From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Back to "Bales' scales"
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:36:18 GMT


Once again, I have taken far longer to complete a response than I *ever*
thought it would.  I wish it hadn't taken so long.  However, I'm continuing
the discussion even after the long interval for several reasons:

   The issues are important.

   In the past, despite similar lapses, I think the discussions have proceeded
   well.

   I believe I include enough background to make each article understanable,
   to a large degree, to those who don't remember or didn't see the previous
   material.

Max Webb writes:

[ All odd numbers of ">'s are Max, even number of ">'s' are me.]

>>The authors continue:
>>
>>     "Thus, the projecting overlapping scales of _Longisquama_ [which
>>     from the context I take to be a reptile], though splayed out, show
>>     some similarities to the early developmental stage of the feather,
>>     the so-called pinfeather, in which the feather is contained within
>>     a sheath of _Stratum corneum_.
 
>How odd. The feather, developmentally, looks like a scale that has
>undergone further development.

That's not what was said.  At at early stage, the feather has "some
similarities" to the scale.  There is no indication in the quote that when
the feather develops further, it has any resemblence to a scale which has
developed.
 
>[Another quote which describes the feather in growth as erupting from the
>inside of a scale, deleted]

I included a quote which said the feather sheath was homologous to the scale
and another which described the development of a feather.  However, neither
quote said anything about the feather coming from the inside of the scale!

What is the inside of a scale?  I did not find a direct statement on scale
structure.  But, as I said before (and as Max did not disagree with), I
inferred that the scale is a solid block of keratin.
 
>You are claiming here that the feathers are only homologous to a
>_portion_ of the growing scale. Your point?

That's backwards to what the quote  says. It's not a portion of the scale in
relation to the entire feather, but a portion of what might be called the
"feather system" -- the feather sheath -- in relation to the entire scale.

I'll restate my point below.

>What you seem to be arguing is that it is more correct to say that the
>feather is homologous to the inside of a scale, and that it evolved from
>thence.

I most certainly am NOT saying this!  Two points I am making in this posting
are:

     The scale is not homologous to the feather itself.

     There is no good evidence that the feather evolved from anything.

> As you say :)

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

When I first starting reading this, I didn't understand where Max was
deriving the term, "the inside of the scale," since neither I nor any of the
material I quoted nor the Jan Dyke paper (to the best of my memory -- it's a
17-page paper) used the term.  But I think I see now.  The scale is homologous
to the feather sheath and the feather, of course, is inside the feather sheath.
This might be assumed to be similiar to being inside the scale.  According to
what I found, this is  incorrect.  The feather apparently  grows from a layer
of skin cells skin corresponding to a layer *under* the scale which not a part
of the scale.

>You have since demonstrated to us that the feather arises from a different
>region of the complete _growing_ scale. Thanks!

I have demonstrated that the feather arises from a different layer of skin
cells -- a region which is not a part of the scale at all!
 
>>I did not appeal to athority.  I appealed to observations -- which is what
>>science does.
 
>You yanked a quote out of context,

I referred to a source when I didn't have the direct quote with me as I was
writing an article.  In a later article (which Max refers to as "now" below),
I gave the quote which says exactly what I claimed it did.  I didn't give the
complete quote in the first posting, but I took nothing out of context.

>and appealled to the authority of the author.

If this is "appealing to athority," then so is every other citation of
observation and experiment.

>Now that we see the actual quote, we can clearly see that the feather grows
>from a region that corresponds very closely to another part of the
>the growing scale.

No.  The quote says that the scale (Note: not *part* of the scale.) is
homologous to the sheath of the feather.  The feather itself grows from a
different layer than does the feather sheath and does the scale.  There is no
indication that the layer from which the feather grows is involved in any way
with the scale or that it corresponds to any part of the scale.

> You proved your point and lost it at the same time.

I said originally that feathers and scales grew from different skin layers.
Max said I was wrong and that both grew from the epidemis.  He challenged me
either to defend or to withdraw my statement. I found a reference which
describes the covering of birds in some detail and which says that feathers
and scales grow from different skin cell layers, both of which are part of the
epidermis.  This brings all claims into agreement.

