Posted: Aug 31, 2010 5:41 am
Yes, I suppose one might complain about descriptions of an argument as "flawed". But then, that person might not also say in return that "Of course your problem is huge." 
And I wonder why two species that had "20%" of a system, like an eye, would "have" to go on developing it. Since we find species with varying development of, for example, eyes, is there some compelling reason why they would have to go on developing it? Do they know that they could see better if they just try? And if one species develops 30% of an eye, might it not supplant the other, possibly? One wonders.
So steve sets up special conditions for who he will and will not respond to. Doesn't bother me. It's not as if a response is required to debunk his arguments.
And I wonder why two species that had "20%" of a system, like an eye, would "have" to go on developing it. Since we find species with varying development of, for example, eyes, is there some compelling reason why they would have to go on developing it? Do they know that they could see better if they just try? And if one species develops 30% of an eye, might it not supplant the other, possibly? One wonders.
So steve sets up special conditions for who he will and will not respond to. Doesn't bother me. It's not as if a response is required to debunk his arguments.