The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Reptile without scales demonstrates common descent

Posted 26 June 2016 by Matt Young

David MacMillan sent the following e-mail to me and a handful of others. He directed us to this article from the Sacramento Bee, which describes how a biologist, Michel Milinkovitch, discovered a bearded dragon that lacked both scales and beard. He bought the reptile from a breeder and, with his graduate student, Nicolas Di-Po, sequenced its genome and discovered that the same gene codes for scales in reptiles, feathers in birds, and hair in mammals. The only sensible conclusion that may be drawn is that reptiles, birds, and mammals share a common ancestor. Herewith, Mr. MacMillan's e-mail, reproduced with permission: A bearded dragon was born without any scales, leading to what may turn out to be one of the most exciting evolutionary discoveries of the decade. Can't wait to see how creationists – particularly the ones at Answers in Genesis – try to spin this. This lizard was found by a biologist in a pet store. Curious, he decided to buy it and have its DNA sequenced. By comparing its DNA to "normal" bearded dragon DNA, they were able to locate the gene that is typically responsible for the formation of scales in reptiles. Big surprise: it's the exact same gene responsible for the formation of feathers in birds and hair in mammals. It was already known that the gene for feathers in birds matched the gene for hair in mammals. Because common descent requires that birds and mammals both evolved from reptiles, this commonality represented a major limitation on the origin of scales. If the gene for scales didn't match, it would seriously challenge a major framework of common descent. Not only did the discovery allow scientists to verify this prediction, but it also gave them the information they needed to find and observe scale development in reptile embryos. Sure enough, it too matched the time of hair development in mammals and feather development in birds. Well-informed readers will not that this is not embryonic recapitulation; rather, it is a common developmental cycle resulting from common ancestry. This product of evolutionary science enables new understanding of life in the here and now. How will Answers in Genesis respond? I'm not sure – but I can make some educated guesses. "This is a clear example that mutations are always harmful." "This lizard, rather than progressing upward, has lost information (an example of microevolution) and has not changed 'kinds' (as required by macroevolution)." Of course these miss the point completely; this particular lizard's mutation merely allowed for another discovery. "The belief that this gene can be used to trace common origins of reptiles, birds, and mammals is an evolutionary assumption based on the naturalistic presuppositions of secular scientists." "Even if it is proven that this same gene does control scales, feathers, and hair, this would be a demonstration of common design within the Biblical worldview." These miss the point that this is a necessary prediction of the evolutionary model. Any other possible answers?

72 Comments

Genki Pseudo · 26 June 2016

"If the gene for scales didn’t match, it would seriously challenge a major framework of common descent."

So if we were to discover a situation where two descendant lineages shared a gene for a common structure (like external hairlike covering), but a third group lost the original gene and later repurposed a different gene for producing hairlike structures, this would count as a serious challenge to common descent? Really??

Joe Felsenstein · 26 June 2016

It would pose a challenge, to be weighed against all the evidence from the rest of the genome. It would then be much better to explain the evidence from these particular loci by the events you envisage.

Joe Felsenstein · 26 June 2016

"But do you have a complete step-by-step explanation of all the steps in the evolution of scales, hair, and feathers? I thought not! I win, because I have a complete explanation, namely: The Designer did it."

Henry J · 26 June 2016

Is the reptile scale also homologous to the scales on fish?

(And is "homologous" the right word for that question?)

Robert Byers · 26 June 2016

Many, too many, points here.
YEC creationism, possibly ID, could predict these genes being the same for these different types of body parts. Lets presume this gene stuff is accurate by these people.

Common design easily would see all body bits being just expressions of a common genetic blueprint.
Why not feathers and hair and scales being just needs of bodies to survive with extra traits AND THEN being from the same basic dna equation.?!
Why is only common descent the only option for like genetic foundations?
Whi says god couldn't do it this way? I would do it that way. In fact all biology shows common design foundatiomns. Why not at the more atomic level of dna?
Its fine with me and welcome. Common design works at every level of biology.

Its not biological evidence for common descent. Its only a line of reasoning from a presumption of comparaitive biology equals common origin.
Thats all it is. Common design predicts the same thing.
Everybody is just using basic data points. The processes are not shown by the results.
Comparative genetic research is just comparing and then guessing about why comparable.

Right or wrong evolutionists convincing themselves that likeness equals like origin is no different then some kid saying that about eyeballs. A common eyeball origin !!! Another kid saying a creator with a common blueprint for eyeballs but creatures with eyeballs created separately .

David MacMillan · 26 June 2016

Genki Pseudo said: "If the gene for scales didn’t match, it would seriously challenge a major framework of common descent." So if we were to discover a situation where two descendant lineages shared a gene for a common structure (like external hairlike covering), but a third group lost the original gene and later repurposed a different gene for producing hairlike structures, this would count as a serious challenge to common descent? Really??
In the example you propose, no. This, however, is a slightly different situation, and one which is fairly unique. We have reptiles, which are required by fossil evidence to have preceded both birds and mammals, and then we have birds and mammals which came later. Given the present existence of scales, feathers, and hair, and the paleontological requirement that feathers and hair came after scales, there are four possible genetic origins: 1. Feathers and hair each evolved from genes unrelated to scales. 2. Feathers evolved from the genes which produce scales, but hair evolved from unrelated genes. 3. Hair evolved from the genes which produce scales, but feathers evolved from unrelated genes. 4. Hair and feathers each evolved independently from the same genes that produces scales. Case 4 is the only situation in which the gene for hair would match the gene for feathers. Since we already knew that hair and feathers come from the same gene, and since we know that scales still exist, then the common gene from which hair and feathers originated needed to be the gene for scales. We couldn't really expect that reptiles would have lost their original gene for scales and evolved identical scales from a different gene.

W. H. Heydt · 26 June 2016

Robert Byers said: YEC creationism, possibly ID, could predict these genes being the same for these different types of body parts.
Maybe ID/Creationism *could* have made that prediction...but it didn't. Claiming the prediction NOW doesn't count. You have to do it before the discovery...or it isn't a "prediction", rather it's a "post hoc rationalization". You lose...again.

Pierce R. Butler · 26 June 2016

Any other possible answers?

