Thanks for nothing.
I have tried to engage in honest dialogue with you, and it turns out that your arguments seem to be based mostly on your feelings. You're sure the evidence is out there somewhere, but you shouldn't have to present it. Rather I should find it myself.
When I did comment directly on the information you did present as in the post to which you reply here, you essentially ignored it; and continued on with your misrepresentations.
I must say that I find this typical of all of the evoabsolutists who comment here, and they are doubtless proud of you.
Au revior.
ML/NJ
Would you believe it if he posted it or linked it?
If you're really interested, looking it up for yourself is the only way to be sure you're not getting second hand interpretations or misinterpretions, oddball opinions, or utterly bogus crap. Look for multiple sources and, if you have time, compare how the descriptions and analysis change over time to reflect how new information or conflicting interpretations lead to better science (scientists love to argue/dispute even the most obvious physical evidence and the simplest of conclusions and that process leads to a better understanding for all concerned and better science - that's how peer review works). Note how even RWP (just a few posts ago) has to compare results by hand before he believes someone else's program!