Im sorta ignoring him. When he posted the various critters an their skelatal structures an then tried to deny relationships induced via evolution, he missed the whle point that "Evolution is taking something youve already got an doing something entirely new with it".
I just wanted to post to you that Lamarck is getting a new batch of scientific interest. Remember, like St Hillaire, Lamarck really didnt say a whole lot.(He had no system or entire "theory" surrounding his proposals). They were just interesting ideas among more complete panoplies of ideas about "transmutation of critters" through time.
Science still is the closest to fully understanding the whole schmagig. Its just that, with our level of knowledge today, were able to introduce earlier "ideas" that have some possible (albeit small) part of how transmutation can be affected.
We still have not counted out how archae have introduced species that may have their roots from other places besides earth.
We just have to keep open minds but be critical of garbage when we can (like you first said)
PROVE THAT ITS GARBAGE.
Im one who, through my career, my own scientific contributions were more often based on NOT what is right, but WHAT AINT WRONG/ Ive had a number of fthings in surface chemistry work out for totally incorrect reasoning. It wasnt till I and some colleagues challenged ourselves that we found all this out and had to generate new physical chem relationships.
Happens all the time.