Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Porosity
Member (Idle past 2094 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 1126 of 1311 (816073)
07-28-2017 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1123 by dwise1
07-28-2017 2:36 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
So, bottom line: Why does your religion have to depend almost completely on lies?
Because the truth will set you free. Creationist have no use for free thinkers in a army of slaves who will believe anything without question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1123 by dwise1, posted 07-28-2017 2:36 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1128 by dwise1, posted 07-29-2017 1:44 AM Porosity has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 1127 of 1311 (816074)
07-28-2017 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1025 by Faith
07-23-2017 4:00 PM


Faith responds to me:
quote:
Tree rings, varves and ice cores do not support an ancient earth, they add a few thousand years at most to the YEC timing.
YECs claim the earth is at least a billion years old? Because that's what the ice cores say.
Do you have evidence otherwise? Now is the time to bring it forward.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1025 by Faith, posted 07-23-2017 4:00 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1130 by dwise1, posted 07-29-2017 2:14 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 1136 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2017 7:14 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1128 of 1311 (816081)
07-29-2017 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1126 by Porosity
07-28-2017 8:20 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Huh. And here I had always thought it was because they had nothing else except for lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1126 by Porosity, posted 07-28-2017 8:20 PM Porosity has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1129 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 1:53 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1129 of 1311 (816082)
07-29-2017 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1128 by dwise1
07-29-2017 1:44 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Some day all these accusations of creationists as lying are going to come back and bite the accusers. The sooner the better. There is nothing in your argument to warrant that accusation. There is nothing that the ellipses replaced that is anything but innocuous and that's why it was excluded, so as not to muddy up the main point, and the rest is all open to interpretations. Creationists interpret information differently, and even if you disagree you ought to have the grace to treat our arguments with that much respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1128 by dwise1, posted 07-29-2017 1:44 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1132 by dwise1, posted 07-29-2017 3:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1130 of 1311 (816083)
07-29-2017 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1127 by Rrhain
07-28-2017 8:46 PM


Just to trigger discussion. I took numerical methods at university around 1980.
Basically, numerical methods involves using programming methods to approximate higher math functions such as integration (many integrals can be extremely difficult to actually solve if not virtually impossible, so approximating them can be a tempting alternative, especially for engineering applications. The numerical methods class offered by the computer science department was fairly easy, concentrating mainly on learning the various methods used. The math department's two semesters were more rigorous and dealt more with the proofs for the various approaches, part of which was calculating the error, which is to say the upper bound on the error for that method.
Creationists don't seem to understand error, but it is something that is an integral part of all observational sciences. Scientists know that every observation they make will involve some degree of observational error and they are trained to determine how much observational error exists. It is a value that can be calculated.
In contrast, creationists try to use error as a hidey-hole, as a coping mechanism through which to ignore the realities that they can no longer ignore, but at the same time declare glimmers of doubt within which they try to hide whole worlds. Looking up some classic false YEC claims (eg, the Shrinking Sun, Niagara Falls) on Answers in Genesis I'm seeing them backing away from those false YEC claims while at the same time trying to still claim some, any, degree of uncertainty and doubt.
The problem for creationists is that we can calculate the percent error that exists, usually an upper limit on that error (ie, the maximum possible error, which means that the actual error in any application is usually much less). And we can also calculate the percent error that they need have exist in order to make 10,000 years false appear to be about 4.5 billion years. And when we do so, we find that no realistic percent error calculation could ever possibly meet their demands.
Well, it's been nearly 40 years since I've done those calculations, so I'm rather rusty. Does anybody see this as a promising tack to take so that they may take it up?
Just throwing that idea out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1127 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2017 8:46 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1142 by Rrhain, posted 07-29-2017 5:36 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1131 of 1311 (816084)
07-29-2017 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1089 by Taq
07-26-2017 11:13 AM


Gould's observations do support Creationism
Dredge writes:
The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory.