Satan tortured that poor lizard by stealing its scale genes, then deceived the naive Milinkovitch into thinking Darwin did it.

Genki Pseudo · 26 June 2016

In the example you propose, no. This, however, is a slightly different situation, and one which is fairly unique. We have reptiles, which are required by fossil evidence to have preceded both birds and mammals, and then we have birds and mammals which came later. ... Case 4 is the only situation in which the gene for hair would match the gene for feathers. Since we already knew that hair and feathers come from the same gene, and since we know that scales still exist, then the common gene from which hair and feathers originated needed to be the gene for scales. We couldn't really expect that reptiles would have lost their original gene for scales and evolved identical scales from a different gene. (Why not? - GS)
Let's remember that mammals and birds are not the descendants of modern reptiles, but that there is a common ancestor of all three, which presumably had a gene for scale-like structures. We'll call the gene coding for it gene A. Imagine in the lineages leading to birds and mammals gene A was retained, but lost in the lineage leading to modern reptiles. If sometime later an unrelated gene B was coopted to make scales through similar selective pressures (think convergent evolution), this would make modern reptile scales NOT have a homologous gene. If this were the case you said it would not count as a serious challenge to common descent, but it could have happened exactly way. The pattern of gene loss and convergent cooption in separate lineages is not unheard of. I could be wrong, but I think you need to revisit your starting premises. The gene could have simply been lost and convergently recovered through cooption in the modern reptile lineage. No reason to rule that out, other than parsimony (which would be reversed if we observed non-homologous scale genes, since the parsimonious explanation would then become gene loss followed by convergent cooption).

TomS · 27 June 2016

Joe Felsenstein said: "But do you have a complete step-by-step explanation of all the steps in the evolution of scales, hair, and feathers? I thought not! I win, because I have a complete explanation, namely: The Designer did it."
"Why does the Mona Lisa have that smile?" "Leonardo Da Vinci painted it."

David MacMillan · 27 June 2016

Genki Pseudo said:
In the example you propose, no. This, however, is a slightly different situation, and one which is fairly unique. We have reptiles, which are required by fossil evidence to have preceded both birds and mammals, and then we have birds and mammals which came later. ... Case 4 is the only situation in which the gene for hair would match the gene for feathers. Since we already knew that hair and feathers come from the same gene, and since we know that scales still exist, then the common gene from which hair and feathers originated needed to be the gene for scales. We couldn't really expect that reptiles would have lost their original gene for scales and evolved identical scales from a different gene. (Why not? - GS)
Let's remember that mammals and birds are not the descendants of modern reptiles, but that there is a common ancestor of all three, which presumably had a gene for scale-like structures. We'll call the gene coding for it gene A. Imagine in the lineages leading to birds and mammals gene A was retained, but lost in the lineage leading to modern reptiles. If sometime later an unrelated gene B was coopted to make scales through similar selective pressures (think convergent evolution), this would make modern reptile scales NOT have a homologous gene. If this were the case you said it would not count as a serious challenge to common descent, but it could have happened exactly way. The pattern of gene loss and convergent cooption in separate lineages is not unheard of. I could be wrong, but I think you need to revisit your starting premises. The gene could have simply been lost and convergently recovered through cooption in the modern reptile lineage. No reason to rule that out, other than parsimony (which would be reversed if we observed non-homologous scale genes, since the parsimonious explanation would then become gene loss followed by convergent cooption).
This would be a possibility if all modern reptiles descended from a single common ancestral reptile species after the emergence of feathers and hair. However, that's not the case. Synapsids and sauropsids diverged long before the emergence of mammals from the former clade and birds from the latter clade. Within the sauropsids, testudines and crocodilians and non-avian dinosaurs and ancestral lizards all diverged from each other long before the emergence of feathers. Modern turtles descend from prehistoric turtles that predate birds; modern snakes descend from prehistoric snakes that predate birds, modern lizards descend from prehistoric lizards that predate birds; modern crocodilians descend from prehistoric crocodilians that predate birds. If there was only one extant clade of scaled reptiles with an origin point later than the branching-off of mammals and birds, then it might be possible (though unlikely) that they lost scales and then re-evolved them from another gene. Of course, this would show up in the fossil record. But since there are multiple ancestral lines which all preserve scales, each of which diverged before the emergence of feathers and hair, we would not expect this to have happened simultaneously and identically in each line.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 27 June 2016

Genki Pseudo said:
In the example you propose, no. This, however, is a slightly different situation, and one which is fairly unique. We have reptiles, which are required by fossil evidence to have preceded both birds and mammals, and then we have birds and mammals which came later. ... Case 4 is the only situation in which the gene for hair would match the gene for feathers. Since we already knew that hair and feathers come from the same gene, and since we know that scales still exist, then the common gene from which hair and feathers originated needed to be the gene for scales. We couldn't really expect that reptiles would have lost their original gene for scales and evolved identical scales from a different gene. (Why not? - GS)
Let's remember that mammals and birds are not the descendants of modern reptiles, but that there is a common ancestor of all three, which presumably had a gene for scale-like structures. We'll call the gene coding for it gene A. Imagine in the lineages leading to birds and mammals gene A was retained, but lost in the lineage leading to modern reptiles. If sometime later an unrelated gene B was coopted to make scales through similar selective pressures (think convergent evolution), this would make modern reptile scales NOT have a homologous gene. If this were the case you said it would not count as a serious challenge to common descent, but it could have happened exactly way. The pattern of gene loss and convergent cooption in separate lineages is not unheard of. I could be wrong, but I think you need to revisit your starting premises. The gene could have simply been lost and convergently recovered through cooption in the modern reptile lineage. No reason to rule that out, other than parsimony (which would be reversed if we observed non-homologous scale genes, since the parsimonious explanation would then become gene loss followed by convergent cooption).
Really, all of the ancestral reptiles lost the gene for scales, then all of them re-evolved another gene for scales? The same one, too? That's the scenario? It isn't parsimony, it's any kind of sense at all that's at stake. I don't know what your starting premises are, but they seem not to include what actually happened, wherein a number of ancient reptiles gave rise to today's reptiles (as well as to mammals and dinosaurs/birds). One reptile lineage losing scales and evolving a different gene for scales really would not be earth-shaking (if perhaps a bit surprising), but if all reptile lineages lost genes for scales and evolved a different gene for scales (especially if it happened to be the same gene) it would be miraculous. Why would it be a gene for scales that's re-evolved anyhow, why not one for hair instead? This is just it, evolution isn't something that happens in just one lineage. Not all reptiles would have to retain ancestral genes for scales (some could be convergent), but, given that reptiles generally do have scales, and hair and feathers share a common gene (and would necessarily have evolved from structures like scales), it's virtually a given that at least some (probably most) of the reptiles would have the same gene involved in their scale production. It's not been shown yet that all reptiles in fact do have the same gene for scales, and it wouldn't be too shocking if there were one clade or more that had a different convergent gene, although I wouldn't really expect it. If modern reptiles all came from a single ancestral line that survived extinction after giving rise to birds and mammals, then a different convergent gene for scales might appear in all modern reptiles, if, say, that ancestral line had lost scales for a time. Given that many modern reptile clades have roots rather older than dinosaurs and mammals, however, the only reasonable expectation from the hypothesis that both feathers and hair evolved from scales is that they would share genes similar to those of reptilian scales. At least similar to genes in some reptiles, if not necessarily in all of them. Glen Davidson

