Posted on 10/31/2002 6:51:38 AM PST by forsnax5
When the article states that:
and the whimsically named sonic hedgehog (Shh) – were found to result in new feathers.
Sonic hedgehog does not produce feathers in other species, it produces feathers only in those species whose organisms have other DNA which does produce feathers. It has many purposes:
Sonic hedgehog gene transfer may hasten hair regrowth after chemotherapy. From: here
Sonic Hedgehog shapes the brain here
Sonic hedgehog (Shh) is a signaling molecule that is important for defining patterning in the developing vertebrate central nervous system. From: here
a gene called Sonic Hedgehog is used to control the formation of nerve cells called ganglion cells in the eye. From: here
It not only does different things in different species but it even is used to make different features in the same species. So yes, the implication made in the sentence I quoted above from the article is totally false.
What it means is that the article is full of half truths. Those three genes which are present in many other species will never produce a feather in a lizard, a dinosaur, or any other non feathered species. The article itself goes very lightly on it but it admits that there are other genes involved in producing these feathers. The purpose of the article is just as what I said, to make it seem that feather production can be achieved with just a few changes here and there to any creature. It is not so. As I said in a post above, let them do the same thing with a lizard and let them give all the details of what they had to do to make a feathered lizard. Then we can talk about how 'simple' feathers are.
We are not talking magic, we are talking design. No highly complex thing with great specificity of purpose has ever arisen by random chance. No natural forces have ever created any highly complex thing. Random chance, the agent of evolution cannot intelligently design anything. When one has a jigsaw puzzle of thousands of pieces, one cannot go around making the pieces to fit exactly with each other by chance. This is what evolutionists claim and it is utter nonsense.
Yep, you seem to confuse most everything else. I did write---"That's a either a silly question or an incomplete one. " I was right on target.
I never said it did not. I only said it only does so in species which have such tissue and which have other DNA which allows for feathers. As a matter of fact humans have this very same gene. Let's see your scientists grow feathers on a human - then you can talk.
What is your position on Darwininianism?
"You consider anything as evidence supporting Darwininianism."
It's not my job to make your case for you. If you can't back that statement up, I suggest you consider retracting it.
Nope. I don't need to back it up. I'm playing your game.
This part is not silly, it is just flat wrong.
Valid is not the same thing as true. I did not imply untruth, I stated I did not accept something as valid in a specific context.
This part is not silly, it is just flat wrong.
Valid is not the same thing as true. I did not imply untruth, I stated I did not accept something as valid in a specific context.
Thank you, and good night!
| To: AndrewC No outcome. That is my point. Do you then consider this study to be invalid? 21 posted on 10/31/2002 10:06 AM CST by general_re |
If you read the article, you'll find that at the end, the scientist admits they don't know anything about how evolution works. All these scientists have done is proven that if you take the gene for producing feather cells and manipulate it, you can get feather cells that don't produce feathers. This simply proves that, at the hands of evolutionary scientists, harmful mutation can occur. Not only was Rome not built in a day, it also wasn't built by smashing the buildings.
That's what I wanna find out.
I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third -
You know the fellows' names?
Certainly!
Well then who's on first?
Yes!
I mean the fellow's name!
Who!
The guy on first!
Who!
The first baseman!
Who!
The guy playing first!
Who is on first!
Now whaddya askin' me for?
I'm telling you Who is on first.
Well, I'm asking YOU who's on first!
|
No outcome. That is my point. Do you then consider this study to be invalid? Do you then consider this study to be invalid? That's a either a silly question or an incomplete one. Invalid in what context? It is clear to me that I strongly implied, that as evidence supporting Darwininian evolution, it was invalid since either outcome would be used as evidence. Since I did not argue about the experimental protocol, it is clear to me that I accepted this claim --- "These results suggest that the barbs form first and later fuse to form a rachis, much like downy feathers are formed before flight feathers when a chicken grows up. I do not accept this ---Under the general rule of ontogeny repeating phylogeny, downy feather made only of barbs probably appeared before the evolution of feathers with rachides and capable of flight," Chuong says. as necessarily valid. |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.