Since Max was the first to bring up homologies, I had no prior claim to defend.
He said scales and feathers are homologous.  My reference says they are not.
The paper by Jan Dyke says they are, but explicitly says that this is an
assumption that they are "somehow" homologous.

Now, just which point did I lose? :-)
 
>>One objection [which I made to the idea that feathers evolved from scales]
>>was lack of evidence for the transition from feathers to scales.

>A slow gradual transition is not predicted. Actual genetic algorithms in the
>lab show punctuated equilibrium. refs on request.

Reference, please? :-)

But saying that the transition was via punctuated equilibrium (that is,
rapidly) does not show or create evidence.  If you could show that the
transition could have happened sufficiently rapidly so as not to leave
evidence, you would show that belief in a transition was plausible in the
absence of evidence.  But showing plausibility is not showing that the
transition *actually happened*.

We have two theories: evolution, which involves a transition, and creation,
which does not.  To show that the first is the better theory requires positive
evidence of a transition, *whatever* its nature, not just an explanation of
a lack of evidence.

In discussing why I contend that homologies do not indicate evolution
relatedness, I gave a number of examples.  One of these was a contrast between
the primate eye and the octopus eye.  Max responded:

>BTW, You have some basic facts wrong.  The developmental sequence of each eye
>is completely different.

I am well aware of the differences between the two types of eyes.  I didn't
talk about developmenta sequence.  (Remember, I am using a definition of
'homologous' -- from a dictionary, not of my own making -- which does not
include a similar developmenta sequence.)

>The nerves are _IN_FRONT_ of the sensors in the primate eye (the origin of
>the famous blind spot, or scotoma) and _IN_BACK_ of the octopus eye. They are
>no more homologous than the fin of the seal (with bones) is homologous to the
>fin of the fish (no bones) by EITHER definition.

The two definitions Max refers to are for the term "homologous" and are, to
summarize "playing the same developmental role" and "likeness in structure"
(claimed to be to due to evolution).

Leaving aside fins and talking about eyes:  The layout of the primate eye is
a lens focusing light on photoreceptors which produce nerve impulses which
travel to the brain.  The layout of the octopus eye is a lens focusing light
on photoreceptors which produce nerve impulses which travel to the brain.  The
basic structure of each is similiar.  So if you don't insist that similarities
must be due to evolution in order to be homologous, then the eyes are
homologous by the second definition.
 
>To the creationists: How is it the God got the neuron positioning RIGHT in
>the case of the octopus, and then forgot his design, and got it WRONG in the
> case of the primates?

What makes the primate method "wrong?"  I am aware of the blind spot, but
thought is was mainly of academic interest.  Unless there is some *practical*
way in which having a blind spot adversly affects man and other primates, it
can't be called "wrong."

>Another question creationists will never answer

Until evidence is shown that the eye arrangement is wrong, the question
becomes, "Why is this feature (which is not wrong) wrong?"  This question is
malformed and indeed unanswerable.

I can't speak for other creationists, but there should be no question which
can't be answered, even if the answer is "I don't know."

> - stack it in the back, along with the ice cores and varves.

Having said this, and having been asked about varves and ice cores without
answering, let me address these briefly, to show I'm not purposely avoiding
the subject.  After this brief detour, I don't intend to discuss them further
while the other topics I'm discussing are still current.  I have no objection
to discussing them as part of later discussions.

a. I don't know the cause of varves and ice cores which appear to give an age
   of > 50,000 years for the earth.

b. These dating techniques rely on counting layers.  If a layer is produced in
   a period of other than a year, the count of layers will not give the age in
   years.

c. Ice cores and varves, even if accurate, only go back a tiny fraction of the
   accepted age of the earth. (200,000+ years if I remember right.) They do
   not establish the earth is 4.5 bllion years old.

d. All the evidence must be considered.  While the simplest explanation for
   varves is that the earth is 200,000 years old, there is other evidence (as
   I have pointed out before) for which the simplest explanation is that the
   earth is < 50,000 years old.  Obviously, one of the "simplest explanations"
   must be false.  It is not correct, logically or scientifically, to chose to
   believe some evidence and ingore other evidence.  Both possibilities
   should  be considered.

