[AndrewC]

I assumed you'd have some contextually legitimate answer for when and where it was invalid, rather than silly answers about unicorns. My mistake.

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.

[general_re]

"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.

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...

[tallhappy]

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.

And that part is, of course, not in the Nature article.