You lost me. Are you claiming that the whole of evolutionary theory (or at least the claim that birds evolved from reptiles) should properly stand or fall on the question of whether rachides or barbs develop (and developed) first? That is an odd and dubious perspective, but it seems the only one under which your posts make sense. Ok in sequence
- is already shedding light on the controversy over the evolution of dinosaur scales into avian feathers.
- 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.
-
It's all a lie, I tell you! I have personally disproven evolution, chemistry, astronomy, geology and all other false atheistic, Nazi communist one-world government scientific slime!
[/LBB mode]
- You beat me to it. But I can't help wondering ... what must it be like, trying desperately to stamp out all new discoveries, all over the world? Gotta be frustrating.
- 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.
Seems clear to me. Paleos made a claim about the evolution of dino feathers. This study, which in my estimation doesn't even directly tie into that question, is linked to that claim in the article, items 1 and 2. The study, if allowed to be linked to the claim, does not substantiate it. Yet the very first posts by Darwinians shows them to be Darwininians. They make the invidious and insinuative charge noted in 3 and 4 above. I answered in number 5 by noting that the charge would have been made even if the experiment would have substantiated the claim. The experiment demonstrates how the manipulation of certain genes affects the development of feathers on modern chickens, all else is speculative. Nonetheless the Darwininians attacked when nothing had yet been stated about the experiment. I pointed that out. Clear now?