? That's good insulation.
>> >
>>
>> Is that your alternative? It sound more like what you would expect to
>> happen. Biological evolution is constrained by nature. Scutes evolved
>> into feathers, but the same material (keratin) was used to make scutes
>> and feathers.
>>

>> Willful ignorance is stupid and dishonest. Why is that all that you
>> have left?

>Why aren't their scales made of silicon?

For the same reason your brain isn't.

Oh, wait...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:33:37 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 11/11/17 11:19 AM, jillery wrote:

>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>>

>> When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
>> feathers?
>
>Bird tongues generally aren't made for licking. But they certainly run
>the feathers through their mouths. The thing is that feathers are large,
>well-anchored structures and generally don't come off or get swallowed
>during the process.
>
>Alan descends into kindergarten humor when he has nothing sensible (or
>what even he would consider sensible) to say.

....which explains why he *always* so descends.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:49:01 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>> > My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>> >
>>

>> Why is willful ignorance your only out? This is exactly what you
>> wanted, so why deny it? We don't know everything, but you have nothing
>> by comparison. How does this fit into your alternative?

>Why didn't dinosaurs grow fiberglass? That's good insulation.

See, Ron? That's the best he has, and the best you'll ever
get from him. A classic "one trick pony", and the trick
doesn't even work.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:43:37 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> wrote:

>> >My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?

>> When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
>> feathers?

>I guess my chickens are part of the reptiles grow feathers crowd because I often see them preening.

Preening isn't licking; licking involves the tongue and
preening doesn't. Write that on your hand.

Or do you think the beak is the tongue? That would say a bit
regarding your "expertise"...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:57:42 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

>...my thing is correctly describing how rmns works

Please! Stop! I need to stop laughing and catch my breath!

"...correctly..."

OMG...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 23:25:25 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:33:37 -0800, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>On 11/11/17 11:19 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>>>
>>> When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
>>> feathers?
>>
>>Bird tongues generally aren't made for licking. But they certainly run
>>the feathers through their mouths. The thing is that feathers are large,
>>well-anchored structures and generally don't come off or get swallowed
>>during the process.
>
>
>Although preening and licking are both means of personal grooming, the
>procedures are different enough that it would be a gross
>misrepresentation to equate the two except in that most general sense.
>
>
>>Alan descends into kindergarten humor when he has nothing sensible (or
>>what even he would consider sensible) to say.
>
>
>You noticed that, too. He also spams a lot. Both demonstrate equal
>wit.

Yep. Mathematically (for benefit of The Good DrDr's
comprehension), 0.5.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:27:21 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

Allie's only visible point is physical, and helps keep his
hat on in high winds.

And Allie doesn't accept RMNS (the real version, not his
imaginary one), since he doesn't actually know what it
entails.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 02:01:16 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
<eduar...@gmx.net>:

>Am Samstag, 11. November 2017 20:55:03 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Kleinman MD PhD:
>> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> > On 11/11/17 11:19 AM, jillery wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 10:22:32 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> My cat gets fur balls, did dinosaurs get feather balls?
>> > >
>> > > When was the last time you saw a bird stupid enough to lick its
>> > > feathers?
>> >
>> > Bird tongues generally aren't made for licking. But they certainly run
>> > the feathers through their mouths. The thing is that feathers are large,
>> > well-anchored structures and generally don't come off or get swallowed
>> > during the process.
>> >
>> > Alan descends into kindergarten humor when he has nothing sensible (or
>> > what even he would consider sensible) to say.
>>
>> I scale my discussion to the audience. For example, I wouldn't try to discuss probability theory with someone who thinks there is only one rule, the addition rule. And what is there sensible to say to someone who thinks that reptiles grow feathers? Of course, other than there, there, we will find another job for you, like science fiction writer or uber driver.
>
>Do you think talk origins is your audience, you are some sort of
>lecturer here?
>You completely fail to address the original finding of a fossilised
>feathered creature that might not have been a bird.
>This creature existed at some point in time and it is at least
>interesting how it is related to creatures already known, or still
>around.
>Just stating it can not be a reptile because reptile do not grow
>feathers because you know they cant does not really explain much.

I disagree. it explains quite a bit about The Good DrDr.

>What do you make of that creature, what was it? Feel free to use
>simple language with me, I am a mechanical engineer and a welder,
>so no fancy title to my name, but I am a resident of reality.

Then you are inaccessible to him.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:04:00 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Ed: What is intermediary between scales and feathers? If the answer is nothing then most people recognize the difference as requiring a macro-mutation or single-step selection event.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>Here is a good overview of the intermediate steps in feather evolution.
>
>http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

Good article; thanks.

>Note that while in the past, it was thought that feathers evolved from
>scales, this idea has now been abandoned in the light of more data, and
>they are now seen as an independent developments from a shared ancestor.
>
>A rather nice example how the ToE generates testable, "local" hypotheses
>that then direct research activity and lead to new experiments, an din
>turn increase our knowledge and understanding.

"an din turn"...

Your keyboard apparently has the same problems as mine,
although mine usually results in "th esame" glitches. ;-)

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The reptiles grow feathers crowd is so desperate to have some kind of evidence for their irrational belief that they will buy into anything:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/
.
So if you are a mechanical engineer, what law of physics would make an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers, grow feathers? Are you sure you are a resident of Realville? If you believe that an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers will grow feathers, you had better check your zip-code, you are actually in Wonderland.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

You don't dare...

Bob Casanova wrote:

> See, Ron? That's the best he has, and the best you'll ever
> get from him. A classic "one trick pony", and the trick
> doesn't even work.

Show us your best. Oh. Let's make it easy: Show us your
best post from the last, say, four months.

What is it, some infantile ad hominem? Is that your best?

Or maybe one of your trademark temper tantrums?

Go on, show us your best. Impress everyone. Post the URL
to your BEST usenet article, as found on the Google
archive. Show the world how good you really are.

You won't. Because you know what you are, and so don't
I.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167388054118

[Bruce Stephens]

On 13/11/2017 03:24, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> The reptiles grow feathers crowd is so desperate to have some kind of evidence for their irrational belief that they will buy into anything:
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/
> .
> So if you are a mechanical engineer, what law of physics would make an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers, grow feathers? Are you sure you are a resident of Realville? If you believe that an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers will grow feathers, you had better check your zip-code, you are actually in Wonderland.

So your position is that all of these "feathered dinosaur" fossils are
faked?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

The ones that are not faked are misinterpreted. Of course, if you think that an animal which doesn't have the genes to produce feathers can grow feathers, explain to us how that happens.

[Burkhard]

or as we say in the old country

"Weil, so schließt er messerscharf,
nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf."

[jillery]

Of course, it was the reptiles grow feathers crowd which revealed that
deception.

Of course, you don't bother to mention that.

>So if you are a mechanical engineer, what law of physics would make an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers, grow feathers? Are you sure you are a resident of Realville? If you believe that an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers will grow feathers, you had better check your zip-code, you are actually in Wonderland.