This is called "putting words in other peoples' mouths". This is as dishonest as it gets.
I could have chosen any number of posts to make this point but this one is nice and pithy: This accusation is typical of evo misrepresentations of creationist arguments. What Dredge said is completely true, and Gould's observation of the fossil record does indeed support creationist arguments. Dredge put no words in Gould's mouth, he simply drew a different and very reasonable conclusion from Gould's observations. There is nothing dishonest about that.
Gould pointed out the obvious: the lack of the gradations of transitional forms that Darwin expected and led others to expect if his theory was correct. That prompted Gould to devise his Punctuated Equilibrium as a way to explain this obvious failure of the ToE.
But what Gould observed DOES call the ToE into question just as Darwin said, and PE is really a laughable way to resolve it, whether Gould believed in it or not.
I was recently making the same observation as Gould's when I pointed out how trilobites and coelecanths show no signs of evolving over hundreds of millions of years beyond the variations built into the genome of the Kind, so when transitionals are available they do not support the ToE. Whereas when they are not available, such as between reptiles and mammals, the ToE hallucinates them, though at least Gould had the honesty to point out they are simply not there, and further pointed out that unless there is a reasonable explanation that fact spells doom for the ToE just as Darwin asserted. Unless you believe in the reasonableness of Punctuated Equilibrium theory the ToE has had the rug pulled out from under it. Gould's honest observations support Creationism and to call a Creationist a liar for drawing that obvious conclusion just shows the usual deceitfulness of the whole evo argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1089 by Taq, posted 07-26-2017 11:13 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1133 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2017 3:22 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1159 by Taq, posted 07-31-2017 10:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1132 of 1311 (816085)
07-29-2017 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1129 by Faith
07-29-2017 1:53 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Faith, when I started studying "creation science" back in 1981, I honestly assumed that maybe they did have some kind of evidence to support their claims. In all the time since then, I have never once seen any of that purported evidence. Instead, I have personally witnessed them misrepresenting and lying about the evidence and about the science dealing with that evidence. Consistently, persistently, for nearly four decades now.
Faith, have you ever read my web page, Why I Oppose Creation Science (or, How I got to Here from There)? As stated, I had started studying "creation science" back around 1981. Around 1985, I had the opportunity to ask of a co-worker, Charles, a perennial question of mine that no "true Christian" (I'm sure you recognize that as a pejorative) has ever dared to answer: Does Christian doctrine condone "lying for the Lord"? Outside of initial responses to the negative (ie, no it is not condoned!), "true Christians" have been universally silent on this matter for about three decades.
On that webpage, I describe how Charles and I attended a debate in on 28 September 1985 between two teams of two: Henry Morris and Duane Gish of the ICR, the very creators of "creation science", versus Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (frequent contributors to the NCSE's publications who together taught an actual Two-Model class at San Diego State University in which half the lectures were given by the ICR). That was also where I heard Morris make his false moondust claim, citing a "1976" NASA document ("written well into the space age") which turned out to actually predate even our first soft lunar landing in 1966 -- read my Moon Dust page for more information; a main point is that both Morris and Slusher (Morris' actual source even though he falsely claimed that NASA document as his source; ie, he lied to you) had never ever even seen the NASA source that they all claim -- which means that they lied! Follow the links!
It was not there but elsewhere that I described Charles' reaction to the debate. As we were leaving, he was in shock. He kept muttering, "We have mountains of evidence. Why didn't they present it? We have mountains of evidence. Why didn't they present it?We have mountains of evidence. Why didn't they present it?"
Creationists? Mountains of evidence? Really? What fucking evidence? None whatsoever!
Nearly four decades for you to present your evidence. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. And you have the audacity to expect us to take your fake bullshit seriously?
You are getting every single ounce of respect that you are due. Absolutely none whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1129 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 1:53 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1133 of 1311 (816086)
07-29-2017 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1131 by Faith
07-29-2017 2:55 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
quote:
I could have chosen any number of posts to make this point but this one is nice and pithy: This accusation is typical of evo misrepresentations of creationist arguments.
