No bald birds

[JTEM is my hero]

You can have a bird without flight.

You can have flight without a bird.

You can have feathers without a bird.

BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!

Why is that? What makes feathers indispensable?

Any ideas? And sound inferences? Hmmm?

Why can't there be such a thing as a bald
bird?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153

[Ernest Major]

On 07/12/2017 22:49, Sean Dillon wrote:

> There's no saying that one COULDN'T. There simply don't seem to be any.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2307-featherless-chicken-creates-a-flap/
>
> Can you name any species of bird in which the feathers serve no purpose? Whether for flight, or temperature regulation, or threat display, or mating display? As long as the feathers serve a purpose, they are liable to be evolutionarily retained.
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[Sean Dillon]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 3:25:04 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Nothing saying that there COULDN'T be, there simply isn't. There's a difference.

Can you name any species of bird for which feathers serve no purpose to the individual... be it for flight, temperature regulation, thread display, or mating display, or something else?

A feature will tend to be evolutionarily retained, so long as the value of retaining it outweighs the cost of maintaining it. So if we can't point to a bird with useless feathers, that's our answer: there are no featherless birds because feathers are versatile in their uses.

Even if they served no other purpose, I suspect that feathers would continue to be a marker of good health in mate selection, and thus tend to be retained, unless the benefits of NOT having feathers were fairly significant.

[Sean Dillon]

Helpfully, the article even provides an explanation for why such a thing doesn't exist in the wild:

"But critics say past experience with feather-free chickens resulting from random genetic mutation shows they suffer more than normal birds. Males have been unable to mate, because they cannot flap their wings, and “naked” chickens of both sexes are more susceptible to parasites, mosquito attacks and sunburn. "

[JTEM is my hero]

Ernest Major wrote:
[---snip---]

The product of genetic engineering is hardly
germane to the subject.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153

[JTEM is my hero]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> Nothing saying that there COULDN'T be, there simply isn't. There's a difference.

Stop with the dick fencing.

There's never been. So that does suggest that
there couldn't be.

The rule is that things which CAN happen in
nature DO happen in nature, even if only
rarely.

> Can you name any species of bird for which feathers serve no purpose to the individual... be it for flight, temperature regulation, thread display, or mating display, or something else?

Nature has found other ways to accomplish or
do without all of these tasks.

> that's our answer: there are no featherless birds because feathers are versatile in their uses.

That's *Not* an answer! Everything I've said
could be construed as presuming that there is
a reason for it -- for the lack of bald
birds. The issue here is that there has never
once been an exception, though nature has
wrestled with all the issues you mentioned sans
feathers.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153

[Sean Dillon]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 6:00:03 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > Nothing saying that there COULDN'T be, there simply isn't. There's a difference.
>
> Stop with the dick fencing.
>
> There's never been. So that does suggest that
> there couldn't be.
>
> The rule is that things which CAN happen in
> nature DO happen in nature, even if only
> rarely.

I'm not dick-fencing. That's an important distinction. The number of things that COULD evolve, under the proper conditions, dwarfs the number of things that HAVE evolved, under actual conditions. Environmental conditions are highly constraining.

>
> > Can you name any species of bird for which feathers serve no purpose to the individual... be it for flight, temperature regulation, thread display, or mating display, or something else?
>
> Nature has found other ways to accomplish or
> do without all of these tasks.

But having developed a feature -- feathers -- that DOES serve well for all these purposes, why would a lineage ever lose that feature?

>
> > that's our answer: there are no featherless birds because feathers are versatile in their uses.
>
> That's *Not* an answer! Everything I've said
> could be construed as presuming that there is
> a reason for it -- for the lack of bald
> birds. The issue here is that there has never
> once been an exception, though nature has
> wrestled with all the issues you mentioned sans
> feathers.
>

Well, A) We can't actually know that there has never been an exception, and B) Again... having developed a strategy that works for a wide variety of problems (feathers), why would evolution ever abandon that strategy, just to develop other strategies to address those same problems? Evolution doesn't work that way.

Of course, there are PARTIALLY featherless birds, such as vultures, that have no feathers on their heads, and there are very good evolutionary reasons for that too.

>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153

[RonO]

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-13-257

Scaleless is a naturally occurring mutation in the FGF20 gene. It is a
single base substitution in the gene. It is not genetic engineering.
It is a spontaneous mutation that occurred in a domestic chicken flock
and it has been bred into other lines for research purposes.

No scales, means no scutes, but if you can't make scutes feather
development is also messed up so you get impaired scale development and
impaired feather development. Do you want to guess why that is? What
did feathers evolve from? Think really hard, but don't hurt yourself.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM is my hero]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> I'm not dick-fencing. That's an important distinction. The number of things that COULD evolve, under the proper conditions, dwarfs the number of things that HAVE evolved, under actual conditions. Environmental conditions are highly constraining.

There are more bird species than mammal species.
Birds occupy every environment from the arctic
to the desert. But, they are never bald.

> > Nature has found other ways to accomplish or
> > do without all of these tasks.

> But having developed a feature -- feathers -- that DOES serve well for all these purposes, why would a lineage ever lose that feature?

That's logic. Evolution isn't logic.

Fact is, if a species needs it's feathers to,
say, protect it from the sun, then a "Logical"
adaptation to a dark/shaded environment would
be to lose those feathers.

And, of course, this is true for everything.

If they need the feathers to protect against
parasites, then the lack of those parasites
should open the door to losing the feathers.

Sexual dimorphism? Look at chickens! a rooster
has far more pronounced wattles & combs, making
them easily recognizable from a distance. They're
also larger than hens and they crow...

They point is that every conceivable use you can
bestow upon feathers can be OR ALREADY IS achieved
by other means, and the feathers remain.

So, yes, I believe that there is something
fundamental about feathers. It's not just
that they're useful HERE or THERE, there is
something about feathers that goes beyond
practical use, but it's still important.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:20:44 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>You can have a bird without flight.
>
>You can have flight without a bird.
>
>You can have feathers without a bird.
>
>BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!
>
>Why is that? What makes feathers indispensable?
>
>Any ideas? And sound inferences? Hmmm?
>
>Why can't there be such a thing as a bald
>bird?

So you think all those images of bald birds are.... faked???....
rubber chickens???... what???

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-13-257

Your cite furthers my point:

: the trait [baldness] is potentially useful in tropical
: agriculture due to the ability of featherless chickens
: to tolerate heat, which is at present a major constraint
: to efficient poultry meat production in hot climates.

So feathers hinder a birds ability to tolerate
tropical heat?

...I know it's talking about chickens but it
does suggest that feathers aren't always just
a great idea, not for every environment. Yet
we don't know of any featherless birds, not even
large tropical birds.







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153

[jillery]

As proved by the quoted text above, "in the wild" isn't a
specification from the OP. Just sayin'.

[jillery]

Has anybody else noticed how TIBAMJTEM switched from "bald" to
"featherless"?

