Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Feathers originated 70 million years earlier than thought


From ScienceDaily:

An international team of palaeontologists, which includes the University of Bristol, has discovered that the flying reptiles, pterosaurs, actually had four kinds of feathers, and these are shared with dinosaurs — pushing back the origin of feathers by some 70 million years.

Professor Mike Benton from the University of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences, said: “We ran some evolutionary analyses and they showed clearly that the pterosaur pycnofibres are feathers, just like those seen in modern birds and across various dinosaur groups.

“Despite careful searching, we couldn’t find any anatomical evidence that the four pycnofibre types are in any way different from the feathers of birds and dinosaurs. Therefore, because they are the same, they must share an evolutionary origin, and that was about 250 million years ago, long before the origin of birds.”

Birds have two types of advanced feathers used in flight and for body smoothing, the contour feathers with a hollow quill and barbs down both sides.

These are found only in birds and the theropod dinosaurs close to bird origins. But the other feather types of modern birds include monofilaments and down feathers, and these are seen much more widely across dinosaurs and pterosaurs.

The armoured dinosaurs and the giant sauropods probably did not have feathers, but they were likely suppressed, meaning they were prevented from growing, at least in the adults, just as hair is suppressed in whales, elephants, and hippos. Pigs are a classic example, where the piglets are covered with hair like little puppies, and then, as they grow, the hair growth is suppressed.

Professor Benton added: “This discovery has amazing implications for our understanding of the origin of feathers, but also for a major time of revolution of life on land.

“When feathers arose, about 250 million years ago, life was recovering from the devasting end-Permian mass extinction. Paper. (paywall) – Zixiao Yang, Baoyu Jiang, Maria E. McNamara, Stuart L. Kearns, Michael Pittman, Thomas G. Kaye, Patrick J. Orr, Xing Xu, Michael J. Benton. Pterosaur integumentary structures with complex feather-like branching. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2018; 3 (1): 24 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0728-7 More.

It certainly is “amazing,” as Professor Benton says, that a complex array of features appeared 250 million years ago, rather abruptly, just as life was recovering from the Permian extinction. Would anyone have predicted that? Talk about “fossil rabbits in the Cambrian.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: The Founding Feathers?


Dinosaur found with preserved tail feathers, skin

Moreover, PavelU since you seem motivated to falsify ID and prove evolution true, to falsify ID and prove evolution true then all you have to do, since the primary claim of ID is that only an intelligent mind can create non-trivial information, is simply prove that unguided material processes can generate non-trivial coded information. Shoot, besides falsifying ID and proving evolution true, you could, potentially, win yourself up to 10 million dollars to boot:
The Problem Natural Code LLC is a Private Equity Investment group formed to identify a naturally occurring code. Our mission is to discover, develop and commercialize core principles of nature which give rise to information, consciousness and intelligence. Natural Code LLC will pay the researcher $100,000 for the initial discovery of such a code. If the newly discovered process is defensibly patentable, we will secure the patent(s). Once patents are granted, we will pay the full prize amount to the discoverer in exchange for the rights. Our investment group will locate or develop commercial applications for the technology. The discoverer will retain a percentage of ongoing ownership of the technology, sharing in future profits of the company, while benefitting from the extensive finance, marketing and technology experience of our investment group. Prize amount as of Summer 2017 is $5 million. The prize caps at $10 million. Code is absolutely necessary for replication and for life. Code is needed for cells to have instructions to build themselves; code is required for reproduction. Code that has the ability to re-write itself is essential for any kind of evolution to occur. So… where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Currently, no one knows the answer. https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
For what its worth, all the falsification criteria laid out by Charles Darwin himself have now been met, but Darwinists still refuse to honestly admit that their supposed scientific theory is now falsified as far as empirical science is concerned:
Charles Darwin himself listed (at least) four lines of evidence that could potentially falsify his theory. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” –Charles Darwin, Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 189 “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 308 https://evolutionnews.org/2009/04/coyne_and_the_meaning_of_evolu/ “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species – 1866 – pg. 241 “The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” – Charles Darwin Origin of Species – 1859 – pg. 199 All four of those falsification criteria, laid out by Charles Darwin himself, have now been met (and yet Darwinists still refuse to accept falsification): https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/from-barren-planet-to-civilization-in-four-easy-steps/#comment-666034 Charles Darwin also laid out a fifth potential falsification of his theory in this personal letter: “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” Charles Darwin to Doedes, N. D. – Letter – 2 Apr 1873 Like the other four falsification criteria, I hold this additional falsification criteria, laid out by Darwin himself, to have now been met: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/from-barren-planet-to-civilization-in-four-easy-steps/#comment-666038 Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification - paper https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit
PavelU, aside from the usual peer-reviewed 'just so story telling' of Darwinists, do you have any actual real time experimental evidence of feathers originating from scales? No?? I thought not! Shoot, I would take experimental proof of one species of bacteria transforming into another species of bacteria as proof that it is at least plausible to do as you imagine, but you don't even have that minimal level of proof:
Darwin vs. Microbes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntxc4X9Zt-I
Until you present such real time experimental proof that it is even possible to transform one creature into another creature, you are certainly not doing science when you make such dogmatic claims as you have done in post 2.. But since you, I assume in good faith, at least pretended that you were being scientific, here, if you are interested, are some of the primary scientific reasons that you are not even in the right metaphysical ballpark as to offering a coherent solution for explaining biological novelty:
Darwinism vs Biological Form https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
Here are a few feather-related papers that confirm evolution and disproof ID: Molecular signaling in feather morphogenesis A chemotaxis model of feather primordia pattern formation during avian development Dynamic transcriptome profiling towards understanding the morphogenesis and development of diverse feather in domestic duck Genetic and Molecular Basis of Feather Diversity in Birds Development, Regeneration, and Evolution of Feathers (PDF, PMC) A non-coding region near Follistatin controls head colour polymorphism in the Gouldian finch   De Novo Transcriptome Sequencing Analysis of Goose (Anser anser) Embryonic Skin and the Identification of Genes Related to Feather Follicle Morphogenesis at Three Stages of Development Introgression of regulatory alleles and a missense coding mutation drive plumage pattern diversity in the rock pigeon This one is not feather-related, but also confirm that evolution is true and ID isn't: The fitness consequences of genetic variation in wild populations of mice PDF PavelU
earlier than predicted under NDT assumptions, followed by stasis, favors ID and YeC, as explained in/by RCCF framework for understanding science. Pearlman

Leave a Reply