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...