[Sean Dillon]

Ah... but you missed the trade-offs for those chickens:

"But critics say past experience with feather-free chickens resulting from random genetic mutation shows they suffer more than normal birds. Males have been unable to mate, because they cannot flap their wings, and “naked” chickens of both sexes are more susceptible to parasites, mosquito attacks and sunburn. "

So any advantage in staying cool is more than offset by the sorts of problems that you would expect ANY flightless birds in the tropics to experience.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153

[Sean Dillon]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > I'm not dick-fencing. That's an important distinction. The number of things that COULD evolve, under the proper conditions, dwarfs the number of things that HAVE evolved, under actual conditions. Environmental conditions are highly constraining.
>
> There are more bird species than mammal species.
> Birds occupy every environment from the arctic
> to the desert. But, they are never bald.

Yes, they live in every environment on Earth. None of the environments on Earth apparently provides birds with the impetus to put feathers behind them. That doesn't mean that they COULDN'T, if the right conditions presented themselves.

>
> > > Nature has found other ways to accomplish or
> > > do without all of these tasks.
>
> > But having developed a feature -- feathers -- that DOES serve well for all these purposes, why would a lineage ever lose that feature?
>
> That's logic. Evolution isn't logic.

Evolution dictates that if losing a feature would be harmful in the short term, evolution will not allow the loss of that feature, because any individuals without it will be selected against.

>
> Fact is, if a species needs it's feathers to,
> say, protect it from the sun, then a "Logical"
> adaptation to a dark/shaded environment would
> be to lose those feathers.
>
> And, of course, this is true for everything.
>
> If they need the feathers to protect against
> parasites, then the lack of those parasites
> should open the door to losing the feathers.
>
> Sexual dimorphism? Look at chickens! a rooster
> has far more pronounced wattles & combs, making
> them easily recognizable from a distance. They're
> also larger than hens and they crow...
>
> They point is that every conceivable use you can
> bestow upon feathers can be OR ALREADY IS achieved
> by other means, and the feathers remain.

If a bird species existed in conditions in which there was literally no use for its feathers that was not being otherwise as-well or better achieved, then we might see bird without feathers, because loss of feathers would no longer be selected against. Do you know of any bird species in any such conditions?

>
> So, yes, I believe that there is something
> fundamental about feathers. It's not just
> that they're useful HERE or THERE, there is
> something about feathers that goes beyond
> practical use, but it's still important.

Okay, if it makes you happy to think so...

But for my part, I have never encountered a bird species in the world in which the evolutinary needs of most individuals would be served in the immediate term by the loss of feathers. Therefore, loss of feathers will, in all such cases, be selected against.

[RonO]

On 12/7/2017 8:52 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-13-257
>
> Your cite furthers my point:
>
> : the trait [baldness] is potentially useful in tropical
> : agriculture due to the ability of featherless chickens
> : to tolerate heat, which is at present a major constraint
> : to efficient poultry meat production in hot climates.
>
> So feathers hinder a birds ability to tolerate
> tropical heat?

Yes. Feathers decrease the amount of body heat that birds can lose. If
they can't lose body heat fast enough they will over heat and suffer
heat stress.

You are warm blooded. Would you put on your winter clothing and march
around in 100 degree weather?

Think for just a moment and it might register.

>
> ...I know it's talking about chickens but it
> does suggest that feathers aren't always just
> a great idea, not for every environment. Yet
> we don't know of any featherless birds, not even
> large tropical birds.

Feathers aren't a perfect solution. Do you have perfect solutions?
What do you not get about balancing selection. It is known to exist and
you could measure it yourself. There are good aspects to certain traits
and bad aspects to certain traits. This happens because the world has
diverse environments like night and day, winter and summer. Think about
reality for a moment and you might get it, but I doubt it.

There are some advantages to being featherless, but they have to out
weigh the disadvantages. It isn't always going to be too hot for
feathers. The night time temperatures may go below a thresh hold and
what would you do. If you look into this. The birds would have an
advantage only during the hottest days of the year. If the temperatures
are not hot enough they lose too much body heat and their feed
efficiency goes down along with their growth rates. They have to find
more food to survive. Think about it.

Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153
>

[ed wolf]

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 10:10:03 AM UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> On 12/7/2017 8:52 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Ron O wrote:
> >

Snip_ featherless, but they have to out

> weigh the disadvantages. It isn't always going to be too hot for
> feathers. The night time temperatures may go below a thresh hold and
> what would you do. If you look into this. The birds would have an
> advantage only during the hottest days of the year. If the temperatures
> are not hot enough they lose too much body heat and their feed
> efficiency goes down along with their growth rates. They have to find
> more food to survive. Think about it.
>
> Ron Okimoto

It helps to think about hairless or rather furless
mammals.
With the very notable exception of homo they are
living underground and /or nocturnal like the aardvark
or whats its name- Nacktmull - that incredible
state- building rodent. Or they are huge , like hippos,
and all including homo from tropical Africa. Being
bipedal is a bad start for both an underground livestyle or
a size where surface doesnt matter so much.
But imagining a 3 ton naked bird hatching beats me.
Maybe Crocodile- style and the young have feathers?
If I was the designer I would give it a try , right after
marine dragonfly and octopus that live for a hundred
years and in family groups.
But certainly the result would lack grace and style.
At least I would give it a beautiful and rhytmically
complex singing voice.
Cheers
Ed

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:20:44 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com>:

>
>You can have a bird without flight.
>
>You can have flight without a bird.
>
>You can have feathers without a bird.
>
>BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!

*Damn*, those goalposts can move! Look at them go!
--

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 Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:05:38 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:52:55 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron O wrote:
>>
>>> https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-13-257
>>
>>Your cite furthers my point:
>>
>>: the trait [baldness] is potentially useful in tropical
>>: agriculture due to the ability of featherless chickens
>>: to tolerate heat, which is at present a major constraint
>>: to efficient poultry meat production in hot climates.
>>
>>So feathers hinder a birds ability to tolerate
>>tropical heat?
>>
>> ...I know it's talking about chickens but it
>>does suggest that feathers aren't always just
>>a great idea, not for every environment. Yet
>>we don't know of any featherless birds, not even
>>large tropical birds.
>
>
>Has anybody else noticed how TIBAMJTEM switched from "bald" to
>"featherless"?

Yep. He's hoping everyone else shares his ability to (not)
remember the past day.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 21:49:18 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:20:44 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You can have a bird without flight.
>>
>>You can have flight without a bird.
>>
>>You can have feathers without a bird.
>>
>>BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!
>>
>>Why is that? What makes feathers indispensable?
>>
>>Any ideas? And sound inferences? Hmmm?
>>
>>Why can't there be such a thing as a bald
>>bird?
>
>
>So you think all those images of bald birds are.... faked???....
>rubber chickens???... what???

Nah, he's changed the question , and now "bald" means "no
feathers at all" rather than "no feathers on the head",
where it started. Classic goalpost shift...

[Ernest Major]

On 08/12/2017 18:12, ed wolf wrote:
> It helps to think about hairless or rather furless
> mammals.
> With the very notable exception of homo they are
> living underground and /or nocturnal like the aardvark
> or whats its name- Nacktmull - that incredible
> state- building rodent.

Are you thinking of the naked mole-rat?

PS: the aardvark is sparsely haired rather than hairless.