Genki Pseudo · 27 June 2016

Hi David, I am not suggesting it actually happened this way (since the gene A was indeed also found in reptiles). I am simply point out that if it had not been found, this would have presented us with no great difficulty. It is exaggeration to claim that it would. In fact, the paper describing this finding makes my case directly:
Conversely, other authors (3, 5, 8) argue that skin appendages have evolved independently in reptiles, birds, and mammals and that similarities in signaling are due to independent co-option of these molecular pathways.
The explanation I suggested was ready and waiting. Had gene A not been found in the reptile lineages, it would have beem taken as evidence for independent co-option.

Genki Pseudo · 27 June 2016

Sorry, forgot to link the paper:

Full Paper

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 27 June 2016

Robert Byers said: Many, too many, points here. YEC creationism, possibly ID, could predict these genes being the same for these different types of body parts. Lets presume this gene stuff is accurate by these people. Common design easily would see all body bits being just expressions of a common genetic blueprint. Why not feathers and hair and scales being just needs of bodies to survive with extra traits AND THEN being from the same basic dna equation.?! Why is only common descent the only option for like genetic foundations? Whi says god couldn't do it this way? I would do it that way. In fact all biology shows common design foundatiomns. Why not at the more atomic level of dna? Its fine with me and welcome. Common design works at every level of biology. Its not biological evidence for common descent. Its only a line of reasoning from a presumption of comparaitive biology equals common origin. Thats all it is. Common design predicts the same thing. Everybody is just using basic data points. The processes are not shown by the results. Comparative genetic research is just comparing and then guessing about why comparable. Right or wrong evolutionists convincing themselves that likeness equals like origin is no different then some kid saying that about eyeballs. A common eyeball origin !!! Another kid saying a creator with a common blueprint for eyeballs but creatures with eyeballs created separately .
Why are cephalopod eyes so vastly different from vertebrate eyes, if both have a common design/designer? Under unthinking evolution, and, given that apparently only very rudimentary eyes existed when the various animal clades split up (c. Cambrian Explosion), vertebrate and cephalopod eyes would necessarily have different developmental origins and be composed of rather different tissues. With design, with a few tweaks and adaptations to quite different bodies, very similar eyes could exist in both vertebrates and in cephalopods. And they don't. Just one test for design that design utterly fails. There are millions, at least. Glen Davidson

David MacMillan · 27 June 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Why are cephalopod eyes so vastly different from vertebrate eyes, if both have a common design/designer? Under unthinking evolution, and, given that apparently only very rudimentary eyes existed when the various animal clades split up (c. Cambrian Explosion), vertebrate and cephalopod eyes would necessarily have different developmental origins and be composed of rather different tissues. With design, with a few tweaks and adaptations to quite different bodies, very similar eyes could exist in both vertebrates and in cephalopods. And they don't. Just one test for design that design utterly fails. There are millions, at least. Glen Davidson
But of course common features are evidence for common design and divergent features are evidence for creativity! Everything is evidence for religion!

David MacMillan · 27 June 2016

Genki Pseudo said: I am not suggesting it actually happened this way (since the gene A was indeed also found in reptiles). I am simply point out that if it had not been found, this would have presented us with no great difficulty. It is exaggeration to claim that it would. In fact, the paper describing this finding makes my case directly:
Conversely, other authors (3, 5, 8) argue that skin appendages have evolved independently in reptiles, birds, and mammals and that similarities in signaling are due to independent co-option of these molecular pathways.
The explanation I suggested was ready and waiting. Had gene A not been found in the reptile lineages, it would have beem taken as evidence for independent co-option.
My understanding based on the original article was that the gene set for the production of hair in mammals was already known to be the same as the gene set for the production of feathers in avians. If this was indeed the case, then one must have evolved from the other (which would be wildly inconsistent with the fossil record) OR they both share a common genetic ancestor in reptilian scales. As regards the "other authors", I interpret that as a reference to convergent evolution of the embryonic development stage, not to convergent evolution of the structures themselves: "[There was an] apparent lack of an 'anatomical placode' (that is, a local epidermal thickening characteristic of feathers’ and hairs’ early morphogenesis) in reptile scale development. Hence, scenarios have been proposed for the independent development of the anatomical placode in birds and mammals and parallel co-option of similar signaling pathways for their morphogenesis." In other words, other authors were suggesting that the embryonic developmental stage with epidermal thickening and structural morphogenesis might have evolved convergently in birds and mammals. In this hypothesis, the gene sets for hair and feathers both evolved from the gene sets for scales, but the embryonic development stage shared by hair and feathers evolved independently later on (perhaps to support the greater complexity of hair and feathers). The successful location of the gene for scales (uncovered by the discovery of this scaleless lizard) allowed them to verify that the gene was the same in lizards. This WAS a requirement of evolutionary theory. It also allowed them to locate the embryonic development stage mirroring that in birds and mammals, which wasn't REQUIRED but settles that debate anyway. One thing I didn't get to bring up as much in my post earlier was that this discovery enabled researchers to learn something new about "observable" science in the present: specifically, the existence of a previously unknown embryonic developmental stage in lizards. This flies in the face of AiG's insistence that "historical science" is useless and unverifiable.