End of detour.

I discussed the need for evolutionists to explain the movement between skin
layers of the source for feathers compared to that of scales.  Max replied,
and the discussion is going as follows:
 
>>>- There  is a  common  mutation  in  drosophila that causes legs to grow
>>>instead of antenna -

>>But we are not talking about drosophilia. Do the common mutations in
>>drosphila show anything about the common mutations in reptiles?
 
>Here is another basic, observable fact for you: the use of homeobox genes
>(which is what the above mutations depend on) is consistent throughout the
>metazoans. Humans occasionally are born with appendages in peculiar places as
>well, or more than is normal. Same mechanism.

The topic under discussion is, if feathers really evolved from scales, what
moved the origin from one skin layer to another.  This question must be
answered with data on scales and feathers, reptiles and birds.  Mutations in
_drosophilia_ do not answer the question.  Neither do variations in human
appendages.

It depends on what is being said.  If Max is saying that the movement between
skink layers *could* have happened as the result of a process similar to the
above and that it is a possibility that feathers evolved from scales, this is
fine.  If, however, he is saying that the evolution of feathers from scales is
a scientific fact, then he needs to show that this observed difference between
feathers and scales is the result of evolution processes.  He needs direct
evidence to support his claim, not just speculation as to what could be.
 
>>*What* outgrowing feathers?  Steps 1 - 4 have provided an explantion of how
>>scales might be selected for a new shape.  They do not explain how the
>>internal structure would change from that of a scale to that of a feather,
>>nor why this would be selected for.
 
>Regrettably, you apparently did not read the article you are referring to.

Wrong.

>The ability to shed water effects the ability of the animal to maintain a
>favorable body temperature and skin moisture.

Exactly.  The theory that the ability to shed water was the reason for the
selection explains only differences between feathers and scales related to
the ability of each to shed water.  These are the external characteristics.
The substantial *internal* differences betwen feathers and scales (which, BTW,
were not mentioned in the paper) would not be selected for.

>The whole point of the Dyck article (and mine) is that feathers may well have
>arizen just for the sake of insulation and water repellance  - which do
>effect viability  -- and then modified for use in flight.

But as I pointed out above and in my last posting, the differences not related
to water repellence are greater than those that are.  Also, again as I said
before, there are features of feathers which require "co-operating" structures
or mechanisms, *both* parts of which must be present to be of use.  This type
of thing is characteristically *not* produced by evolutionary processes.

If you look at all of the evidence instead of just a subset, the theory does
not fit the data.

>In contrast that "Adam and Evolution" book you cited on your last go around
>calls a seal a "mosaic creature" between fish and mammal. So, he is claiming
>that the 'fin' on the seal is borrowed from the design of the fish. I just
>laughed and laughed when I read that. Have ANY of you guys ever looked at
>any animals ever?

Max probably does not intend it, and he is certainly not the only one to show
it, but this comment expresses a degree of arrogance.  The implication is that
anyone who has even looked at any animals would come to the same conclusion as
evolutionists.  It is one thing, and quite proper, to study something and come
to firm conclusions. It is quite another thing, and arrogant to say, in
effect, "He must not have studied this because if he, had he couldn't possibly
disagree with me."  I don't want to put words in Max's mouth: I know he
didn't explicitly say this, but I feel it is implied by what he did say.
 
>The seal fin has the vertebrate paw structure, the fish fin is a film with
>many radial stiffening fibers. They don't have any intermediate structures
>in existence, like the feather and the scale do.

To begin with, the feather and scale do not have intermediates.  Feathers and
scales sometimes grow in close proximity. But the combination of an unmodified
scale and an unmodified feather is not an intermediate.

It is not the purpose of this article to defend the above definition of a seal,
nor do I at this time know enough to do so.  But I'll comment briefly on
the nature of Max's argument.

