Re: half-evolved feather pt 2

Glenn Morton (
Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:41:38 -0500

At 05:55 AM 4/22/98 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:

>GM>Stephen, I didn't say that Longisquama was an intermediate
>>between birds and reptiles. I don't know where you got this.
>>From your post of 4 April. You said that "this group (basal archosaurs,
>including thecodonts)" were "the most likely candidate for proximity to
>avian ancestry":
>Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 14:09:16 -0600
>From: (Glenn Morton)
>Subject: half-evolved feathers
>"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

While technically I didn't say it, in the spirit of the discussion you are
absolutely correct and I was wrong above.

>then you cite "evidence that dinosaurs had feathers independently of
>flight"! Which is it to be?

Dinosaurs can have feathers which are not related to flight. After all, if
progressive creation is correct, then the feathers of the ostrich, who can't
fly were created by God but never designed to fly.

>>SJ>You have mentioned that "the first english language report on
>>>Longisquama appeard in 1972". When was the *latest* journal
>>>article on it?
>GM>Of what value is this? It was mentioned in Nature magazine a few
>>weeks ago which is where I learned of it.
>This is the first time you have mentioned that you first learned of
>Longisquama "in Nature magazine". When you wrote:
>"...This fossil was cited in a discussion of bird origins recently which is
>where I first found it, and I am trying to chase this down." (Date: Mon,
>06 Apr 1998 18:42:22 -0500 To: Bill Hamilton
><>, From:
> (Glenn Morton) Subject: Re: half-evolved
>we all assumed you meant the Naturwissenschaften article, because
>your first post on the subject said:
>"I just ran into the following data which contradicts one of the favorite
>anti-evolutionary claims...A. Feduccia and R. Wild, "Birdlike
>Characters in the Triassic Archosaur Megalancosaurus,"
>Naturwissenschaften, 80(1993):564-566
>The clear impression given is that what you "ran into" was the
>Naturwissenschaften article. Why were you not open and above board
>and state from the outset that "It was mentioned in Nature magazine a
>few weeks ago"?
>Indeed, you still seem to be less than open in the vague way you say:
>"It was mentioned in Nature magazine a few weeks ago." Why don't
>you give exact references and even a quote, like you did for the
>Naturwissenschaften article?

I didn't go look up the Nature article because it takes so much time to find
things some times. I have a huge library and sometimes I am lazy. HEre is
the Nature article. "Theropod-Bird Link reconsidered: discussion and reply,
A. Feduccia et al, Nature, 391(1998):p. 754


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


Foundation, Fall and Flood