[_ Old Earth _] Is it possible we will witness an ape turn into a human?

[Crying Rock]

The assumption is made when you assume we share a common ancestor with some dam dirty ape, lol

That is the inevitable conclusion, not the assumption.

ERVs in our genome alone already establish common descent of humans and other apes with a certainty that is way beyond 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999%

What percentage of entire nDNA sequences do "ERVs" occupy in apes and humans?

I don't know the answer, just curious:

10%, 20%, 50%, etc…

Where exactly in the different sequences are these "ERVs" located. Is there any correlation?

Paabo's peer reviewed paper concerning the sequencing of Hsn is not out yet, but I

wonder if these alleles were found in Hsn's nDNA?

I wonder if these alleles were in Ergaster, Erectus, and Heidelbergensis' nDNA?

Are "ERVs" necessary for human survival?

Thanks,

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

What's more interesting and conclusive is the evidence showing our #2 chromosome is essentially a fused chromosome, nearly identical to two chimpanzee chromosomes.

We have one less pair than other apes, and it was hypothesized that there must have been a fusion event in the past.

Then it was found that the human chromosome is not only nearly identical, but that there are remains of the telomeres and a centromere, right where they would be if there was a fusion.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Hard to deny evidence like that.

 

[Crying Rock]

We have one less pair than other apes, and it was hypothesized that there must have been a fusion event in the past...Hard to deny evidence like that.

What evidence? You've only offered up a hypothesis? Paleoanthropologists can't even agree on what, if anything, came before Ergaster in the Homo lineage.

 

[jwu]

What percentage of entire nDNA sequences do "ERVs" occupy in apes and humans?

I don't know the answer, just curious:

10%, 20%, 50%, etc…

Methinks it's something along 10%, but i only barely remember that figure.

Where exactly in the different sequences are these "ERVs" located. Is there any correlation?

Yes, that is one of the things that makes them stand out as evidence for evolution. The shared sequences are in the exact sam location, down to the base pair. New ERVs however are known to occupy pretty much random locations. So humans and other apes sharing the exact same ERV sequences is best explained by common descent - particularly since there are plenty of such sequences, which form a consistent pattern.

Paabo's peer reviewed paper concerning the sequencing of Hsn is not out yet, but I

wonder if these alleles were found in Hsn's nDNA?

I wonder if these alleles were in Ergaster, Erectus, and Heidelbergensis' nDNA?

If nDNA is some form of the normal DNA, then i'd put my money on "yes".

Are "ERVs" necessary for human survival?

One is, as it has been incorporated into our own active genome and codes for some cell coating protein. The others however are not.

The evidence is the successful predition of the ToE that we should find telomeres (centromeres) in the middle of those fused chromosomes.

However, just because the exact lineage is not known, that doesn't mean that the general lineage is in question. Note that the lack of available DNA is one of the major problems there. There are no such problems regarding contemporary apes - we can analyze their and our DNA and establish our relation to them based on this with nearly absolute certainty. DNA analysis is a much more powerful tool than comparative anatomy to which paleontologists unfortunately are restricted (which isn't supposed to imply that comparative anatomy is bad).

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

Are "ERVs" necessary for human survival?

jwu wrote:

One is, as it has been incorporated into our own active genome and codes for some cell coating protein.

How about eyes? Are eyes necessary for survival ? Has the code for eyes been incorporated into our own active genome? How about apes?

During pregnancy in viviparous mammals (all mammals except Monotremes), ERVs are activated and produced in high quantities during the implantation of the embryo. They are currently known to posses immunosuppressive properties, suggesting a role in protecting the embryo from its mother's immune system. Also viral fusion proteins apparently cause the formation of the placental syncytium[2] in order to limit the exchange of migratory cells between the developing embryo and the body of the mother (something an epithelium will not do sufficiently, as certain blood cells are specialized to be able to insert themselves between adjacent epithelial cells). The immunodepressive action was the initial normal behavior of the virus, similar to HIV, the fusion proteins were a way to spread the infection to other cells by simply merging them with the infected one (HIV does this too). It is believed that the ancestors of modern viviparous mammals evolved after an infection by this virus, enabling the fetus to survive the immune system of the mother. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

 

[Barbarian]

Classic evolutionary behavior. Evolution proceeds mostly by taking something and turning it to a new use.

 

[jwu]

Cool, i was only aware about one example of HERV-K that has become useful to us.

