quote:
Of course this is not my reasoning. So I guess the difference between us is that I am honest and do not invent a strawman.
Try this reasoning.
1) If there were nothing to counteract the accumulation of detrimental mutations we would not be here.
2) We are here.
3) There is something to counteract the effect of detrimental mutations
(i.e. the form "if A then B" "not B" "therefore not A", which is valid).
Argument from silence. No such mechanism has been observed. If it evolved in the first place, why isn’t it still present to counteract the present degradation?
How am I to know your reasoning if you do not share it? Is the reasoning I gave invalid? No, because not only did you fail to give me your reasoning, when I gave you perfectly logical and valid reasoning from what you said, you dismissed it immediately as false.
quote:
Last time you claimed to have answered my points elsewhere it was a lie. So I decline to do your work for you.
It was not a lie. It was an explanation you refuse to accept.
quote:
If you claim to have an answer elsewhere, link to it. The forum software allows links to other messages to be produced quite easily with, for example the mid tag.
EvC Forum: Church Is Not Enough? thereabouts. And, no, your mid tag don’t seem to work
quote:
This makes no sense as a definition. I prefer the standard definitions where macroevolution is any evolution at or above the level of species (i.e. a speciation event is an example of macroevolution - so newts and salamanders having a common ancestor would be an outcome of macroevolution)
Then it appears that there are some parts of evolution that I agree with and others that I don’t.
Having said this, and your continued assertion that I lie, even though I have given you perfectly valid and logical reasons for what I said, I refuse to continue.
™ Version 4.2