Name one person besides yourself who claims that an animal that
doesn't have genes to produce feathers, grows feathers. Don't be
insulted that I don't wait for your answer.

[jillery]

The view from your glass house would be more impressive if you washed
off all the dirt. Just sayin'.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Just because you want it to be, doesn't make it be. Of course, if you think that an animal which doesn't have the genes to produce feathers can grow feathers, explain to us how that happens.

[ed wolf]

My concern is not what should or should not be
according to me, but how to explain what is the
case and maybe predict what will happen in certain
circumstances. Observation and description are first.
Explanations must fit the observed facts. Instead of
disputing genes of fossils we should have a close look
at those bits and pieces. If there are feathers, arms with
claws, long legs and pointy teeth we have something
interesting. Do you agree so far? Personally I can not
verify the autenticity of a fossil, not even the beautiful
Archeopterix here in Berlin. But I believe science works
in the long run, and there are feathered fossils that look
to me like no bird at all. And I do believe they are no
hoax or fake, all of them.
(Just like I believe the spectacular pictures from Hubble
are more than just photoshopped fraud. )
If you argue all feathered "non- birds" are fraud or wishful
interpretation , say so. But dont argue along the lines of
" I know it can't be so it is not ".
Rather show why you have reason to doubt the current
observation and description of these fossils.
Ed

[Ray Martinez]

The only answer the Darwinists can give is that it happens gradually/incrementally by RMNS. Since you accept existence of RMNS your opposition in this topic to the appearance of feathered creatures is undermined. And your on going master point in this topic supports species immutability. DNA replication machines cannot produce anamolous adaptive genes. Yet the concept of random mutation says they can, it happens magically, when needed, Shazam! Without the aid of your God.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 8:45:05 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:

> > On 11/11/2017 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> > >> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
> > >>
> > >> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
> > >> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage.

Ron O really seems to think that hairlike growths are feathers.
Why didn't you call him on this, Alan. Didn't you look at the
linked article?

> > >> They can
> > >> tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.

I doubt that they got anywhere beyond light and dark. The article nowhere
suggests spectral colors. But then, that sort of thing never stopped
Ron O from pontificating.

> > >> It had a banded tail like a pheasant, but since it was a long bony tail
> > >> it was more like a raccoon tail with shorter hair. It sounds like it
> > >> had a bandit mask like a bobwhite quail and a lighter under belly.
> > >>
> > >> Ron Okimoto
> > >
> > > This is going to be a short thread.

Maybe, but there is lots going on here to which you are oblivious
because of your lack of interest in paleontology.

True, Ron O himself has only a passing interest in paleontology, being much
more fond of spewing contempt at people, but that's another story.

> > > Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer into a feather producing replicator.

What you don't seem to realize, Alan, is that those aren't feathers
on Sinosauropteryx. They are hairlike growths that optimists like
Harshman call "protofeathers" because he thinks they evolved into
feathers later on.

> >
> > Why would I need to know all that? Feathers evolved. They weren't the
> > feathers for flight, but they did serve some purpose. Just like hair on
> > the first mammal like reptile that evolved hair. What more do you need?
> >
> > What do you not get. The paper would tell you that the feathers were
> > likely insulation (conserving body heat). Evidence is accumulating that
> > some dinos were warm blooded. What do mammals use fur for? The
> > feathers had pigment in them. They formed patterns. These patterns are
> > used today by animals for selective purposes. Camouflage, distraction
> > when fleeing etc.
> >
> > What more do you want? The dino wasn't using feathers for flight.
> > Flight evolved later. Feathers did not evolve so that birds could fly.
> > Feathers obviously first evolved for the same reasons that hair evolved
> > on mammals.

Ron O is here showing what an amateur he is, unable to think of any
reason for hair except his UNSPOKEN single reason hair evolved
on synapsids.

Hair has now been traced back to early synapsids that are tens of
millions of years earlier than mammals.

> >
> > The raccoon has the same banded tail pattern and the bandit mask over
> > the eyes. So do other existing birds and mammals.
> >
> > When what you have is not as good as what you claim is not good enough,
> > what should that mean to you? What do you have that is better than this
> > dino fossil?

*I* have the fact that pterosaurs also had hairlike growths, but did
not evolve feathers.

And even YOU have the fact that no mammal ever evolved feathers
despite having protofeathers -- excuse me, I mean hair. Even bats
didn't evolve them, but solved the problem of flight a different way.

And so your question was a good one.

> > It is what you claim we need.

Ron O continues to pretend that hairlike growths are feathers.

> > It demonstrates that
> > feathers did not evolve for flight, but that they had other functions
> > when they were first evolving.

> > What do you not get? Hair and feathers
> > evolved from reptilian like scutes. Scutes are not the same as snake
> > and lizard scales. Dinos had scutes and so did mammal like reptiles.
> > Alligators, turtles and birds still have scutes.
> >
> > Try to learn something. Willful ignorance is dishonest and stupid.

...pot...kettle...

> >
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Like I said, a very short thread. But I do appreciate Ronnie pointing out that feathers make good insulators. It gives me opportunity to use my line: "So you think that blizzards turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards?"

If you actually had some interest in paleontology, you might be a lot
more effective against pretentious, self-centered, self-satisfied
jerks like Ron O.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 17:27:51 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>:

Well, to be fair he *did* say subjects in which he knows the
facts support him, not subjects in which the facts actually
support him. A subtle but crucial difference...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:20:43 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bruce Stephens
<bruce.r....@gmail.com>:

Of course! His purported "model" based on his "fundamental
equation" (the one which contains no terms involving natural
selection) says reptiles cannot grow feathers, so despite
the evidence to the contrary reptiles cannot grow feathers.
It all has something to do with tightly-controlled lab
experiments testing multiple drug therapies, whatever that's
worth...

Q.E.D.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Most species are already extinct, so it should not be surprising that there is some unusual appearing animal (bird) fossils that don't have any corresponding living examples. But this notion that some animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers will produce feathers is ridiculous. And I noticed you haven't told us what the physical law that would do this. Perhaps it is because there is no such physical law.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-8, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 3:00:03 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> > > Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 2:25:05 AM UTC-8, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> > > >> On 13/11/2017 03:24, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > >>> The reptiles grow feathers crowd is so desperate to have some kind of evidence for their irrational belief that they will buy into anything:
> > > >>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/
> > > >>> .
> > > >>> So if you are a mechanical engineer, what law of physics would make an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers, grow feathers? Are you sure you are a resident of Realville? If you believe that an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers will grow feathers, you had better check your zip-code, you are actually in Wonderland.
> > > >>
> > > >> So your position is that all of these "feathered dinosaur" fossils are
> > > >> faked?
> > > >
> > > > The ones that are not faked are misinterpreted.

Unfortunately for him, Alan is unable to explain where
the misinterpretation lies.

> > > > Of course, if you think that an animal which doesn't have the genes to produce feathers can grow feathers, explain to us how that happens.

