I am curious why you are allowed to continually pull out this same line of diversion without anyone calling you on it. You can't counter every criticism of your theory with "Well, if my theory is wrong, why don't you prove your theory."
That's not a defense of your theory at all. No one is obliged to describe how a designer might work, in order to show the incorrectness of your claims. If slevesque notes that in your evolutionary model, functions must often come and go, so we should see many useless vestigial organs (and yet we don't), that comment stands on its own ground. He is not further obligated to provide the details of a whole alternative-just because your version is poor.
I suppose he could give an alternative that makes as little sense as the one evolutionists are providing, but then what would be the point? The point is that your theory says it should look one way, and yet it doesn't. Dr. A is trying to make the argument that natural selection would eventually filter out these useless vestigials, but that of course is just a convenient excuse, not a logical one. Are we always at the end of natural selection doing something, why are we never in the middle of it? Why can't we see the vestigial BEFORE nature has weeded them out. As sleve inferred, with so many adaptive features always coming and going in order for their to be diversity of life, there should be thousands, millions of features left stranded.
Yet all you really have is an appendix.
Wait, scratch that, we found out an appendix is useful. Dam.
A tail? Can someone please find me a useless tail!
™ Version 4.2
