quote:
Appeal to authority and popularity, don't make me give another example. I Would very much like to see links backing up your views instead of wild assertions.
While an appeal to authority is not strictly a valid logical argument it is certainly a rational argument where the authorities are appropriate. In this case we are talking about an entire scientific field. The only "wild assertion" seems to be your assertion that geology and evolutionary biology require differing conditions - something you haven't offered any support for at all.
quote:
What like PE? Produce irriducible complexity? Provide some links so I can entertain myself. All you seem to gots is wild assertations.
PE is about modes of speciation, based on Mayr's work. And it was published well after Muller's work. IF you understood PE you wouldn't even mention it.
Muller's 1918
Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors is online and free.
This section is relevant:
thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong
any delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system
(emphasis in original p464
His 1939
Nature article "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." is available on line, but must be purchased.
quote:
Ok, sure. Links.
You mean like the links you used to show that there were polystrate fossils ? Oh, right. You didn't have any.
But try
this which deals with a 19th century explanation that still holds up.
quote:
http://s8int.com/index.html
http://byerly.org/whatifo.htm
The second link proves my point about provenance.
The "chain in coal" simply states that a local newspaper reported the "find".
For the crystal skull it states
Evidently the story of the skull's discovery is a fabrication
And do read the comments.
quote:
Under the model of relative geology, of which I currently debate.
But you've yet to offer even a good reason to think that angular unconformities could form in a YEC scenario, let alone that they are evidence for a young Earth.
quote:
Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTS
Human and Dinosaur Footprints in Turkmenistan?
| Answers in Genesis
Like I said. Here are no confirmed examples. All we have is the opinion of a few people all of whom happen to be YECs - and some of them pushing obvious fakes like the "Burdick track"
quote:
Honestly? Explain how it would not.
How WOULD the discovery of living dinosaurs affect evolutionary theory ? It might let us fill in some details about dinosaur evolution because we can get more information from living specimens then we can from fossils, but that's about it. The reason the dinosaurs are belived to have died out isn't because evolutionary theory said so - it's because the physical evidence for living dinosaurs stops 65 million years ago. The extinction is a fact to be explained, not a theoretical prediction.
quote:
Yes, and it was reminiscent of a movie by F. Gary Gray.
Want to explain why you didn't notice all the examples of invertebrate transitions ?
In fact lets be honest. You didn't read it at all. You just assumed that it was Kathleen Hunt's FAQ on vertebrate transitionals, didn't you ?
quote:
Avoiding the topic? Or assuming that I am as knowledgable as you seem to think you are? This assumption has been proven wrong at the EvC many times, just click on my name and follow the topics.
I'm certainly not assuming that you are as knowledgable as I am. But it seems you aren't even knowledgable enough to follow my point.
So, you claim was that mathematics was evidence against evolution. Your claim was false.
Firstly an argument that incorporates a mathematical calculation does not mean that mathematics supports the claim. To take an extreme example, if I said 2 + 2 = 4 therefore the speed of light
in vacuo id 4 metres per second I could not claim that mathematics supported my claim even though the mathematics is completely accurate.
SImilarly the probability calculations only validly argue against the scenarios that they assume. Since these are not the scenarios proposed by scientists working in abiogenesis or evolution all they have done is disprove something that nobody believes.
The calculations are not valid arguments against evolution or abiogenesis even if they are accurate because they do not address the real issues involved.
quote:
Hardly unbiased information. Please prove me wrong.
Since my only points concerned what the article said (and its nature) I don't see any need to provide further evidence. If you won't even believe that it says what it says then there isn't anything to discuss.
™ Version 4.2
