Kleinman writes:
I don't think this case will rescue the theory of evolution because the empirical evidence already shows that combination selection pressures stifles rmns (eg combination herbicides) for this class of replicators.
Really? So, if a group of grizzly-like bears moves north and starts living off a diet of seals, they couldn't make multiple adaptations to multiple pressures? They couldn't evolve meat ripping teeth, ice-gripping claws, larger feet for ice walking and swimming, longer necks for swimming, and a suitable camouflage because these are multiple adaptations to multiple pressures and, according to the Kleinman theory of evolution, changes involving many mutations can't happen?
You seem to have a problem with the idea that eight or more genes might be involved in the difference between scales and feathers. Why? Siblings can have different alleles on more than eight genes, so why shouldn't diverging populations of dinosaurs and proto-birds?
You also seem to think that population groups have to be threatened with extinction before significant change takes place. Things like dinosaurs to birds, tree squirrels to "flying" squirrels, and non-polar to polar bears have much more to do with highly successful models diversifying into new niches.
There's no hurry. There's also no target.
Mrs. Bird winning a lottery with one million participants is a one in a million chance, but someone winning is 1/1. Evolution doesn't care what wins.