Dredge was not making an argument. Dredge was making an assertion about Gould's thoughts which he has no special access to.
quote:
Gould pointed out the obvious: the lack of the gradations of transitional forms that Darwin expected and led others to expect if his theory was correct.
And yet the "missing" transitionals are generally those that many creationists believe in - connecting one species to an immediate descendant. While there are many transitionals - as Gould said - which are evidence for evolution at the higher taxonomic levels. Add in the other evidence for evolution and the rational course of action is to look for an explanation.
quote:
That prompted Gould to devise his Punctuated Equilibrium as a way to explain this obvious failure of the ToE.
In fact it seems to have happened in reverse. Gould and Eldridge worked out the consequences of Mayr's theory of speciation for palaeontology and then used the shortage of inter-species intermediates as evidence for it.
quote:
But what Gould observed DOES call the ToE into question just as Darwin said, and PE is really a laughable way to resolve it, whether Gould believed in it or not.
Please explain what is laughable about using an idea already widely accepted in evolutionary biology to explain a feature of the fossil record.
quote:
Whereas when they are not available, such as between reptiles and mammals, the ToE hallucinates them, though at least Gould had the honesty to point out they are simply not there, and further pointed out that unless there is a reasonable explanation that fact spells doom for the ToE just as Darwin asserted.
And now you are just lying. The transitionals between reptiles and mammals are there and calling them "hallucinations" does not change that. Far from denying the existence of transitionals at higher taxonomic levels Gould asserted that they were plentiful.
Well done, making a dumb troll look better by telling an even worse lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1131 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 2:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1134 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 3:56 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 1149 by Dredge, posted 07-31-2017 1:30 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 1154 by CRR, posted 07-31-2017 1:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1134 of 1311 (816088)
07-29-2017 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1133 by PaulK
07-29-2017 3:22 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
Dredge was not making an argument. Dredge was making an assertion about Gould's thoughts which he has no special access to.
This is what Dredge said:
The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory.
That is indeed an argument and not mind-reading, and anyone with the slightest fairness, just a teeny little smidgen of fairness, would read it that way. He is saying Gould recognized the facts that are evidence for Creation, he did not say nor mean to say that Gould drew the conclusion that they point to Creation, he's only saying that he could have if his mind wasn't warped by his committed atheism. \At the very least he knew the absence of a smooth gradation of transitionals killed the ToE and that is why he went on to invent his ridiculous PE, and that is basically what Dredge was saying -- oh a time of soul-searching honesty could have led him to Creation but instead he followed his preconceptions and looked for a rationalization. Saying that Dredge imputed those thoughts about creation to Gould himself is in fact putting words in Dredge's mouth. But of course, what else would an evo do but accuse a creationist of the things he himself does. It's SOP at EvC.
And yet the "missing" transitionals are generally those that many creationists believe in - connecting one species to an immediate descendant. While there are many transitionals - as Gould said - which are evidence for evolution at the higher taxonomic levels.
There was no illustration given for this bald assertion and when I read it I thought it as crazy as PE itself. Except for those examples I gave of multiple "transitionals" (they are all contemporaries and not transitionals at all in reality)- transitionals between varieties of trilobites and coelacanths which span hundreds of millions of years, there are NO gradations of transitionals evidenced in the fossil record, such as between reptiles and mammals, where they are nevertheless assumed, or as I said, hallucinated. They do not exist. And Gould did acknowledge their absence which was his reason for inventing Punctuated Equilibrium after all.
His ability to come up with rationalizations does not mean Dredge or any other creationist has to accept his rationalizations, and calling us liars for not accepting them is a foul. The fact remains that Gould did observe the lack of transitionals that do indeed prove the ToE wrong, and just because there is no way to prove or disprove any absurd theory intended to explain away this inconvenient fact doesn't give you the right to declar it true, quite the opposite.