--
alias Ernest Major

[ed wolf]

If I had hair on my head like the aardvark I would
call myself bald. And to avoid nitpicking on single
hairs I wrote furless to qualify.
And yes, that creature is the naked mole rat.
When I write on my cellphone I find it hard to
open another window to look into a dictionary.
But seriously, are there any other furless/
sparesly haired mammals I did not mention,
specially not from Africa?
Regards
Ed

[Ernest Major]

Cetaceans and sirenians. (Sirenians are rather sparsely haired, like
living pachyderms - there were some rather hairy fossil elephants and
rhinoceroses; cetaceans have completed given up fur for blubber, and if
I'm reading WikiPedia correctly some have even lost sensory hairs.)

Fide Google, Walruses lose much of their hair as they age.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Earle JOnes]

*
I only know one limerick about underground birds:

To a practice obscene and unsavory
Was the Bishop of Eli in slavery.
'Midst hoots and howls
He bugggered small owls
Which he kept in his underground aviary.

earle
*

[jillery]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 12:35:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 21:49:18 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:20:44 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>You can have a bird without flight.
>>>
>>>You can have flight without a bird.
>>>
>>>You can have feathers without a bird.
>>>
>>>BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!
>>>
>>>Why is that? What makes feathers indispensable?
>>>
>>>Any ideas? And sound inferences? Hmmm?
>>>
>>>Why can't there be such a thing as a bald
>>>bird?
>>
>>
>>So you think all those images of bald birds are.... faked???....
>>rubber chickens???... what???
>
>Nah, he's changed the question , and now "bald" means "no
>feathers at all" rather than "no feathers on the head",
>where it started. Classic goalpost shift...

I should have identified my question as rhetorical. My bad.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 09:25:09 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 12:35:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 21:49:18 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:20:44 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
>>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You can have a bird without flight.
>>>>
>>>>You can have flight without a bird.
>>>>
>>>>You can have feathers without a bird.
>>>>
>>>>BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!
>>>>
>>>>Why is that? What makes feathers indispensable?
>>>>
>>>>Any ideas? And sound inferences? Hmmm?
>>>>
>>>>Why can't there be such a thing as a bald
>>>>bird?
>>>
>>>
>>>So you think all those images of bald birds are.... faked???....
>>>rubber chickens???... what???
>>
>>Nah, he's changed the question , and now "bald" means "no
>>feathers at all" rather than "no feathers on the head",
>>where it started. Classic goalpost shift...
>
>
>I should have identified my question as rhetorical. My bad.

Nah, I knew it was rhetorical; I sometimes just like to pile
on such a tempting (and defenseless) target. *My* bad...

[ed wolf]

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 10:55:03 PM UTC+1, Earle JOnes wrote:

> I only know one limerick about underground birds:
>
> To a practice obscene and unsavory
> Was the Bishop of Eli in slavery.
> 'Midst hoots and howls
> He bugggered small owls
> Which he kept in his underground aviary.
>
> earle

Everything that could be asked from a limerick and more.
But surely those where not bald owls, that would be gross.
ed

[ed wolf]

Both whales and manatee I can imagine as a model for bird evolution
without feathers,via some really great auks, but there is the problem
of hatching eggs and feeding the young. Another no go area for bald
bird evolution.
Seems Birds are stuck with feathers for good until maybe
a breed of fugitive coal mine canaries takes over the endless
labyrinths of our abandoned mines.Its warm down there, no
predators, flight is useless in complete dark,if they manage with
a diet of funghi and bacteria they have a long undisturbed future.
cheers
ed
regards
ed

[Ernest Major]

Flight is not necessarily useless in the complete dark. Echolocation is
an alternative. Two groups of birds echolocate - oilbirds and (some)
swiftlets. (Oilbirds also have very good night vision.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[JTEM is my hero]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> Yes, they live in every environment on Earth. None of the environments on Earth apparently provides birds with the impetus to put feathers behind them. That doesn't mean that they COULDN'T, if the right conditions presented themselves.

Science doesn't deal with definitive answers. There's
always wiggle room for something else. This isn't
mathematics, of course. But the best answer we have
is that you can't have a bird without feathers. Not
naturally.

...we haven't had a bird without feathers. Ever.

> Evolution dictates that if losing a feature would be harmful in the short term, evolution will not allow the loss of that feature, because any individuals without it will be selected against.

In this thread, in agreement with you, we were treated
to a cite talking about how advantageous bald chickens
would be in certain environments, and that these bald
birds are the subject of bioengineering.

It's true that chickens are domesticated and hence do
not lead a lifestyle that parallels wild birds, not
exactly, but in many ways they would benefit LESS than
wild species.

...chickens don't need to be as active as wild
birds, for example. As a rule, humans provide them
with food and water, they don't need to work for it,
and we also try to protect them from predators.

> If a bird species existed in conditions in which there was literally no use for its feathers that was not being otherwise as-well or better achieved, then we might see bird without feathers, because loss of feathers would no longer be selected against.

Feathers have persisted across virtually every environment,
in the face of every climate, predator & prey. They existed
long before birds. No bird that we know of has ever existed
without them. We can safely determine that environment is
not the determining factor here.

> But for my part, I have never encountered a bird species in the world in which the evolutinary needs of most individuals would be served in the immediate term by the loss of feathers.

Again, a cite was posted here, in support of your
position, which did indeed state that there is
an advantage to chickens losing their feathers in
at least one environment.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149334680778

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Has anybody else noticed how TIBAMJTEM switched from "bald" to
> "featherless"?

If "Bald" only means no hair on the head then all
birds are bald. So either start being consistent
in how you use the word or just stop trying to
make a point with it.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149334680778

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> Yes. Feathers decrease the amount of body heat that birds can lose. If
> they can't lose body heat fast enough they will over heat and suffer
> heat stress.
>
> You are warm blooded. Would you put on your winter clothing and march
> around in 100 degree weather?
>
> Think for just a moment and it might register.

I'm sorry, you believe you're arguing against... whom?

What is it you think my position here is, and how
exactly are you countering it?

You keep CONFIRMING my position yet believe you are
are doing the opposite...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149334680778

[JTEM is my hero]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> Ah... but you missed the trade-offs for those chickens:
>
> "But critics say past experience with feather-free chickens resulting from random genetic mutation shows they suffer more than normal birds.

The norm -- as opposed to the exception -- is that
random genetic mutations are neutral or negative, so
this is hardly noteworthy.

What you have to argue is that it's impossible for
a genetic mutation to result in a bald bird without
it also resulting in traits which are so negative so
as to offset the advantages of being featherless.

Are you arguing this?

> So any advantage in staying cool is more than offset by the sorts of problems that you would expect ANY flightless birds in the tropics to experience.

That is a false conclusion to derive from a story
about the efforts to breed bald chickens. The story
is establishing that the chickens would be better
suited if they were bald, in some environments, hence
the efforts.

Most of their objections are centered on humans,
economics -- the benefit to the people -- and not
anything to do with the birds themselves.

As a rule, genetic mutations are neutral or harmful.
This is NOT just the case in human farming efforts.

Finally, if you can't eliminate the feathers WITHOUT
harmful mutations, this is PROVING my point.

Understand?

If the harmful mutations are inescapable then my
point has been proven true: You can't have a
bird without feathers.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149334680778

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Nah, he's changed the question , and now "bald" means "no
> feathers at all" rather than "no feathers on the head"

You're thinking of hair -- that "Bald" means "No
hair on their head." But no birds have hair on
their head. So my use of the term is not just
consistent but expresses the concept under
discussion, while your use is erratic, to say
the least.

