Posted: Sep 09, 2010 10:15 am
by Shrunk
Again, Steve shows that he can get some of the basic facts right, then jump to a completely unwarranted conclusion that "evillusion" is wrong based on his own doctrinal preconceptions. His hypothetical phylogenetic chart near the top, with the A's, B's and C's, is actually a fairly correct representation, and then for some reason he says this couldn't happen. He continues to avoid the challenge I put to him, that he substitute the letters with actual traits and demonstrate how these don't line up with actual phylogenetic trees.