Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 160 (516428)
07-24-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by interrelation
07-24-2009 10:47 AM


Re: Silly experiments and reality
Hi interrelation, let's see if you've learned anything.
Plants don't avoid stick since plants can't move.
Ah, so your theory that life can avoid death by using interelation is false.
Not yet in bacteria, ...With sponges? Not yet. Starfish? Not yet. Coral? Not yet.Opossums? Not yet.
So it appears that you have a vast untested sample of the world. Curiously biologists have covered the world and studied every known species and several now extinct ones. Fascinatingly they all behave according to predictions from evolution.
Turtles? Yes. It tried to hide its head when threaten.
But it didn't try to run away? Looks like it had a totally different reaction to your stick than the rat - can your concept explain that difference?
Evolution can and does. In both situations you are dealing with species that have evolved survival mechanisms over millions of years, and each mechanism has helped ensure the individual passes on their genetic traits, including the mechanisms for the rat to run and the turtle to draw it's neck into it's shell. Can you explain why the shell?
Evolution can predict the behavior of each one of these organisms to your stick. Thus if your attempt your "experiment" and all you do is confirm what evolution predicts then you have demonstrated that evolution's predictions are correct.
Message 85
Here's why:
evolution is the change in time.
Since TOE does not have time mechanism eventhough its definition requiree it in its definition, TOE is incorrect. So time actually kills TOE.
Thank you for demonstrating that you do not know what evolution is.
My car changes over time - it rusts. That is not evolution.
My body changes over time - it has grown up and is not advancing into the tribulations of age, but that too is not evolution.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The time mechanism is reproduction and the production of new generations, and the change mechanism is mutations and selection for increased survival and reproduction.
If you want to learn about the reality of evolution try
Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution
Note: An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
They teach biology. You could learn.
I've proven that all living things made life as "first" priority.
Sadly no, you ONLY tested one aspect, you only tested for survival patterns, pre-evolved survival patterns.
What Interrelation Theory said in the time mechanism is that the lemur will never cross on its base species. Base species is the species that were designed by CIO to live and interrelate with the respect to time (era) and surroundings.
Curiously they are ancestral to primates, apes, ... and humans. Hi mr lemurlike being - too bad you haven't evolved from your limited past.
Of course we could also discuss therapsidae, but I somehow doubt that you would understand the interesting sequence in the middle where the fossils are in transition from reptiles to mammals, and they have two jaw joints instead of one.
The fetus has a pattern, a change, a time sequence and stages.
...
If it breaks, the child will die.
This is biological development, not TOE
The fetus has a fixed or limited stages with respect to time
and the change is permissible change of fetus to every embryo to survive.
Because this is how individual organisms develop according to the DNA they have inherited. This is not where evolutionary change occurs, it follows the change that happens when the DNA is formed for the sperm and egg before they combine into the zygote.
If they die on the way to developing into reproductive adults then this is one way how natural selection works to eliminate DNA patterns that cannot develop into reproductively capable adults.
But, Interrelation Theory has an explanation for that. In Interrelation Theory, the APM mechanism is responsible for that. In short, the inserts were the results of the fights between virus and the cells, and the inserts were actually the "scars" left in fight.
So why do entirely different species have exactly the same scars from exactly the same fights in exactly the same places?
Their existence is but a small part of the problem before you: their location and their identical pattern show that the scars all came from one fight by one ancestor to all the descendants that carry the scar.
Common descent, evolution, explains that pattern, your theory does not.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 81 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 10:47 AM interrelation has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 92 of 160 (516446)
07-25-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Marcosll
05-09-2008 4:35 AM