John Harshman · 27 June 2016

Is it just me or does anyone else cringe a little when you see "the gene for scales"?

David MacMillan · 27 June 2016

John Harshman said: Is it just me or does anyone else cringe a little when you see "the gene for scales"?
Sorry...obviously an oversimplification.

John Harshman · 27 June 2016

David MacMillan said:
John Harshman said: Is it just me or does anyone else cringe a little when you see "the gene for scales"?
Sorry...obviously an oversimplification.
And, to my mind, a pernicious one, as it feeds the public perception that such things exist.

Genki Pseudo · 27 June 2016

David, The discussion section of the linked paper makes it clear that it was ambiguous if the genetics would match before it was known, not just that there was uncertainty about the placodes. As they put it:
All these considerations have, for decades, fostered the debate on the homology, or lack thereof, among these skin appendages and led some authors (3, 5, 8) to conclude that homologous skin appendages do not exist beyond amniote classes (reptiles, mammals, and birds); that is, mammalian hair and avian feather would not have evolved from reptilian overlapping scales.
Can't get much clearer than that. I stand by my original claim that evolutionary theory would NOT have suffered if the other authors had been correct and feathers and hair had not evolved from reptile scales.

David MacMillan · 27 June 2016

Genki Pseudo said: The discussion section of the linked paper makes it clear that it was ambiguous if the genetics would match before it was known, not just that there was uncertainty about the placodes. As they put it:
All these considerations have, for decades, fostered the debate on the homology, or lack thereof, among these skin appendages and led some authors (3, 5, 8) to conclude that homologous skin appendages do not exist beyond amniote classes (reptiles, mammals, and birds); that is, mammalian hair and avian feather would not have evolved from reptilian overlapping scales.
Can't get much clearer than that. I stand by my original claim that evolutionary theory would NOT have suffered if the other authors had been correct and feathers and hair had not evolved from reptile scales.
Hmm. I don't see how it could have been possible for the hair gene set to match the feather gene set if they did not proceed from a common ancestral gene set.

David MacMillan · 27 June 2016

In the original article I linked to:

"'Either the placode was ancestral for everyone and then it was lost multiple times in independent lineages of reptile . . . or birds and mammals invented placodes independently,' he said. The second possibility seemed particularly unlikely because research had revealed that the same exact gene, called EDA, controlled placode development in both groups."

I was basing my argument on this mention of secondary research revealing that EDA had already been discovered as a common gene between hair and feathers (so that it wasn't just the common developmental cycle). Perhaps this research was more recent than the cited papers.

Daniel · 27 June 2016

Robert Byers said: Common design easily would see all body bits being just expressions of a common genetic blueprint. Common design works at every level of biology. Right or wrong evolutionists convincing themselves that likeness equals like origin is no different then some kid saying that about eyeballs. A common eyeball origin !!! Another kid saying a creator with a common blueprint for eyeballs but creatures with eyeballs created separately .
You might possibly have a point... IF all eyes were the same. But they are not. They are vastly different across lineages. Another thing that disproves common design, and your inference of a "creator with a common blueprint", are wings and flippers. Take the wings of a bat, a pterosaur, and a bird. They are very different structurally. And we are just talking vertebrate wings... but if we follow the example of the eyes, which are found across different phyla, then we can also take a look at insect wings, which have nothing in common with the vertebrate wings. Same goes with flippers. Look at the flippers of a shark, a clown fish, a dolphin, and an ichtyosaur. Like wings, they look superficially the same, but structurally they couldn't be more different. Common design does not explain these things. You already said so when you said that all eyes follow the same creator blueprint, which is clearly false.

PaulBC · 27 June 2016

Robert Byers said: Many, too many, points here.
Can Byers be persuaded to order by number from the menu in the future? I'm pretty sure his objection is equivalent to one suggested in the post:
"Even if it is proven that this same gene does control scales, feathers, and hair, this would be a demonstration of common design within the Biblical worldview."
Unusually, I went to the mental effort of translating from Byers Bizarro-speak (seriously, he could get a job with DC comics) and now my head hurts. Did I miss anything essential, or could Byers have just replied "That last one about common design. That's the one."?

Dave Luckett · 27 June 2016

Daniel, if Byers could grasp your point at all, which I doubt is possible, he would simply reply that the Creator could have made all eyes, all wings and all flippers, each one in each species as a one-off, or he could have made them all the same from the same structures, but he chose to do neither. He used a limited number of basic structures because that's what he chose to do. This explanation is neat, all-inclusive and elegant. The fact that it isn't an explanation will not bother Byers in the slightest. Now (he will tell you) all you have to do is prove that the Creator didn't work that way. Except that Byers knows that he did.

Omphalos can't be demolished. "God can do anything, therefore He could do this," is completely impervious to logical disproof. Byers simply does not understand, and if he did understand, would not acknowledge, the power of causal explanation. He can't for the life of him comprehend why an explanation that proceeds from observed natural cause is preferable to one that assumes a form of conscious decision. Occam's razor means absolutely nothing to Byers. He knows that the Universe and all it contains is the result of conscious decision. He knows this because.

There is no penetrating such a mindset. All that can be done with it is to leave it behind.

Robert Byers · 27 June 2016

W. H. Heydt said:
Robert Byers said: YEC creationism, possibly ID, could predict these genes being the same for these different types of body parts.
Maybe ID/Creationism *could* have made that prediction...but it didn't. Claiming the prediction NOW doesn't count. You have to do it before the discovery...or it isn't a "prediction", rather it's a "post hoc rationalization". You lose...again.
The prediction is always there. Its a conclusion of common design at any level of biology. The same with the other side. They always can say any likeness is evidence for common descent. Yet in both cases its just a comparative exercise.

