PAUL OF EUGENE Hi Helen! I beg to differ with this statement of yours: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no evidence of the change from fish to man in the evidence of variation within the kind. We have both acknowledged the vast variation among dogs above. But they are all dogs. Humans vary, too, in height, coloration, intelligence, coordination, etc. But we know what a human is! Variation is already present in the genome’s potential. Evolution into another sort of thing altogether isn’t.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I cite the presence of vestiges as evidence. Take the coccyx. Regardless of whether or not the human coccyx has any present use (a matter of considerable debate on boards such as these in the past) no one has ever proposed any use for the division of the coccyx into vertabrae that I have ever seen. So I claim the vestigal presence of VERTABRAE IN THE COCCYX as evidence of ancestral species that had full tails. If you choose to claim they have a purpose, look for purpose of the vertabrae divisions, not just the presence of the coccyx. I think we can agree that tails are not parts of the normal human kind. Take the ear wiggling muscles. There they are, I can even use them to wiggle my ears. They don't rotate anymore - they just shift up and down a bit, with no useful function in that movement. It has been a long time since my non-human physical ancestors actually turned ears towards and away from sounds as a way of enhancing hearing and locating the direction of sounds. I think we can agree that rotating ears are not parts of the normal human kind. Among the various animals, there are clearer examples. Hip bones, uselessly floating unconnected to anything, in whales, for example. It appears to me that your flat declaration of "no evidence" is refuted.