Re: looking at the big picture
Marcosll writes:
Darwin, having studied the finches in the Galapagos, had concluded that they were different species, also based on the fact he didn't observe them interbreeding. Well, guess what, so many years later, it is known that they do in fact interbreed after more humans have observed them more closely.
How many times is it necessary to debunk this sort of misguided nonsense before creationists finally stop posting it. In fact, Darwin didn't study the finches. He collected a few and brought them back to England. The analysis of the specimens was done by Richard Owen, who actually discarded Darwin's specimens because he failed to sufficiently document the circumstances of their collection. Captain Fitzroy did a better job. Owen surprised Darwin by pointing out that there were several species represented.
Well, guess what. Only three species of Darwin's finches have ever been observed to interbreed. In those cases it was Geospiza fortis that interbred with G. scandens and G. fulginesa. Those species are closely related and are, respectively, the medium ground finch, the cactus finch, and the small ground finch. It is no more surprising than the interbreeding of the eastern and western meadowlark, and way less surprising that the interbreeding of the brown bear with the polar bear.
It is deceptive to state without qualification that Darwin's finches interbreed when, in fact, only three closely related species have ever been observed to do so, and then it was in a case of extreme low population density due to a severe drought. Mates of the appropriate species were difficult to find. Thus, hybridization between closely related species took place. During normal years with higher population densities, it never occurred.
If one understands evolutionary theory, the hybridization between closely related species is not surprising. Hybridization of two species of watermelons (i.e., diploid and tetraploid species) produce a triploid species. Strange as it may seem, seeds from this cross must be fertilized by the diploid species to produce fruit without seeds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Marcosll, posted 05-09-2008 4:35 AM Marcosll has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 93 of 160 (516573)
07-26-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by interrelation
07-24-2009 11:20 AM


Re: Did Not
Of course, you can call the result evolution by natural selection. But as Interrelation
Theory states that the reason why the plant and all plants are struggling to live
and struggling to change (interrelate) in nature is that because of
biotic preservation mechanism, BPM and not the natural selection.
And the reason why we cannot rely now in TOE is just because TOE had an
incomplete mechanisms. Incomplete mechanisms will result in incomplete explanation,
that will result in incomplete and therefore, erroneous theory in science.
So, to review the answer you wrote three times verbatim in the same post:
"Yes, the results did match the predictions of evolutionary theory but my theory has a different explanation. Evolution is incomplete!"
This is all well and good, but doesn't really answer what I was saying. If the results of your experiments match the predictions of evolutionary theory just as well as the predictions of interrelation theory, then they give us no reason to choose one over the other.
Your stated reason for rejecting evolution by natural selection is the repeated assertion that it's 'incomplete'. Nothing in your experiments that establishes this; please explain what I'm missing.
Incidentally, I've read all your posts in this thread, and still have no idea what you mean by 'time mechanism', or where it is absent in evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 11:20 AM interrelation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 10:05 AM caffeine has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 160 (516586)
07-26-2009 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by caffeine
07-26-2009 8:56 AM


incomplete
Hi Caffeine,
Your stated reason for rejecting evolution by natural selection is the repeated assertion that it's 'incomplete'. Nothing in your experiments that establishes this; please explain what I'm missing.
The best I can figure is that natural selection during the instance of his hitting animals with stick does not explain the evolved behavior of organisms to survive and breed.
He seems to ignore the whole accumulated behaviors and their specific relationship to the various inherited traits of the different species, through time that have been integral to the formation of the species as it is today. This of course brings us to the other problem:
Incidentally, I've read all your posts in this thread, and still have no idea what you mean by 'time mechanism', or where it is absent in evolutionary theory.
Or where it is more visible in the "interrelation" hypothesis and results in a some kind of "complete" explanation.
"Yes, the results did match the predictions of evolutionary theory but my theory has a different explanation. Evolution is incomplete!"
If his hypothesis does not explain any single thing better than is explained already by evolution, then his hypothesis necessarily suffers the same degree of incompleteness, whatever it is.
Given that each of the responses to his "experiments" can be predicted beforehand by our knowledge of biology, he has not tested any incompleteness of evolution theory.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 93 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2009 8:56 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Alan Clarke
Junior Member (Idle past 5352 days)
Posts: 4
From: Evansville, IN, USA
Joined: 07-31-2009


Message 95 of 160 (517405)
07-31-2009 2:27 PM


Evolution theory FAILS at explaining diversity. For one such example, refer to the failed prediction of what "Pakicetus" should have looked like in totality given only a skull in 1983. The evolutionary model predicted it should look inbetween a land dwelling animal and an aquatic animal: WRONG!!