Robert Byers · 27 June 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Robert Byers said: Many, too many, points here. YEC creationism, possibly ID, could predict these genes being the same for these different types of body parts. Lets presume this gene stuff is accurate by these people. Common design easily would see all body bits being just expressions of a common genetic blueprint. Why not feathers and hair and scales being just needs of bodies to survive with extra traits AND THEN being from the same basic dna equation.?! Why is only common descent the only option for like genetic foundations? Whi says god couldn't do it this way? I would do it that way. In fact all biology shows common design foundatiomns. Why not at the more atomic level of dna? Its fine with me and welcome. Common design works at every level of biology. Its not biological evidence for common descent. Its only a line of reasoning from a presumption of comparaitive biology equals common origin. Thats all it is. Common design predicts the same thing. Everybody is just using basic data points. The processes are not shown by the results. Comparative genetic research is just comparing and then guessing about why comparable. Right or wrong evolutionists convincing themselves that likeness equals like origin is no different then some kid saying that about eyeballs. A common eyeball origin !!! Another kid saying a creator with a common blueprint for eyeballs but creatures with eyeballs created separately .
Why are cephalopod eyes so vastly different from vertebrate eyes, if both have a common design/designer? Under unthinking evolution, and, given that apparently only very rudimentary eyes existed when the various animal clades split up (c. Cambrian Explosion), vertebrate and cephalopod eyes would necessarily have different developmental origins and be composed of rather different tissues. With design, with a few tweaks and adaptations to quite different bodies, very similar eyes could exist in both vertebrates and in cephalopods. And they don't. Just one test for design that design utterly fails. There are millions, at least. Glen Davidson
Think of all biology with eyeballs. I understand there are only a few divisions. Insects, sea creatures, and the rest. A common design is apparent for eyeballs. Indeed the variation is for very different types of creatures. Its not eyeballs for everybody's style. We all have "living fossil" eyes. Yet common design would predict common eyes type relative to basic living areas also. A basic blueprint for a good idea.

Robert Byers · 27 June 2016

Genki Pseudo said: David, The discussion section of the linked paper makes it clear that it was ambiguous if the genetics would match before it was known, not just that there was uncertainty about the placodes. As they put it:
All these considerations have, for decades, fostered the debate on the homology, or lack thereof, among these skin appendages and led some authors (3, 5, 8) to conclude that homologous skin appendages do not exist beyond amniote classes (reptiles, mammals, and birds); that is, mammalian hair and avian feather would not have evolved from reptilian overlapping scales.
Can't get much clearer than that. I stand by my original claim that evolutionary theory would NOT have suffered if the other authors had been correct and feathers and hair had not evolved from reptile scales.
If its a prediction that this all inclusive gene exists(for feathers, scales, hair) then ir would be a failed prediction if not found. Your side can't have it both ways. Actually any thing can be said by lines of reasoning. Convergent evolution has been invoked here a lot. That means one would never know if something was from common descent by way of a genetic trail BECAUSE convergent evolution could produce the same result. In fact I think convergence concepts completely erode any confidence in evolutionary constructions because one would never know if a convergent item from another direction was selected for. So threatening the whole comparative concept that is the foundation of evolutionism. Posters here prove it. Some genes prove feathers/scales/hair are from a common gene and others say NO. Convergence could do the trick. I think its another clue that reasoning lines can go anyway when the only investigation is based on comparing things.

phhht · 27 June 2016

Gods you're stupid, Byers.

Michael Fugate · 28 June 2016

phhht said: Gods you're stupid, Byers.
Amen. There are many good sources for dissuading people from using the "gene for" language. See for instance: https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/what-is-a-gene-and-what-is-it-for/ http://evolvingthoughts.net/2014/06/genes-the-language-of-god-0-preface/

DS · 28 June 2016

Michael Fugate said:
phhht said: Gods you're stupid, Byers.
Amen. There are many good sources for dissuading people from using the "gene for" language. See for instance: https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/what-is-a-gene-and-what-is-it-for/ http://evolvingthoughts.net/2014/06/genes-the-language-of-god-0-preface/
My favorite one is: "The gene for breast cancer."

Rolf · 29 June 2016

Robert Byers is delusional. He make bold statements about biology and genetics. But in fact he is only an ignorant YEC with no scientific education, and appears quite ignorant about most of the subjects he chose to make his personal "thoughts" or "lines of reasoning" known. But that's his worldview: It is a waste of time, money and effort to study nature. If you read the Bible and believe the planet is just a few thousand years old, then you know better than the fools of the scientific establisment. Like mathematics are useless and a waste of time, so is all the rest of science as well. Rocketry in space, landing on the moon? Don't need no math for that, just learn to think like Robert.
After a sight is taken, it is reduced to a position by following any of several mathematical procedures. The simplest sight reduction is to draw the equal-altitude circle of the sighted celestial object on a globe. The intersection of that circle with a dead-reckoning track, or another sighting, gives a more precise location. Dimeke used it in the 1960 Biafra ...
(Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant) Robert, do you still think math is useless?

Robert Byers · 29 June 2016

Rolf said: Robert Byers is delusional. He make bold statements about biology and genetics. But in fact he is only an ignorant YEC with no scientific education, and appears quite ignorant about most of the subjects he chose to make his personal "thoughts" or "lines of reasoning" known. But that's his worldview: It is a waste of time, money and effort to study nature. If you read the Bible and believe the planet is just a few thousand years old, then you know better than the fools of the scientific establisment. Like mathematics are useless and a waste of time, so is all the rest of science as well. Rocketry in space, landing on the moon? Don't need no math for that, just learn to think like Robert.
After a sight is taken, it is reduced to a position by following any of several mathematical procedures. The simplest sight reduction is to draw the equal-altitude circle of the sighted celestial object on a globe. The intersection of that circle with a dead-reckoning track, or another sighting, gives a more precise location. Dimeke used it in the 1960 Biafra ...
(Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextant) Robert, do you still think math is useless?
its not the scientific establishment(whatever that is). Its very small circles that ever or now study a few ideas in origin subjects. We are correcting very few actual thinkers. most just memorize what they are told. thats why revolutions in science happen. Its just a few against a few in these subjects. Then these are subjects about past and gone processes and results. its not like real science dealing with active mechanisms and results today. It is more difficult indeed to figure out the past. Evolutionism figured wrong! I think math is useful. Just not much use in figuring out the universe. Its just a language of measurement. Math is not a intellectual subject but just a memory one. unless one figures out some new detail about it. Even then its unsure. I support math in areas needed. Science however has little need of math. That is innovative science.

phhht · 29 June 2016

Robert Byers said: I think math is useful. Just not much use in figuring out the universe. Its just a language of measurement. Math is not a intellectual subject but just a memory one. unless one figures out some new detail about it. Even then its unsure. I support math in areas needed. Science however has little need of math.
You don't know any math, do you, Robert Byers. No, of course you don't. Only a profoundly ignorant person could make the stupid statements you did.