Wow. You tried to be clever and ended up looking
stupid. Again.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149334680778

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 09:17:48 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com>:

> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> Nah, he's changed the question , and now "bald" means "no
>> feathers at all" rather than "no feathers on the head"
>
>You're thinking of hair -- that "Bald" means "No
>hair on their head."

Nope, in the case of birds "bald" means "no feathers on the
head", which was quite clear until you found you were wrong
and had to shift the goalposts.

But thanks for playing.

[RonO]

Since you deleted what I was responding to in order to lie to yourself
about it I am obviously arguing with a sort of demented liar that thinks
that he can alter reality by removing it from the posts that he is
responding to.

Fix that if you can. Put back what you wrote and try to understand the
response in that context. If you could be honest with yourself it is
what you should have done in the first place instead of delete what you
wrote and lie about it.

Ron Okimoto
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149334680778
>

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> Since you deleted

You're a moron, thrice over.

First you established that there are indeed
circumstances in which it would be advantageous
for birds to loose their feathers... even as
we all accept that they have not.

THEN you establish that there are factors
quite independent of environment/sexual
selection/etc prohibiting the loss of
feathers (i.e. harmful mutations which are
associated with the loss of feathers).

FINALLY, having established that I'm right,
that everything I said is 100% accurate,
you conclude that I'm wrong.

Like I just told you, you are a moron.

You are an emotionally ladened idiot,
a dildo strangled by his feelings.

And, yes, I find that endlessly amusing!

It's funny.

YOU are funny.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168369916158

[RonO]

You are likely insane. Why remove what you can't deal with? Is it some
type of mental quirk? You obviously did it and refuse to undo it, so
what does that tell you?

Just imagine that someone else was doing it. Maybe you aren't conscious
of what you are doing. Just go up the thread and read the posts from me
and your responses. Who is deleting what they can't deal with and lying
about the situation. You have a problem if you don't think that you are
the one doing it. Either someone is manipulating your posts or you are
bonkers.

Ron Okimoto
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168369916158
>

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> You

You established as fact everything I've said,
yet you persist in the delusion that you have
somehow refuted me...

There are circumstances were it would be
advantageous for birds to lose their
feathers. It's been established. AND there
are factors quite apart from environment
or even sexual selection keeping birds from
losing their feathers -- the aforementioned
harmful mutations associated with feather
loss.

Please seek help.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168369916158

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 09:17:48 -0800 (PST), TIBAMJTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You're arguing with yourself in the mirror, and losing the argument.
Again.

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:56:07 -0800 (PST), TIBAMJTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Has anybody else noticed how TIBAMJTEM switched from "bald" to
>> "featherless"?
>
>If "Bald" only means no hair on the head then all
>birds are bald. So either start being consistent
>in how you use the word or just stop trying to
>make a point with it.

Of course, "bald" has many definitions. OTOH "featherless" is more
precise. In either case, there are several cited examples of both
applying to birds. The only problem here is you don't know what
you're talking about, and are proud of it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:00:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:56:07 -0800 (PST), TIBAMJTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>
>>> Has anybody else noticed how TIBAMJTEM switched from "bald" to
>>> "featherless"?
>>
>>If "Bald" only means no hair on the head then all
>>birds are bald. So either start being consistent
>>in how you use the word or just stop trying to
>>make a point with it.
>
>
>Of course, "bald" has many definitions. OTOH "featherless" is more
>precise. In either case, there are several cited examples of both
>applying to birds. The only problem here is you don't know what
>you're talking about, and are proud of it.

Beginning to understand why he resided in my killfile for so
long? Nailing jello to the wall is simple in comparison...

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 10:55:02 AM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > Yes, they live in every environment on Earth. None of the environments on Earth apparently provides birds with the impetus to put feathers behind them. That doesn't mean that they COULDN'T, if the right conditions presented themselves.
>
> Science doesn't deal with definitive answers. There's
> always wiggle room for something else. This isn't
> mathematics, of course. But the best answer we have
> is that you can't have a bird without feathers. Not
> naturally.

All we know is that -- as far as we know -- there has never existed an environmental condition in which it was net-beneficial for a species of bird to lose its feathers. And given the wide variety of uses feathers serve, that's not at all surprising.

>
> ...we haven't had a bird without feathers. Ever.
>
> > Evolution dictates that if losing a feature would be harmful in the short term, evolution will not allow the loss of that feature, because any individuals without it will be selected against.
>
> In this thread, in agreement with you, we were treated
> to a cite talking about how advantageous bald chickens
> would be in certain environments, and that these bald
> birds are the subject of bioengineering.
>
> It's true that chickens are domesticated and hence do
> not lead a lifestyle that parallels wild birds, not
> exactly, but in many ways they would benefit LESS than
> wild species.
>
> ...chickens don't need to be as active as wild
> birds, for example. As a rule, humans provide them
> with food and water, they don't need to work for it,
> and we also try to protect them from predators.

Except that, for the third time, that experiment is proving to be a failure, because "...they suffer more than normal birds. Males have been unable to mate, because they cannot flap their wings, and 'naked' chickens of both sexes are more susceptible to parasites, mosquito attacks and sunburn."

It is right there in the article. All of the reasons bald chickens don't happen in nature.

>
> > If a bird species existed in conditions in which there was literally no use for its feathers that was not being otherwise as-well or better achieved, then we might see bird without feathers, because loss of feathers would no longer be selected against.
>
> Feathers have persisted across virtually every environment,
> in the face of every climate, predator & prey. They existed
> long before birds. No bird that we know of has ever existed
> without them. We can safely determine that environment is
> not the determining factor here.

Environment is never NOT a factor in why a species retains or loses a feature.

>
> > But for my part, I have never encountered a bird species in the world in which the evolutinary needs of most individuals would be served in the immediate term by the loss of feathers.
>
> Again, a cite was posted here, in support of your
> position, which did indeed state that there is
> an advantage to chickens losing their feathers in
> at least one environment.

... That is MORE than off-set by several critical disadvantages. You need to stop reading so selectively JTEM.

>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149334680778

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:15:05 AM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > Ah... but you missed the trade-offs for those chickens:
> >
> > "But critics say past experience with feather-free chickens resulting from random genetic mutation shows they suffer more than normal birds.
>
> The norm -- as opposed to the exception -- is that
> random genetic mutations are neutral or negative, so
> this is hardly noteworthy.

But it isn't just because the mutation itself is harmful. The phenotypic OUTCOME of the mutation (that is, featherlessness) is harmful, for the reasons listed.

>
> What you have to argue is that it's impossible for
> a genetic mutation to result in a bald bird without
> it also resulting in traits which are so negative so
> as to offset the advantages of being featherless.

I'm not saying it is impossible. I'm saying that, given the number of advantages that feathers generally provide, the circumstances would have to be very exceptional, for a situation to arise in which losing the feathers would be net-advantageous.

>
> Are you arguing this?

No.

>
> > So any advantage in staying cool is more than offset by the sorts of problems that you would expect ANY flightless birds in the tropics to experience.
>
> That is a false conclusion to derive from a story
> about the efforts to breed bald chickens. The story
> is establishing that the chickens would be better
> suited if they were bald, in some environments, hence
> the efforts.