But honesty from an evo is of course not to be expected. All we ever get is your dishonesty projected on us creationists along with every other kind of insult, because the evidence does support creationism and not evolution.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1133 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2017 3:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1135 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2017 4:16 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1156 by Dredge, posted 07-31-2017 2:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1135 of 1311 (816090)
07-29-2017 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1134 by Faith
07-29-2017 3:56 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationis
quote:
He is saying Gould recognized the facts that are evidence for Creation, he did not say nor mean to say that Gould drew the conclusion that they point to Creation, he's only saying that he could have if his mind wasn't warped by his committed atheism
In other words it is not an argument, merely an assertion about another's mental processes - which you endorse without even knowing the relevant facts as you have made very clear.
quote:
There was no illustration given for this bald assertion and when I read it I thought it as crazy as PE itself.
And yet it happens to be a fact. That you don't like it hardly makes it "crazy".
quote:
His ability to come up with rationalizations does not mean Dredge of any other creationist has to accept his rationalizations, and calling us liars for not accepting them is a foul.
You aren't being called a liar for refusing to accept PE, you are being called a liar for your lying, such as your attempt to deny the existence of transitional fossils between mammals and reptiles by calling them "hallucinations".
quote:
The fact remains that Gould did observe the lack of transitionals that do indeed prove the ToE wrong, and just because there is no way to prove any absurd theory intended to explain away this inconvenient fact doesn't give you the right to declare them true, quite the opposite.
Let us note that you do not deal with my points concerning the origin of PE, that you have offered no valid criticism of PE nor do you deal with the actual evidence.
quote:
But honesty from an evo is of course not to be expected. All we ever get is your dishonesty projected on us creationists along with every other kind of insult, because the evidence does support creationism and not evolution.
Ah, the standard creationist inversion of reality. For someone who tries to avoid lies you tell an awful lot of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1134 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 3:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1139 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1136 of 1311 (816095)
07-29-2017 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1127 by Rrhain
07-28-2017 8:46 PM


YECs claim the earth is at least a billion years old? Because that's what the ice cores say.
The oldest ice core date I am aware of is 808,008 years (2017) old.
Still way longer than all the various versions of YECie fantasy ages combined.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1127 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2017 8:46 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1137 of 1311 (816112)
07-29-2017 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1124 by CRR
07-28-2017 7:03 PM


Re: Self replicating molecule
You had 2 chances to give your best example. That's it.
And what I said was that they were all good examples of self-replicating molecules. Each is different, so ignoring one is only looking at a small amount of the available information.
Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away ....
Moving on:
quote:
(Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) references continued):
(4) - Synthetic Self-Replicating Molecules, July 1994 by Rebek, Jr
quote:
My colleagues and I at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have designed such self-assembling molecules and crafted them in the laboratory. Our efforts are intended to illuminate the ways in which life might have arisen. Probably it began when molecules came into existence that were capable of reproducing themselves. Our organic molecules, although they operate outside of living systems, help to elucidate some of the essential principles of self-replication.

This is an update on the previous post. Scientific American has changed their website policy and I'm not able to read this article in the new site. I'll update when I can. His CV is at Missing resource | Scripps Research -- you can see he has done a lot of research in this field.
quote:
(3) - Self-Replicating Molecules and the Meaning of Life, interview with Dr M Reza Ghadiri, 29 October 1999 by Cliff Walker
quote:
He mentioned three specific groups of scientists, including his group, that have created self-replicating molecules, and indicated that there are others. I asked him if these were derived from naturally occurring self-replicating molecules, and he said that none of the molecules were derived from naturally occurring molecules.
Two of the three groups, his group and that of Guntr KieDrwski, have created peptides, which are similar in structure to naturally occurring molecules.