Matt Young · 29 June 2016

Mr. Byers's comment about math is so unutterably stupid that I suggest we delete any further Byers comments on this thread. Usually I try to give trolls like Mr. Byers a shot or two, but at this point I think we have had enough. Please do not reply to any future comments; just wait till I get a chance to send them to the BW. Please also refrain from disagreeable and unhelpful comments such as, "God, you are stupid."

phhht · 29 June 2016

Matt Young said: Mr. Byers's comment about math is so unutterably stupid that I suggest we delete any further Byers comments on this thread. Usually I try to give trolls like Mr. Byers a shot or two, but at this point I think we have had enough. Please do not reply to any future comments; just wait till I get a chance to send them to the BW. Please also refrain from disagreeable and unhelpful comments such as, "God, you are stupid."
You can always send me to the wall too, Matt Young. No need to be coy.

eric · 30 June 2016

PT really needs a "best of" section for creationist comments. I nominate Robert's "[Math is] just a language of measurement...Science however has little need of math" as the first entry. FL's claim that a vignette from a 1990s episode of Unsolved Mysteries is definitive proof of the existence of God is probably the second.

DS · 30 June 2016

I nominate:

"Genetics is atomic and unproven". (booby byers)

The burden of proof is on the negative claim. (Floyd Lee)

The human eye had to evolve in two hundred years. (Floyd Lee)

And that's just for starters.

TomS · 30 June 2016

"It's designed."

gnome de net · 30 June 2016

Matt Young said: Please do not reply to any future comments; just wait till I get a chance to send them to the BW.
Any response to Rebort Beyerz here is already a waste of time. Any response at the BW is really, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY a waste of time because Booby avoids the BW like a werewolf avoids garlic.

Matt Young · 30 June 2016

You can always send me to the wall too, Matt Young. No need to be coy.

What? Me, coy? Yes, I can always send your unhelpful comments to the BW, but would it not be easier if you never posted them? Often you make a lot of sense, but often you and others just post gratuitous insults. I realize that Mr. Byers can be infuriating, but I wish that you and others would (could?) restrain yourselves when you have nothing substantive to offer and wait until you do. I will guess that I am not alone in this sentiment.

John Harshman · 30 June 2016

Yes, send them to the Wall. Winter is coming.

DS · 30 June 2016

DS said: I nominate: "Genetics is atomic and unproven". (booby byers) The burden of proof is on the negative claim. (Floyd Lee) The human eye had to evolve in two hundred years. (Floyd Lee) And that's just for starters.
Almost forgot: There is no crime in New York, because everyone is afraid of the local pastor. (Floyd Lee)

Daniel · 30 June 2016

DS said: I nominate: "Genetics is atomic and unproven". (booby byers) The burden of proof is on the negative claim. (Floyd Lee) The human eye had to evolve in two hundred years. (Floyd Lee) And that's just for starters.
I am particularly fond of Byers' "thylacines are just wolves with a pouch" essay. I remember laughing for days. This is so astoundingly stupid as saying that dolphins are just tuna. Also, in one of the many discussions with FL about slavery, he claimed that nowhere in the bible it is supported the idea that your slave's children are also your property, and to back that up... he posted from Exodus 21, which in part reads "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's". I have never seen such an hilarious own-goal. Gotta love those creationists.

Rolf · 30 June 2016

The implications of E=mc2 are profound. For centuries, scientists had considered energy and mass to be completely distinct and unrelated to each other. Einstein showed that in fact, energy and mass are different forms of the same thing.
From here: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/energy/#/ I don’t know much math, but I can’t see how we could deal with subjects like that without math.

Henry J · 30 June 2016

gnome de net said:
Matt Young said: Please do not reply to any future comments; just wait till I get a chance to send them to the BW.
Any response to Rebort Beyerz here is already a waste of time. Any response at the BW is really, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY a waste of time because Booby avoids the BW like a werewolf avoids garlic.
It's vampires that avoid garlic.

Just Bob · 30 June 2016

DS said: I nominate: "Genetics is atomic and unproven". (booby byers) The burden of proof is on the negative claim. (Floyd Lee) The human eye had to evolve in two hundred years. (Floyd Lee) And that's just for starters.
I'll vote for IBelieveInGod's disastrous own goal when he (or at least one unit of the organism) said that we might not understand the original meaning of some Bible passages because some crucial words might have gotten lost, so that the apparent meaning now is completely different from that originally written. And you just have to love it when Floyd Lee defined 'living', or 'biblically alive' in such a way that it excluded human fetuses!

gnome de net · 1 July 2016

Henry J said:
gnome de net said:
Matt Young said: Please do not reply to any future comments; just wait till I get a chance to send them to the BW.
Any response to Rebort Beyerz here is already a waste of time. Any response at the BW is really, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY a waste of time because Booby avoids the BW like a werewolf avoids garlic.
It's vampires that avoid garlic.
The cross is twice as effective for vampires so I save my garlic for werewolves and spaghetti sauce.

Just Bob · 2 July 2016

The thing I always find incongruous about (Stoker's) Dracula is that he is a Catholic monster. He's repelled and defeated by specifically Catholic items: crucifixes, consecrated wafers, holy water, etc. But the major characters are all Protestants including, IIRC, the vampire expert Van Helsing.

It seems to me that seeing the magical efficacy of Catholic paraphernalia -- indeed, having to turn to it rather than, say, The Book of Common Prayer -- should indicate to the characters that Catholic stuff works. So why don't they convert to Roman Catholicism, having just seen its efficacy?