This is NOT a coherent argument for any misinterpretation
having taken place.

> > >
> > > or as we say in the old country
> > >
> > > "Weil, so schließt er messerscharf,
> > > nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf."
> > Just because you want it to be, doesn't make it be. Of course, if you think that an animal which doesn't have the genes to produce feathers can grow feathers, explain to us how that happens.
> >
>
> The only answer the Darwinists can give is that it happens gradually/incrementally by RMNS. Since you accept existence of RMNS your opposition in this topic to the appearance of feathered creatures is undermined.

Only in the eyes of a population immutabilist.

Have you decided that being a species immutabilist is no fun
any more and are now deciding to be even bolder in your claims?

Are you now implying that those who claim that the frequency
of alleles changes in populations are traitors to Christianity
and have embraced Naturalism?

> And your on going master point in this topic supports species immutability.

What makes you think Alan ever denied it?

> DNA replication machines cannot produce anamolous adaptive genes.

Mutations happen for all that. An achondroplast might actually
do better on a planet with twice the gravity of earth than
a human of normal proportions.

> Yet the concept of random mutation says they can, it happens magically, when needed, Shazam! Without the aid of your God.

Nor with God's aid, in the World According to Ray Martinez.
Anyone who believes in common descent, even if he believes
God guided things along, is a traitor to proper Biblical
interpretation in your eyes, isn't he?

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 8:45:05 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> > > On 11/11/2017 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> > > >> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
> > > >>
> > > >> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
> > > >> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage.
>
> Ron O really seems to think that hairlike growths are feathers.
> Why didn't you call him on this, Alan. Didn't you look at the
> linked article?

The words “suggest” is used 3 times, “proposed” 3 times, “thought” 2 times, if I was interested in speculation, I would give some credence to this article.

>
> > > >> They can
> > > >> tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.
>
> I doubt that they got anywhere beyond light and dark. The article nowhere
> suggests spectral colors. But then, that sort of thing never stopped
> Ron O from pontificating.
>
>
> > > >> It had a banded tail like a pheasant, but since it was a long bony tail
> > > >> it was more like a raccoon tail with shorter hair. It sounds like it
> > > >> had a bandit mask like a bobwhite quail and a lighter under belly.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ron Okimoto
> > > >
> > > > This is going to be a short thread.
>
> Maybe, but there is lots going on here to which you are oblivious
> because of your lack of interest in paleontology.

Lots of speculation, when does the science start?

>
> True, Ron O himself has only a passing interest in paleontology, being much
> more fond of spewing contempt at people, but that's another story.
>
>
> > > > Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer into a feather producing replicator.
>
> What you don't seem to realize, Alan, is that those aren't feathers
> on Sinosauropteryx. They are hairlike growths that optimists like
> Harshman call "protofeathers" because he thinks they evolved into
> feathers later on.

I'm sure there are much more rational explanations for these findings on fossils. But I can't tell whether the reptiles grow feathers crowd suffers from folie à plusieurs or this is simply an example of confirmation bias.

>
>
> > >
> > > Why would I need to know all that? Feathers evolved. They weren't the
> > > feathers for flight, but they did serve some purpose. Just like hair on
> > > the first mammal like reptile that evolved hair. What more do you need?
> > >
> > > What do you not get. The paper would tell you that the feathers were
> > > likely insulation (conserving body heat). Evidence is accumulating that
> > > some dinos were warm blooded. What do mammals use fur for? The
> > > feathers had pigment in them. They formed patterns. These patterns are
> > > used today by animals for selective purposes. Camouflage, distraction
> > > when fleeing etc.
> > >
> > > What more do you want? The dino wasn't using feathers for flight.
> > > Flight evolved later. Feathers did not evolve so that birds could fly.
> > > Feathers obviously first evolved for the same reasons that hair evolved
> > > on mammals.
>
> Ron O is here showing what an amateur he is, unable to think of any
> reason for hair except his UNSPOKEN single reason hair evolved
> on synapsids.
>
> Hair has now been traced back to early synapsids that are tens of
> millions of years earlier than mammals.

You are going to have the same mathematical problem that the reptiles grow feather crowd has. How does an animal which does not have the genes to grow hairs acquire the genes to grow hairs?

>
> > >
> > > The raccoon has the same banded tail pattern and the bandit mask over
> > > the eyes. So do other existing birds and mammals.
> > >
> > > When what you have is not as good as what you claim is not good enough,
> > > what should that mean to you? What do you have that is better than this
> > > dino fossil?
>
> *I* have the fact that pterosaurs also had hairlike growths, but did
> not evolve feathers.
>
> And even YOU have the fact that no mammal ever evolved feathers
> despite having protofeathers -- excuse me, I mean hair. Even bats
> didn't evolve them, but solved the problem of flight a different way.
>
> And so your question was a good one.

How about this question, how does any gene evolve de novo?

>
>
> > > It is what you claim we need.
>
> Ron O continues to pretend that hairlike growths are feathers.
>
>
> > > It demonstrates that
> > > feathers did not evolve for flight, but that they had other functions
> > > when they were first evolving.
>
> > > What do you not get? Hair and feathers
> > > evolved from reptilian like scutes. Scutes are not the same as snake
> > > and lizard scales. Dinos had scutes and so did mammal like reptiles.
> > > Alligators, turtles and birds still have scutes.
> > >
> > > Try to learn something. Willful ignorance is dishonest and stupid.
>
> ...pot...kettle...
>
>
> > >
> > > Ron Okimoto
> >
> > Like I said, a very short thread. But I do appreciate Ronnie pointing out that feathers make good insulators. It gives me opportunity to use my line: "So you think that blizzards turn lizards into buzzards with gizzards?"
>
> If you actually had some interest in paleontology, you might be a lot
> more effective against pretentious, self-centered, self-satisfied
> jerks like Ron O.

I'm not Professor Irwin Corey, however, I do know something about rmns. And I do know how to apply mathematical principles to this phenomenon. And this idea that reptiles grow feathers by rmns is mathematically irrational. I even have a problem with the notion of a non-hair growing animal that starts growing hair.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 5:25:05 AM UTC-5, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> On 13/11/2017 03:24, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > The reptiles grow feathers crowd is so desperate to have some kind of evidence for their irrational belief that they will buy into anything:
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/
> > .
> > So if you are a mechanical engineer, what law of physics would make an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers, grow feathers? Are you sure you are a resident of Realville? If you believe that an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers will grow feathers, you had better check your zip-code, you are actually in Wonderland.

Alan is his usually superficial, condescending self above,
indulging in the fallacy of setting up a straw man. But that
doesn't mean that his critics on this thread are correct either.

> So your position is that all of these "feathered dinosaur" fossils are
> faked?

To which fossils are you referring? The only one posted to this thread
of which I know is that of Sinosauropteryx. Have you decided for
yourself that these hairlike structures are feathers, or are you
simply following the lead of Ron O? and/or Harshman, our resident
ornithologist?

