quote:
Irrelevant?
To this discussion which is all about a quote relating to human evolution, chemical evolution is a complete and utter irrelevance.
quote:
So do you mean some scientist are arguing absurdly because some of them are arguing from the stand point of chemical evolution?
I don't see any such arguments in this thread.
quote:
For example Dean kenyon former supporter of evolution say that it is completely implausible that unassisted energy and matter organized theirselves.
And how is this relevant to this thread ?
quote:
Is his argument irrelevant?
It doesn't seem to be. It has nothing to do with Milton's use of Pilbeam's work.
quote:
And can you give enough reason to show that discussing about whether chemical evolution could have taken place is irrelevant?
This thread is about RIchard Milton's alleged misuse of a quote from Pilbeam. Pilbeam was discussing human ancestry and referred to a fossil "void" which (at least at the time) covered a period from 4 to 8 million years ago. THere is nothing to do with chemical evolution there.
So come on, just what IS the relevance of chemical evolution to this discussion, which YOU chose to revive ?