Ravi · 3 July 2016

There is no such thing as a gene "for" a particular trait such as a feather or a scale. There are only genes coding for proteins used in the construction of these traits. If birds and reptiles share a particular gene, it only points to a common "design" and not a common "ancestry".

DS · 3 July 2016

Ravi said: There is no such thing as a gene "for" a particular trait such as a feather or a scale. There are only genes coding for proteins used in the construction of these traits. If birds and reptiles share a particular gene, it only points to a common "design" and not a common "ancestry".
Really? Including similarity at third codon positions? Including synteny? Including SINE insertions? You see, there are many features that make sense only if common descent is true and make no sense at all if any sort of design was involved. I would advise you to increase your knowledge.

TomS · 3 July 2016

DS said:
Ravi said: There is no such thing as a gene "for" a particular trait such as a feather or a scale. There are only genes coding for proteins used in the construction of these traits. If birds and reptiles share a particular gene, it only points to a common "design" and not a common "ancestry".
Really? Including similarity at third codon positions? Including synteny? Including SINE insertions? You see, there are many features that make sense only if common descent is true and make no sense at all if any sort of design was involved. I would advise you to increase your knowledge.
The problem with invoking "design" is that it is too vague to account for anything. For example: What are the constraints that the agency resorts to design to address? Design is not enough for something to appear. There needs to be work to be done on the raw materials. Etc.

DS · 3 July 2016

Evolution works be tweaking the ends of developmental pathways. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the same genes and pathways that control scale development would evolve to control hair and feather development as well. It makes absolutely no sense at all to claim that some supposed "designer" is constrained in exactly the same way that evolution is. Evolution could have happened slightly differently, although that would be less likely. But why on earth would the designer have to tweak inefficient mechanisms and not be able to start from scratch? Lack of imagination? Lack of competence? Inability to create new genes and pathways from nothing? Either way, you get a limited designer, which defeats the whole idea.

Scott F · 3 July 2016

Ravi said: There is no such thing as a gene "for" a particular trait such as a feather or a scale. There are only genes coding for proteins used in the construction of these traits. If birds and reptiles share a particular gene, it only points to a common "design" and not a common "ancestry".
I've always been curious. What Evidence does "common design" explain better than "common descent"?

TomS · 3 July 2016

One question may possibly have dwelt in the reader's mind during the perusal of these observations, namely, Why should not the Deity have given to the animal the faculty of vision at once? ... Why resort to contrivance, where power is omnipotent? Contrivance, by its very definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection. To have recourse to expedients, implies difficulty, impediment, restraint, defect of power. William Paley, Natural Theology Ch. 3: Application of the Argument

Ravi · 3 July 2016

DS said: Evolution works be tweaking the ends of developmental pathways. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the same genes and pathways that control scale development would evolve to control hair and feather development as well. It makes absolutely no sense at all to claim that some supposed "designer" is constrained in exactly the same way that evolution is. Evolution could have happened slightly differently, although that would be less likely. But why on earth would the designer have to tweak inefficient mechanisms and not be able to start from scratch? Lack of imagination? Lack of competence? Inability to create new genes and pathways from nothing? Either way, you get a limited designer, which defeats the whole idea.
Please tell us how scale development can be "tweaked" to produce a completely different structure like feathers? This is typical of evolutionists and their "just so" story telling. Either put up or shut up.

Ravi · 3 July 2016

TomS said: The problem with invoking "design" is that it is too vague to account for anything. For example: What are the constraints that the agency resorts to design to address? Design is not enough for something to appear. There needs to be work to be done on the raw materials. Etc.
A feather is clearly a designed structure even if we don't know how it is assembled.

DS · 3 July 2016

Ravi said:
TomS said: The problem with invoking "design" is that it is too vague to account for anything. For example: What are the constraints that the agency resorts to design to address? Design is not enough for something to appear. There needs to be work to be done on the raw materials. Etc.
A feather is clearly a designed structure even if we don't know how it is assembled.
Sorry, logical fail. Try again. Try harder next time.

TomS · 3 July 2016

Ravi said:
TomS said: The problem with invoking "design" is that it is too vague to account for anything. For example: What are the constraints that the agency resorts to design to address? Design is not enough for something to appear. There needs to be work to be done on the raw materials. Etc.
A feather is clearly a designed structure even if we don't know how it is assembled.
Even if we don't know what it means to be designed?

Mike Elzinga · 3 July 2016

Ravi said: Please tell us how scale development can be "tweaked" to produce a completely different structure like feathers? This is typical of evolutionists and their "just so" story telling. Either put up or shut up.
Evidently there is little anyone can explain to you because you haven't made the slightest effort to get a proper education. You need to start over at middle school, take high school biology, chemistry, and physics, and learn basic concepts and vocabulary. Your ignorance is typical of the ignorance found among the followers of ID/creationism. ID/creationist leaders have bent, mangled, and broken scientific concepts and evidence in order to make these consistent with their sectarian beliefs. They then teach their pseudoscience to people like you. And then you go on the Internet and sneer at people who have made far greater efforts than you have to learn things. Maybe it is time for you to put up or shut up. Do you think that will ever happen?

DS · 3 July 2016

Ravi said: Please tell us how scale development can be "tweaked" to produce a completely different structure like feathers? This is typical of evolutionists and their "just so" story telling. Either put up or shut up.
Sure. It would be my pleasure. Here is a reference that shows that the genes and developmental pathways that eventually evolved to produce feathers were present in rep[tiles before the evolution of birds: Lowe Et. al. (2015) Feather development genes and associated regulatory innovation predate the origin of Dinosauria. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32(1):23-28. The paper goes on to detail the types of changes that occurred in order to produce the new pathways. ANd this is just one of thousands of papers investigating this fascinating evolutionary transition. It's the same old story of genetic co-option and tweaking of developmental pathways through changes in cis regulatory elements. So Ravi, what about you? Got any alternative explanation for the origin of feathers? Got any evidence for this alternative? Put up or shut up.

gnome de net · 3 July 2016

DS said:
Ravi said: Please tell us how scale development can be "tweaked" to produce a completely different structure like feathers? This is typical of evolutionists and their "just so" story telling. Either put up or shut up.
Sure. It would be my pleasure. Here is a reference that shows that the genes and developmental pathways that eventually evolved to produce feathers were present in rep[tiles before the evolution of birds: Lowe Et. al. (2015) Feather development genes and associated regulatory innovation predate the origin of Dinosauria. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32(1):23-28. The paper goes on to detail the types of changes that occurred in order to produce the new pathways. ANd this is just one of thousands of papers investigating this fascinating evolutionary transition. It's the same old story of genetic co-option and tweaking of developmental pathways through changes in cis regulatory elements. So Ravi, what about you? Got any alternative explanation for the origin of feathers? Got any evidence for this alternative? Put up or shut up.
Ravi has a book!

phhht · 3 July 2016

Ravi said: A feather is clearly a designed structure even if we don't know how it is assembled.
No, a feather is clearly NOT designed. Feathers clearly just grew.

