[general_re]

"Validity" is not contingent upon AndrewC's acceptance of it.

[AndrewC]

"Validity" is not contingent upon AndrewC's acceptance of it.

My, you seem to have discovered logic. But validity is contingent on axioms. And the axioms used in argument are those that are acceptable to both parties.

ax·i·om   Pronunciation Key  (ks-m)
n.

1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

val·id   Pronunciation Key  (vld)
adj.

1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
4. Logic.
   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.

[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.