As a result of the large number of mutations, there would be a tremendously wide array of mutations being introduced very often, the results of which would span the spectrum. Some offspring with better vision, some with worse, some with two sets, some with one, etc., etc., etc.

So very close...

It's ridiculous, and it's not seen today.

And yet, as ever, so very far...

I don't see that in any way, shape or form ... so I conclude ToE is just that, a theory ... and due to lack of evidence it can be thrown out.

Would not a better conclusion be... "given that all the scientists of the world do not come to this conclusion, perhaps, just perhaps, my ideas of what evolution predicts are deeply flawed?"

You know, the conclusion that has a smidgeon of honesty and humility, and not the one above that reeks of bone-headed arrogance?

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 75 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 7:28 PM		RickCHodgin has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 80 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-21-2009 8:31 PM		cavediver has not replied

cavediver

Member (Idle past 3670 days)

Posts: 4129

From: UK

Joined: 06-16-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 173 of 265 (500479)
02-26-2009 3:43 PM

Reply to: Message 172 by Coyote
02-26-2009 1:07 AM

Re: Implication Of Intelligent Design

The typical mathematician or creationist would be there for decades, rolling all 25 dice each time, never getting more than a few sixes. They would then tell you its impossible, the odds are just too high.

Yeah, 'cos us mathematicans are so stupid that when ambiguous frameworks are given, we have no ability to map out all of the possible responses. Unlike the mighty biologists, who are like gods to us when it comes to Bayesian statistics

This message is a reply to:
	Message 172 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2009 1:07 AM		Coyote has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button