Endosymbiont theory wrong?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:

​

I say:
Of course it doesn't, because nothing can challenge --let alone falsify-- evolution theory. I think I will let you dream on"

​

...
By the way, there are no such thing as vestiges. That is 19th century blahblah.

​

And if you wanna discuss the "fairytale of the endosymbiont" you have just found your man.

---

Wow, the amount of pure creationist drivel oozing from "scientist" Peter B is astounding.Gish and pals must be proud.By the way,Peter, I am still waiting for your amazing 'disproof' of the vestigiality of the extensor coccygis and the auricularis muscles.Beause, afterall, there is no such thing as vestigials, and science, according to you, will 'proof' this.Proof away, creationist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

​

I can perfectly understand the loss of a trait that is not under selective constraint with a multipurpose genome.

---

"Multipurpose genome"?LOL!!!You cretins never cease to amaze me....Funny - it seems like your 'multipurpose genome' is the same thing that evolution postulates. Just like the 'baraminologists' clai that descent with modification via mutation and recombinations and such works, just like in evolution... They just put arbitrary limits on how far they will let this go...

quote:

---

Actually, the hypothesis of (non-)random mutation in a multipurpose genome predicts that in distinct subpopulations distinct traits that are not crucial for reproduction will be lost. Your muscles are nice examples. Thanks for that. If you have more examples, don't hesitate to mail!
Best wishes,
Peter

---

Oh, look! The creationmist is yet AGAIN taking evidence for evolution and claiming that it is REALLY evidence for his alternative!Wow, you should hook up with another non-geneticist, non-biologist creationist Walter "Crazy Wally" ReMine. He does the same thing. And he, like you, refuses to actually tell anyone his 'testable' predictions...
Well, anyway, I will have to conclude that you simply cannot address the issue of vestigiality witrh anything other than the simpleminded creationist mantra about 'science disproofing vestiges' or whatever idiocy it is...