4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 664:
Line 664: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 22:21, December 12, 2009
, 22:21, December 12, 2009no edit summary
:::Evolution cannot plausibly explain the superfluous kidney, and hence its inclusion in this list. The theory claims that populations evolve, but there is no reason for an entire organ to develop which most of the population does not need. Pre-obesity, when evolution supposedly occurred, at most a tiny percentage of people would have had a need for a second kidney, far too few to just an entire population developing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 2 November 2009 (EST)
:::Evolution cannot plausibly explain the superfluous kidney, and hence its inclusion in this list. The theory claims that populations evolve, but there is no reason for an entire organ to develop which most of the population does not need. Pre-obesity, when evolution supposedly occurred, at most a tiny percentage of people would have had a need for a second kidney, far too few to just an entire population developing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 2 November 2009 (EST)
::::Following your logic, why didn't God give humans two hearts as well? I agree with you in your belief of creationism, and I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your belief that just because you say it, it becomes a fact.[[User:Ssmith12|Ssmith12]] 17:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)