>>10671916>The only one who claimed mutations are the same as defects was you.
not me, I claim that there isnt proof for mutations into different "species" but that there is proof for defects.
With evolution there is no way by which you can make a distinction between a defect and mutation into different "species" >>10671759>So the fact that humans and chimps must share a common ancestor is meh?
we share common genetics with plants as well, not a big deal unless you jump conclussions>>10671926>1. Never said vestigiality was “proof” of evolution. You lied again, as you love to do.
then make sure your evolutionists friends remove that fallacy, would you?>2. Vestigial organs don’t have to have a new purpose, only said that they could. You lied again, as you love to do.
so you are right in case you confirm a hypothesis and even if you reject it. This isnt honest science.>3. Bats have good eyes
they do, so why did they claimed up until a few years that bat eyes are vestigial>Believing that allele frequencies change over generations is believing in evolution by definition.
I can show you the same kind of mice that changes allele freq over generations, if you think that is sufficient proof of evolution you are simply a self lying dumbass.>>10671957>Creationists frequently assume that vestigial means useless when it doesn't.
Ive yet to find proof of a creationists proposing to remove an uninflamed appendix.