[Junior]

It's all a lie, I tell you!  I have personally disproven evolution, chemistry, astronomy, geology and all other false atheistic, Nazi communist one-world government scientific slime!

[/LBB mode]

[PatrickHenry]

It's all a lie, I tell you!

You beat me to it. But I can't help wondering ... what must it be like, trying desperately to stamp out all new discoveries, all over the world? Gotta be frustrating.

[AndrewC]

Do you have anything substantive to say?

In any case, this article gives more evidence that the Darwininian viewpoint is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is found, it will be used as an "I told you so" at some point even though the record will show otherwise.

From the source article.

The standing hypothesis among many paleontologists has long been that the scales on dinosaurs must have lengthened into rachides that then became notched to form barbs and barbules. But there has been no real molecular evidence to either back up or refute that argument. Until now.

In their Nature paper, Chuong and his colleagues have demonstrated just how barbs and rachides are formed in a modern chicken, and have at the same time demonstrated that the evolution from scale to feather most likely followed a path in which the barbs form first and fuse to form a rachis-rather than a rachis forming first, and then being sculpted into barbs and barbules. This interaction between evolutionary biology and developmental biology (dubbed Evo-Devo) is a relatively new marriage of two previously disparate fields.

The point I am making is that this will be used, as you indirectly infer, as evidence that supports your viewpoint. If the opposite had occurred, i.e. the rachis forming first, you would have said the same thing.

[AndrewC]

Another revealing comment from the article is this quote from the scientist.

"While Darwin's theory has explained the 'why' of evolution, much of the 'how' remains to be learned," Chuong adds. "Evo-Devo research promises a new level of understanding."

Why is a motive, typically unfalsifiable.

[gore3000]

Uhmm, talking bad about me and not even giving me the courtesy of a ping. Oh well.

We know that legs, arms, mouths are coded by DNA so why should not feathers be coded by DNA also? This is no surprise. What it does show is that we are learning to unravel the DNA code, which is not news either. So what have we found new here? Basically that the coding of the expression of more than three different genes are responsible for the formation of feathers but the article only speaks of three in typical evolutionist reductionist manner.

The experiment also takes a very big shortcut - it uses an animal which already is capable of producing feathers. The experiment therefore does not tell us if these are the only requirements for an animal to produce feathers. If they had manipulated these genes on a lizard, or some reptile and gotten feathers from them, then it could be said that the ability to grow feathers could be easily manipulated from existing species. This experiment clearly does not give such proof. The conclusion which it makes in the first paragraph is therefore totally false:

Scientists from the Keck School of Medicine of USC for the first time have shown experimentally the steps in the origin and development of feathers, using the techniques of molecular biology.

To provide such proof they would have needed to start with a species which did not have feathers. The above conclusion is therefore not warranted by what follows in the article - which is no doubt the reason why you only copied the first paragraph when there was no reason not to copy the entire article.

[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)