[count-your-change]

“Probably you do, but just in case you don't understand antigen reactions, this test only consists of the antigen “saying,” in effect: “Hey, I found a particular spot, on some molecule in this solution you put me in, that I can stick myself to. I only know a part of me fits a part of this molecule well enough to stick to it. I have no idea what the whole molecule looks like.”

Antigens are quite specific to antibody sites and the tests are accurate despite your comments.

Calling someone dishonest or incompetent is not holding them accountable and so far you've struck out with no one’s help at all. And you clearly do not understand the tests that were used and which you so easily dismiss.

As for Mr. Pittman, he may say whatever, he is not my concern here. It isn't that those who bend their knee to Darwinism and its doctrines MUST be wrong, they just are.

[Wacka]

And you clearly do not understand the tests that were used and which you so easily dismiss. You do not understand the tests. He explained what was done very clearly and you totally missed it. More likely, you chose to ignore it.

[CottShop]

oh yeah- let’s not forget that when arguign for macroevolution- to use lot’s of obscure statements- contradicting statements- like ‘looks similar’ then later’ nearly identical’ then claim it’s ‘not sequence identcal’- which is it? Identical? Similar? ‘somewhat the same’? Evo double speak- attempting to wiggle out of obvious errors!

The article does infact state identical- and the ‘explanation’ that attempts to dismiss it is deceitful (and yet they have the nuts to accuse you of beign deceitful?)

How to defend Macroevolution= Spin Spin Spin!