[Stultis]

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.

[AndrewC]

In fact the article relates that an evolutionary theory has been falsified.

Yes, according to the Darwininians, or the more fanatic Darwininianists, it falsifies the other theory not Darwininian evolution. You know, the other theory that does not exist because without Darwininian evolution there is nothing to Biology.

[gore3000]

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.

No what it does show is that:

1. The original theory on feathers was just an assumption not based on any scientific facts but just on what evolution needed to prove itself true. So this is another nail in the wall against evolution any way you call it.
2. This theory shows that the evolutionists are continuing to make claims not based on any scientific evidence at all. This study was made on grown chickens so it has nothing to say about how feathers develop on chickens today let alone a hundred or two hundred million years ago. In other words, it is just more evolutionist pseudo-science - and the worst part about it is that our taxes paid for this garbage.