Before you answer, I suggest you take a look at my one reply on
this thread to Kleinman so far, trying to prod him to look at
the scientific evidence with a keen eye. Here are some
excerpts, with deletia marked by [...] and names added in brackets:

_________________________ excerpts_____________________________


[Alan:]

> > > > > > Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted
> > > and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer
> > > into a feather producing replicator.

[Peter:]

What you don't seem to realize, Alan, is that those aren't feathers
on Sinosauropteryx. They are hairlike growths that optimists like
Harshman call "protofeathers" because he thinks they evolved into
feathers later on.

[...]

[Ron O:]

> > When what you have is not as good as what you claim is not good enough,
> > what should that mean to you? What do you have that is better than this
> > dino fossil?

*I* have the fact that pterosaurs also had hairlike growths, but did
not evolve feathers.

And even YOU have the fact that no mammal ever evolved feathers
despite having protofeathers -- excuse me, I mean hair. Even bats
didn't evolve them, but solved the problem of flight a different way.

And so your question was a good one.

=============== end of excerpts =======================

That's the only reply I've done to Kleinman on this thread
so far. In reply, he soon jumped on his rmns hobbyhorse, and
said nothing about them that he hasn't said numerous times before,
so I won't be replying to that one today.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Ray Martinez]

Your message provided me with valuable new insights into the falsity of evolutionary theory; thanks, brother.

Ray (Paleyan Creatioinist)

[Bill]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

...

>
>> >
>> > Why would I need to know all that? Feathers evolved.
>> > They weren't the
>> > feathers for flight, but they did serve some purpose.
>> > Just like hair on
>> > the first mammal like reptile that evolved hair. What
>> > more do you need?
>> >
>> > What do you not get. The paper would tell you that the
>> > feathers were
>> > likely insulation (conserving body heat). Evidence is
>> > accumulating that
>> > some dinos were warm blooded. What do mammals use fur
>> > for? The
>> > feathers had pigment in them. They formed patterns.
>> > These patterns are
>> > used today by animals for selective purposes.
>> > Camouflage, distraction when fleeing etc.
>> >
>> > What more do you want? The dino wasn't using feathers
>> > for flight.
>> > Flight evolved later. Feathers did not evolve so that
>> > birds could fly. Feathers obviously first evolved for
>> > the same reasons that hair evolved on mammals.

Since evolution begins with random mutations of very
specific genes which then develop into features that affect
the survivability of the organism.

The whole process is a series of unpredictable accidents.
The mutations are random so we can't know the outcome until
it happens. The post above argues that changes to an
organism are not random and not accidental but are guided by
the needs of the organism.

Consider: "Feathers evolved. They weren't the

feathers for flight, but they did serve some purpose.
Just like hair on the first mammal like reptile that evolved
hair."

Or: "feathers were likely insulation (conserving body
heat)."

Or: "the feathers had pigment in them. They formed

patterns. These patterns are used today by animals for
selective purposes. Camouflage, distraction when fleeing
etc."

The word, "evolved" is used to imply a kind magical
invocation that calls a kind of shapes-hifting spell that
enables organisms to conform to their environment. The
implication is that an organism is aware of its environment
and mutates deliberately to become better fit to survive it.

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 3:15:03 AM UTC-8, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 3:00:03 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> > > > Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 2:25:05 AM UTC-8, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> > > > >> On 13/11/2017 03:24, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > > > >>> The reptiles grow feathers crowd is so desperate to have some kind of evidence for their irrational belief that they will buy into anything:
> > > > >>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/
> > > > >>> .
> > > > >>> So if you are a mechanical engineer, what law of physics would make an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers, grow feathers? Are you sure you are a resident of Realville? If you believe that an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers will grow feathers, you had better check your zip-code, you are actually in Wonderland.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So your position is that all of these "feathered dinosaur" fossils are
> > > > >> faked?
> > > > >
> > > > > The ones that are not faked are misinterpreted.
>
> Unfortunately for him, Alan is unable to explain where
> the misinterpretation lies.

I didn't write the comment that you are commenting on so I won't comment.

>
> > > > > Of course, if you think that an animal which doesn't have the genes to produce feathers can grow feathers, explain to us how that happens.
>
> This is NOT a coherent argument for any misinterpretation
> having taken place.

I didn't write the comment that you are commenting on so I won't comment.

>
> > > >
> > > > or as we say in the old country
> > > >
> > > > "Weil, so schließt er messerscharf,
> > > > nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf."
> > > Just because you want it to be, doesn't make it be. Of course, if you think that an animal which doesn't have the genes to produce feathers can grow feathers, explain to us how that happens.
> > >
> >
> > The only answer the Darwinists can give is that it happens gradually/incrementally by RMNS. Since you accept existence of RMNS your opposition in this topic to the appearance of feathered creatures is undermined.
>
> Only in the eyes of a population immutabilist.
>
> Have you decided that being a species immutabilist is no fun
> any more and are now deciding to be even bolder in your claims?

I've always made these claims.

>
> Are you now implying that those who claim that the frequency
> of alleles changes in populations are traitors to Christianity
> and have embraced Naturalism?

Peter alludes to the allele frequency change definition of evolution then makes two false implications; (1) said definition wasn't made in service to Naturalism epistemology; and (2) that Christianity and natural evolution do not contradict. Yet the latter explicitly says creation miracles do not occur----Creationism is false; and the former came into existence via two miracles (Virgin birth; Resurrection) and does of course accept creation miracles.

>
>
> > And your on going master point in this topic supports species immutability.
> >
> What makes you think Alan ever denied it?

You don't know that Alan accepts RMNS?

>
>
> > DNA replication machines cannot produce anamolous adaptive genes.
>

> Mutations happen for all that. [snip....]

That's what I said below; Shazam! As needed, called accidents by Darwinists. Life came about via a series of lucky accidents. They call it science; we call it natural magic.

>
> > Yet the concept of random mutation says they can, it happens magically, when needed, Shazam! Without the aid of your God.
> >
> Nor with God's aid, in the World According to Ray Martinez.

That's what "natural evolution" means: absence of the supernatural/God. How could God author or guide some thing that SPECIFICALLY says He is not involved?

Selection is described as unguided, undirected, unintelligent, which means invisible Intelligence, Director, and Guide are KNOWN not to be present.

> Anyone who believes in common descent, even if he believes
> God guided things along, is a traitor to proper Biblical
> interpretation in your eyes, isn't he?
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

How would you describe Theists and Christians who accept a pro-Atheism explanation of evidence instead of a pro-Theism explanation of evidence?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Your commentary shows how utterly impossible that evolution actually is. Mutation continually lucks-out and eventually creates something that's not selected unintelligently. The scenario had to occur how many times to produce biodiversity----organized complexity? Simply impossible unless one is an Atheist who has no choice but to believe in this natural magic called random mutation.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

And I might add: Alan believes in his equally wacky version of random mutation. In Kleinman random mutation, the process is acutely aware of the existence of natural selection; a fully material entity possesses knowledge. Of course that isn't even remotely possible. In both Kleinman random mutation and Darwinian random mutation a human being is providing the knowledge. Just imagine a puppet show with "invisible strings."

