...And your rigorous google-search anaylis of placental evolution was intended to demonstrate just this point. As a matter of fact, you and others thought you had nailed it.
Thanks for noticing.
And yet now you appear knocking down the straw man you yourself made...
Son, before you go around accusing people of straw men fallacies, you would be well advised to explain exactly what you feel they have misprespresented. Otherwise, you're just slurring and name-calling. (Creationist tactic #483.)
At least when I slur someone, I explain in great detail what they have done to earn the flogging -- i.e., I make a case for it.
There's nothing "straw mannish" in directly addressing each of gore3000's claims like I did. You *do* actually know what a straw man is, don't you?
"It's also quite clear that the fundamentally *different* nature of the hammerhead/marsupial/mammalian placentas preclude them from being mistaken for being homologous"
Please tell me how these baby steps can occur.
I already did, try reading my post again.
But if you're trying to imply that my statement that the 3 types of placentas are not "homologous" somehow undercuts the points I made using them in an earlier post, then you quite simply don't understand the discussion.
Hint: Homologous, in biology, means that they were derived from a common ancestral feature. Only an idiot would attempt to argue that the shark, marsupial, and eutherian placentas were all inherited from a common ancestor, because they clearly are not.
However, this in no way invalidates the points I made using those placentas as instructional aids in post #378, because even though they are not homologous, they are analogous.
So if you have any specific objections, feel free to spell them out next time and we'll see if they hold water. Until then, your vague unexplained implications do you no credit whatsoever.
I enjoy the debate. Really I do.
So do I. I wish you'd learn how to properly do it. Hint: Sneering doesn't raise to the level of debate.
But perhaps you "have failed and appear to be acting disingenuously."
Wow -- the old "I know you are but what am I" defense. I take it you graduated from the Pee-Wee Herman school of debate?
I'm *this* close to writing you off entirely. If you are honestly interested in real debate, you'll have to demonstrate it better than you've managed with me so far. If not, it will quickly become apparent and I'll waste no further time on you. Your move.
(And note: Creationist tactic #213, "being so annoying that people give up talking to you and then you declare victory because 'they're running scared'" is so transparent that it doesn't fool anyone.)