It is not what was predicted. It was cut off in the false belief that it had no function.
tt
And the paper suggests that evolutionary theory has a big hole in it? If so, please advise on what page.
It is not what was predicted. It was cut off in the false belief that it had no function.
tt
It's a common misconception that "vestigial" means "no function." And there are some vestigial organs like that. But it actually means that it doesn't serve the function for which it first evolved.
And it's always been like that.
Darwin discussed the adaption of vestigial organs to new uses, in The Origin of Species.
Buckland-Nicks seems to be a rather conventional evolutionist. Nothing at all about ID in any of his papers I can find.
When IDers try to present papers written by non-IDers as examples of ID work, you know they aren't getting anywhere on their own.
They aren't getting anywhere on there own as far as getting published in papers owned by atheists. Anything with a whiff of creation in it is rejected out of hand.
.
That is pure conjecture on your part.
You have no idea that it served another purpose in the past.
So you say with no proof.
Darwin had a wild imagination.
They aren't getting anywhere on there own as far as getting published in papers owned by atheists. Anything with a whiff of creation in it is rejected out of hand.