Replies

I wish you guys were more explicit in what you are talking about. I made a lot of posts after talking to you yesterday, and it would be nice if you could say exactly what it is that you are responding to. Luckily I was able to track down the last things I posted to you. It was a request for YOU to answer MY critique of one of your links in post #579, and I also wondered why Pinker and Bloom's article was included in the anti-evolution list when their conclusions were that natural selection was perfectly adequate to produce language.
I wondered what other padding is on the list.

So no, I won't change the subject. Please answer or walk away.

BTW, I don't give a rat's ass what that moonie Wells thinks. The Unification Church wanted someone to help destroy evolution, so Wells got a degree and tried his best to do *Father's* work. Not much of a source.

Sun

broken _____ lives under many delusions (as seen here) lol.

Now me, you, or anyone does not give a rats ass to his demands for you to walk away. Nor does me, you, or anyone give a rats ass of concern to his or any of these other goofballs dismissal of your contributions.

If you have noticed (and I am sure you have) that is one piece in the operandi of their gambit.

Wolf

POST 579: CG says: "The page you linked to is a great compendium of creationist misconceptions about what evolution is.

The specific example of vestigial is a great case in point. Vestigial does NOT meant that the organ/structure has no function now. It means that the organ/structure is doing something other than what it was originally designed for. This has been known since Darwin.

Just because you find a function for a structure (the appendix, for instance) does NOT meant the structure is not a vestige of an earlier structure that had a different function (in this case, the appendix was used to help digest cellulose in our ancestors.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges"

I just copied and pasted your post, for your convenience.

THIS is my response:

Not all scientists have know this since Darwin, as shown in this snippet:

Junk DNA (again)
by Don Batten
When introns were discovered, some evolutionists suggested that these represented ‘junk’ DNA. Introns, as well as other sequences which did not code for protein, were considered to be left-overs of evolutionary ancestry — ‘vestigial’ DNA.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/junk.asp

Did you really think that all scientists agree all the time?