No, it establishes no such thing. On the contrary, it points up that any advantage in staying cool is more than offset by the vital advantages feathers provide... including the very ability to successfully breed.

>
> Most of their objections are centered on humans,
> economics -- the benefit to the people -- and not
> anything to do with the birds themselves.

No, they really aren't. The birds not being able to properly mount to breed, the birds being succeptible to parasites and sunburn... those are very direct problems for the birds themselves. And would likely be deleterious in the wild.

>
> As a rule, genetic mutations are neutral or harmful.
> This is NOT just the case in human farming efforts.

There might be a set of circumstances under which a mutation for featherlessness might benefit a bird. But it seems that (as far as we can tell) that set of circumstances has yet to exist on Earth.

>
> Finally, if you can't eliminate the feathers WITHOUT
> harmful mutations, this is PROVING my point.

No one says one COULDN'T eliminate feathers without harmful offset. I'm simply saying that the conditions under which that might happen have simply not occurred on Earth to date... so far as we know.

>
> Understand?
>
> If the harmful mutations are inescapable then my
> point has been proven true: You can't have a
> bird without feathers.

...Under the environmental conditions that have and do exist.

Feathers aren't magically un-eliminatable, they are just very, very versatile. So the circumstances under which they WOULD be eliminated successfully are pretty narrow. You'd need a situation in which direct sun light wasn't an issue, parasites weren't an issue, the need to fly did not exist, and the need for thermo-regulation did not exist. If all of those things were true, then the loss of feathers may be evolutionarily feasible.

It seems like you're trying to make this whole thing mysterious, when really it is incredibly straightforward.
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149334680778

[JTEM is my hero]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> All we know is that -- as far as we know -- there has never existed an environmental condition in which it was net-beneficial for a species of bird to lose its feathers. And given the wide variety of uses feathers serve, that's not at all surprising.

From the cites we've seen here, assuming they are
accurate, there are environments/circumstances
identified in which birds can benefit from a lack
of feathers, but that the loss of feathers is
associated with harmful mutations.

...so it's indirect.

Supposedly this is common. That a trait isn't so
much an adaptation as it is "Piggy backing" on
something else.

One researcher claimed that this was the case with
Giraffes and their long necks:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160629-giraffes-did-not-evolve-long-necks-to-reach-tall-trees

I recall another stating the same about dogs and
floppy ears, how the trait piggy backs on the loss
of aggression, but I couldn't find a cite just now...

The point is, neutral and bad piggy backers would
probably be more common than beneficial ones. Or
so we'd guess. And, according to one cite here, it
seems that nature can't quite manage to drop the
feathers without some other mutations piggy backing,
and negative mutations at that.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/152357241263

[jillery]

Umm... not bald... featherless. There's a difference. Don't feed
off TIBAMJTEM's hook.

>> > If a bird species existed in conditions in which there was literally no use for its feathers that was not being otherwise as-well or better achieved, then we might see bird without feathers, because loss of feathers would no longer be selected against.
>>
>> Feathers have persisted across virtually every environment,
>> in the face of every climate, predator & prey. They existed
>> long before birds. No bird that we know of has ever existed
>> without them. We can safely determine that environment is
>> not the determining factor here.
>
>Environment is never NOT a factor in why a species retains or loses a feature.
>>
>> > But for my part, I have never encountered a bird species in the world in which the evolutinary needs of most individuals would be served in the immediate term by the loss of feathers.
>>
>> Again, a cite was posted here, in support of your
>> position, which did indeed state that there is
>> an advantage to chickens losing their feathers in
>> at least one environment.
>
>... That is MORE than off-set by several critical disadvantages. You need to stop reading so selectively JTEM.

Then he wouldn't have anything to post.

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 2:35:03 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > All we know is that -- as far as we know -- there has never existed an environmental condition in which it was net-beneficial for a species of bird to lose its feathers. And given the wide variety of uses feathers serve, that's not at all surprising.
>
> From the cites we've seen here, assuming they are
> accurate, there are environments/circumstances
> identified in which birds can benefit from a lack
> of feathers, but that the loss of feathers is
> associated with harmful mutations.

No, that's not what the citation about the bald chickens says at all. What it says is that the lack of feathers ITSELF, while beneficial from a heat perspective in this instance, is offset by the disadvantages of NOT having feathers themselves. This isn't about genetic side effects.

Again:

"Males have been unable to mate, because they cannot flap their wings, and 'naked' chickens of both sexes are more susceptible to parasites, mosquito attacks and sunburn."

It is the LACK OF FEATHERS ITSELF, not any genetic side effect, that causes the problems in this case.
>
> ...so it's indirect.

No it isn't.

>
> Supposedly this is common. That a trait isn't so
> much an adaptation as it is "Piggy backing" on
> something else.
>
> One researcher claimed that this was the case with
> Giraffes and their long necks:
>
> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160629-giraffes-did-not-evolve-long-necks-to-reach-tall-trees
>
> I recall another stating the same about dogs and
> floppy ears, how the trait piggy backs on the loss
> of aggression, but I couldn't find a cite just now...

I believe you're thinking of the Russian silver fox experiment? Yes, tameness was tied in with other infantile traits like mottled colors, floppy ears, etc. So breeding for tameness tended to -- as a side-effect -- breed individuals with a variety of neotenous traits.

But that has nothing to do with the birds. In that case, the feathers themselves are the thing.

>
> The point is, neutral and bad piggy backers would
> probably be more common than beneficial ones. Or
> so we'd guess. And, according to one cite here, it
> seems that nature can't quite manage to drop the
> feathers without some other mutations piggy backing,
> and negative mutations at that.

You know, I'm reading through these citations, and I just don't see that. Perhaps you could provide the relevant quote?

>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/152357241263

[RonO]

I will just repost it again just so that you can delete it and lie about
it again. You are just a lost cause.

REPOST:

On 12/7/2017 8:52 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>

>> https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-13-257
>
> Your cite furthers my point:
>
> : the trait [baldness] is potentially useful in tropical
> : agriculture due to the ability of featherless chickens
> : to tolerate heat, which is at present a major constraint
> : to efficient poultry meat production in hot climates.
>
> So feathers hinder a birds ability to tolerate
> tropical heat?

Yes. Feathers decrease the amount of body heat that birds can lose. If
they can't lose body heat fast enough they will over heat and suffer
heat stress.

You are warm blooded. Would you put on your winter clothing and march
around in 100 degree weather?

Think for just a moment and it might register.

>

> ...I know it's talking about chickens but it
> does suggest that feathers aren't always just
> a great idea, not for every environment. Yet
> we don't know of any featherless birds, not even
> large tropical birds.

Feathers aren't a perfect solution. Do you have perfect solutions? What
do you not get about balancing selection. It is known to exist and you
could measure it yourself. There are good aspects to certain traits and
bad aspects to certain traits. This happens because the world has
diverse environments like night and day, winter and summer. Think about
reality for a moment and you might get it, but I doubt it.

There are some advantages to being featherless, but they have to out
weigh the disadvantages. It isn't always going to be too hot for
feathers. The night time temperatures may go below a thresh hold and
what would you do. If you look into this. The birds would have an
advantage only during the hottest days of the year. If the temperatures
are not hot enough they lose too much body heat and their feed
efficiency goes down along with their growth rates. They have to find
more food to survive. Think about it.

Ron Okimoto
END REPOST:

[Pro Plyd]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 3:25:04 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> You can have a bird without flight.
>>
>> You can have flight without a bird.
>>
>> You can have feathers without a bird.
>>
>> BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!
>>
>> Why is that? What makes feathers indispensable?
>>
>> Any ideas? And sound inferences? Hmmm?
>>
>> Why can't there be such a thing as a bald
>> bird?
>
>

> There's no saying that one COULDN'T. There simply don't seem to be any.
>
> Can you name any species of bird in which the feathers serve no purpose? Whether for flight, or temperature regulation, or threat display, or mating display? As long as the feathers serve a purpose, they are liable to be evolutionarily retained.
>

Which is indeed what we see.

[Pro Plyd]

Ernest Major wrote:

> On 07/12/2017 22:49, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 3:25:04 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> You can have a bird without flight.
>>>
>>> You can have flight without a bird.
>>>
>>> You can have feathers without a bird.
>>>
>>> BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!
>>>
>>> Why is that? What makes feathers indispensable?
>>>
>>> Any ideas? And sound inferences? Hmmm?
>>>
>>> Why can't there be such a thing as a bald
>>> bird?
>>>

>>
>> There's no saying that one COULDN'T. There simply don't seem to be any.
>

> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2307-featherless-chicken-creates-a-flap/

Genetically manipulated, but doesn't qualify as a bald species ;)

Insert jokes here

Crow-gaine (crow being the sound made by a rooster)

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Umm... not bald... featherless.

It's a little too late for that now. You
can pretend that you have been consistent
in your use of "Bald" all along, but you're
not even going to fool yourself.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168658548153

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> Sean Dillon wrote:

> > Can you name any species of bird in which the feathers serve no purpose? Whether for flight, or temperature regulation, or threat display, or mating display? As long as the feathers serve a purpose, they are liable to be evolutionarily retained.

> Which is indeed what we see.

All of the above are achieved without feathers in
plenty of species, and there are circumstances
in which the loss of feathers would be beneficial.

So, no, you are not "Refuting" me.

You're talking past me. There is a difference.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168658548153

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > You established as fact everything I've said,
> > yet you persist in the delusion that you have
> > somehow refuted me...
> >
> > There are circumstances were it would be
> > advantageous for birds to lose their
> > feathers. It's been established. AND there
> > are factors quite apart from environment
> > or even sexual selection keeping birds from
> > losing their feathers -- the aforementioned
> > harmful mutations associated with feather
> > loss.
> >
> > Please seek help.

> I will just repost it again just so that

Why? Are you honestly THAT fucked up?

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-13-257

This cite establishes that, yes, there are
circumstances in which birds would likely
benefit from the loss of feathers. They
state that our chickens would, and our
chickens don't have to work very hard, AND
we humans tend to offer them some protection
from predators. So make them work harder,
make them run around a lot trying to escape
predators and we could imagine a genuine
benefit to feather loss before ever reaching
the body mass of our chickens...

All this was ALREADY explained and you ALREADY
agreed. So that brings us to the second point
I raised, which is there has to be some yet to
be identified reason why all birds everywhere
keep there feathers, even when it appears
beneficial that they do not.

You disagree? Of course not.

There is SOMETHING keeping all birds that
have every lived -- ANYWHERE -- from ever
becoming bald, even when it would be
beneficial to them. And, you don't know
what this is. AND, any reason you might
think of is accomplished/solved in numerous
other species without feathers. AND you
know this and agree with it.

So I made two points, you agree with both and
yet you keep reacting to me, believing that
you somehow refuted me and that the only reason
why nobody can see this is because I refuse to
quote your entire boring text.

Gosh, you're an idiot...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168658548153

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:15:31 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Umm... not bald... featherless.
>
>It's a little too late for that now. You
>can pretend that you have been consistent
>in your use of "Bald" all along, but you're
>not even going to fool yourself.

I have been entirely consistent, unlike you.

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:40:03 AM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
> > Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > > Can you name any species of bird in which the feathers serve no purpose? Whether for flight, or temperature regulation, or threat display, or mating display? As long as the feathers serve a purpose, they are liable to be evolutionarily retained.
>
> > Which is indeed what we see.
>
> All of the above are achieved without feathers in
> plenty of species,

Yes, but birds have developed down an evolutionary pathway on which feathers are the thing that achieves all of those purposes and more. So to eliminate feathers is to lose functionality on multiple dimensions at once.

>and there are circumstances
> in which the loss of feathers would be beneficial.

Yeah? Name the conditions under which the total loss of feathers in birds would be net-beneficial JTEM.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:44:12 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:15:31 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>
>>> Umm... not bald... featherless.
>>
>>It's a little too late for that now. You
>>can pretend that you have been consistent
>>in your use of "Bald" all along, but you're
>>not even going to fool yourself.
>
>
>I have been entirely consistent, unlike you.

ISTR that it started out with "bald" having its usual
meaning, suitably modified for birds, as in "no feathers on
the head". When TIBAMJTEM's insistence that there are "no
bald birds" was shown to be in error he surreptitiously
changed "bald" to mean "no feathers anywhere on the body".
Typical goalpost shift...

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:23:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:44:12 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:15:31 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> Umm... not bald... featherless.
>>>
>>>It's a little too late for that now. You
>>>can pretend that you have been consistent
>>>in your use of "Bald" all along, but you're
>>>not even going to fool yourself.
>>
>>
>>I have been entirely consistent, unlike you.
>
>ISTR that it started out with "bald" having its usual
>meaning, suitably modified for birds, as in "no feathers on
>the head". When TIBAMJTEM's insistence that there are "no
>bald birds" was shown to be in error he surreptitiously
>changed "bald" to mean "no feathers anywhere on the body".
>Typical goalpost shift...

How ironic, that's what I recall as well. Such a coincidence can't
have anything to do with reality.

[RonO]

We both know who the idiot is.

The paper you cite is talking about the specific mutation that occurred
in domestic chickens. It correctly states that featherless broilers do
well in hot conditions, but conditions are not that hot anywhere year
round. They do better at temperatures over 35 degrees C. At normal
temperatures they do worse.

https://academic.oup.com/ps/article/90/1/19/1511693
This paper is free to download and compares featherless and feathered at
35 degrees C and and 25 degrees C (95 F and 77 F) So like I said growth
rate feed conversion go down if the temperature isn't high enough. You
might want to try to find a place on earth that has a year round
temperature of 95 degrees F night and day winter and summer.

Don't snip out the material and lie about it like the loser that you
have been. Face the facts and deal with reality.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168658548153
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:24 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:23:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:44:12 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:15:31 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
>>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Umm... not bald... featherless.
>>>>
>>>>It's a little too late for that now. You
>>>>can pretend that you have been consistent
>>>>in your use of "Bald" all along, but you're
>>>>not even going to fool yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have been entirely consistent, unlike you.
>>
>>ISTR that it started out with "bald" having its usual
>>meaning, suitably modified for birds, as in "no feathers on
>>the head". When TIBAMJTEM's insistence that there are "no
>>bald birds" was shown to be in error he surreptitiously
>>changed "bald" to mean "no feathers anywhere on the body".
>>Typical goalpost shift...
>
>
>How ironic, that's what I recall as well. Such a coincidence can't
>have anything to do with reality.