DS · 3 July 2016

Ravi said:
TomS said: The problem with invoking "design" is that it is too vague to account for anything. For example: What are the constraints that the agency resorts to design to address? Design is not enough for something to appear. There needs to be work to be done on the raw materials. Etc.
A feather is clearly a designed structure even if we don't know how it is assembled.
Actually, we do know how it is assembled. Here is a reference that details the origin and subsequent modification of the feather developmental pathway: Prum (1999) Development and evolutionary origin of feathers. Journal of Experimental zoology. 285:291-306. Once again, tweaking of preexisting developmental genes and pathways is responsible for the evolution of the feather. It is simply not designed. It has evolved.

TomS · 3 July 2016

gnome de net said:
DS said:
Ravi said: Please tell us how scale development can be "tweaked" to produce a completely different structure like feathers? This is typical of evolutionists and their "just so" story telling. Either put up or shut up.
Sure. It would be my pleasure. Here is a reference that shows that the genes and developmental pathways that eventually evolved to produce feathers were present in rep[tiles before the evolution of birds: Lowe Et. al. (2015) Feather development genes and associated regulatory innovation predate the origin of Dinosauria. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32(1):23-28. The paper goes on to detail the types of changes that occurred in order to produce the new pathways. ANd this is just one of thousands of papers investigating this fascinating evolutionary transition. It's the same old story of genetic co-option and tweaking of developmental pathways through changes in cis regulatory elements. So Ravi, what about you? Got any alternative explanation for the origin of feathers? Got any evidence for this alternative? Put up or shut up.
Ravi has a book!
I would be surprised if the book has anything about the origins of feathers.

Ravi · 3 July 2016

DS said: The paper goes on to detail the types of changes that occurred in order to produce the new pathways. ANd this is just one of thousands of papers investigating this fascinating evolutionary transition. It's the same old story of genetic co-option and tweaking of developmental pathways through changes in cis regulatory elements."We estimate that 86% of regulatory elements and 100% of the nonkeratin feather gene set were present prior to the origin of Dinosauria."
It simply claims that the materials and machinery needed to build feathers are shared in reptiles. It says nothing whatsoever about how a scale actually becomes a feather. That is because, as I previously stated, there is no such thing as a "gene for feathers". There are only genes which code for proteins which are used in feather construction - as well as in other traits. The design pattern for feathers is not encoded in DNA sequences. Darwinism fails.

phhht · 3 July 2016

There is no "design pattern for feathers." Feathers are not "designed." Feathers evolved.

ID fails.

DS · 3 July 2016

Ravi said:
DS said: The paper goes on to detail the types of changes that occurred in order to produce the new pathways. ANd this is just one of thousands of papers investigating this fascinating evolutionary transition. It's the same old story of genetic co-option and tweaking of developmental pathways through changes in cis regulatory elements."We estimate that 86% of regulatory elements and 100% of the nonkeratin feather gene set were present prior to the origin of Dinosauria."
It simply claims that the materials and machinery needed to build feathers are shared in reptiles. It says nothing whatsoever about how a scale actually becomes a feather. That is because, as I previously stated, there is no such thing as a "gene for feathers". There are only genes which code for proteins which are used in feather construction - as well as in other traits. The design pattern for feathers is not encoded in DNA sequences. Darwinism fails.
Sorry, no. You don't seem to have read the paper. From the abstract: Using comparative genomics and more than 600,000 conserved regulatory elements, we show that patterns of genome evolution in the vicinity of feather genes are consistent with a major role for regulatory innovation in the evolution of feathers. Rates of innovation at feather regulatory elements exhibit an extended period of innovation with peaks in the ancestors of amniotes and archosaurs. So, random mutations in cis regulatory elements tweaked the developmental pathway that produced scales and converted it into a pathway that produced feathers. A scale did not become a feather. You need to try to understand how developmental biology works. I noticed you did not provide any alternative hypothesis or any evidence to support an alternative. Now you can keep hypocritically demanding more and more detail without providing any of your own. But that isn't going to fool anyone. Don't feel too badly, none of your creationist friends do any better.

Henry J · 3 July 2016

A scale did not become a feather.

Yeah, it would be more accurate to say a recipe that produces one developed over time into a recipe for producing the other.

Just Bob · 3 July 2016

Hey Ravi!

Can you name something that you're sure is NOT 'designed'?

Can you tell us how to determine if something is 'designed', besides just looking at it and thinking, "Yep, that looks designed!"? We need an objective test for 'design', since what YOU see as designed, I may see as the purely natural result of everyday chemistry and physics.

Scott F · 3 July 2016

Ravi said:
TomS said: The problem with invoking "design" is that it is too vague to account for anything. For example: What are the constraints that the agency resorts to design to address? Design is not enough for something to appear. There needs to be work to be done on the raw materials. Etc.
A feather is clearly a designed structure even if we don't know how it is assembled.
This seems to have a more approachable discussion of the topic of how feathers develop: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4386666/ Or the original paper, here: http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2000CurrOpinGenetandDev.pdf This is also a great discussion of how feathers develop, and evolved: http://prumlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/prum_1999_mde_development.pdf This one even has videos of feathers self assembling: http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm Yes, Ravi, we actually do know in great detail how feathers assemble themselves, down to the genetic pathways. And because we know this, based on the evidence that we have today, we conclude that it is a fact that the feather was never "designed".