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2009 4:08 PM Alan Clarke has not replied
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 08-02-2009 12:43 AM Alan Clarke has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 96 of 160 (517420)
07-31-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Alan Clarke
07-31-2009 2:27 PM


Diversity?
Welcome!
So science has learned something about the details of whale evolution. Most folks would think that was good.
Now which model of "origins" is supported by this new information? That of the bible and "kinds" or that of the theory of evolution, within which this new information fits quite well.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Alan Clarke, posted 07-31-2009 2:27 PM Alan Clarke has not replied

  
Alan Clarke
Junior Member (Idle past 5352 days)
Posts: 4
From: Evansville, IN, USA
Joined: 07-31-2009


Message 97 of 160 (517423)
07-31-2009 5:42 PM


So science has learned something about the details of whale evolution. Most folks would think that was good.
"Science" may have learned something, but have all "scientists"? Prior to 1938, coelacanth fossils were misinterpreted as walking fish using the evolution model. The continuance of this mistake is evidenced in the pakicetus interpretation. In both cases, the interpretation was falsified by the evidence, thus weakening the model overall. When the same mistake is repeated, this is indicative that something more fundamental is flawed.
Evolutionists were misled by their model to interpret coelacanth fossils as evidence for a missing link that possessed appendages used for walking.
Now which model of "origins" is supported by this new information? That of the bible and "kinds" or that of the theory of evolution, within which this new information fits quite well.
The idea that animals were created fully-developed seems attractive when considering the non-viability of animals caught in a state of transition when macro-evolving. Just look at poor old pakicetus in the illustration. His truncated forelimbs serve neither for swimming or walking. Creation theory allows for "genetic variation" within the kinds to allow adaptation. But the variation is limited as evidenced in dog breeding.
Clarification of terms and a priori beliefs:
Wikipedia - "Abiogenesis"
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.
...
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Charles Darwin to George Darwin in 1873 letter:
Real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks [on Christianity]. (source)
Evolutionists frequently proclaim that Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with how life began. From Darwin’s own words, we see how his world-view followed a continuum:
1) God is undesired or doesn’t exist
2) warm little pond
3) spontaneous generation of first cell
4) duplication mechanisms invented by mutations & nat. sel.
Had Darwin known the complexity of a living cell, he would have stopped at #3 (see letter to Joseph Hooker). #4 is just as bad or worse since copying would not be like duplicating a file on a hard drive but like duplicating the whole computer and the companies that make the parts for the computer! The production facilities must reside in the organism. Pictured below is Intel’s production facility in Costa Rica that makes ONE PART for a computer. Get the picture?
What Wikipedia fails to mention:
The word "micro-evolution" is often used interchangeably with "genetic variation". Evolutionists try to sell "macro-evolution" to undiscerning consumers as being the same as "micro-evolution" which is "genetic variation". The technique is not unlike audio amplifier manufacturers that underhandedly overrate an amplifier's power output as 400W. In actuality the power rating is "instantaneous peak music power on one channel" and not the more revealing and conservative 20W RMS/channel, both channels driven simultaneously, from 20-20,000 Hz, with less than 0.5% distortion. By changing words, evolutionists effectively advertise their "20 watt" theory as being "400 watts".

