You are the one that doesn't answer a simple question.
No YOU are. There, I win...
You think that just because a replicator can produce keratin, it can produce feathers.
There you go again, trying to weasel out of your own gaffe.
You poor silly man, trying to erase your silliness - YOU had written:
" ...tell other cells to
turn on and off the production of keratin to make the correct feather type grow in the correct location on birds?"
You appear to think that making keratin is all it takes!
And you apparently do not understand how timing of expression works, either. You really should get off your high horse for a bit and maybe check out
Evolution 101.
Poor guy... So desperate..
That will only happen if the replicator has the non-coding, controlling genetics that turns on and off that keratin gene at the right place and the right time in the differentiation of the original stem cell.
Oh, your use of sciencey words is so impressive! The "controlling genetics"?
Funny you didn't write that before.
Whoever taught you biology must be one of those macroevolutionists that thinks that most of the DNA in a genome is junk DNA.
It is. ell, noncoding DNA. A lot if it is junk. You must be one of these non-scientist creationist types that thought the ENCODE proclamations were totally true.
That was another of the really bad idea that comes out of biology departments.
Not as bad as the ideas coming out of the creationists that started out as engineers cult.
Again, you ignore so much - almost as if you cannot handle the material.
What you failed to address in red:
You are assuming that these macroevolutionary genetic transformations can occur when all experimental evidence of DNA microevolutionary transformations says that you don't have the selection conditions or population sizes to do such a transformation.
You do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype, so your contrived math is irrelevant.
Consider a limited example. You have some non-feather producing replicator, how many mutations at what genetic loci are required to get a feather producing replicator.
You don't know?
Shades of ReMine!
And the feathers have to appear at the correct location and grow at the correct time.
And what are those times and how do you know?
In other words, the mutations in the stem cell not only have to produce the correct proteins but control when and where these proteins are produced.
Keratin? We have keratin in nails, skin, hair, etc. And the amino acid sequences of keratins in different species are not identical. You suck at picking examples to 'prove your point.'
And that's just the start of your genetic transformation problem. Reptiles have different respiratory systems than birds, different cardiovascular systems, different excretory systems, different musculoskeletal systems... How does a single lineage accumulate the mutations that would do this genetic transformation?
Why would that have to happen in a "single lineage"? You suck at this.
You seem to be implying that those systems differ by some major chasm. I once had a creationist insist that claws and nails were so totally different that evolution cannot even explain how one evolved from the other. You seem to be of that mindset.
How many mutations do you suppose would have been required to get an avian respiratory system from a reptilian one? And how did you come to that conclusion?
I'm explaining to you how microevolution works.
Not really.
And a series of microevolutionary adaptive steps takes huge numbers of replications for each step to create the new adaptive allele.
Um...
Evidence? And do not mention your usual as that is irrelevant. Do you think an altered limb, for example, requires specific mutations to alter all of the structures in that limb? Mutations for muscles, mutations for bones, etc.? Heck, do you know how to produce an allele? How many mutations are needed to get a new allele, by your understanding?
It is up to you to explain how microevolution can create this biodiversity. And you need to substantiate your explanation with repeatable experimentation if you want that explanation to be scientific.
And the same to you -
as you reject that accepted explanation, you need to provide your explanation then substantiate your explanation with repeatable experimentation if you want that explanation to be scientific.
It is all well and good for creationists to attack evolution, but believe it or not, this is not a dichotomous issue. Your mere beliefs do not become true if evolution is wrong. I do wonder why people like you spend so much time attacking evolution rather than supporting your alternative. I suspect it has something to do with there being far far less evidence (and math) for what you wish to be true than what the evidence indicates.
====
You're pretty funny - you seem to think you have accomplished something, but you cannot even address simple questions and definitely cannot support your dopey assertions and such.
And the trying-to-pretend-you-wrote-something-else when your claims are easily seen by scrolling up? Classic creationist! Hilarious.
