USC Scientists Uncover Secrets Of Feather Formation

University Of Southern California / ScienceDaily.com ^ | 10/31/2002 | Cheng-Ming Chuong, et al

[forsnax5]

Los Angeles, Oct. 30, 2002 - Scientists from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California have, for the first time, shown experimentally the steps in the origin and development of feathers, using the techniques of molecular biology. Their findings will have implications for the study of the morphogenesis of various epithelial organs-from hairs to lung tissue to mammary glands-and is already shedding light on the controversy over the evolution of dinosaur scales into avian feathers.

[general_re]

Admitting places you that you frequent, now we know the font of your inanity.

Oh, no - not the dreaded "I know you are, but what am I?" gambit...

[AndrewC]

Oh, no - not the dreaded "I know you are, but what am I?" gambit...

Telling the truth about your inanity. You see, I said from the beginning it was a silly question or incomplete. You have now verified it was a silly question.

Here is an image befitting your whole participation in the "discussion".

You know where you can put your little leprechaun.

[general_re]

Awwww, how cute. But you forgot to autograph it for me like I asked...

[AndrewC]

Awwww, how cute. But you forgot to autograph it for me like I asked...

Oh, no - not the dreaded "I know you are, but what am I?" gambit...

[general_re]

The casual reader will notice that, despite the word-lawyer's own personal predilection for riding the abuse button like a two-dollar hooker, it has not been pushed to complain about his own idiotically abusive posts...

[AndrewC]

That comment is as vacuous as your others. You were writing to no one.

[general_re]

How Clintonesque - the non-denial denial. Does that 'C' stand for Clinton after all?

In any case, despite the fact that you yourself ride the abuse button like a two-dollar hooker, I intend to let your idiot comment stand as a testament to your debating "skills".

[AndrewC]

In any case, despite the fact that you yourself ride the abuse button like a two-dollar hooker, I intend to let your idiot comment stand as a testament to your debating "skills".

What are you going to do? Bleed on me?

[general_re]

C'mon, surely that's not the best you can do? For crying out loud, at least put on the appearance of denying that AndyClinton is the biggest abuse button jockey west of the Mississippi. Hell, if that thing ran on batteries, you'd be changing them faster than most people change the channel when your namesake comes on...

[Junior]

Your orders have been received and will be obeyed, oh Great Ape.

[ZULU]

Plus hands on research!!

[ZULU]

Darwin explained some of the how.

For thw WHY we have to look to Theology, not biology.

[AndrewC]

Having lost whatever point you were attempting to establish, you resort to baiting. No thanks. Just keep showing what an inane little creature you are.

[general_re]

Having lost whatever point you were attempting to establish, you resort to baiting.

[AndrewC]

For thw WHY we have to look to Theology, not biology.

It seems as if Darwin did nothing. The biologist states that the "how" came after Darwin. You deny that Darwin even did the "why".

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You know what they say about Nazis: Brown on the outside, red on the inside.

I don't quite get how one could argue with geology, but OK





(Disclaimer: I am diligently working to change my screen name, aplogies to German speakers)

[PatrickHenry]

I am diligently working to change my screen name ...

You have been registered so recently that there is very little to lose in simply abandoning that name, asking Jim Robinson to nuke the account, and then re-register under a new one. Each time you post in your current identity, it's another reminder of your momentary lapse in taste. (We all have them, but we try to move on.)

[VadeRetro]

To me: They took a creature that already had feathers, and mutated its genes so that it produced mutated feathers (not even scales, so not only did they not make a lizard go through the mutations needed for scales, but they did not even 'backwards engineer' a feather to scales)- er, even if they did, that last would constitue a reduction in complexity that was already present.

To gore: As long as we have this little mutual admiration society, your #81-86 is a devastating series of posts. Very specific and relavent cites. Facts facts facts.

I want to rant on and on at the "You can't make me see or understand" nonsense, but I'll defer to Nebullis's post 120. Says it all, really.

[VadeRetro]

What he [Wolfram] says, in a nutshell, is that irreducible complexity can arise from very simple programs, and that a very simple program can produce a noncomputible output -- that is to say, there can be no shortcut or formula that predicts the outcome -- only way to know is to run the program.

You'd think we'd have absorbed that idea by now. People have been talking about fractals for decades. I may have to give Wolfram a look. Some people are impressed with him and some aren't.

[js1138]

People have been talking about fractals for decades. I may have to give Wolfram a look. Some people are impressed with him and some aren't.

I can't say I recommend buying this expensive book, but I recommend finding a copy and spending a few hours with it. Then decide.

As for fractals, I suspect Wolframs's cellular automata are even simpler, conceptually, but can produce complex patterns that are unpredictable and NOT self-similar. If nothing else, they prove that a few simple rules can result in infinite complexity.