Whether barbs or rachides formed first is not put forth as evidence of evolution. That's already settled. The question is what the specific pathway of feather evolution is, not whether feather evolution took place to begin with. Do you understand the difference? You're categorically mistaken. The claims of Darwininianism (sic) as unfalsifiable are irrelevant to this study or the claims made by the authors.
I did not say evolution. I said Darwininianism. You have given even more evidence of what I contend.
Precisely, but Darwininianists will use this as more evidence of Darwininianism. What was the null hypothesis of this study?
What Andrew is saying is that evolutionists claim evolution is true regardless of whether an experiment confirms or denies the claims which had been made by evolutionists. Now this one claims to deny the claims about how feathers were formed by evolutionists. It only claims to do so because it really does not give proof ot it. Nevertheless, it shows that evolutionists go around making claims without ever having conducted any experiments to show those claims to be true or false. This is why evolution is pseudo-science. It just makes assumptions, it does not examine the evidence. That is why evolution is most comfortable with fossils. It is fertile ground for assumptions since hardly anything can be proven by them.