Re: half-evolved feather pt 2

Glenn Morton (
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:16:43 -0500

At 07:14 PM 4/16/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
>>>>Consider Morris and Parker's statement:<<<
>They wrote in 1987. Your so-called 'evidence' for a half-feather,
>half-scale creature was written in 1996 and even they were not sure of
>exactly what they discovered.

Ron, as I have many times and you keep ignoring, the first English language
report of this was in a 1972 article long before your 1987. And yes they did
know what they had because the first article was P. F. A Maderson, "On How
an Archosaurian Scale Might have Given Rise to an Avian Feather," The
American Naturalist,106(1972):424-428, p. 424-425

Like it or not, the 1987 writing by the creationist missed this article. In
other words, they didn't do sufficient research on their topic.

>Since you are so fond of quotes. let me give one from Michael Denton's book
>EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, pp. 209. He quotes from B.J. Stahl
>arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis." Now
>who should I believe? Your quote or Denton?

My quote. I would like to point out that Stahl's book was published in 1974
and the research would have been from 1972 and 1973. It is much more likely
that Stahl either missed a 1972 article or was not sure of the reaction and
chose not to include it. However, by 1987 the article was 15 years old and
should have been found.

>The whole concept of macroevolution is an error. When schoolchildren are
>confronted with the bias and preconditioned macroevolutionary responses and
>see, really see, what flimsy supports it really has they turn from science
>to other pursuits, unless they go along with the 'Emperor's New Clothes'
>idea that permeates our higher education philosophy at present. By the
>way, there is no 'fossil evidence'. Even your quote indicates it is just
>'possible' not a confirmed, scientific fact. Your posts seem to assume its
>a fact, not a possibility. It is wrong for you to make it so.

I would agree that the feather is a possible half evolved feather. But it
is wrong for YECs to state that there is NO evidence of such a thing which
is really what my point is. Why do they say NO evidence when there is SOME?
As I said the other day, it is OK to say that this is not a half evolved
feather, it is not ok to say it doesn't exist.


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


Foundation, Fall and Flood