I'm sure it's just a shared delusion...

[Tim Norfolk]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> You can have a bird without flight.
>
> You can have flight without a bird.
>
> You can have feathers without a bird.
>
> BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!
>
> Why is that? What makes feathers indispensable?
>
> Any ideas? And sound inferences? Hmmm?
>
> Why can't there be such a thing as a bald
> bird?
>
>
>
>
>

> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153

I remember a friend had a parakeet which lived for years without feathers. We had a macaw that lost most of them, sadly because of a fatal virus. She lived several years without feathers, though.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/20/17 1:24 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:25:04 PM UTC-5, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> You can have a bird without flight.
>>
>> You can have flight without a bird.
>>
>> You can have feathers without a bird.
>>
>> BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A BIRD WITHOUT FEATHERS!
>>
>> Why is that? What makes feathers indispensable?
>>
>> Any ideas? And sound inferences? Hmmm?
>>
>> Why can't there be such a thing as a bald
>> bird?
>>
>>

>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153
>
> I remember a friend had a parakeet which lived for years without feathers. We had a macaw that lost most of them, sadly because of a fatal virus. She lived several years without feathers, though.

Two Chinese brothers, Hing and Ming, once had the problem that their
chickens had lost their feathers. Both wanted to cure the chickens, but
they favored radically different approaches. Hing was scientifically
inclined, so he attended veterinary lectures, hit the books, and
questioned scholars. The answer he got was to make a tea out of the
leaves of gum trees and feed it to the chickens. He tried this; it did
not work.

Ming, on the other hand, was the religious brother, and his approach was
to spend hours in meditation seeking guidance from his departed
ancestors. He, too, received an answer, and that answer was to make a
tea out of the leaves of gum trees and feed it to the chickens. Knowing
of Hing's failure with this course, he tried it with even more tea,
practically drowning the poor hens. He, too, failed.

The moral of this story: All of Hing's courses and all of Ming's kin
couldn't make gum tea refeather a hen.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[JTEM is my hero]

Idiot, Ron O idiotically wrote:

> We both know who the idiot is.

YES WE DO! Even before you proved my point while
thinking you were refuting me...

Again: You can't have a bird without feathers.

There has never been a bird without feathers.

YES, I am speaking in terms of species -- not
isolated mutants, as if I should have to say
this -- and I am not so much as considering
bioengineering, as that would be irrelevant to
the rules of nature.

You can't have a bird without feathers, and it's
NOT for any known reason.

...other than negative mutations that might
be associated with the loss of feathers.

(Many traits seem to "Piggy Back" on other
traits).




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168762090558

[JTEM is my hero]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> Yes, but birds have developed down an evolutionary pathway on which feathers are the thing that achieves all of those purposes and more. So to eliminate feathers is to lose functionality on multiple dimensions at once.

Ah, now *There's* an idea...

Feathers are too economical?

Are they a multi-purposed, one-stop-shopping solution
that's just too cheap to replace? And, because they're
multi purposed, they can't lose them unless their loss
coincides with the gain of MULTIPLE replacements,
something which is so improbable that we shouldn't
discuss?

Possible.

> Yeah? Name the conditions under which the total loss of
> feathers in birds would be net-beneficial JTEM.

I don't know of any specific net-loss or net-gain,
as far as "Beneficial" goes.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168762090558

[RonO]

What a loser. You have just snipped out the reference that would have
made you less ignorant and allowed you to be less stupid, and what did
you do?

Repost the part that you can snip it out again so that you can remain as
stupid as you are.

https://academic.oup.com/ps/article/90/1/19/1511693
This paper is free to download and compares featherless and feathered at
35 degrees C and and 25 degrees C (95 F and 77 F) So like I said growth
rate feed conversion go down if the temperature isn't high enough. You
might want to try to find a place on earth that has a year round
temperature of 95 degrees F night and day winter and summer.

Don't snip out the material and lie about it like the loser that you
have been. Face the facts and deal with reality.

END REPOST:





Ron Okimoto
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168762090558
>

[Tim Norfolk]

Ouch.

[jillery]

Ouch! Five stars!

[Sean Dillon]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 5:45:02 PM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > Yes, but birds have developed down an evolutionary pathway on which feathers are the thing that achieves all of those purposes and more. So to eliminate feathers is to lose functionality on multiple dimensions at once.
>
> Ah, now *There's* an idea...

I mean, it is the same idea I've been presenting for the entire duration of this thread.

>
> Feathers are too economical?
>
> Are they a multi-purposed, one-stop-shopping solution
> that's just too cheap to replace?

Well... yes and no. I suspect feathers are actually resource-intensive to maintain. But since losing them would be crippling to survival and reproduction on several dimensions, birds don't really have much choice but to pay. Economically, I would say that demand for feathers among birds is pretty inelastic. And as long as birds can depend on feathers to fulfill their survival demands, they are unlikely to develop redundant strategies that would allow them to shed the feathers. Because, as you say, evolution is not logic. It can't plan.

> And, because they're
> multi purposed, they can't lose them unless their loss
> coincides with the gain of MULTIPLE replacements,
> something which is so improbable that we shouldn't
> discuss?

Yes, exactly. To get a successful-in-the-wild bald chicken, it would have to develop alternate strategies for dealing with body parasites, mosquitos, sun-exposure, and the acts of attracting a mate and of mating at the same time as it was losing the feathers. Because otherwise, bald chickens are essentially DOA. The inability to breed, in particular, is a high, high barrier.

>
> Possible.
>
> > Yeah? Name the conditions under which the total loss of
> > feathers in birds would be net-beneficial JTEM.
>
> I don't know of any specific net-loss or net-gain,
> as far as "Beneficial" goes.

All I'm saying is, can you imagine a situation in which it seems strongly plausible that the benefit of losing feathers would outweigh the benefits of retaining feathers? It is fine to say that featherless birds would do better in the heat, but the heat doesn't exist in isolation from all the other reasons birds require feathers.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168762090558

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:

> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
>>> Can you name any species of bird in which the feathers serve no purpose? Whether for flight, or temperature regulation, or threat display, or mating display? As long as the feathers serve a purpose, they are liable to be evolutionarily retained.
>
>> Which is indeed what we see.
>
> All of the above are achieved without feathers in
> plenty of species, and there are circumstances

Do keep in mind that only *birds* are under discussion here.

> in which the loss of feathers would be beneficial.

Do list the featherless species of *birds* ->

> So, no, you are not "Refuting" me.
>
> You're talking

over your head.

[Pro Plyd]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:44:12 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:15:31 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
>> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> Umm... not bald... featherless.
>>>
>>> It's a little too late for that now. You
>>> can pretend that you have been consistent
>>> in your use of "Bald" all along, but you're
>>> not even going to fool yourself.
>>
>>
>> I have been entirely consistent, unlike you.
>
> ISTR that it started out with "bald" having its usual
> meaning, suitably modified for birds, as in "no feathers on
> the head". When TIBAMJTEM's insistence that there are "no
> bald birds" was shown to be in error he surreptitiously
> changed "bald" to mean "no feathers anywhere on the body".
> Typical goalpost shift...
>

Typical of Mr McGinness...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:21:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<inv...@invalid.invalid>:

Seems so...

