Feathers, Fables, Dinosaurs and Ham
KEN HAM ON EDUCATION!
Feathers, fables, and dinosaurs!
Home Education Weekly News - 6 June 2003
What do feathers have to do with fables and dinosaurs? Actually, a lot!
Ken Ham: Many of the top fossil and dinosaur experts met at "Dinofest" to discuss their latest findings. One of the talks was about the origin of feathers. It went something like this: IF we started with the tubercle (or bump) in the skin of a dinosaur,....
We're talking about scales Mr Ham. Perhaps you aren't aware of it (it wouldn't surprise me if you weren't), but early dinosaurs had plenty of scales. Later ones had feathers. Oh, sorry, you're still in denial about that fact.
....we can understand how feathers developed.
Well, we can combine that with the fossil data. And the genetic data. And the data from comparative morphology. And embryology. And much of the rest of biology.
When you have an explanation for all of the above evidence, won't you let us know, Mr Ham? Or is empty denial really the best you can manage, along with some lying? No, don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question.
All we would need is for the bump to form a spike in the center -....
Last time I checked, the first step was for the scale to fray, not for some "tubercle" to form a spike. Why don't you address actual theory Mr Ham? Because you can't? Because it would make you look stupid? But that can't be the reason, because what you're posting does that!
Meanwhile, modern reptiles show frayed scales, demonstrating that the proposed first step is quite possible. Sorry Mr Ham, you lose again.
....and IF this spike was hollow....
What, it has to start out like it finishes? Your utter ignorance of how evolution works is displayed again Mr Ham.
....and IF we had the genetic machinery to create a follicle -....
What machinery? Reptiles already have basic structures in place for that. Or did you think scales just sat on top of the skin?
....and IF we had the material to grow a feather -....
You seem to think that we have to start with a feather to end with a feather. But if that's the conclusion you're trying to support why is it here in your argument? Don't you realize that it renders your entire rant nothing more than a circular reasoning logical error?
....and IF we had the additional genetic information to turn on and off the growth - then a feather could form!
So, in your world Mr Ham, scales just grow and grow forever? If feathers evolved from scales, they can inherit the same machinery!
This isn't science - it's a fable!
Yes. It's a fable that your rubbish in the above paragraph has anything to do with science. More to the point, it's nonsense to think that anything in the above paragraph remotely resembles anything done by scientists regarding the formation of feathers.
It seems Mr Ham that you have to lie and make up nonsense stories because you can't deal with the evidence.
How about actually addressing the fossils with incipient feathers that show exactly the stages you are pretending don't exist? How about actually addressing the fact that the same gene cluster that controls scales in reptiles controls feathers in birds? How about dealing with the fact that a single point mutation turns feathers back into scales in chickens?
Surely there's a reason why creationists makes up nonsense stories like yours instead of actually discussing the evidence. What kind of reason might it be? I suppose that it might be because creationism simply cannot deal with the evidence and thus must live in a perpetual state of denial about it.
Let's look at just how little you, Mr Ham, understand about genetics!
But it's typical of the way evolutionists can talk. It's their attempt to explain how evolution supposedly happened. They didn't even TRY to offer a way to answer all of their 'Ifs.'
You do like lying Mr Ham. Perhaps someone should send you all the case studies in feather evolution where the genetics of the arrangements are clearly presented? Can you pretend they don't exist when they're clogging your inbox? Sadly, I believe you can.
Note that even if there is disagreement with the conclusions, we can't pretend, as Mr Ham does, that scientists aren't trying to answer the "ifs", that is the actual "ifs", not this nonsense story Mr Ham is calling "what evilution says" in the hope of fooling people who know as little of the facts as he does, that it vaguely resembles the actual arguments.
Real science shows that the genetic information for feathers can't arise by chance. It must originate with an Intelligence - the Creator in Genesis!
A lie! By any definition of information actually used by those who study information theory, information can and must increase. Creationists have their own private definition of information which amounts to "Something that can't increase, so there!"