Non-evolutionary theories cannot be evaluated according to the assumptions
made by evolution.  Intermediates are necessary for evolution.  However,
intermediates are not needed, and indeed do not make sense, for (at least most)
non-evolutionary theories.  While lack of intermediates could show that there
is not an evolutionary relationship between two organisms (although
evolutionists commonly claim evolution where no intermediates exist), it does
not show that there is not a design (non-evolutionary) relationship.

>They don't obey the same developmental signals, like the feather and the
>scale.

According to the reference quoted by Max, there are specific signals for
feather morphogenesis -- developmental signals which are *different* than those
for a scale.  Again, however, the same (or different) developmental controls
don't invalidate a design relationship.
 
>If God is such a hot designer, how come the taxa looks so boringly
>hierarchical?

"Boringly hierarchical" is Max's opinion.  He is free, it probably could go
without saying (except I want to make my position clear), to have that opinion
and not to believe in creation.  But an opinion is not justification for
saying that a theory should be discarded.  If Max wants to use the arrangment
of organisms as a reason not to consider creation, he needs to show a
scientific reason that creation would give a different arrangment than that we
see.

I doubt that the "boring" characterization is shared by many, even those who
believe in hierarchical evolution.  And when you look closely, things aren't
always that hierarchical.  The list below does not represent a direct line of
descent, in that some organisms may, according to evolution, have developed
from a common ancestor.  But it shows roughly the order in which organisms are thought to have developed.

              Bony fish
              Other fish
              Amphibians
              Reptiles
    General mammals             Birds
    Primates

In a hierarchical evolutionary relationship, you would expect a characteristic
to be absent prior to the time it evolved and to be present after that time.
But consider the previous list with respect to color vision:

              Bony fish  (yes)
              Other fish (no?)
              Amphibians (?)
              Reptiles   (yes)
    General mammals (no)        Birds (yes)
    Primates (yes)

Not a hierarchy.  But what you would get if a Creator selectively gave color
vison to the organisms which need it.

Or how about shrimp?  For seeing in the dark, they have eyes which focus a
large number of incomping rays at a common point.  However, Euphausiid shrimp
have an eye with multiple lenses focusing the light at the common point.
Other shrimp use mirrored facets to refect the light.  There is no hierarchy
leading up to either, let alone both.  No intermediates.  Just two different,
working systems.

Evolutionists commonally say that "nothing makes sense except with evolution."
But here are two examples (there are many more) of the opposite.  The observed
facts agree with what would be expected if a Creator produced functional
systems for each organism according to its needs.  There is no evidence of
funtionality gradually developing and being refined.  Yet evolutionists would
have the evolutionary theory be the only one considered, dispite the lack of
evidence, because they believe it.
   
>Was he really incapable of inventing multiple inheritance?

Here, again. evolutionary terms are being used to criticize a theory for which
they have no meaning.  Creation says that each organism has the characteris-
tics which the Creator gave it.  Inheritance (in the larger evolutionary sense
rather than in the immediate parent->offspring sense) plays no part.

But if we rephrase the question as "Why don't organisms have characteristics
resembling a number of types of otherorganisms instead of just one?", the
answer is "they do."  Consider an organism

    with a tail resembling a beaver's,
    with a bill resembling a duck's,
    with webbed toes,
    that uses echo location,
    is venemous,
    has fur,
    and has cheeck pouches like a squirrel's.

Creatures such as the platypus do not fit into a "boring heiearchy," are hard
for evolution to explain, but pose no problem for creation.
 
>>In connection with the recombination experiments,...in one of Max's earlier
>>articles:

>>>    "Lizard  epidermis  responds  to  chick  dorsal dermis, which in
>>>     chicks determines the arrangement  and morphology  of  feathers.
>>>     However, lizard epidermis is unable to interpret the specific
>>>     signals  for  feather morphogenesis."
      -- _Embryos, Genes, and Evolution_, page 162

>>Notice that both the dermis and the epidermis are involved in feather
>>development.  The signals and the means for intepreting the signals are
>>different and would have had to develop through different mutations.
 
