You evos think you can post spam and ridicule and a substantive point I or another creo makes just gets buried without resolve. I don't care if you call it spam. You lot aren't going to get away with offering your quacking as a substantive reply.<quoted text>More egg with your ma'am?
Spam, spam, spam, spamhere.
Maz. It's Australian for spam.
Just on limits to adaptation alone, you have blustered and quacked, offered brain dead examples like whale evolution as evidence, denied your own data and evos have misrepresented it themselves, defered to the philosophical, and bla de da de dah. That is spam.
This is not spam and it will not go away just because you can hit the keyboard and want to talk about the blustering majority of it, but none specifically.
How does negative epistasis, majority deleterious mutations and a degenerating genome support TOE?. This data does support the creo prediction of limits to adapatability. Fell free to demonstrate how it does not, instead of waffling.
How can a chimp have more percentage dna or morphology in common with man than a gorilla or orang in side by side comparisons? You lot are being ridiculous and desperate.
Why is a whale genetically or morphologically closer to a hippo than a bull shark, that is warm blooded, uses placental birth, displays hair proteins and is fully aquatic? Is it just because a bull shark doesn't fit well into your great cladistic mess.
Why does presenting biased reconstructions based on a few bones mean something like a deer or seal must be a whale ancestor, instead of a deer or seal?
If your data was credible and I was misrepresenting it, it would not be hard to address the above. Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your 'science'.