You still haven't said why the falsifications suggested in Theobalds article wouldn't falsify ToE. (eg finding modern creatures in old strata, or finding some creature with completely different DNA, or DNA species comparisons coming out unexpectedly, or finding duplicated mutations that didn't fit the phylogenetic tree, or finding ancient creatures in the wrong strata) To continue to assert that ToE is not falsifiable without doing so labels you a liar.
Give me the steps from scales to feathers.
B: Recent experiments suggest not too many steps needed. Second, I'm under no obligation to list a number of steps. You however, have an obligation to prove it can't happen. Second recent experiments suggest this happened fairly quickly. Bird feathers and scales are formed from the same proteins. It also appears that they are governed by a similar genetic regulatory cascade. Have you not ever observed a chicken's leg? It has both scales and feathers. But none the less, keep telling us that there is no link between birds and dinos. You sound very convincing. Not.
B: A little later I'll post an experiment in which scales were inadvertantly converted to feathers. Scales and feathers are the same stuff, but in different forms.
YOU propose how that came about. Archeopteryx is a bird. Or if you prefer call it a reptile.
B: I prefer to call it a transtional bird. Thats what it is. Reptile is not a useful taxonomic rank.
You don't even know if it was cold blooded or warm.
B: Most likely warm blooded.
Or a thousand other things that would identify it as one or the other, or as something in between...it was lost with the DNA!
B: Well, you're right there. We don't have any archie DNA. But our genomes contain much flotsam and jetsam acquired during our evolutionary history, as do birds.
So my bird expert is just as good as any of your LABEL game experts,
B: Your bird expert is outside the mainstream of evolutionary thought when it comes to bird evolution. Furthemore, you still haven't documented that Feduccia has claimed that archie is not a transitional form. Your attempt at argument from authority has failed. Either give us some reasons why we should not accept archie as a transtional form, or move on to another argument.
no matter how much they stamp their evolved little hoofs and say, "it is settled!"
B: It is. Only Feduccia can decide for himself when it is time for him to abandon his failed hypothesis. The vast array or data, from comparative genetics, homologies with therapod dinos, cladistic analyses, embryology and the fossil record are so heavily in favor of the bird theropod-dino link, its not funny.
All you have are fossils, no DNA, you can only SAY it is a transitory species. It cannot be proven.
B: Proof not required in science. THis is science 101. Theories in general can't be proven, only falsified. The simple fact is, is that Archeaopteryx has features common to either therapod dinos or birds. By any meaningful defintion, it is a transitional form between major taxons. Birds don't have boney tails. Theropods too. Theropods don't have flight feathers. Birds do. Either present data which refutes that or move on. Arguing the "data is wrong" not a good scientific argument.
Once again the ability of ToE to have the only evidence in science that cannot be falsified is a marvelous mechanism to keep this circular logic machine alive.
B: To be clear, the problem Jehu is having, is not the evolution is unfalsifiable, but that evolution is so far unfalsified.