Re: half-evolved feather pt 2

Glenn R. Morton (
Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:20:36 -0500

At 06:18 AM 5/1/98 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
>Thanks for this qualified admission that you were wrong". I now take
>it that you *do* claim that "Longisquama was an intermediate between
>birds and reptiles"?

Personally, I haven't made up my mind. My issue is that there IS a
structure which appears to be a half-evolved feather. I don't care whether
the feather was going onto a dinosaur or onto a bird. It is the feather I
find interesting.

>>SJ>then you cite "evidence that dinosaurs had feathers independently
>>>of flight"! Which is it to be?
>GM>Dinosaurs can have feathers which are not related to flight.
>If a "Dinosaurs can have feathers" and not be a bird, then what
>exactly *is* a bird?

a lot more than a feather. A feather is part of it but only part of it.
There are lung criteria, osteological criteria such as hollow bones, a
furcula, wings, beaks etc.

>GM>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.
>Your "attack-is-the-best-defense" strategy is noted.

Stephen, you always misunderstand this and then react this way. This is a
matter of noting that there are things that don't fit the progressive
creation position. There is nothing wrong in noting that. Quit taking
things so personally. They are not meant personally. All I am doing (or
want to do)is discussing ideas.


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information