Home » Intelligent Design » The evolution of feathers. Watch the time line.

The evolution of feathers. Watch the time line.

From “Evo-Devo of feathers and scales: building complex epithelial appendages”

 http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2000CurrOpinGenetandDev.pdf p5 and p6

“Archeopteryx existed ~145 million years ago and appears relatively advanced: it has different types of feathers over the body but still has teeth, claws in the wing, and a feathered tail. The flight feathers in the wing are asymmetric, suggesting that it could fly.

Confuciusornis ~140 mya had both down and flight feathers. The well-developed asymmetric flight feathers and toothless beak suggests that it flew well. The fossils even indicate the establishment of sexual dimorphism in the tail feathers.

Protarchaeopteryx ~120-136 mya also had bilaterally symmetric pennaceous feathers, but still lacked the asymmetric vane required for flying.

Caudipteryx ~127mya had evolved different feather types over the body. In both the wing and tail, they had spectacular symmetric pennaceous feathers, probably used for display and also had teeth.

Sinosauropteryx ~120 mya has ‘fuzz fibers’ surrounding the body. These filamentous ‘protofeathers’ appear to be rather homogenous over the body and appear to be down-like.

One may wonder why the more primitive feathers seem to appear later than complex ones in the fossil record. Well preserved fossils, particularly those of the integument, are very rare and the absence of such examples does not mean that they did not exist.”

This is a clear example where the predicted fossil evidence is actually reversed. Protarchaeopteryx arose 9my after Archeopteryx. Protofeathers arose 25my after flight feathers. This is like finding a fossil rabbit in pre cambrian strata. The conclusion is of course, Darwinian evolution is obviously true.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to The evolution of feathers. Watch the time line.

  1. Very interesting. Is there anyone other than Kurt Wise who’s published critiques of the fossil record? He’s the only one I can think of.

  2. “Well preserved fossils, particularly those of the integument, are very rare and the absence of such examples does not mean that they did not exist.”

    A well preserved Stargate, particularly those with a dialing device, are very rare and the absence of such discovery does not mean they do not exist.

  3. I believe the evolution dates are also false. The time will come when evolutionists will revise the dates of fossil appearance.

    See:

    Geological Dates Adjust Catastrophically to Evolutionary Assumptions

    Read also, the Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, esp. the chapter on The Dating Game.

  4. All I read was the summary. What I want to know is I had thought the ammniote egg was the break through which allowed the amphi-reptile to live on land.

    Let’s not forget the cerebellum is needed to allow the complex flight behavior. Nest building, lung deveopment, air sacs, enlarged keel, different musculature, etc., etc., etc. (To quote from “The King and I”!)

    Birds are designed as anyonw with the proper glasses can see.

  5. Read also, the Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, esp. the chapter on The Dating Game.

    This book looks interesting and I’ve put it in my shopping cart, but I’m a little worried about “Creationist” being in the title.
    Not to offend, but some Creationists, especially the YE variety, are just as apt to twist evidence to fit their philosophy as Darwinists are.
    Is this book a reasonably objective review of evidence, or an agenda-driven selective viewpoint?

Leave a Reply