You said that I assumed that humans having too many teeth "proved macro-evolution". If that is not a lie, show me where I wrote that.
For starters, you can't "interrupt a conversation" on a
forum. The whole point of a
forum is that
anyone can contribute their opinion on any subject and inject their opinion when they wish. If you wish to have a private conversation, do it in PMs - or, better still, restrict your conversations to private functions rather than public forums.
For seconds, please point to where any poster said that having too many teeth "proved macro-evolution" and where I agreed with that.
For desserts, you clearly don't understand what "moving goalposts" actually means.
I wouldn't say it if you weren't a liar. But you are a liar, so I said it. Because you lied.
Well, the human appendix bears similarity to caecum of a variety of animals, but is far smaller and reduced in function:
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/farm/content/animalstructure.html
"An adult human's digestive tract is approximately 6.5 meters long and consists of the pharynx, oesophagus, stomach, small intestine and large intestine. Digestion in humans is similar to that of other monogastric animals. However, unlike most herbivorous animals, humans have a relatively small caecum with a vermiform appendix. The appendix is a blind-ended tube connected to the caecum near the point where the small intestine joins the large intestine. The appendix appears to be a vestigial structure, reduced in size and function when compared to the same structure in other animals. One explanation for this is that the human appendix was once much larger and served a similar function to the caecum of hind gut fermenters.Over time, the diets of early humans changed to include more meat and less high-fibre plant material. This meant that there was no selective advantage in having a large appendix (and in fact there would be an energy cost in maintaining it), and individuals with a smaller appendix became more common over time . Modern humans would have difficulty extracting enough nutrients if they were restricted to a diet similar to that of ruminant animals. While we are encouraged to eat a diet high in vegetables and fruit, that diet is generally restricted to easy-to-digest material that is relatively low in cellulose: fruit, flowers and new stems and leaves. In other words, our diet is restricted by our inability to extract sufficient nutrients from high-cellulose plant material."
I find your particular obsession with the appendix to be odd, considering that it has already been explained that the appendix isn't a clear-cut example of vestigiality, and I have already presented you with several better ones.
So accusing someone of lying when they have lied is immature? Where exactly have I implied that anyone's "pants" were "on fire"? I believe my statements have been more comparable to "You have lied. Here is the evidence of you lying. This makes you a liar. I would like you to apologize and retract your lie." That's pretty far removed from playground taunting. Then again, this is just further evidence of your dishonesty and your inability to deal with this subject in an educated, mature and reasonable fashion.
Mainly, because they lie. Like you have. If you were mistaken, you could have very easily said "I apologize, I was mistaken, I retract my statement". So far, you haven't. Instead, you have continued to engage in personal attacks against me and resorted to further distortion of my statements. Why must you lie to support your arguments?
