What do you think of horses and donkeys? They can mate, but the offspring can't reproduce. Isn't this exactly what recently-speciated forms should be like?
I didn't know the appendix was actually needed, but my point is still valid: vestigial organs are evidence of descent from something where they weren't vestigial. What about the occasional person who is born with a tail? where did the tail genes come from? Obviously, his parents. Where did they get them from?
Your statement is an example of the know-nothingism of the evolutionists:
That's just plain rude.
What do you think of horses and donkeys? They can mate, but the offspring can't reproduce. Isn't this exactly what recently-speciated forms should be like?"-virginia-
Perhaps, but dogs and wolves can mate and the children can produce children also. So there is no speciation here in spite of the large variety within this species.
"I didn't know the appendix was actually needed, but my point is still valid: vestigial organs are evidence of descent from something where they weren't vestigial. "
Don't you see the problem in saying that something we do not know about has no purpose? When the human genome was sequenced, evolutionists quickly claimed that all the parts of the genome which were not part of a known gene were "Junk DNA". They said that these were part of vestigial genes which were totally useless and an indication of evolution. The problem with this argument from ignorance by the evolutionists is that the "junk DNA" is not junk at all (note: if we had taken the word of evolutionists on this we would have foreclosed on perhaps the greatest scientific advances in biology in generations). It is what would be called in programming "subroutines" used occassionally by genes to increase their functioning and abilities.