How about eyes? Are eyes necessary for survival ? Has the code for eyes been incorporated into our own active genome? How about apes?

Of course the code for eyes is part of our active genome, else we wouldn't have eyes. We didn't acquire it from viruses though, in contrast to ERVs.

 

[Crying Rock]

Cool, i was only aware about one example of HERV-K that has become useful to us.

How about eyes? Are eyes necessary for survival ? Has the code for eyes been incorporated into our own active genome? How about apes?

Of course the code for eyes is part of our active genome, else we wouldn't have eyes. We didn't acquire it from viruses though, in contrast to ERVs.

What evidence is there against ERV's being part of the original genome, which provide a mechanism for survival?

Perhaps ERV's were part of the original design of God. ERV's are functional; we need them to survive, as do all mammals that carry their offspring within their wombs. Why do you make special note between chimps and humans. How about rats and humans?

Have you considered ERV's are not viral insertions? Perhaps viruses are derived from ERV's?

Why is this falsification scenario not mentioned by adherents of ToE? Every good hypothesis should include potential falsifications...unless your not interested in science, but in proving your point no matter what.

Because we need them to survive, ERV's could well be part of the original design.

Of course the code for eyes is part of our active genome, else we wouldn't have eyes.

The same could be said for ERV's: ERV's are part of our active genome, else we would not exist.

 

[Crying Rock]

Classic evolutionary behavior. Evolution proceeds mostly by taking something and turning it to a new use.

Blah, blah, blah...you sound like your reciting a Psalm.

I have no problems with Psalms, but we're trying to be a bit more specific here.

Where's the meat?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Classic evolutionary behavior. Evolution proceeds mostly by taking something and turning it to a new use.

Blah, blah, blah...you sound like your reciting a Psalm.

Psalms are true, too. But they require faith. My observation depends on evidence. Let's look at some of that.

The precise word is "exaption." That is, something that was used for one thing, becomes adapted for something else. Wings on insects, for example. Genetic and anatomical evidence shows that wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods. The biramous appendages of such arthropods are in turn evolved from the lobopodia of annelids. Would you like to take a closer look at that evidence?

I have no problems with Psalms, but we're trying to be a bit more specific here. Where's the meat?

See above. Want to learn more about it?

 

[jwu]

What evidence is there against ERV's being part of the original genome, which provide a mechanism for survival?

Perhaps ERV's were part of the original design of God. ERV's are functional; we need them to survive, as do all mammals that carry their offspring within their wombs. Why do you make special note between chimps and humans. How about rats and humans?

You're jumping to the conclusion that all ERVs are functional. Only some have become so.

They are not part of any eventual original design because they are clearly recognizable as the residues of failed viral infections. We can see such infections happening today, and compare them to ERV sequences. Well, unless the original designer wants to deceive us. Moreoever, even if they were part of some original design, there is no reason why they should be arranged in a twin nested hierarchy.

Have you considered ERV's are not viral insertions? Perhaps viruses are derived from ERV's?

You mean the designer put them there in order to have ticking time bombs which eventually could create viruses? How would that work? ERVs often are merely fragments of viral DNA, broken beyond repair when it comes to making actual viruses from them.
Still, why would the designer arrange these time bombs in a twin nested hierarchy? Why would he use such a complicated and unnecessary mechanism at all in first instance in order to create or release viruses every now and then? That's go against pretty much everything we know about virology, and still doesn't provide an adaequate answer to ERV sequences, as it neglects the twin nested hierarchy part.

Why is this falsification scenario not mentioned by adherents of ToE? Every good hypothesis should include potential falsifications...unless your not interested in science, but in proving your point no matter what.

Because this particular scenario is not a realistic one, just like "we all live in the matrix" is.
However potential falsifications are provided en masse by biologists - the twin nested hierarchy in which they are arranged. Find a ERV sequence that is shared by gorillas and humans but not by chimps (i.e. which violates the hierarchy), then that would be a potential falsification.

Because we need them to survive, ERV's could well be part of the original design.

The same could be said for ERV's: ERV's are part of our active genome, else we would not exist.

Again, just some are part of it. By far not all, and even in case of the active ones we still can identify their source as viral.

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

What evidence is there against ERV's being part of the original genome, which provide a mechanism for survival?

