From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Bob Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales' Scales
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:48:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

Max Webb writes:

>Last week, Bob Bales claimed  that  noone  had  refuted  his
>claims  about  why  feathers  could  not  have  evolved from
>scales, which included among them the claim that scales  and
>feathers  originated  from  different layers of the skin. He
>had apparently missed my posting  describing  an  experiment
>which  directly  refuted this claim,

As it turns out, both my claim and the "refutation" are correct.  The
claim was that feathers and scales grew from different layers of skin;
the "refutation" was that both grow from the epidermis.  However, there
are distinctly different layers to the epidermis -- feathers and scales
grow from different sub-layers.

>and showed that scales,
>feathers, and mammalian fur are all subject  to  the  _same_
>developmental controls.

The issue is the skin layer, not developmental controls.  I'll say more
about this in another article.

>Last saturday, I recieved email from Bob explaining  why  he
>hadn't seen my posting and acknowledging that his 'data' and
>mine were in conflict. His data was an  unreferenced  state-
>ment in 'Adam and Evolution'; mine is from a classic text in
>embryology, and is accompanied by photographs of the  result
>of  the  experiment.  He  told  me  that  he would be at the
>library this weekend to try to resolve the conflict.

>Bob, you have had time to check your data. I would like  you
>to now either back up your assertion, or retract your claim.

I did get to the library.  I spent about 2 hours, and basically found what
I said above.  I am working on a response to Matt Brinkman on Baysian
matters, so I haven't responed on this yet.  I thought I might at home, so
my quotes and references are there.  So, with quotes and references to
follow. . . .

My main reference is "Form and Function in Birds," a 3-volume compilation
from different authors, with at least the volume I used published in 1985.

This reference states that reptilian scales are homologous to a different
structure than feathers themselves and that feathers come from a different
layer.

Furthermore, the development of feathers and scales is quite different.
Scales appear to be a thickening of the outer layer of the epidermis,
while feathers are a more complex "pouching" of the epidermis and dermis.

>BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY:

>PUH-LEEEZE stop relying on third-rate creationist  presenta-
>tions  of second-hand data.

Everything that disagrees with evolution is not a third-rate creationist
presentation.  More importantly, why should I not have relied on this source,
since it is correct?

>For your own sake Bob - you will
>be burned every time.

Make that at least "every time - 1" since I wasn't burned this time.
Actually, as long as my facts are right, I may be said to be wrong or be
called names, but I won't be burned.

>I have looked at 'Adam and Evolution',
>and the author is guilty of Morris-like mendacious misquota-
>tion; Dr. Lippard has already  shown  you  that.

I missed that post, too.  Could you show 1 misquote?

>It  really
>isn't a very impressive book.

To Max. The Introduction, written by an evolutionist, indicates that the book
makes good points.


   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:4278 sci.skeptic:8047 talk.religion.misc:6834