Ray

[ed wolf]

You keep going on about those genes we know so little about. What we have
is pieces of limestone with the remains or traces of remains of some
animal. So far no genes involved. What we have is something that looks
like a bipedal reptile with feathers according to the people describing
it. I only saw pictures on a monitor. But my hunch is there is real
science going on, meaning a debate among people with training and
experience in this matter. Also it is not the only "Dinosaur " with
feathers, Wikipedia et.al. have lots.I get the feeling you are painting
youself in some corner, if indeed there are Dinosaur with feathers what
you gonna say? And how do you account for those fossils that look like
feathered to any layman?

http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/files/02microraptor-fossil2-sm.jpg
http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/files/01microraptor-fossil-sm.jpg
https://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/img_6049.jpg
and Wikipedia has an overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

Please do not write again they did not have feathers because they
had no genes for feathers. While it might be shown they had feathers
or maybe something completely different that looked like feathers,
the genes are not fossilized, and no way you know what genes they
had execpt by looking at their fossilized remains and studying their
family tree. Doing it the other way around and saying what can be seen
can not be there because you know the gene to build that structure was
not there seems odd.
(as many have pointed out many times in many different words)
ed

[jillery]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:32:50 -0800 (PST), ed wolf <eduar...@gmx.net>
wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with your main point, that it's not enough to
baldly declare skepticism, but it must be accompanied by explanation,
which is a point I make from time to time.

However, I caution you about claiming that your confidence in science
is based on belief, as doing so exposes you to the anti-science
crowd's claim, with some justification, that your beliefs are no
different than their beliefs.

Although you may not know how to verify the authenticity of a fossil
in practice, there is nothing stopping you from learning how. There
are people who do know how, and they teach people like you and me all
the time. And if that doesn't fit your style, there are lots of
available and (nearly) free resources you can use to teach yourself.

Ultimately, your "belief" in science is different from their belief in
that there is material evidence to back it up.

[jillery]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:58:26 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net> wrote:

>On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 8:45:05 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>> > > On 11/11/2017 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>> > > >> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
>> > > >> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage.
>>
>> Ron O really seems to think that hairlike growths are feathers.
>> Why didn't you call him on this, Alan. Didn't you look at the
>> linked article?
>The words “suggest” is used 3 times, “proposed” 3 times, “thought” 2 times, if I was interested in speculation, I would give some credence to this article.

Not sure how either of you think "reptiles grow hair" makes more sense
than "reptiles grow feathers".

[jillery]

Is there some reason you haven't answered my question, about who you
think has asserted anything like your claim above? Is it perhaps
because you know your claim is just another stupid strawman, and you
have nothing intelligent to say?

[jillery]

No, it's not.

>that calls a kind of shapes-hifting spell that
>enables organisms to conform to their environment.

Organisms don't evolve, species do. Write that backwards on your
forehead, to help remind you every morning.

>The
>implication is that an organism is aware of its environment
>and mutates deliberately to become better fit to survive it.
>
>Bill
>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Of course, there is no genetic record which means the reptiles grow feathers crowd can make up any kind of story they want. My argument is that rmns cannot do the transformation of a non-feather producing organism into an organism which produces feathers. This is based on how rmns works today. The reason this can't happen is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

[Bill]

So an entire species is modified by the same mutation at the
same time? How fortuitous.

Bill

[jillery]

Not sure if you can manage to fart and chew gum at the same time.

[Bill]

I'm sure someone here can explain how.


Bill

[ed wolf]

Would you put your hobby horse explanations away for
a look at reality?
-What do you think these fossils are?
-Do you agree there are birds now, and some time ago
there where no birds? Yes or no, and can you offer an
explanation consistent with " the laws of physics?"
-Do you agree there was an evolution from from very basic
to very complex animals? If yes, genes must have
evolved that absolutely where not there before. Feathers
seem to be a rather minor problem on this path.
Please answer these points , your blunt insistence on the
impossibility of what is clearly visible is going nowhere.
Ed

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 8:20:02 PM UTC-8, ed wolf wrote:
> Would you put your hobby horse explanations away for
> a look at reality?

Reptiles growing feathers is not reality.

> -What do you think these fossils are?

They are not examples of reptiles growing feathers.

> -Do you agree there are birds now, and some time ago
> there where no birds? Yes or no, and can you offer an
> explanation consistent with " the laws of physics?"

I don't think that birds existed eternally.

> -Do you agree there was an evolution from from very basic
> to very complex animals? If yes, genes must have
> evolved that absolutely where not there before. Feathers
> seem to be a rather minor problem on this path.

Absolutely not. rmns works ok for a single selection pressure targeting a single gene but selection pressures targeting multiple genetic loci simultaneously stifles the phenomenon. HIV evolving to selection pressures targeting only two genes at a time is not a very basic to very complex evolutionary process but the virus can not do it efficiently. So this notion that some simple replicator in a primordial soup, over time with rmns turn into Ed Wolf is madness.

> Please answer these points , your blunt insistence on the
> impossibility of what is clearly visible is going nowhere.

Ed, understand this, the joint probability of random independent events occurring is governed by the multiplication rule of probabilities. This is why the TOE is going nowhere.
> Ed

[Bill Rogers]

Alan, you've said that the joint probability of random independent events is governed by the multiplication rule of probability. That's true. You told Ron that the Lenski experiment worked the way it did because of the multiplication rule of probability.

But when you apply the multiplication rule in a straightforward way, by multiplying the individual probabilities of each of 80 mutants occurring, you find that 10e640 replications would be required to get the mutations that Lenski observed.

So which probabilities do you have to multiply together to get a more realistic value for the n*nG that would be required for Lenski to get his 80 mutations?

*****I understand the verbal explanation involving sequential selection. But, according to you, there should be a mathematical explanation involving multiplying some probabilities together. Which ones? What's the equation, not the verbal explanation, that describes how you get those 80 mutations in a realistic number of generations?******

This is a simple experiment, no sexual recombination, constant environmental conditions, a single selection pressure. If you can't show which probabilities to multiply together to describe what actually happens in this experiment then your model doesn't look very promising.

Let's set aside scales and feathers, HIV, and malaria. Those are all far more complicated than the Lenski experiment. Just show us which probabilities need to be multiplied together to explain the result.

