reptiles grow feathers vs. fish grow legs

[jillery]

I just happened to stumble across this 20-minute video of a lecture by
Abby Hafer, who describes an animal which is the embodiment of
evolutionary iconography:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f31AoXFAWls>

A mudskipper needs no arguments about historical contingency, or
genetics, or selection pressures, or Rorschach-test fossils, or even
the multiplication rule of probability. Instead, its existence, and
the facts of its existence, are irrefutable:

1) It's a fish.

2) It has legs.

3) It climbs trees.

4) It spends most of its time on land.

5) It breathes air.

6) It lays, broods, and hatches its eggs, on land.

Since nobody, including the anti-reptiles-grow-feathers crowd, can
post the calculations which identify the genetics of reptiles growing
feathers, it's pointless to even raise that example. Instead, far
better to focus on something which actually exists, like a mudskipper,
and by doing so moots derivative issues.

Assuming the anti-reptiles-grow-feathers crowd also incorporates the
anti-fish-grow-legs crowd, perhaps one of them will reconcile his
denial with the existence of mudskippers.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Wolffan]

On 19 May 2018, jillery wrote
(in article<o9dvfdprnm7sr35k4...@4ax.com>):

> I just happened to stumble across this 20-minute video of a lecture by
> Abby Hafer, who describes an animal which is the embodiment of
> evolutionary iconography:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f31AoXFAWls>
>
> A mudskipper needs no arguments about historical contingency, or
> genetics, or selection pressures, or Rorschach-test fossils, or even
> the multiplication rule of probability. Instead, its existence, and
> the facts of its existence, are irrefutable:
>
> 1) It's a fish.
>
> 2) It has legs.
>
> 3) It climbs trees.
>
> 4) It spends most of its time on land.
>
> 5) It breathes air.
>
> 6) It lays, broods, and hatches its eggs, on land.
>
> Since nobody, including the anti-reptiles-grow-feathers crowd, can
> post the calculations which identify the genetics of reptiles growing
> feathers, it's pointless to even raise that example. Instead, far
> better to focus on something which actually exists, like a mudskipper,
> and by doing so moots derivative issues.
>
> Assuming the anti-reptiles-grow-feathers crowd also incorporates the
> anti-fish-grow-legs crowd, perhaps one of them will reconcile his
> denial with the existence of mudskippers.

You _know_ that the Feather Fetishist will just make some comment about
probability and how math’s too hard for Barbie. He _always_ ignores facts
that he doesn’t like and he trots out his equations (but NOT his
calculations) whenever he can.

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 May 2018 07:12:39 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 19 May 2018, jillery wrote
>(in article<o9dvfdprnm7sr35k4...@4ax.com>):
>
>> I just happened to stumble across this 20-minute video of a lecture by
>> Abby Hafer, who describes an animal which is the embodiment of
>> evolutionary iconography:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f31AoXFAWls>
>>
>> A mudskipper needs no arguments about historical contingency, or
>> genetics, or selection pressures, or Rorschach-test fossils, or even
>> the multiplication rule of probability. Instead, its existence, and
>> the facts of its existence, are irrefutable:
>>
>> 1) It's a fish.
>>
>> 2) It has legs.
>>
>> 3) It climbs trees.
>>
>> 4) It spends most of its time on land.
>>
>> 5) It breathes air.
>>

>> 6) It lays, broods, and hatches, its eggs on land.

>>
>> Since nobody, including the anti-reptiles-grow-feathers crowd, can
>> post the calculations which identify the genetics of reptiles growing
>> feathers, it's pointless to even raise that example. Instead, far
>> better to focus on something which actually exists, like a mudskipper,

>> and by doing so moot derivative issues.

>>
>> Assuming the anti-reptiles-grow-feathers crowd also incorporates the
>> anti-fish-grow-legs crowd, perhaps one of them will reconcile his
>> denial with the existence of mudskippers.
>
>You _know_ that the Feather Fetishist will just make some comment about
>probability and how math’s too hard for Barbie. He _always_ ignores facts
>that he doesn’t like and he trots out his equations (but NOT his
>calculations) whenever he can.

Of course, and I have little expectation of anything else. Religious
fundamentalists, and deniers in general, act as if their emotional
development is stuck in the bratty teenager stage. I give them due
credit, their acts are very convincing.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 21 May 2018 02:17:19 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Sometimes acts accurately reflect reality, and they *are* so
stuck.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov