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.
What's the new discovery, Patrick? Can you summarize it for all of us.
That should make things clearer, thanks in advance.
Here, we use a developmental approach to analyse molecular mechanisms in feather-branching morphogenesis. We have used the replication-competent avian sarcoma retrovirus to deliver exogenous genes to regenerating flight feather follicles of chickens.
Can you explain this to us?
And then summarize what the new discovery is?
Thier explanations of the optical illusions of the Apollo missions is breathtaking. Newton is flabbergasted!
Seems to me Patrick that if you were so sure of your theory and the science in the article above you would not have any need for poisoning the well by attacking me even when I am not here. (It is also pretty cowardly and despicable to insult someone behind their backs - which is usual procedure for you).
Since you are sooooooo smart, let's see you refute my post just above this one. My bet it that Placemarker Patrick will have nothing to say except to hurl more irrelevant insults.
If you read the article, you'll find that at the end, the scientist admits they don't know anything about how evolution works. All these scientists have done is proven that if you take the gene for producing feather cells and manipulate it, you can get feather cells that don't produce feathers. This simply proves that, at the hands of evolutionary scientists, harmful mutation can occur. Not only was Rome not built in a day, it also wasn't built by smashing the buildings.