> > Ed

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Bill, I explain this in the Layman's abstract,
http://www.statisticsviews.com/details/news/10604248/Laymans-abstract-Random-mutation-and-natural-selection-a-predictable-phenomenon.html
Here's the paragraph in which I explain the differences in the two probabilities.
.
“In order for a replicator to adapt to a targeted selection pressure, the targeted selection pressure resistant variant must follow a mathematical pattern in order for a lineage to accumulate the mutations necessary to give resistance to that targeted selection pressure. This mathematical pattern can be illustrated with a simple analogy. Assume that for your family to survive, your family must win two lotteries. Let the probability of winning one lottery be 1 in a million and the probability of winning the other lottery also be 1 in a million. For you to win both those lotteries, that probability would be 1 in a million time 1 in a million, 1 in a trillion, a very low probability. But let us say that you are lucky enough that you win one of the lotteries and now you are very wealthy. And because of your wealth, you can raise a very large family. And now all your descendants start buying tickets to the second lottery. When the number of your descendants are large enough, you will have a reasonable probability that one of your descendants will win that second lottery for your family.”
.
The difference between the winning of the two lotteries cases is that in one instance, a single player must win both lotteries which is a much lower probability than if two players who are related to each other, each win one of the lotteries. What you are trying to do with your calculation is force the winning of all the lotteries on to a single replication of the bacteria, that is a single individual in a single replication winning all 80 of the lotteries when rmns is actually only imposing a sequence of 80 single lotteries where only a single lottery must be won at a time. When you have lots of related players playing for each lottery, the probabilities are much higher that a single member in that set will win that next lottery. rmns is a cycle of beneficial mutation followed by amplification of that mutation in order to overcome that single instance of the multiplication rule for each beneficial mutation.
.
The editors of the journal “Malaria” have asked me to submit a paper which I have written and friends of mine are reading it now. After I get their opinion, I'll submit the paper soon. In that paper, I address what I think is the most important clinical issue when using combination therapy which you didn't address in your paper, as well as a simple graphical explanation of how combination therapy affects populations.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:58:26 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 8:45:05 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> >> > > On 11/11/2017 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> >> > > >> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
> >> > > >> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage.
> >>
> >> Ron O really seems to think that hairlike growths are feathers.
> >> Why didn't you call him on this, Alan. Didn't you look at the
> >> linked article?
> >The words “suggest” is used 3 times, “proposed” 3 times, “thought” 2 times, if I was interested in speculation, I would give some credence to this article.
>
>
> Not sure how either of you think "reptiles grow hair" makes more sense
> than "reptiles grow feathers".

Not sure how YOU think that either, since you said exactly as much
about either of them "making sense" as I did -- NOTHING. [1]

Now, Alan is a different matter, but he hasn't responded yet, so perhaps
you should do a direct reply to him, asking the same question, but
with "both of" left off.

Better yet, just read what he wrote about hair not making sense either,
and ask him whether he thinks the two EQUALLY fail to make sense.

[1] I have been convinced of the reality of birds and mammals both
descending from reptiles, and before them amphibians, and before them
fish, ever since the age of 10 [2]. And since it never occurred to me
that Sarcopterygian fish might have had hair, both ideas make perfect
sense to me, once the creationist jargon [3] is eliminated and the
issue put into language that makes scientific sense.

[2] There is a canard going around that my ideas about things as
diverse as paleontology and homosexuality were fixed at the age
of 12. But I suspect the chief propagator of this canard would be
mortified to learn that my ideas on homosexuality at the age of 12
could be summed up with "seems perfectly reasonable to me, so what's
the big deal?"

[3] I suspect Alan's favorite line about "the reptiles growing feathers
crowd" is parroted from creationist websites and he's never ever tried
to figure out what it's really saying. That would explain why he
cannot answer my questions when I try to probe what HE means by it.


You didn't respond to anything below, but I left in a substantive
issue which no one else here -- least of all Ron O -- seems to be
aware of.

>
> >> > > >> They can
> >> > > >> tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.
> >>
> >> I doubt that they got anywhere beyond light and dark. The article nowhere
> >> suggests spectral colors. But then, that sort of thing never stopped
> >> Ron O from pontificating.

<snip rest>

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Bill Rogers]

You didn't answer my question. I've read your prose many times. You say you have a mathematical model. Apply it to the Lenski experiment. You've said the Lenski experiment is governed by the multiplication rule of probabilities. Show us what probabilities you have to multiply together to predict the observed result.

> .
> The editors of the journal “Malaria” have asked me to submit a paper which I have written and friends of mine are reading it now. After I get their opinion, I'll submit the paper soon. In that paper, I address what I think is the most important clinical issue when using combination therapy which you didn't address in your paper, as well as a simple graphical explanation of how combination therapy affects populations.

In other words, you cannot write out the equations that show how to apply the "multiplication rule of probabilities" to Lenski's experiment. You cannot show which probabilities get multiplied together to give you a reasonable chance of getting Lenski's 80 mutations within a realistic number of replications.

In still other words, you cannot model even the simplest in vitro evolution experiment.

[jillery]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:07:37 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:58:26 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 8:45:05 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>> >> > > On 11/11/2017 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> >> > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
>> >> > > >> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
>> >> > > >> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage.
>> >>
>> >> Ron O really seems to think that hairlike growths are feathers.
>> >> Why didn't you call him on this, Alan. Didn't you look at the
>> >> linked article?
>> >The words “suggest” is used 3 times, “proposed” 3 times, “thought” 2 times, if I was interested in speculation, I would give some credence to this article.
>>
>>
>> Not sure how either of you think "reptiles grow hair" makes more sense
>> than "reptiles grow feathers".
>
>Not sure how YOU think that either, since you said exactly as much
>about either of them "making sense" as I did -- NOTHING. [1]

Not sure how you think I think that. OTOH if *you* don't think that,
then your comments about "hairlike growths" immediately above and in
other topics are paradoxical at least.

>Now, Alan is a different matter, but he hasn't responded yet, so perhaps
>you should do a direct reply to him, asking the same question, but
>with "both of" left off.

My reply to which you responded *is* a direct reply to the good DrDr.
Try to keep up, if only for the novelty of the experience.

>Better yet, just read what he wrote about hair not making sense either,
>and ask him whether he thinks the two EQUALLY fail to make sense.
>
>[1] I have been convinced of the reality of birds and mammals both
>descending from reptiles, and before them amphibians, and before them
>fish, ever since the age of 10 [2]. And since it never occurred to me
>that Sarcopterygian fish might have had hair, both ideas make perfect
>sense to me, once the creationist jargon [3] is eliminated and the
>issue put into language that makes scientific sense.
>
>[2] There is a canard going around that my ideas about things as
>diverse as paleontology and homosexuality were fixed at the age
>of 12. But I suspect the chief propagator of this canard would be
>mortified to learn that my ideas on homosexuality at the age of 12
>could be summed up with "seems perfectly reasonable to me, so what's
>the big deal?"
>
>[3] I suspect Alan's favorite line about "the reptiles growing feathers
>crowd" is parroted from creationist websites and he's never ever tried
>to figure out what it's really saying. That would explain why he
>cannot answer my questions when I try to probe what HE means by it.
>
>
>You didn't respond to anything below, but I left in a substantive
>issue which no one else here -- least of all Ron O -- seems to be
>aware of.

Once again you show that you have a unique understanding of
"substantive issue".

