[AndrewC]

You seemed to strongly disagree with my interpretation of the data

May I remind you my input started with these statements---You are consistent. You allow as you are the sole possessor of certainty.

This was prompted by your statements, previously referenced. This in turn led to your question on pseudogenes. Which I declined to answer the way you wished. I may disagree with your interpretation of the data, but that was not my entry into the discussion. Even though Gore3000 may have used hyperbole to say there is no controversy, you essentially do the same thing in your answer. Thus my original comment.

Now you seem to have a misconception that to doubt and thus not accept an interpretation requires some sort of intellectual payment to hold that view. Nonsense, my mind belongs to me not you. If I propose that others hold my viewpoint, then that payment must be made. I did not make that proposition. The proposition I did make was in post 1400

Finally, I hope that you as a scientist are not asserting that the happenings here are science.

[RightWingNilla]

Now you seem to have a misconception that to doubt and thus not accept an interpretation requires some sort of intellectual payment to hold that view.

Well Andrew, it seems to me that the creationists are the ones trying to apply the scientific method to support their religious views...and if you want to be taken seriously in the context of a scientific argument, then yes, in fact, this will require you to clearly and unambigously state your interpretation. Otherwise you will convince no one. Then again, maybe this is not your purpose given your statement below....

Finally, I hope that you as a scientist are not asserting that the happenings here are science.

So are you saying no one here takes scientific arguments seriously here on FR? What point are you trying to make here?