The point being of course that I can supply links that you can ridicule without any more than your woffly opinion.<quoted text>Normally, I would be a bit taken aback at something like this, but with you, I'm not surprised. Did you just copy paste all that stuff and then skip over my responses to it? Did you miss the part where you posted one thing from a creationist site (garbage), one thing irrelevant to the point at hand, and one thing that supported *my* argument?
That really shows how little you understand what you're talking about. That's why I recommended you did a little reading first, I had to do a little reading about it in the past too, there's no shame in it. But you make yourself look stupid by jumping in feet first, spamming every piece of text you can find - that's how you ended up accidentally posting support for me. You just don't understand the issue.
I understand perfectly well what I am talking about.
After our discussions in relation to junk dna I would say that absolutely none of you evos here know what you are talking about. That point has been well established.
You lot of idiots also whine when support is not supplied and then whine when research is supplied under the guise of quote mining.
The whole lot of you are nothing more than confused morons that have absolutely no idea what a considered debate should look like.
If you challenge what I say, then articulate an appropriate response with research that states otherwise, as opposed to the above vague woffle that means nothing other than in your opinion you disagree.
This is not hard in the evolutionary world because one can find conflicting and contradictory findings on the same thing, such is the beauty of evolutionary science. eg junk dna or no junk dna, Lucy is an obligate biped or no she isn't, bipedalism is solely a human trait or it isn't, Neanderthsal interbred with homo sapiens and no they didn't, erectus could talk or no they couldn't. You lot certianly know how to keep your eggs in more than one basket!