"Scientists Turn Alligator Scales into Primitive ‘Feathers’"

[Zosimus]

This right here is enough for me to dismiss your opinions as uneducated.

Darwin's breakthrough got him name recognition. But the facts remain the same regardless of who compiles and publishes them. Your lack of basic understanding of how science works is showing.
Tom

Well, opinions cannot be ignorant. Opinions can neither learn nor forget things. Your comment is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent forum rules and call me ignorant.

However, your claim is unfounded. I post a YouTube video in which Richard Dawkins himself calls his brand of evolution "Neo-Darwinism."

 

[Zosimus]

I have a sneaking feeling you also prefer to call astronomy, "astrology." Not sure of course, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Lamarckism Has Been Resurrected

​

.

I wanted to respond to the arguments made in your post. Unfortunately, it doesn't contain any.

You see, many organisms come with multiple genetic profiles pre-installed. It is merely a matter of which one is active. Take the three-spined stickleback for example. Some live in marine (salt-water) environments whereas others live in freshwater environments. The referenced study shows that a marine-adapted stickleback partially adopts the epigenetic profile of freshwater sticklebacks shortly after a change in environments. Presumably these epigenetic alterations are passed onto offspring, enabling the stickleback to transition smoothly from one environment to the other with minimal fuss.

These findings cast considerable doubt on the neo-Darwin claim that animals have adapted to their environments over countless millennia of random mutation and natural selection. It seems that someone or something has designed these organisms to function in a variety of environments and has provided a complex switching program that enables the organism to select the appropriate epigenetic profile upon detecting certain environmental cues, such as the concentration of salt in a stickleback's aquatic habitat.

 

[Twilight Hue]

so crocoduck is real!

I'm still trying to figure out what environment that would be most suitable in.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes. And there's a reason astrologists calculate star charts.


You said "I believe the point was that it supports reptile/bird common ancestry." Praytell, how exactly do you think that the study supports reptile/bird common ancestry?


I ignored no question. I have already answered your question.


It does not. That was not my claim. As a matter of policy, I do not respond to straw man arguments. As for whether the word "installed" is used, I trust that you can use Google to find out. Perhaps, if you tried hard enough, you might find the sentence: "We now know that the changes [epigenetics] install can have consequences for patterns of long-term and even trans-generational health."

Of course, we know that epigenetics doesn't install anything. You come pre-installed with the programs that epigenetics merely turn on and off, as seems appropriate.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Sapiens]

Would you like to ignore me? Fine. I'll call it a victory.

It would not be your first game of pigeon chess I'm sure.

Why would I argue against natural selection? You are saying that the species that produce offspring are the species that produce offspring. This is not disputable. It's also a worthless observation.

Because you don't know jack about Darwinism?

No, I think it is YOU who does not understand. You have committed a logical fallacy. You reason thus: If reptiles and birds share a common ancestor, then there will be genetic remnants of feathers in reptiles. There are (arguably) genetic remnants of features in reptiles, so they MUST share a common ancestor.

Ridiculous.

Where is the error, save your backward construction to create a strawman?

If reptiles show the genetic precursors of feathers, that creates a reasonable inference, that increases the probability, that they share a common ancestor.

We might as well say that if Bill Gates owns a gold mine that he will be rich. He is rich, so he must own a gold mine.

Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

Or we could say that if Richard Dawkins were the prime minister of England he would be English, well known, and controversial. He is English, well known, and controversial. So he must be the prime minister of England.

Again, Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

Or we could say that if humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor, they would have similar DNA. They have similar DNA, so they must share a common ancestor.

By logical abduction, a very reasonable inference given what known of chromosome 2 and other established facts such as that the condition of being a chimp or human is defined by the specifics of the individual's DNA which has been shown to be inherited.

Or we could say that if guinea pigs and humans were very closely related, they would both have an inability to synthesize vitamin C. They both have an inability to synthesize vitamin C. So they must be very closely related.

Again, Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

Ex falso quodlibet.

You latin is as bad as your logic.

Yes. And there's a reason astrologists calculate star charts.

... and that reason is?

You said "I believe the point was that it supports reptile/bird common ancestry." Praytell, how exactly do you think that the study supports reptile/bird common ancestry?

Already answered.

I ignored no question. I have already answered your question.

That is what you claim, as a minority of one.

It does not. That was not my claim. As a matter of policy, I do not respond to straw man arguments.

Oh ... you limit yourself to creating them?

As for whether the word "installed" is used, I trust that you can use Google to find out. Perhaps, if you tried hard enough, you might find the sentence: "We now know that the changes [epigenetics] install can have consequences for patterns of long-term and even trans-generational health."

Of course, we know that epigenetics doesn't install anything. You come pre-installed with the programs that epigenetics merely turn on and off, as seems appropriate.

You clearly do not understand the concept of epigenetics.

 

[gnostic]

I bet those early feathers must have itched like crazy.

Not as much as cat’s hair.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I wanted to respond to the arguments made in your post. Unfortunately, it doesn't contain any.