>Oh, what a bunch of cr*p. You don't start off with half of a system, you
>start off with a another complete symptom, from which you bootstrap a
>different one.

I said nothing about "half a system."  We have one system, the supposed
starting point.   We have another system, the supposed ending point.  These
systems differ in multiple independent ways.

>What would that look like?

A system bootstrapped from another system would have the characteristic that
every change made in the bootstrapping process would result in a working
system -- in this context, a working system is one which has an advantage over
the previous step and hence will be selected for.

>Well, the feathers, scales, and fur would share part of the signalling
>mechanism - which was clearly shown in a portion of the above quote you
>deleted, and in an accompanying photograph in the text.

Max focuses on the part of the system that is the same.  However, it's the
part of the system that's different that is the key to evaluating theories of
how the system came about. Why?  Because any method of obtaining two systems,
except for one giving them a random relationship, could easily produce systems
with commonalities. They do not provide a means of distiguishing between
theories.

The differences between the systems, however, may (but are not guarrenteed to)
lead to a means of choosing theories.  If the differences between the systems
could not have been produced by one of the contending theories, that theory
can be disregarded.  (Of course, in an evolutionary context, "could not have
been produced" and "disregarded" should be treated probabistically.)

We can list the differences between the systems.  If system 'B' can be produced
from system 'A' by bootstrapping, then it will be possible to change sytem 'A'
according to one of the differences to create a system with a selection
advantage, and then to change the resulting system according to another of the
differences. . .and so on, until we arrive at system 'B.'

The new features of the of the signalling system for feathers, compared to that
of scales, include:

    Specific signals for feather morphogenesis.
    Mechanisms for interpreting the signals.

In order for the bootstrapping to proceed, at least one of these features,
when added to the starting system, is required to produce a system with a 
selection advantage.  But if we add the first, according to the experiment
described, we get the situation that the signals have no effect.  Similarly,
according to all indications, the mechanisms for interpreting the signals
would have no effect when the signals are not present.

The bootstraping theory requires that there be an advantage where observation
shows there is none.
 
>As in the case of fossil intermediates.

As in the case of fossil intermediates, here, too, evolutionists claim that
developments took place, although there is no evidence for them, simply
because evolution requires that they have happened.

>Once I find feather(1.5) between scale(1) and feather(2),

But Max hasn't found feather (1.5)!  Rather, he (assuming he has followed Jan
Dyke's reasoning) has assumed that feather (1.5) exists (since feathers are
assumed to have evolved from scales) and has speculated on what it might be
like.

Max cites coverings on present-day birds to support his theories.  But
these are not "feather (1.5)" but rather "feather and scale (3)."  They are
combinations, not intermediates.  The difference is much more than semantics:
the examples used, whether found on a modern bird or produced by experiments
with lizard dermis and chick epidermis, form where there are the genetic
mechanisms necessary to form complete feather.  The intermediates Max
postulateswould have had to form without these complete mechanisms.  Perhaps
they could have.  But the conditions under which the combinations grow is
not representative of the conditions required for the intermediates to have
grown.

>he insists on feather(1.75) and feather(.25).

Straw man.  I insisted on no such thing.  See below for a discussion of what I
"insist" on.  (More accurately, what I ask for.)

>Sorry, Bob, I am no more obligated to explain and prove out every detail of
>how evolution occurred

Evolution is said by evolutionists to be the preferred theory because of its
explanatory power.  In this case, however, there are characteristics of the
feather that are not explained by the theory.  For these, there is no
explanatory power.  Thus, the theory is a poor theory.  Not according to some
arbitrary criterion invented by creationists, but according to the criterion
put forth by evolutionists to judge their own theories.

>than you obligated to explain and prove out every detail about how God molded
>a man out of clay.

This is right if and only if Max's claims for his theory are the same as my
claims for mine -- namely, that it is a possible theory, something that may
have happened, and a theory that should be considered along with other
theories.  If this is his claim, he only need present evidence that the theory
could have happened.  I have already stated that there is enough evidence to
consider the evolution of feathers from scale to be a possibility.