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by subbie, posted 07-31-2009 6:15 PM Alan Clarke has not replied
 Message 100 by Blue Jay, posted 07-31-2009 6:52 PM Alan Clarke has not replied
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2009 11:25 PM Alan Clarke has replied
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 4:07 AM Alan Clarke has not replied
 Message 139 by pandion, posted 08-03-2009 11:00 AM Alan Clarke has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 98 of 160 (517426)
07-31-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Alan Clarke
07-31-2009 5:42 PM


Very well done, Alan!
It normally takes considerably longer than two posts for a creotard to produce such a magnificent Gish Gallop. You are a true prodigy.
Evolutionists try to sell "macro-evolution" to undiscerning consumers...
Pray tell, where does one go to buy some evolution? I live in a town of about 50,000, and the biggest retailer here is Walmart. Do they carry it, or will I have to go to a big city and find a specialty retailer?
By changing words, evolutionists effectively advertise their "20 watt" theory as being "400 watts".
Ah! This suggests I can find it at an electronics store. Does Best Buy carry it? We have one of those in town. Or do I need to go to a more upscale electrics boutique? Is there an online outlet?
I think the first quote in my signature sums things up quite well as far as Alan's loggorhea is concerned.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Alan Clarke, posted 07-31-2009 5:42 PM Alan Clarke has not replied

  
Alan Clarke
Junior Member (Idle past 5352 days)
Posts: 4
From: Evansville, IN, USA
Joined: 07-31-2009


Message 99 of 160 (517428)
07-31-2009 6:39 PM


Pray tell, where does one go to buy some evolution? I live in a town of about 50,000, and the biggest retailer here is Walmart.
Don't you have any government-supported universities? If not then you can purchase it here.

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by losetheclub, posted 08-05-2009 1:38 AM Alan Clarke has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 100 of 160 (517430)
07-31-2009 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Alan Clarke
07-31-2009 5:42 PM


Hi, Alan.
Welcome to EvC!
I'd like to draw a couple of things to your attention:
First, there is a "Reply" button at the bottom of each individual message: use that button when replying to someone in particular, and only use the "Gen Reply" button when your reply is not aimed at someone in particular.
Second, this thread isn't about transitional species. There is a recent thread on transitional species: On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY). That would be a good place to go to talk about what you want to talk about. There might even be a few things you could learn by reading that thread.
See you there?
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Alan Clarke, posted 07-31-2009 5:42 PM Alan Clarke has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 101 of 160 (517451)
07-31-2009 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Alan Clarke
07-31-2009 5:42 PM


Analogy fails
The word "micro-evolution" is often used interchangeably with "genetic variation". Evolutionists try to sell "macro-evolution" to undiscerning consumers as being the same as "micro-evolution" which is "genetic variation". The technique is not unlike audio amplifier manufacturers that underhandedly overrate an amplifier's power output as 400W. In actuality the power rating is "instantaneous peak music power on one channel" and not the more revealing and conservative 20W RMS/channel, both channels driven simultaneously, from 20-20,000 Hz, with less than 0.5% distortion. By changing words, evolutionists effectively advertise their "20 watt" theory as being "400 watts".
Your analogy fails.
Micro-evolution is accepted by pretty much everyone. Macro-evolution is denied by fundamentalists on religious grounds, but accepted by biologists and other scientists most familiar with the field.
If fundamentalists want to show that micro-evolution can't add up, over time, to macro-evolution they need to show a mechanism that prevents such change. I have yet to see such a mechanism proposed and withstand scientific testing.
But you can be the first, and you can have a special Nobel prize coined in your honor. Just show where micro-evolution hits the brick wall and has to stop, lest it wander into macro-evolution territory.
And your analogy, like the tornado in a junkyard, fails because living organisms don't react in the same way as do manufactured items. Not even close. Living organisms change minutely with each generation, and those changes are acted upon by the environment. This diversity, interacting with the environment, is often referred to as natural selection. I have yet to see random parts in a junkyard, or even at Intel, evolve on their own.
So, your task is to show a specific biological mechanism that prevents the diversity generated by micro-evolution from extending to macro-evolution.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Alan Clarke, posted 07-31-2009 5:42 PM Alan Clarke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 3:10 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 110 by Alan Clarke, posted 08-01-2009 4:35 AM Coyote has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 160 (517460)
08-01-2009 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
07-31-2009 11:25 PM