("McGinness"? I'd have said "McGoo"...)

[Pro Plyd]

Pro Plyd wrote:
> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>  Pro Plyd wrote:
>>
>>> Sean Dillon wrote:
>>
>>>> Can you name any species of bird in which the feathers serve no
>>>> purpose? Whether for flight, or temperature regulation, or threat
>>>> display, or mating display? As long as the feathers serve a purpose,
>>>> they are liable to be evolutionarily retained.
>>
>>> Which is indeed what we see.
>>
>> All of the above are achieved without feathers in
>> plenty of species, and there are circumstances
>
> Do keep in mind that only *birds* are under discussion here.
>
>> in which the loss of feathers would be beneficial.
>
> Do list the featherless species of *birds* ->

Never saw a reply to this...

[JTEM is my hero]

Apart from you, the severely mentally ill,
it's a fact that there are no bald birds.

All birds have feathers.

You can have feathers without a bird but you
can't have birds without a feather...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/181696092573

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> What a loser. You have just snipped out the reference

You're a faker. There are no bald birds. Period.

Your cite, if you read it, shows there is a benefit
to being featherless under some circumstances. Yet,
there are no featherless birds.








-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/181696092573

[JTEM is my hero]

O Sean Dillon wrote:

> Well... yes and no. I suspect feathers are actually resource-intensive to maintain. But since losing them would be crippling to survival and reproduction on several dimensions, birds don't really have much choice but to pay.

Interesting that you can say that without the
collective rudely insisting that there are
plenty of bald birds running around...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/181696092573

[Glenn]

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 10:35:03 PM UTC-7, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> O Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > Well... yes and no. I suspect feathers are actually resource-intensive to maintain. But since losing them would be crippling to survival and reproduction on several dimensions, birds don't really have much choice but to pay.
>
> Interesting that you can say that without the
> collective rudely insisting that there are
> plenty of bald birds running around...
>

"Interestingly, this strange breed is not genetically modified, but is the result of a 50-year effort, using natural breeding methods."

https://owlcation.com/agriculture/Featherless-Chickens

[RonO]

On 1/3/2019 11:28 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
>> What a loser. You have just snipped out the reference
>
> You're a faker. There are no bald birds. Period.
>
> Your cite, if you read it, shows there is a benefit
> to being featherless under some circumstances. Yet,
> there are no featherless birds.

You do understand that it has been a year since you ran from your own
stupidity and dishonesty. Why snip out what you can't deal with as if
reality would change?

REPOST:

What a loser. You have just snipped out the reference that would have
made you less ignorant and allowed you to be less stupid, and what did
you do?

Repost the part that you can snip it out again so that you can remain as
stupid as you are.

https://academic.oup.com/ps/article/90/1/19/1511693
This paper is free to download and compares featherless and feathered at
35 degrees C and and 25 degrees C (95 F and 77 F) So like I said growth
rate feed conversion go down if the temperature isn't high enough. You
might want to try to find a place on earth that has a year round
temperature of 95 degrees F night and day winter and summer.

Don't snip out the material and lie about it like the loser that you
have been. Face the facts and deal with reality.
END REPOST:

Why come back only to snip and run from reality again? Really, what
post are you responding to, and what did you do to respond to it over a
year later? Did you miss the part about snipping and running? It
doesn't take a genius to understand that if you were finally going to
respond to the post in any cogent fashion that you would not have had to
snip and run from reality.

Ron Okimoto


>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/181696092573
>

[JTEM is my hero]

Ron O wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Your cite, if you read it, shows there is a benefit
> > to being featherless under some circumstances. Yet,
> > there are no featherless birds.

> You do understand that it has been a year since you ran from your own
> stupidity and dishonesty. Why snip out what

In the mean time nothing has changed.

Your cite establishes that there would be benefits
to a bald bird, under some circumstances at least,
and there are no bald birds.

This will not change no matter how many times you
flee from it while pretending the subject is something
else.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/113347032923

[JTEM is my hero]

Glenn wrote:

> "Interestingly, this strange breed is not genetically modified, but is the result of a 50-year effort, using natural breeding methods."

You missed the words "created by researchers."

There's nothing natural here. Nothing.

But the story does prove YET AGAIN that there are
advantages, at least under some circumstances, to
a bird being featherless... yet none are.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/113347032923

[RonO]

Why snip and run? What good does it do you after a year of running from
reality?

REPOST of REPOST:

REPOST:
What a loser. You have just snipped out the reference that would have
made you less ignorant and allowed you to be less stupid, and what did
you do?

Repost the part that you can snip it out again so that you can remain as
stupid as you are.

https://academic.oup.com/ps/article/90/1/19/1511693
This paper is free to download and compares featherless and feathered at
35 degrees C and and 25 degrees C (95 F and 77 F) So like I said growth
rate feed conversion go down if the temperature isn't high enough. You
might want to try to find a place on earth that has a year round
temperature of 95 degrees F night and day winter and summer.

Don't snip out the material and lie about it like the loser that you
have been. Face the facts and deal with reality.
END REPOST:

Why come back only to snip and run from reality again? Really, what
post are you responding to, and what did you do to respond to it over a
year later? Did you miss the part about snipping and running? It
doesn't take a genius to understand that if you were finally going to
respond to the post in any cogent fashion that you would not have had to
snip and run from reality.

END REPOST of REPOST:

Do you have any idea about why you have to remove the material that you
are running from in order to lie about reality?

Deal with reality and answer your own questions. Is that so difficult
to be honest enough to do something like that? Do you know of any place
on earth that would allow the evolution of such an animal? Do you
understand what natural selection is and that such an animal would have
to exist in competition with whatever such a bald bird was evolving
from? It is a simple single base mutation, but what would happen to the
affected in the winter or rainy season? I don't know why you would come
back to your stupidity to lie about reality, but why do you have to snip
and run to lie about the situation? My guess is that you should try to
understand why you have to remove the material that you can't deal with,
so that you can avoid doing it in the future.

Ron Okimoto

[Pro Plyd]

Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:40:03 AM UTC-6, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>
>>> Sean Dillon wrote:
>>
>>>> Can you name any species of bird in which the feathers serve no purpose? Whether for flight, or temperature regulation, or threat display, or mating display? As long as the feathers serve a purpose, they are liable to be evolutionarily retained.
>>
>>> Which is indeed what we see.
>>
>> All of the above are achieved without feathers in
>> plenty of species,
>
> Yes, but birds have developed down an evolutionary pathway on which feathers are the thing that achieves all of those purposes and more. So to eliminate feathers is to lose functionality on multiple dimensions at once.
>
>> and there are circumstances
>> in which the loss of feathers would be beneficial.
>
> Yeah? Name the conditions under which the total loss of feathers in birds would be net-beneficial JTEM.

And a year later, still no answer.

[Pro Plyd]

RonO wrote:
> On 1/3/2019 11:28 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>   Ron O wrote:
>>> What a loser.  You have just snipped out the reference
>>
>> You're a faker. There are no bald birds. Period.
>>
>> Your cite, if you read it, shows there is a benefit
>> to being featherless under some circumstances. Yet,
>> there are no featherless birds.
>
> You do understand that it has been a year since you ran from your own
> stupidity and dishonesty.  Why snip out what you can't deal with as if
> reality would change?

This is McGuiness' pattern.