>> >> > > >> They can
>> >> > > >> tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.
>> >>
>> >> I doubt that they got anywhere beyond light and dark. The article nowhere
>> >> suggests spectral colors. But then, that sort of thing never stopped
>> >> Ron O from pontificating.
>
>
><snip rest>
>
>
>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>U. of South Carolina
>http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[jillery]

I'm sure no one can give a good explanation why you can't fart and

chew gum at the same time.

[jillery]

Let's see if the good DrDr will answer these questions for you after
he refused to answer them for me.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 8:10:06 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:58:26 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 8:45:05 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> > >> > > On 11/11/2017 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > >> > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> > >> > > >> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
> > >> > > >> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage.
> > >>
> > >> Ron O really seems to think that hairlike growths are feathers.
> > >> Why didn't you call him on this, Alan. Didn't you look at the
> > >> linked article?
> > >The words “suggest” is used 3 times, “proposed” 3 times, “thought” 2 times, if I was interested in speculation, I would give some credence to this article.
> >
> >
> > Not sure how either of you think "reptiles grow hair" makes more sense
> > than "reptiles grow feathers".
>
> Not sure how YOU think that either, since you said exactly as much
> about either of them "making sense" as I did -- NOTHING. [1]
>
> Now, Alan is a different matter, but he hasn't responded yet, so perhaps
> you should do a direct reply to him, asking the same question, but
> with "both of" left off.

I have responded, speculation does not qualify as scientific evidence.

>
> Better yet, just read what he wrote about hair not making sense either,
> and ask him whether he thinks the two EQUALLY fail to make sense.

Yes, EQUALLY. Any new genetic function arising by rmns will be limited by the multiplication rule of probabilities and the existence of the selection pressures that would attempt to select for that new function.

>
> [1] I have been convinced of the reality of birds and mammals both
> descending from reptiles, and before them amphibians, and before them
> fish, ever since the age of 10 [2]. And since it never occurred to me
> that Sarcopterygian fish might have had hair, both ideas make perfect
> sense to me, once the creationist jargon [3] is eliminated and the
> issue put into language that makes scientific sense.

Interesting, it was age 10 that I was first made aware of the effect of the multiplication rule on rmns. Once you understand this, you will recognize how grossly over-extrapolated the ability of rmns to transform genetic function.

>
> [2] There is a canard going around that my ideas about things as
> diverse as paleontology and homosexuality were fixed at the age
> of 12. But I suspect the chief propagator of this canard would be
> mortified to learn that my ideas on homosexuality at the age of 12
> could be summed up with "seems perfectly reasonable to me, so what's
> the big deal?"
>
> [3] I suspect Alan's favorite line about "the reptiles growing feathers
> crowd" is parroted from creationist websites and he's never ever tried
> to figure out what it's really saying. That would explain why he
> cannot answer my questions when I try to probe what HE means by it.

Hate to disappoint you on this one but that line you will have to attribute to me. But you should read some creationist websites. Their approach to the debate of science is not so inappropriate as the biased reptiles grow feathers websites. But I also read the reptiles grow feathers websites as well. You just have to sort out which is fact and which is rank speculation. To give you an example, I suspect that Lenski is one of the reptiles grows feathers crowd but that doesn't mean he can't do a good experiment. Perhaps at some point, Lenski will be able to figure out how rmns works (if he doesn't want to read my papers) from the results of his experiment. I've read his work and he is fumbling around at this point. Or Schneider (at the National Cancer Institute), another reptiles grows feathers devotee also wrote a good computer simulation of rmns but fails to do a thorough analysis of his simulation and then draws ridiculous conclusions based on his superficial analysis. Schneider actually could help the people he's paid to help if he correctly describes how rmns works.

>
>
> You didn't respond to anything below, but I left in a substantive
> issue which no one else here -- least of all Ron O -- seems to be
> aware of.

I'm not sure of what response you are looking for. If you want to debate the reptiles grow feathers evolutionary process, tell us what the selection pressures are, the genes targeted by the selection pressures and the mutations required and I will tell you if there is a reasonable probability of that occurring.

[Bill]

Brilliant! I had believed that you and some other posters
here are merely dimwits. I realize now that I was being far
too generous.

Bill

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:07:37 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:58:26 -0800 (PST), Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> <klei...@sti.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:25:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 8:45:05 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> >> >> > > On 11/11/2017 9:08 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:55:03 AM UTC-8, Ron O wrote:
> >> >> > > >> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31197-1
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> The article is free to download. The dino feathers were not used for
> >> >> > > >> flight, but for insulation and ornamentation and camouflage.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ron O really seems to think that hairlike growths are feathers.
> >> >> Why didn't you call him on this, Alan. Didn't you look at the
> >> >> linked article?
> >> >The words “suggest” is used 3 times, “proposed” 3 times, “thought” 2 times, if I was interested in speculation, I would give some credence to this article.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not sure how either of you think "reptiles grow hair" makes more sense
> >> than "reptiles grow feathers".
> >
> >Not sure how YOU think that either, since you said exactly as much
> >about either of them "making sense" as I did -- NOTHING. [1]
>
>
> Not sure how you think I think that.

I don't. I was just applying your own reasoning, or lack of it,
right back at you.

Apparently "lack of it" applies, from what you write next.

> OTOH if *you* don't think that,
> then your comments about "hairlike growths" immediately above and in
> other topics are paradoxical at least.

There is nothing paradoxical about setting the record straight
on what those "feathers" REALLY are: hairlike growths.

>
> >Now, Alan is a different matter, but he hasn't responded yet, so perhaps
> >you should do a direct reply to him, asking the same question, but
> >with "both of" left off.
>
>
> My reply to which you responded *is* a direct reply to the good DrDr.

No, it is not, not by hallowed talk.origins standards. A direct reply
to a person is one where one follows up directly to a post of the person,
rather than to a post of someone further down the thread.

And Kleinman is certainly treating it that way, just as Ron O
is completely ignoring my reply to Kleinman, as well as my
reply to Bruce Stephens, even though both are full of criticism
about him.

> Try to keep up, if only for the novelty of the experience.

Baseless put-down.

>
> >Better yet, just read what he wrote about hair not making sense either,
> >and ask him whether he thinks the two EQUALLY fail to make sense.
> >
> >[1] I have been convinced of the reality of birds and mammals both
> >descending from reptiles, and before them amphibians, and before them
> >fish, ever since the age of 10 [2]. And since it never occurred to me
> >that Sarcopterygian fish might have had hair, both ideas make perfect
> >sense to me, once the creationist jargon [3] is eliminated and the
> >issue put into language that makes scientific sense.
> >
> >[2] There is a canard going around that my ideas about things as
> >diverse as paleontology and homosexuality were fixed at the age
> >of 12. But I suspect the chief propagator of this canard would be
> >mortified to learn that my ideas on homosexuality at the age of 12
> >could be summed up with "seems perfectly reasonable to me, so what's
> >the big deal?"
> >
> >[3] I suspect Alan's favorite line about "the reptiles growing feathers
> >crowd" is parroted from creationist websites and he's never ever tried
> >to figure out what it's really saying. That would explain why he
> >cannot answer my questions when I try to probe what HE means by it.
> >
> >
> >You didn't respond to anything below, but I left in a substantive
> >issue which no one else here -- least of all Ron O -- seems to be
> >aware of.
>
>
> Once again you show that you have a unique understanding of
> "substantive issue".