You see, many organisms come with multiple genetic profiles pre-installed. It is merely a matter of which one is active. Take the three-spined stickleback for example. Some live in marine (salt-water) environments whereas others live in freshwater environments. The referenced study shows that a marine-adapted stickleback partially adopts the epigenetic profile of freshwater sticklebacks shortly after a change in environments. Presumably these epigenetic alterations are passed onto offspring, enabling the stickleback to transition smoothly from one environment to the other with minimal fuss.

These findings cast considerable doubt on the neo-Darwin claim that animals have adapted to their environments over countless millennia of random mutation and natural selection.

How, exactly? Seems to me that this type of adaptation fits perfectly with common descent.

It seems that someone or something has designed these organisms to function in a variety of environments and has provided a complex switching program that enables the organism to select the appropriate epigenetic profile upon detecting certain environmental cues, such as the concentration of salt in a stickleback's aquatic habitat.

And how have you possibly come to that conclusion? What about this adaptive process gives the indication of specific design?

 

[Zosimus]

Where is the error, save your backward construction to create a strawman?

Straw man is two words, btw. At any rate, the point is that you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If reptiles show the genetic precursors of feathers, that creates a reasonable inference, that increases the probability, that they share a common ancestor.

I doubt that, but I'm willing to entertain the notion. What was your a priori probability, your a posteriori probability, and how did you calculate the change?

Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.
Again, Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

Yes, that's right. The very same logical fallacies that you are committing above.

By logical abduction, a very reasonable inference given what known of chromosome 2 and other established facts such as that the condition of being a chimp or human is defined by the specifics of the individual's DNA which has been shown to be inherited.

Ahh, and here is where special pleading comes in. Magically the very same, logically fallacious argument is suddenly okay because it comes up with a result that you agree with. I am always amused when you insist that logical fallacies lead to "reasonable inferences" when science is involved.

Again, Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

Yes, just like the claims above. They are all logically fallacious.

 

[Zosimus]

How, exactly? Seems to me that this type of adaptation fits perfectly with common descent.

Again, I wanted to address the logical arguments in your post, but there aren't any. Simply saying "It seems to me that..." is not a logical argument. Someone could easily say "It seems to me that the the Koran is the truest book ever written by the hand of Allah." No one cares what it seems to you to be. We are only interested in conclusions backed by premises. Once that happens, I enjoy poking fun at the people who don't realize that the stated conclusion does not follow from the premises given.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, I wanted to address the logical arguments in your post, but there aren't any.

I know you're attempting an insult here, but you are literally correct. I didn't present any arguments, I questioned your arguments. Apparently that point went over your head.

Simply saying "It seems to me that..." is not a logical argument. Someone could easily say "It seems to me that the the Koran is the truest book ever written by the hand of Allah." No one cares what it seems to you to be.

Then take out the "seems to me" if it upsets you so much - it's only a qualifier. Let's just say "this type of adaptation fits perfectly with common descent".

We are only interested in conclusions backed by premises. Once that happens, I enjoy poking fun at the people who don't realize that the stated conclusion does not follow from the premises given.

Like how you failed to answer my questions, despite touting your ability to rationally debate.

It's quite simple: in what way does the form of adaptation you have described NOT fit with common descent, and what about this specific form of adaptation is indicative of design?

 

[Zosimus]

Then take out the "seems to me" if it upsets you so much - it's only a qualifier. Let's just say "this type of adaptation fits perfectly with common descent".

I don't think so, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that "this adaptation fits perfectly with common descent."

So what? Is this relevant somehow? Like what if I point out that archaeological discoveries are consistent with things written in the Bible. Does that mean that we should all conclude that some flavor of Christianity is the one true religion?

The point that Richard Dawkins is British, controversial, and well known fits in perfectly with the idea that he's the prime minister of England. Again: So what?

Simply saying that observation Y is consistent with theory X only means that you are committing the logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent and falling into the trap of Confirmation Bias.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't think so, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that "this adaptation fits perfectly with common descent."

So what? Is this relevant somehow?

Yes, because you specifically claimed it didn't fit with common descent and that it was an indicator of inherent design.

Like what if I point out that archaeological discoveries are consistent with things written in the Bible. Does that mean that we should all conclude that some flavor of Christianity is the one true religion?

I never said "observed adaptations means we should conclude that ALL of evolutionary theory is true", I asked YOU to explain why you think these forms of adaptaion DO NOT FIT with common descent and modern evolutionary theory. You're straying from the issue and constructing a straw man.

The point that Richard Dawkins is British, controversial, and well known fits in perfectly with the idea that he's the prime minister of England. Again: So what?

Simply saying that observation Y is consistent with theory X only means that you are committing the logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent and falling into the trap of Confirmation Bias.

No, that's not affirming the consequent. To say "x is consistent with y" is not the same as saying "x therefore y". Learn logical fallacies.

And why have you STILL not answered either of my questions? So far, the only answer to my observation that this form of adaptation fits perfectly with common descent has been "I don't think so".

To use your tactic (albeit more appropriately) that's not an answer or an argument, and just saying "I don't think so" simply isn't good enough. I'm not interested in what you "think" I'm after a logical argument backed by premises and facts. I'm asking you HOW you came to your conclusions.

So, can you answer my questions, or are you going to continue pretending to be a hardcore rationalist while still somehow completely missing the point?