Re: Analogy fails
coyote writes:
Micro-evolution is accepted by pretty much everyone. Macro-evolution is denied by fundamentalists on religious grounds, but accepted by biologists and other scientists most familiar with the field.
Most scientist believed in a supernatural creation before the "enlightenment". Natural variation is an obvious design feature. Without the ability of organisms to adapt there would be no life at all. Macro evolution is not denied by fundamentalists on grounds of religion but on empirical analysis. Science doesn't show macro-evolution, belief does. Your belief is 200 years old, mine is 6 thousand. It doesn't matter what a scientist believes but what he explains using repeatable experiments, not philosophy.
coyote writes:
And your analogy, like the tornado in a junkyard, fails because living organisms don't react in the same way as do manufactured items. Not even close. Living organisms change minutely with each generation, and those changes are acted upon by the environment. This diversity, interacting with the environment, is often referred to as natural selection. I have yet to see random parts in a junkyard, or even at Intel, evolve on their own.
I'm going to stick my head out here but consider this:
3.109 base pairs for a human genome. With a 97% similarity with the apes.
That is 2.9*109 differences. Lets halve this to get to the supposed branch. So we have 1.4*109 changes. That is at least 1 forward change per year without a reverse change over 1.4 billion years. That is simply ridiculous. And that is only the "supposed" change from ape to human. Look at the probability of rock to human in 4 billion years. Not possible.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2009 11:25 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by DrJones*, posted 08-01-2009 3:36 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 3:44 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2009 3:48 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 103 of 160 (517461)
08-01-2009 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by LucyTheApe
08-01-2009 3:10 AM


Re: Analogy fails
quote:
Your belief is 200 years old, mine is 6 thousand.
It's not a belief, it's a scientific theory supported by evidence, it's hardly on the same level as your fairy tale.
quote:
3.109 base pairs for a human genome. With a 97% similarity with the apes.
That is 2.9*109 differences.
Recheck your math, 3% of 3 x 109 is 9 x 107
quote:
Look at the probability of rock to human in 4 billion years. Not possible.
Of course it's not possible as rocks, being non-living, don't evolve. If you're trying to bring in some origin of life arguement, thats abiogenisis not evolution.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 3:10 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 3:57 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 160 (517463)
08-01-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by LucyTheApe
08-01-2009 3:10 AM


Re: Analogy fails
Macro evolution is not denied by fundamentalists on grounds of religion but on empirical analysis.
This is not true.
Science doesn't show macro-evolution, belief does.
This is not true.
Your belief is 200 years old, mine is 6 thousand.
Something else that your belief shares with flat-Earthism.
It doesn't matter what a scientist believes but what he explains using repeatable experiments ...
This demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of science.
I'm going to stick my head out here but consider this:
3.109 base pairs for a human genome. With a 97% similarity with the apes.
That is 2.9*109 differences. Lets halve this to get to the supposed branch. So we have 1.4*109 changes. That is at least 1 forward change per year without a reverse change over 1.4 billion years That is simply ridiculous.
What you have written is indeed ridiculous. I'm going to guess either that you're mathematically illiterate or that you don't know the difference between the word "similarity" and the word "difference".
Biologists, who suffer from neither of these deficiencies, have done the actual math. It's not difficult.
Look at the probability of rock to human in 4 billion years. Not possible.
I guess that's why we aren't descended from rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 3:10 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by slevesque, posted 08-01-2009 5:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 160 (517464)
08-01-2009 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by LucyTheApe
08-01-2009 3:10 AM


Re: Analogy fails
Lucy, there just isn't anything in your post worthy of a response.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 3:10 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-01-2009 4:19 AM Coyote has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024