What's unique about thinking that a discussion of the research
described by the scientific article linked in the OP is substantive?

> >> >> > > >> They can
> >> >> > > >> tell the color of the feathers by the melanosomes that fossilized.
> >> >>
> >> >> I doubt that they got anywhere beyond light and dark. The article nowhere
> >> >> suggests spectral colors. But then, that sort of thing never stopped
> >> >> Ron O from pontificating.
> >
> >
> ><snip rest>


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

> > So if you are a mechanical engineer, what law of physics would make an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers, grow feathers? Are you sure you are a resident of Realville? If you believe that an animal that doesn't have the genes to produce feathers will grow feathers, you had better check your zip-code, you are actually in Wonderland.
>
>
> My concern is not what should or should not be
> according to me, but how to explain what is the
> case and maybe predict what will happen in certain
> circumstances. Observation and description are first.
> Explanations must fit the observed facts. Instead of
> disputing genes of fossils we should have a close look
> at those bits and pieces. If there are feathers, arms with
> claws, long legs and pointy teeth we have something
> interesting.

Yes. For example, Archaeopteryx fits that description perfectly,
but over a century and a half of scientific and popular tradition
have it that it was a (very primitive) bird.

> Do you agree so far? Personally I can not
> verify the autenticity of a fossil, not even the beautiful
> Archeopterix here in Berlin. But I believe science works
> in the long run, and there are feathered fossils that look
> to me like no bird at all.

Which ones might those be? Do you really think those hairlike
growths on Sinosauropteryx are feathers?

Before you answer, I suggest you look at what I wrote in my
first post to this thread. Here is the most relevant part,
with deletia marked by [...] and names added in brackets:

_________________________ excerpts_____________________________


[Alan:]

> > > > > > Ron, tell us what the selection pressures were, the genes targeted
> > > and the mutations required to make a non-feather producer
> > > into a feather producing replicator.

[Peter:]

What you don't seem to realize, Alan, is that those aren't feathers
on Sinosauropteryx. They are hairlike growths that optimists like
Harshman call "protofeathers" because he thinks they evolved into
feathers later on.

[...]

[Ron O:]

> > When what you have is not as good as what you claim is not good enough,
> > what should that mean to you? What do you have that is better than this
> > dino fossil?

*I* have the fact that pterosaurs also had hairlike growths, but did
not evolve feathers.

And even YOU have the fact that no mammal ever evolved feathers
despite having protofeathers -- excuse me, I mean hair. Even bats
didn't evolve them, but solved the problem of flight a different way.

And so your question was a good one.

=============== end of excerpts =======================

> And I do believe they are no
> hoax or fake, all of them.
> (Just like I believe the spectacular pictures from Hubble
> are more than just photoshopped fraud. )
> If you argue all feathered "non- birds" are fraud or wishful
> interpretation , say so. But dont argue along the lines of
> " I know it can't be so it is not ".
> Rather show why you have reason to doubt the current
> observation and description of these fossils.

As you found out, Alan is almost impervious to this kind of talk.
I've kept hammering away at the fossil evidence on another thread,

What's wrong with Alan's Model of "rmns"?

and he may finally have given me an opening where the fossil
evidence on horse evolution is concerned, but it's too early
to tell.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina, Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Burkhard]

Of course it doesn't. The post argues that the changes are random, but
what changes are kept, and hence proliferate through the population, is
not accidental but a result of causal, deterministic interaction with
the environment.

>
> Consider: "Feathers evolved. They weren't the
> feathers for flight, but they did serve some purpose.
> Just like hair on the first mammal like reptile that evolved
> hair."

Yes, and your point? Some animals, but not all of the species, got
(proto) feathers through a fortuitous mutation. In a cold environment,
that meant they lost less body heat, needed therefore less food, and
thus died less often from starvation before they could have offspring,
and as a result that trait was passed on more often than the one without
feathers.

>
> Or: "feathers were likely insulation (conserving body
> heat)."

Yup, similar to the above - so what?

>
> Or: "the feathers had pigment in them. They formed
> patterns. These patterns are used today by animals for
> selective purposes. Camouflage, distraction when fleeing
> etc."
>

Again, so what? Having feathers meant those with them were more likely
to survive the cold. If they also found themselves in an environment wit
predators, they were less likely to be spotted (pattern) Again, that
meant their chances to breed were higher than those without.

> The word, "evolved" is used to imply a kind magical

> invocation that calls a kind of shapes-hifting spell that

> enables organisms to conform to their environment.

No, it simply means that those that do not fit the environment are more
likely to die. Sometimes that's an entire species, sometimes it isn't

The
> implication is that an organism is aware of its environment
> and mutates deliberately to become better fit to survive it.

The implication only exist in your mind. Nothing in your quotes implies
awareness or deliberation. Mutations happen or do not happen. Some of
them might give the organism and advantage in a given environment, many
don't. If they bestow an advantage, selection sees to it that it becomes
over time more common, again no deliberation needed.

>
> Bill
>
>

[jillery]

Sez the retard who can't comprehend written English and is proud of
it.

[jillery]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:26:29 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised.

It's apparent only in your deluded mind.

>> OTOH if *you* don't think that,
>> then your comments about "hairlike growths" immediately above and in
>> other topics are paradoxical at least.
>
>There is nothing paradoxical about setting the record straight
>on what those "feathers" REALLY are: hairlike growths.

Not sure how your silly semantic distinction makes any difference
here, but to avoid further pointless bickering, I shall rephrase: Not
sure how either of you think "reptiles grow hairlike growths" makes
more sense than "reptiles grow feathers". Feel better now?

>> >Now, Alan is a different matter, but he hasn't responded yet, so perhaps
>> >you should do a direct reply to him, asking the same question, but
>> >with "both of" left off.
>>
>>
>> My reply to which you responded *is* a direct reply to the good DrDr.
>
>No, it is not, not by hallowed talk.origins standards. A direct reply
>to a person is one where one follows up directly to a post of the person,
>rather than to a post of someone further down the thread.

Rather that compulsively and pointlessly argue the point, you could
just look at the attributions. That's the T.O. standard I know.

Or are you claiming that you wrote the words immediately above my
reply? In that case, once again, you simply have no ides what you're
talking about.

>And Kleinman is certainly treating it that way, just as Ron O
>is completely ignoring my reply to Kleinman, as well as my
>reply to Bruce Stephens, even though both are full of criticism
>about him.
>
>
>> Try to keep up, if only for the novelty of the experience.
>
>Baseless put-down.

Your baseless put-downs disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged baseless put-downs. Tu quoque back atcha, asshole.


>> ><snip rest>


Works for me.

>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>U. of South Carolina at Columbia
>http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

Too bad you went back to ignoring your students so soon.