quote:
Ok, but what's the relevance of that?
1 in 10 to the billionth power is a ratio. If I actually wrote that out, there would be so many zeros that it would just piss every off had I done so. I think this part of the problem. ToE speaks so casually and flippantly about millions and billions of years of time or probablity factors that its virtualy unfathomable to distinguish the number 1 from the number 1 in 10 to the billionth power. Relationally speaking, you have better odds at winning the lotto 10,000 times over than reaching 1 in 10 to billionth power. That figure is nothing to scoff at.
quote:
I'm sorry? Are you referring to me as a liar?
I'm sorry. No, that wasn't directed to you. I nearly finished a book just over a month ago and instead of remembering my arguments from scratch, I go back into the Word template and paste in here. That's why I have a quote for almost every post. I should have snipped that tidbit off. My apologies.
quote:
What we call "dogs" is one species now, but over time, becomes a genus, and then a family; that's exactly what we expect from evolution and the observation of new species proves that's what's going on.
I understand the theory very well. But where are the transitional forms? People keep saying to me, "There are transitional forms," but I've yet to see any. All that has ever been introduced to me, is Archaeopteryx, bacteria, and maybe Pakicetus. I object to every one of them for various reasons.
quote:
No, not Cholera, Cholrella v.. A blue-green unicellular algea is observed to evolve multi-cellularity, and in doing so, keys taxonomically into a different family than it started in.
Thanks for the clarification. Since I know nothing about that, I'll have to read up on it and get back to you after some analysis.
quote:
Punk Eq is not an "explanation for why there are no transitional forms."
“The absence of fossil evidence has been a persistent problem for evolution.” -Dr. Steven J. Gould
"The interpretation supported by Eldridge and Gould is that allopatric speciation in small, peripheral populations automatically results in "gaps" in the fossil record. Throughout their essay, however, runs a larger and more important lesson: a priori theorems often determine the results of "empirical" studies, before the first shred of evidence is collected. This idea, that theory dicatates what we see, cannot be stated too strongly."
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/...ssictexts/eldredge.pdf
Taken dircetly from here:
Evolution - Classic Texts
"We emphatically do not assert the "truth" of this alternate metaphysic of punctuational change. Any attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a monistic, a priori, grandiose notion would verge on the nonsensical. We believe that gradual change characterizes some hierarchical levels, even though we may attribute it to punctuation at a lower level”the macroevolutionary trend produced by species selection, for example. We make a simple plea for pluralism in guiding philosophies”and for the basic recognition that such philosophies, however hidden and inarticulated, do constrain all our thought. Nonetheless, we do believe that the punctuational metaphysic may prove to map tempos of change in our world better and more often than any of its competitors”if only because systems in steady state are not only common but also so highly resistant to change." -Stephen J. Gould
In so many words, he said that its a metaphyisical theory based on hope.
quote:
There are thousands of transitional forms.
If there were thousands, then thousands would be posted on TalkOrigins. As it stands, that clearly isn't the case.
quote:
Not after adulthood, no. Like all mammals, humans evolved adult intolerance to lactose as a weaning aid.
And what empirical scientific data have you gathered to come up with this notion? A weaning mechanism?
quote:
It's likely that either you and your wife are heterozygous for lactose tolerance, and your son had the 1 in 4 outcome of being homozygous recessive for that trait. Another possibility is that he mutatively reverted to wild type. Given that our genetics are read in three-codon reading frames, that's not an impossibility.
Yes, that's possible. But this does not serve to prove any macroevolutionary mechanism.
quote:
Entropy doesn't encompass thermodynamic principle soley.
Read Boltzman's theorem on entropic forces. If it only encompassed thermodynamic principles in a closed system, then nothing would ever deteriorate or die.
quote:
Yes. But species don't experience a molecular breakdown, because entropy doesn't "carry over" from the parent to the child. If they did, the child of 50-year-old parents would start out older than the child of 20-year-old parents.
This much is true.
quote:
entropy as a concept has no relevance to it.
Entropy affects virtually everything and nothing in the known universe has been able to counter that. Its as solid a principle of physics as Newton's observations on gravity.
quote:
I've proven how this is not the case. You're under an obligation to defend your assertions by expanding your arguments and providing evidence, not by merely repeating the same assertions over and over again. No matter how often you repeat it, it doesn't become true.
You proved nothing of sort. You confused two terminalogies that aren't in any sense synoymous. In any case, I've been barred from speaking about this further.
™ Version 4.2