Perhaps ERV's were part of the original design of God. ERV's are functional; we need them to survive, as do all mammals that carry their offspring within their wombs. Why do you make special note between chimps and humans. How about rats and humans?

jwu wrote:

Again, just some are part of it. By far not all, and even in case of the active ones we still can identify their source as viral

.

jwu wrote:

Of course the code for eyes is part of our active genome, else we wouldn't have eyes.

Let me make sure from where you're coming: Are you a Christian, agnostic or atheist?

If you are a Christian then I assume you believe God intended for us to exist (and to have eyes).

To exist we need "ERV" sequences just like we need the sequences that produce eyes to have

eyes. So if God intended for us to exist then he planned to have "ERV" sequences in our genome.

If you are agnostic or atheist then no amount of debate will change your mind and I don't care to

waste my time. I've been down that road too many times.

 

[Crying Rock]

The Barbarian wrote:

Wings on insects, for example. Genetic and anatomical evidence shows that wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods. The biramous appendages of such arthropods are in turn evolved from the lobopodia of annelids. Would you like to take a closer look at that evidence?

Sure, demonstrate to me that "insect wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods".

 

[Barbarian]

Sure. First thing to know is that the primitive arthropod condition is to have two biramous appendages on each segment:

These are evolved from the biramous parapodia of polychaete annelid worms. (The lobopods and various appendages of arthropods all express the Distal-less gene, so we know they are not two separately evolved things)

In primitive arthropods, the lower of the two was adapted to movement, and the upper branch was adapted to gas exchange. Gills, in other words. As you probably know, the trend in arthropods is to tagmosis, the reduction of body segments, and reduction in number of appendages as well as the variation of appendages for new uses.

Hence, we see appendages of various segments, and in different lines of arthropods, becoming antennae, pedipalps, chelicerae, mandibles, legs, wings, etc. We frequently still see gills in the nymphs of many insects, and this is the next set of evidence we need to consider.

Mayfly nymphs, for example, have gill/wings on all segments but the first, primitive flying insects have only two pair of functional wings on the thorax, and modern flying insects have no wings at all other than the two pair on the thorax. Not surprisingly, this corresponds to the number of sites for HOX proteins in switches for wing development in arthropods.

So do we have other evidence for this fact? Yes. Stonefly nymphs have the usual gills by which they respire, but as adults they have two pairs of wings. (gills are no longer needed as they then breath by stomata) But most of them can't fly. They vigorously flap the wings, and use the resulting force to skim along the surface of the water. However, a few of them are capable of short flights. A useful trait, but one that is only partially evolved in this group. Read here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DMjD96 ... #PPA170,M1

And then there was this genetic breakthrough:
http://www.eve.ucdavis.edu/kopplab/teac ... 201997.pdf

And at some point, it becomes foolish to argue against the evidence.

 

[Crying Rock]

The Barbarian wrote:

These are evolved from the biramous parapodia of polychaete annelid worms. (The lobopods and various appendages of arthropods all express the Distal-less gene, so we know they are not two separately evolved things)

How does a "Distal-less" gene prove a evolutionary relationship? Sounds like you’re offering up correlation, not causation. Has this process been observed? Or is it just conjecture?

The Barbarian wrote:

In primitive arthropods, the lower of the two was adapted to movement

Has this process been observed? Or is it just conjecture?

The Barbarian wrote:

,and the upper branch was adapted to gas exchange. Gills, in other words.

Has this process been observed? Or is it just conjecture?

The Barbarian wrote:

As you probably know, the trend in arthropods is to tagmosis, the reduction of body segments, and reduction in number of appendages as well as the variation of appendages for new uses.

Hence, we see appendages… becoming antennae, pedipalps, chelicerae, mandibles, legs, wings, etc…

Has this process been observed? Or is it just conjecture?

The Barbarian wrote:

We frequently still see gills in the nymphs of many insects, and this is the next set of evidence we need to consider.

Mayfly nymphs, for example, have gill/wings

“Gill/wings� Mayfly nymph gills are on the sides of their abdomen, while pads on their backs are where their future wings will grow. These both exist independently during the nymph stage. Regardless, no evidence for "insect wings forming from the gills of primitive arthropods†here. Just conjecture.

The Barbarian wrote:

So do we have other evidence for this fact?

