Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I came across this discussion paper the other day, and I realized it shows, quite clearly, how groups of scientists, often at odds as to the interpretation or direction of a proposed hypothesis, still work together, even if they disagree on some of the details.
Feathers, scutes and the origin of birds (http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm - broken link)
This paper records exactly the sort of typical controversial banter that is always associated with the cutting edge and advancement of anyhypothesis in its' working towards a far more sustainable and well-supported scientific "theory" (using the scientific lingo definition, not the colloquial Wal-Mart-level jingo version so often trotted out).
This discussion centers on the controversy of the origins of bird feathers, (waaaayyyyy back in 1996, when this was originally published; literally an intellectual "century" in scientific research time, esp. given the new science of DNA mapping). As to whether they originated from dinosaur's scales. Turns out the research indicated that, alternately, scales may have originated out of earlier, primitive feather-like structures in proto-dinosaur ancestors with a fur-like integument (skin-like covering).
The Chinese fossil dinosaur finding cited in this article, of a small dinosaur with down-like feather structures, was a key indicator, a finding that must have startled the scientific community, but they did not hide nor mis-interpret it. It became the cornerstone of another research direction, as well it should have!
As well, I have previously reported a recent study where they unmasked the genes in modern chickens that turn off the development of very dino-like teeth and a reptilian tail. The genes are still in all of your barnyard chickens, they are just suppressed. When these genes were uncovered, guess what the resulting chicken offspring developed? Teeth and a tail? Just like Barney? Yup!
My point with this paper is to demo how and why researchers came to this novel alternative conclusion. Certainly if they'd had the oft-accused prior bias of Evolutionary scientists, they would certainly have "adjusted" their conclusions, rather than "admitting" that they found evidence the exact opposite to what most scientists had assumed.
The cited research work that supported this "new" idea (well, again, it was 1996...) was compelling. I have no idea as to what DNA mapping and further studies on this controversy have since discovered or what new ideas might be better supported by newer research. I may just have to go and look.
Meantime, enjoy this article if you are truly open-minded and curious as to how scientifically based conclusions, and therefore, most modern facts, come to be. It's hardly like blindly reaching into a jar, pulling out the next random idea and then jamming it into some preconceived notion.
Moderator cut: calling out moderationIn regard to the OP, the response from the conservative christian front will be their typical "it's only a theory"Moderator cut: attack
Moderator cut: calling out moderation
Last edited by Miss Blue; 01-19-2011 at 09:48 AM..
I found this very useful indeed since the evolution of the feather has been a considerable question for me. This is pretty good genetic evidence for the evolutionary link between scales and feathers.
The lack of feedback can be taken as tacit inability to find anything wrong with it - by either side.
I just skimmed it, but interesting article. I was really into dinosaurs and birds when I was a boy, but I guess I'd forgotten about the whole feathers issue. Or maybe I never got that deep into the subject, somewhere in my early teens, maybe earlier than that, I got into ancient China. And then later I switched to science fiction.
Although as the article does not mention religion or philosophy, unless I missed that as I did just skim, I might be tempted to wonder why this thread is here rather than at the science section. I assume though that it's due to debates about evolution and how scientists discuss things better.
I'm not sure it accomplishes much there because I think if an educated person disbelieves in the evolution of even birds it's probably because they want to disbelieve it. It's probably not because they think the person is totally unreasonable so much as they think the person is serving something they deem bad. They feel/fear evolution leads to Rational Materialism or Social Darwinism. And if someone is set against something it really doesn't matter how reasonably those in it put the matter. If a person, using statistics and studies, endeavored to show that Black Africans are mentally inferior to Northern Europeans it wouldn't matter how calm or unemotional they were about it. You or I would likely still be a bit appalled. For the anti-evolutionist evolution is maybe as immoral as racism is to us.
So for those of us who accept evolution it seems like this maybe should just be in science, along with any new developments on the issue since the 1990s, and for anti-evolutionists it's maybe not going to serve a purpose at all. Still interesting.
As to the reason for this article, Thomas (you said here: "I might be tempted to wonder why this thread is here rather than at the science section. I assume though that it's due to debates about evolution and how scientists discuss things better.")
....it's certainly not specifically to discuss feathers and their origins. It's about how scientists reach conclusions, even when there's not necessarily a consensus. It's still a logical process, not as described by many theist science critics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
I came across this discussion paper the other day, and I realized it shows, quite clearly, how groups of scientists, often at odds as to the interpretation or direction of a proposed hypothesis, still work together, even if they disagree on some of the details.
Feathers, scutes and the origin of birds (http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm - broken link)
etc etc....
...enjoy this article if you are truly open-minded and curious as to how scientifically based conclusions, and therefore, most modern facts, come to be.
*****It's hardly like blindly reaching into a jar, pulling out the next random idea and then jamming it into some preconceived notion.*****
I just skimmed it, but interesting article. I was really into dinosaurs and birds when I was a boy, but I guess I'd forgotten about the whole feathers issue. Or maybe I never got that deep into the subject, somewhere in my early teens, maybe earlier than that, I got into ancient China. And then later I switched to science fiction.
Although as the article does not mention religion or philosophy, unless I missed that as I did just skim, I might be tempted to wonder why this thread is here rather than at the science section. I assume though that it's due to debates about evolution and how scientists discuss things better.
I'm not sure it accomplishes much there because I think if an educated person disbelieves in the evolution of even birds it's probably because they want to disbelieve it. It's probably not because they think the person is totally unreasonable so much as they think the person is serving something they deem bad. They feel/fear evolution leads to Rational Materialism or Social Darwinism. And if someone is set against something it really doesn't matter how reasonably those in it put the matter. If a person, using statistics and studies, endeavored to show that Black Africans are mentally inferior to Northern Europeans it wouldn't matter how calm or unemotional they were about it. You or I would likely still be a bit appalled. For the anti-evolutionist evolution is maybe as immoral as racism is to us.
So for those of us who accept evolution it seems like this maybe should just be in science, along with any new developments on the issue since the 1990s, and for anti-evolutionists it's maybe not going to serve a purpose at all. Still interesting.
Quite so, Thom. It has come up before what evolution is doing in religion or even philosophy. It belongs in the science forum.
The reason it crops up so often here is why a number of other disciplines such as archaeology turn up here. They can and do have a sideline impact on the veracity of the Bible. And, whether or not you agree, the Bible is the basis of what Christianity takes to be factual.
Apart from that, though it has been argued that evolution does not and is not intended to disprove 'god' and religious belief - even creation (of a kind) is not incompatible with evolution theory (or the Big bang Cosmology, to get that aspect in), Evolution denial has become a sort of article of faith simply because of the vociferous insistence on Bible literalism.
I don't think that fear of social darwinism is really the reason why evolution denial goes on - those are just armour - piercing bullet points in the volley of theist gunfire against god - denying science.
I think it was significant in William Jennings Bryan's thinking, at least going by his autobiography. It's probably not significant now because Social Darwinism itself is maybe not significant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, Thomas R; it's in the OP
