Replies

Do you have anything substantive to say?

In any case, this article gives more evidence that the Darwininian viewpoint is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is found, it will be used as an "I told you so" at some point even though the record will show otherwise.

From the source article.

The standing hypothesis among many paleontologists has long been that the scales on dinosaurs must have lengthened into rachides that then became notched to form barbs and barbules. But there has been no real molecular evidence to either back up or refute that argument. Until now.

In their Nature paper, Chuong and his colleagues have demonstrated just how barbs and rachides are formed in a modern chicken, and have at the same time demonstrated that the evolution from scale to feather most likely followed a path in which the barbs form first and fuse to form a rachis-rather than a rachis forming first, and then being sculpted into barbs and barbules. This interaction between evolutionary biology and developmental biology (dubbed Evo-Devo) is a relatively new marriage of two previously disparate fields.

The point I am making is that this will be used, as you indirectly infer, as evidence that supports your viewpoint. If the opposite had occurred, i.e. the rachis forming first, you would have said the same thing.

The way I read this, it was previously thought that the rachis formed first, but that is now known to be incorrect. In fact, it seems that the barbs of feathers formed first and later fused to form a rachis.

The point I am making is that this will be used, as you indirectly infer, as evidence that supports your viewpoint. If the opposite had occurred, i.e. the rachis forming first, you would have said the same thing.

Quite true, this experiment disproves the claims that evolutionists had been making for a long time and instead "the barbs form first and then fuse to produce a rachis – rather than a rachis forming first and then being sculpted into barbs and barbules." So this experiment, like others we have seen this week disprove claims made by evolutionists about how something happened. It shows another evolutionist prediction falsified. We should not be surprised at this turn of events because evo-science is not science at all. It is just making propositions while sitting in a chair with nothing else to do. It is a purely childish endeavor similar to that engaged in by many on a bull session in a bar.

The point I am making is that this will be used, as you indirectly infer, as evidence that supports your viewpoint. If the opposite had occurred, i.e. the rachis forming first, you would have said the same thing.

But you started out saying, "this article gives more evidence that the Darwininian viewpoint is unfalsifiable." In fact the article relates that an evolutionary theory has been falsified. Admittedly this doesn't directly address one way or the other the larger question of whether crucial tests of the "Darwininian viewpoint" exist, but it does show that, at the very least, it generates some falsifiable hypotheses or subsidiary theories.