You have a strange definition for “factâ€Â. All you offered up is conjecture as far as supposed evolutionary relationships go. What you’re missing is observation. This is observation:

“…It was not just any fossil. Knecht says it is the world's oldest known full-body impression of a primitive flying insect, a 300 million-year-old specimen from the Carboniferous Period. It is a rare find in the specialized world of ichnology, which is the study of fossilized animal tracks, impressions and trails to investigate behavior. Knecht says a preserved full-body impression of a flying insect from this or any previous period has never been discovered…â€Â

“…Paleontologists use fossilized remains of insect bodies to study anatomy and develop hypotheses about evolutionary processes. Typically the only evidence available for this type of work is remains of insect wings. Bodies of primitive flying insects are rarely preserved and therefore little is known about them. The North Attleboro fossil will provide researchers with evidence of how it moved once it landed on a surface, as well as its stance, position of its legs and details about its abdomen and thorax…â€Â

“…He says that a preliminary inspection of the anatomy indicates that it may be related to the common mayfly. "We can tell from the imprint that it has a very squat position when it lands," Engel says. "Its legs are sprawled and its belly is pressed down. The only group that does that today is the mayfly..."

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/545296/

The Barbarian wrote:

Yes. Stonefly nymphs have the usual gills by which they respire, but as adults they have two pairs of wings. (gills are no longer needed as they then breath by stomata) But most of them can't fly. They vigorously flap the wings, and use the resulting force to skim along the surface of the water. However, a few of them are capable of short flights. A useful trait, but one that is only partially evolved in this group. Read here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DMjD96 ... #PPA170,M1

And then there was this genetic breakthrough:

http://www.eve.ucdavis.edu/kopplab/teac ... 201997.pdf

And at some point, it becomes foolish to argue against the evidence.

What evidence? You only offered up conjecture. None of this has been observed.

Would you mind pointing out which portions of the two references you cited above that provide evidence, to the point of being factual, that "insect wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods". I don’t see anything about observation. I am under the impression that we are using the scientific method here:

“…Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses…â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Conjecture about "insect wings forming from the gills of primitive arthropods†is not an observable phenomena and therefore falls out the realm of the scientific method. Philosophy, perhaps? A phenomenon is any observable occurrence. An insect wing forming from the gills of primitive arthropods is not an observable phenomenon. It’s philosophy, at best.

 

[Barbarian]

How does a "Distal-less" gene prove a evolutionary relationship? Sounds like you’re offering up correlation, not causation.

The odds of the same two genes evolving twice is so remote as to be effectively impossible.

Has this process been observed?

Yep. Evolutionary development has shown that they are the same gene in both cases.

Or is it just conjecture?

In this case, it's been directly observed, but if you are arguing that one must directly observe things if we are to know that they are true, I'd say you were either joking or rather dense.

Barbarian observes:
In primitive arthropods, the lower of the two was adapted to movement.

Has this process been observed?

Yes, it is known from both fossil and living members of the annelids and arthropods.

and the upper branch was adapted to gas exchange. Gills, in other words.

Has this process been observed?

Yes, both in the fossil record, and in the development of individual insects, we see this happening.

Barbarian observes:
As you probably know, the trend in arthropods is to tagmosis, the reduction of body segments, and reduction in number of appendages as well as the variation of appendages for new uses.

Hence, we see appendages… becoming antennae, pedipalps, chelicerae, mandibles, legs, wings, etc…

Has this process been observed?

Yes. And evolutionary development has shown how to reverse the process by knocking out the specific genes that cause it to happen. So we can turn antennae back into legs, and halteres back into wings, and so on.

We frequently still see gills in the nymphs of many insects, and this is the next set of evidence we need to consider.

Mayfly nymphs, for example, have gill/wings

“Gill/wings� Mayfly nymph gills are on the sides of their abdomen, while pads on their backs are where their future wings will grow.

No. The abdominal gills arise from equivalent locations that on the thorax give rise to gills. More importantly, they develop by the same Hox genes. And there are fossil insects with those gills located along the thorax as well as the abdomen.

Regardless, no evidence for "insect wings forming from the gills of primitive arthropods†here. Just conjecture.

It appears that "conjecture" for you means, "If I didn't see it happen, I can deny it." At some point, you'll have to make some kind of peace with reality.

Barbarian asks:
So do we have other evidence for this fact? Yes. Stonefly nymphs have the usual gills by which they respire, but as adults they have two pairs of wings. (gills are no longer needed as they then breath by stomata) But most of them can't fly. They vigorously flap the wings, and use the resulting force to skim along the surface of the water. However, a few of them are capable of short flights. A useful trait, but one that is only partially evolved in this group. Read here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DMjD96 ... #PPA170,M1

And then there was this genetic breakthrough:

http://www.eve.ucdavis.edu/kopplab/teac ... 201997.pdf

And at some point, it becomes foolish to argue against the evidence.

