Summations Only

Kleinman, people are getting testy with you. Your approach here is not welcome.You have the wrong idea about what is happening on this forum when it comes to presenting alternative ideas.If you have a proposal to make then make it, in toto. Explain to us what your hypothesis actually is. Explain the problem, state your assumptions, show us your data, show us your process (complete with the math you hint is necessary) and show us your conclusions. Do it all in one post, or, if that complex, in as few as possible for complete understanding.Stop trying to teach us through this demeaning question/hint crap. This is not your classroom.This is your peer review and so far you are failing.

You have no idea of the strength of my math abilities, but you have shown us ample reason to doubt yours.Don't change the thread on my account. Or are you trying to escape your opening gambit because you are incapable of following through?Go ahead. Let us see your full argument. Show us your skills and your majik. Prove to us, in deep mathematical detail, how the TOE cannot be correct. I assure you I will do my best to keep up.

Prove it.

So, in your mind this shows TOE to be false. OK.Now we can go watch football.

Quite easily, actually. A population of millions (+-) of dinos over a span of millions of years can easily progress from undifferentiated tubular follicle collars developed out of the old keratinocytes being pushed out, through the inner, basilar layer of the follicle collar differentiating into longitudinal barb ridges with unbranched keratin filaments, while the thin peripheral layer of the collar become the deciduous sheath, forming a tuft of unbranched barbs with a basal calamus, through the helical displacement of barb ridges arising within the collar and the barbules pairing within the peripheral barbule plates of the barb ridges, creating branched barbs with rami and barbules, then through having differentiated distal and proximal barbules producing a closed, pennaceous vane with a closed vane that develops when pennulae on the distal barbules form a hooked shape to attach to the simpler proximal barbules of the adjacent barband, and finally, developmental novelties giving rise to additional structural diversity in the closed pennaceous feather.^**With millions of dinos over millions of years nature (mutation and selection) can do such things.Your comparison with HIV is bogus since the drug cocktails are selected specifically to kill HIV and when the virus evolves a resistance to one another is put in its place. The evolution of feathers did not have that level of artificial pressure applied and had plenty of time to experiment with incremental developments on millions of genomes over millions of years.You do believe in millions of years, do you not?** Thanks WikiEdited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

So you're one of those "Darwin", "Darwinism" naysayers that are stuck (or purposefully want to be stuck) on the idea that all traits of all organisms must be the product of selection. This is a glowing ignorance of the Theory of Evolution. Natural Selection is not the sole determinant of phenotypic features. Every detail of every organism is not the product of selection pressures.I suggest you take a few months off to research and learn the limits of selection and what other vectors are known to produce novel features in a phenotype. Most of the fine details, and even some major ones, of the phenotype are not adaptive through selection pressures. Cute. Nice way to dodge the question.Are you a YEC?[ABE] BTW, That dino skeleton had better be considerably more than 1 million and six years old.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Well, if there is one thing we learned a long time ago it is that this universe is way weird indeed. There is no doubt, however, that Bob the T. rex, a she actually, she is indeed some 68 million years old. Nothing like this should surprise us any more. We do live in a wonderfully weird world.

Any pigeon will give you that.