However, I get the impression that Max claims that the theory really happened.
(That is, that it should be accepted that feathers evolved from scales, even
if we don't know exactly how.)  The claim that something happened and that it
should be the only explanation considered is a much stronger claim that a
claim -- such as that by creationists -- that something is a possibility to
be considered along with others.  As such, it requires much stronger evidence.

Max may not have to show every detail, but if he wants to claim that a series
of events happened and wants anyone else to believe it actually happened, he
needs to show more evdence than, "I can imagine that it might have happened
this way."  The latter is essentially all that Max and Jan Dyke have done.
The theory is speculation without supporting evidence.  (On this last point,
see my discussion of "feather 1.5" just above.)

>You have a double standard.

On the contrary, I have a single standard: the strength of the claims made for
a theory must match the strength of the evidence supporting those claims.
 
>>I mentioned this point before: how were the advantages of such a nature as
>>to increase the reproductive success of those who had them?
 
>And I have answered this on at least 3 separate occasions! In this scenario,
>the initial advantages are insulation and water repellance. If you read the
>Dyck article, you already know this. (Think shoreline a log of evolutionary
>innovations have happened there.)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't questioning what the advantage was: water
repellance.  Rather, I was questioning if the magnitude of the advantage
would be sufficient to cause selection.  We are not even talking of the
difference betwen scales and a fully-interlocking feather system.  We are
talking about a step -- for example, the first step.  (I define "step" to be
the change which occurs at one time [probably brought about by one mutation]
which must be selected for to increase its incidence in the population to
serve as a basis of further change.)

According to Jan Dyke, the first step was the appearence of ridges in the
scale.  It`s not enough for the organism to say [:-)], "I'm thankful for
these ridges which help me to feel drier than Joe over there." To be selected
for, the change has to give its possesor a larger chance of living to
reproductive age or to otherwise produce more offsping than its comrades.
Neithr Jan Dyke or Max has addressed how the advantage ^^^^
 
>A lot can happen in a million years ... For you to insist that I document
>every significant event over that entire period only makes you look silly.

This is a straw man.  Nowhere did I even mention documenting "every significant
event."  What I asked for, if Max wants me to believe his theory actually
happened, was evidence that it did.  In focusing on a request I did not make,
Max several things:

     A request which would make me look silly if I made it does not make me
     look silly when I do not make it.  This has nothing to with what I said.

     The request I actually made was not silly.  A request for evidence
     supporting the major claims of a theory is standard procedure in science
     and seems to be viewed as unreasonable only in the fields of evolution
     and earth history.

     It is pointless to discuss documenting *every* event when *no* event
     has been document.  The entire theory of feather evolution presented
     is speculation as to what could have happened, without reference to
     evidence that it did.

Again, "a lot can happen in a million years" is nothig but an evolutionary
assumption.

>You get _1_ argument from limitation of imagination.

Sorry. Totally wrong.  I am not talking about limitation of imagination.  I
am making, and so I "get', *0* arguments from limitation of imagination.

>I then expect you to not insist that the world's horizons shrink to fit your
>own.

Where in the world does Max get the idea that I am "insisting" on certain
things in areas that I and we have not even discussed???

I don't know what Max is getting at, but it is common to "explain" creation
theories as a failing of one kind or another on the part of the creationist.
This is another straw man.  The test of a theory is not my "horizons" or my
"imagination," but the data on the characteristics of feathers and scales.
This data is the same for everyone.

I made a comment on feathers and scales -- that they grow from different skin
layers -- which Max challanged.  He then presented a theory of how and why
feathers evolved from scales.

I defended my original statement by finding another source -- not even
remotely creationist -- which says the same thing.  I also evaluated the
theory of feather evolution by looking at observed properties of feathers.  I
have shown details concerning serveral areas in which I contend the observed
properties are different than they would be if feathers had arisen through
evolution.

I believe my contentions are accurate.  I do not claim to know they are.  If
Max wants to refute my argument, the place to do it is with these facts,
details, and observations, not with my horizons.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.