Several self-replicating molecules. More to come.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1124 by CRR, posted 07-28-2017 7:03 PM CRR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 1138 of 1311 (816120)
07-29-2017 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by Dredge
07-24-2017 3:31 AM


Dredge responds to me:
quote:
quote:
So we can clearly see through simple observation that life is continually created from non-life. Life is merely a chemical process that takes certain reagents and produces certain products in a long-term reaction. And as we all know from chemistry, it doesn't matter how the reaction gets started and there is no magic to it. You simply need the appropriate reagents with sufficient activation energy to start the reaction.
Such thoughts are standard fare for your garden-variety, raving Darwinist space-cadet. Humans, with all their intelligence and scientific knowledge and technology, can't produce life from inanimate matter, yet you think mere chance can achieve the feat. It takes a special talent to believe such dreamy nonsense.
You mean food is alive? Salt, a rock, is alive? Sugar is alive? Even assuming that the things you eat are alive when they enter your mouth, are you saying you don't understand what happens to them when you eat them? The very first thing that happens is you grind it up with your teeth in order to make it easier to swallow. Anything that was alive is now being crushed and is on its way to being dead real soon. Enzymes in your saliva start breaking things down.
And when it gets to your stomach, the food is bathed in acids to further break down whatever it is you ate into its constituent parts. If it was still alive when you swallowed, it isn't going to stay alive for long. And then when it gets into the small intestine, more enzymes and chemicals are added to literally break the food down into individual molecules. Proteins are ripped apart into their constituent amino acids. Long chain carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars. Water is extracted. Minerals are leached out. What enters your blood is nothing but a set of parts. Your cells then take those parts and integrate them in order to continue the biochemistry of life. There is no magic in this.
Are you saying that those parts are still alive? We're back to the question that I directly asked you and that you failed to answer...one would say deliberately refused to answer:
What do you mean by "life"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by Dredge, posted 07-24-2017 3:31 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1155 by Dredge, posted 07-31-2017 1:49 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1139 of 1311 (816121)
07-29-2017 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1135 by PaulK
07-29-2017 4:16 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationis
Dealing with your twisting everything anyone says isn't worth it. I'll just say for myself then that Gould's observations support Creation whether he recognized it or not, and at least it's clear that he knew the evidence of the fossil record is exactly what Darwin said would overthrow the ToE, which is of course why he invented PE and tried to make an argument out of population genetics. But PE is absurd, and population genetics accounts for the fossil trilobites and coelacanths remaining identifiable trilobites and coelacanths for hundreds of millions of years, and offers not a shred of evidence for reptiles turning into mammals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1135 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2017 4:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1140 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2017 5:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1140 of 1311 (816122)
07-29-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1139 by Faith
07-29-2017 4:48 PM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationis
quote:
Dealing with your twisting everything anyone says isn't worth it
Your false accusations are as usual counter-productive.
quote:
I'll just say for myself then that Gould's observations support Creation whether he recognized it or not, and at least it's clear that he knew the evidence of the fossil record is exactly what Darwin said would overthrow the ToE, which is of course why he invented PE and tried to make an argument out of population genetics.
So you have to throw in a misrepresentation of Darwin,too. Every thing you say there is just false assertions.
quote:
But PE is absurd, and population genetics accounts for the fossil trilobites and coelacanths remaining identifiable trilobites and coelacanths for hundreds of millions of years, and offers not a shred of evidence for reptiles turning into mammals.
Calling PE absurd is not an argument. It's just an assertion which you can't support. Your assertions about population genetics are ridiculous. How can a discipline which deals with the mathematics of changes in allele frequency - that only deals with the effects of different alleles in terms of their effect on fitness possibly provide "evidence" for past evolutionary changes ? When you don't even k ow the genetic changes involved ? Surely we should go to the fossil record,or to genetic comparisons of living species - and the evidence is there.
Arrogant and ignorant assertions are not going to get you anything but the contempt you deserve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1139 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 4:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024