Huh??? Unless you're responding to the wrong post, the question I addressed was, in essence, "How did wings develop through evolution when there is no survival value to a partial wing that does not enable flight?" I exposed the error in the question by describing two survival values of a partial wing: negative lift and heat radiation and absorption. I don't see how this fails to promote science.
I know that you cannot see what was wrong with your response. You don't need to tell me. It's ok though. You are not a scientist after all.
Let me try to explain it in a way you might understand.
If someone tells you that he can understand why physics tells us the earth is flat, but he cannot believe physics could explain that the earth circles the sun, you do not give him an answer that explains why it is indeed possible that the earth circles the sun.
And
ignore the earth is flat remark.
Doing so is a travesty of science. So you happen to know a tidbit of encyclopedic knowledge. You squirt it out. You think you served science.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Well, I will assume now that after all this explanation you have seen your error. But feel free to ask me to spell it out more. Why it is not in the interest of science to answer a bogus question with an encyclopedic answer. Unless you think that this is science of course.
You may think my replies are hostile. But then again I am not raping science and pretending serving science. Which apparently is allowed because 'kids' frequent this site, and apparently it is your duty to limit their exposure to critical thinking.
Well, be sure to think next time before you shoot off a standard reply to a standard question in the name of science.
I might even be tempted not to correct you.