You have a strange definition for “factâ€Â.

It's the one used in dictionaries.

All you offered up is conjecture as far as supposed evolutionary relationships go.

Scienctists call it "evidence." "Conjecture" means something else.

What you’re missing is observation.

Go back and read it carefully. Notice all the observations.

Knecht says it is the world's oldest known full-body impression of a primitive flying insect, a 300 million-year-old specimen from the Carboniferous Period. It is a rare find in the specialized world of ichnology, which is the study of fossilized animal tracks, impressions and trails to investigate behavior. Knecht says a preserved full-body impression of a flying insect from this or any previous period has never been discovered…â€Â

There's a nice discussion of this in "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll. Particularly with that and other fossil insects. It's a major support for the theory of wing evolution in insects. Check it out.

The Barbarian wrote:
Yes. Stonefly nymphs have the usual gills by which they respire, but as adults they have two pairs of wings. (gills are no longer needed as they then breath by stomata) But most of them can't fly. They vigorously flap the wings, and use the resulting force to skim along the surface of the water. However, a few of them are capable of short flights. A useful trait, but one that is only partially evolved in this group. Read here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DMjD96 ... #PPA170,M1

And then there was this genetic breakthrough:

http://www.eve.ucdavis.edu/kopplab/teac ... 201997.pdf

And at some point, it becomes foolish to argue against the evidence.

I don’t see anything about observation. I am under the impression that we are using the scientific method here:

Perhaps you don't know what "scientific method" is. You see, science works by testing hypotheses with observations. The original hypothesis was that wings are derived from the gill branches of biramous appendages of arthropods. If so, there should be genetic evidence for it. Turns out there is. Specific genes that turn on and off parts of wing development have been found in insects and in annelids having biramous appendages. Further, the fossil record shows that gills were at one time found on the thoractic segments of primitive insects. Even more compelling, we see an intermediate stage in stoneflies in which these modified gills are used for motion on the water, and only in unusual individuals for short flights.

…Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Yes. See above. Notice that the hypothesis was supported by evidence found later as a result of testing the hypothesis. This sort of confirmation by evidence is considered compelling in science.

Conjecture about "insect wings forming from the gills of primitive arthropods†is not an observable phenomena and therefore falls out the realm of the scientific method.

Remember, one does not have to observe a phenomenon to know it happened. One only has to test the idea by looking for evidence that it happened. You've been somewhat misled about the way science works.

Philosophy, perhaps?

That's the usual reason people reject evidence. I think you are so philosophically opposed to the idea of evolution, you are unable to accept evidence at this time.

A phenomenon is any observable occurrence.

A phenomenon is any occurrence, observable or not. But we can make accurate inferences about such occurrences, by evidence. I have a friend who was a forensics expert for a large metropolitan county, and it always amazes me how it is possible to reconstruct so much of past happenings by evidence.

An insect wing forming from the gills of primitive arthropods is not an observable phenomenon.

Fortunately, there is abundant evidence for that conclusion, as you have seen.

It’s philosophy, at best.

I don't think denial is going to do you much good, now.

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

I don’t see anything about observation. I am under the impression that we are using the scientific method here:

Crying Rock wrote:

An insect wing forming from the gills of primitive arthropods is not an observable phenomenon.

The Barbarian wrote

Perhaps you don't know what "scientific method" is. You see, science works by testing hypotheses with observations.

Crying Rock wrote:

Perhaps you don't know what "scientific method" is:

The scientific method

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

“…A phenomenon (from Greek ÆαινÌμενoν, pl. ÆαινÌμενα - phenomena) is any observable occurrence…â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

“…Observation is either an activity of a living being (such as a human), consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments…â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

The Barbarian wrote:

The original hypothesis was that wings are derived from the gill branches of biramous appendages of arthropods.

Your conjecture about an insect wing forming from the gills of primitive arthropods is not an observable phenomenon. Your conjecture doesn’t even fulfil the first step of the scientific method:

Observations in science

The scientific method

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

Therefore everything else that follows in your argument is conjecture and ungrounded in the scientific method. You start out with no phenomenon, and if there is no phenomenon then there is no observation. And if there is no observation then there are no hypotheses because there is no phenomenon on which to base those hypotheses. If there are no hypotheses then there are no predictions. If there are no predictions then there is no testing. And if there is no testing then there is no conclusion. Your conjecture about an insect wing forming from the gills of primitive arthropods is flawed from its inception, as far as science goes.

 

[Barbarian]

Your conjecture about an insect wing forming from the gills of primitive arthropods is not an observable phenomenon.

It's an inference based on evidence. That's how science works.

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon

"How did insect wings come to be?"

2. Making observations of the phenomenon

We note that the wings are anatomically equivalent to gills in primitive insects and annelids.

3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon

Hypothesis: Insect wings are evolved from the gill branch of biramous arthropod appendages.

4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis

1. There should be genetic evidence for this.

2. There should be or have been, intermediates.

3. If the changes are genetic, there should be ways to reverse some of them by knock-out processes.

5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment

1. Examine HOX genes to see if there is any evidence for such evolution.

2. Look at living and fossil arthropods to see if intermediates exist.

3. Do some genetic experimentation to see if any reversals are possible.

6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment

HOX genes do indeed show a common origin for arthropod gills and insect wings.

Numerous intermediate forms are found in nature and in the fossil record.

Insect appendages, such as antennae, can be converted to legs by knocking out certain developmental genes.

And there you have it.

Therefore everything else that follows in your argument is conjecture and ungrounded in the scientific method.

Now you know better.

Your conjecture about an insect wing forming from the gills of primitive arthropods is flawed from its inception, as far as science goes.

As you see, there's no "conjecture." Just classical scientific inquiry, leading to a conclusion supported by a wide range of evidence.

 

[Crying Rock]

This is your proposed phenomenon:

The Barbarian wrote:

"...wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods..."

Not:

The Barbarian wrote:

"How did insect wings come to be?"

This is a philosophical question, which requires inference versus observation. Inferences = philosophy. Observation = science.

Crying Rock quoted:

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon

2. Making observations of the phenomenon...

A natural phenomenon is a non-artificial event in the physical sense, and therefore not produced by humans, although it may affect humans (e.g. bacteria, aging, natural disasters, death.)

Common examples of natural phenomena include volcanic eruptions, weather, and decay.
Aurora is one of a natural phenomenon. Most natural phenomena, such as rain, are relatively harmless so far as humans are concerned. There are various types of natural phenomena, which include (and are not limited to), Meteorlogical phenomena (Weather, including hurricanes, and thunderstorms) Geological phenomena (Volcanic activity, earthquakes,tornadoes)

A natural phenomenon is a non-artificial event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_phenomenon

 

[Barbarian]

This is your proposed phenomenon:

(Scientists' hypothesis to explain the origin of insect wings)
"...wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods..."

(Scientists' question)
"How did insect wings come to be?"

Not bad, but you got it backward. The question comes first. Can't have a hypothesis without a question.

This is a philosophical question, which requires inference versus observation.

It's a testable question, open to evidence. All scientific conclusions are inferences, based on evidence. Learn about it here:

In its separate elements, strong inference is just the simple and old-fashioned method of inductive inference that goes back to Francis Bacon. The steps are familiar to every college student and are practiced, off and on, by every scientist. The difference comes in their systematic application. Strong inference consists of applying the following steps to every problem in science, formally and explicitly and regularly:

1. Devising alternative hypotheses;
2. Devising a crucial experiment (or several of them), with alternative possible outcomes, each of which will, as nearly is possible, exclude one or more of the hypotheses;
3. Carrying out the experiment so as to get a clean result;
4. Recycling the procedure, making subhypotheses or sequential hypotheses to refine the possibilities that remain, and so on.
http://256.com/gray/docs/strong_inference.html

It's philosophical only in the sense that epistemology has applications in science. Read the article and learn what it's all about.

Inferences = philosophy. Observation = science.

Hasn't ever been that way. Read the article.

A natural phenomenon is a non-artificial event in the physical sense, and therefore not produced by humans, although it may affect humans (e.g. bacteria, aging, natural disasters, death.)

However, observation is not limited to observing natural phenomena. We can also do experiments to see some things for ourselves. Both are observations from a scientific point of view.

Likewise, we can infer phenomena from looking at the evidence produced by it. Hence, a fire investigator can learn much about the cause of a fire by examining the remains of the building. A crime investigator can learn much about the crime by examining the crime scene. We can learn much about organisms by examining their fossils.

This is rather elementary science.