Re: half-evolved feathers

Glenn Morton (
Sun, 05 Apr 1998 13:46:51 -0500

Ron Chitwood wrote:

>GM>>>>Why can't you simply admit that they are wrong about something.
>Surely you
>don't give Morris the ex-cathedra speech that the Pope has, do you? They
>state that there are no half evolved feathers that none have been found, I
>provided an example. It is a simple as that<<<
>No you haven't. The only fact provided is a dinosaur had feathers (fully
>developed, it seems) on its leg.

Let me cite again the original note which you seem to have forgotten.

"Megalancosaurus, in combination with Longisquama, a Lower
Triassic thecodont with featherlike scales and furcula, render
this group (basal archosaurs, including thecodonts) the most
liekly candidate for proximity to avian ancestry."~A. Feduccia
and R. Wild, "Birdlike Characters in the Triassic Archosaur
Megalancosaurus," Naturwissenschaften, 80(1993):564-566

Longisquama IS NOT THE SAME ANIMAL AS CONFUSCIORNIS!!!!! It is Confusciornis
that has feathers along the leg. Here is that quotation again:

"The specimens from Liaoning show evidence that Confuciusornis had
feathers along its leg,"~R. Monastersky, "The bird calls that filled
Jurassic Park," Science News, 148, Oct. 28, 1995, p. 277

Longisquama has "featherlike scales" That is, Longisquama has half evolved
feathers!!!! You seem to be confusing the two animals.

>By the way, Morris and Parker are human, too. They could be wrong, just
>as your evolutionist writers could be.

Morris and Parker are wrong. They, unlike Feduccia and Wild, have not
examined the fossil material. As a general rule, I find it more beneficial
to believe those who have examined the fossil remains than those, like
Morris and Parker, who never having seen the material, make statments
contradictory to those made by people who have examined the data.

I would give you the following analogy. Unfortumately we are seeing more
and more people in this country who have never read the Bible and don't know
anything about it. When it comes to making claims about the bible are we to
believe you, who has read it, or should we believe some person claiming that
it advocates human sacrifice, when that same individual has never read the
Bible? Who would you think makes a better source for information about the

Similarly, I would suggest that Feduccia and Wild, who actually have
examined the data make a better source than Morris and Parker who have not
seen the fossil.


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood