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.

[gore3000]

"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."-article-

Why is a motive, typically unfalsifiable.

Yes, an the evolutionists shamelessly assert such claims to be scientific fact - without even having looked at the facts! Without the 'how' evolution is plain nonsense. There is much to be said against the 'how' of evolution in numerous grounds.

Let me mention one problem with the feathers which is certainly very real. A mutation occurs in a single individual and for it to spread it must find mates willing to procreate with it. On one side evolutionists say that birds will not procreate with those which have a different feather coloring. Here we have a dinosaur with feathers - the first one! Now, not being a dinosaur, I cannot assert this with certainty, but it seems to me that the 'ugly duckling' syndrome applies here and that the feathers would make this dinosaur a very unlikely mate for other dinosaurs. This is a problem with many other new traits and functions posited by evoluton and it is a contradiction of the theory. Darwin spent long chapters in the Descent of Man on sexual selection saying how important it is. Such a radical difference, whether eventually favorable or not, would be considered a deformity as far as sexual selection is concerned and be unselected for.

[Ahban]

Sorry general, all this experiment proved was that Intellignet Designers can introduce targeted genetic changes that screw up feathers in numerous predictable ways.

That has nothing to do with whether or not scales evolved into feathers. AndrewC's point is well taken, at least by me. It was not an invalid experiment, but they used the experiment to reach an invalid conclusion. What they THOUGHT they were testing for was the evolution of feathers, what they ACTUALLY tested for was whether or not Intellegent Designers could change feathers and how.

[Ahban]

Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny <<<<< I am glad we agree that strict recapitulation is gone. All that is left is a series of connections that are just as easily construed as evidence for a common Intelligent Designer as for a proposed evolutionary relationship.

The exceptions to Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny are so numerous as to point to a common designer as the most logical explanation. In other words, sometimes He used the same code, but He but inserted otherwise inexplicable code segments in it that made a new being.

There are many ways to interpret evidence. For example, claiming this study is evidence for the evolution of feathers from scales. Hey, maybe they did, but how does this experiment support the idea????

[Consort]

This is pterrible.

[general_re]

1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion

Notice that the truth of the premises is nowhere to be found in this definition - a valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of the truth of those premises...

[gore3000]

Do you then consider this study to be invalid?

The study itself is not invalid. They used proper scientific methods and experimentation to find out what makes the feathers of a chicken grow. This kind of research on what genes do what helps us know better how organisms work. The conclusions are what is wrong. Some of the statements are also untrue. For example, the gene sonic hedgehog is responsible for many features and it depends on the species and the circumstances what exactly it helps produce. It is not a 'feather producing' gene:

Expression of Sonic hedgehog in vole tooth

shh

Species: vole

Method: in situ hybridization (radioactive), probe: 2,6nt

Initiation stage
	Expression: dental epithelium No expression: oral epithelium, dental mesenchyme
Bud stage
	Expression: dental epithelium No expression: oral epithelium, dental mesenchyme
Cap stage
	Expression: enamel knot No expression: oral epithelium, outer enamel epithelium, inner enamel epithelium, stellate reticulum, dental papilla, dental sac

Even on the same organism, as shown above, it produces different effects. What it produces is dependent on other genes and on other DNA in the organism. Therefore, the claim in the first paragraph of the article is false. The authors of the article have simplified and reduced the question of how feathers are produced to a very simple level which is not true in reality.

[VadeRetro]

All that is left is a series of connections that are just as easily construed as evidence for a common Intelligent Designer as for a proposed evolutionary relationship.

Anything at all can be argued as the product of an Intelligent Designer, even if it doesn't look intelligently designed. "After all, who are YOU to question?" Happens all the time on these threads.

The exceptions to Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny are so numerous as to point to a common designer as the most logical explanation.

Unfalsifiable does not equate to "most logical." As for exceptions: stricly speaking, you were never a fish. But you were a unicellular, then a simple colonial multicellular, then a primitive chordate, then a fairly simple vertebrate, etc. And although you weren't a fish, you once had pharyngeal clefts that looked like gill slits.

For example, claiming this study is evidence for the evolution of feathers from scales. Hey, maybe they did, but how does this experiment support the idea????

It points out a more detailed genetic scenario than previously existed.

[gore3000]

Given that he says "probably", it seems clear that he is expressing an opinion rather than making a pronouncement of scientific fact. Surely he's entitled to an opinion...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, when a supposed scientists injects claims that are not supported by evidence, one must consider such a claim to be deceitful. He is lending his authority and that of his research to something which he has no right to claim.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[gore3000]

why is it invalid to infer that from the results for the time being?

Because there is no evidence to support in his research the claim that ontogeny follows phylogeny that's why. When he finds such proof he (and you, and others) can make that claim, not before. Let's remember that this claim was first made by evolutionists based solely on Haeckel's fraudulent drawings.

[AndrewC]

Notice that the truth of the premises is nowhere to be found in this definition - a valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, regardless of the truth of those premises...

Again, you seem to have discovered logic. The question was why I not you, I, considered a study invalid. I've answered that. Your fishing expedition is rather tiresome. Get to the point. You consider anything as evidence supporting Darwininianism. I don't. You keep proving my point.

[gore3000]

Any idea of strict, predictable recapitulation is gone, yes. Still, Evo-Devo lives in the parallelisms of ontogeny and phylogeny.

So the premise is false but you guys are going to try to prove it anyway? This is typical of evolutionists, their premise has been shown to be false but they hope to find a few examples amongst millions of species so they can snow job people with them.

[gabby hayes]

Totally awesome findings. My midnight basketball league buds tonite will he thunderstruck. Can't wait for the Malkin and Coulter take on it all.

[VadeRetro]

Some of the statements are also untrue. For example, the gene sonic hedgehog is responsible for many features and it depends on the species and the circumstances what exactly it helps produce. It is not a 'feather producing' gene ...

Please show where the article mischaracterizes Shh. It describes manipulation of the gene's expression and the results. Shh is involved in the determination of cell fate and embryonic patterning during early vertebrate development.

[general_re]

You consider anything as evidence supporting Darwininianism.

If the best you can do is lie about my position, I think I must be doing quite well...

[gore3000]

The exceptions to Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny are so numerous as to point to a common designer as the most logical explanation. In other words, sometimes He used the same code, but He but inserted otherwise inexplicable code segments in it that made a new being.

Great explanation! Similarities which are not due to descent prove intelligent design. It is like a kid with an erector set, he will use the pieces in many different constructions, even on those which have nothing to do with each other.

[VadeRetro]

Know what this means?

"The feather is one of the best research models you can find for understanding the basic molecular pathways used by all epithelial cells," says Chuong. "Scientists agree that whether you're looking at a human mammary gland or a chicken feather, epithelial cells use the same underlying logic, the same grammar, to form an organ. But unlike a gland, a feather really lays everything right out there for you."

[general_re]

Comments made to the school's PR department are not conclusions.

Of course, but I think it represents the beginnings of an inference being formed. Despite the qualifications and hedging by the speaker, it seems clear that he at least considers the evolutionary aspect of it to be plausible.

Bolded part is their most definitive statement and it only addressed a possible (ie speculative) relation between their molecular findings and a specific evolutionary question involving feather branching.

True. But you know well, I am sure, that most conclusions are, to some extent, speculative. This is definitive proof of nothing, but it certainly illustrates a possible pathway for the evolution of feathers. Was this precisely how it happened? Of course we'll never know that for sure, but it is at least plausible...

[gore3000]

Anything at all can be argued as the product of an Intelligent Designer, even if it doesn't look intelligently designed.

Nonsense. No one argues that the shape of clouds is intelligently designed. No one argues that simple things could not have arisen by chance. The argument of intelligent design is that some things are too complex to have arisen by chance. In fact it rests on Darwin himself:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. "

This is one of the few statements he made proposing how evolution could be falsifiable. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to take him and his theory up on it.

[VadeRetro]

No one argues that the shape of clouds is intelligently designed.

Creationists are all over the map on when God stops manipulating and just sits back and lets things happen. It was once thought that angels pushed the planets around. Some people are still in about the same place.

No one argues that simple things could not have arisen by chance.

I don't personally equate chemistry with "chance." There's nothing magic about complexity, either. At any rate, no sub-optimal "design," however clunky, disproves ID. Not the human back, or the many diseases of man and animal, not the patterns of extinction in the fossil and historical records, nothing. "God has his purposes and could have left it that way."