Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution. It
seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin. Not sure what
you are claiming here.
Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to? Please be specific so
that I can research it to see if you are right.
So, you people make fun of my probability calculation so I pointed out the
probability calculation of a staunch evolutionists who have already considered
many of your objections. Now, you make fun of him (Julian Huxley). What level
of proof or which personality would you really consider credible? Whose proof
is acceptable to you? Please don't just say there are thousands of textbooks.
If there are thousands of proofs, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point
out one example of an observable macro-evolution event.
Though I can understand part of your problem. As a biology teacher, you have
been totally immersed in this Darwinian paradigm. Like Huzienga, it is very
difficult for you to change your mind or to admit that what you believed your
entire life has been a lie.
Me? I will accept Darwinian Evolution today if someone can show me concrete
proof. Not conjectures, and imaginations and suppositions and speculations and
interpretations. I challenged Nigel to do just that, but it seems he could not.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Deboer
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium
Jojo,
Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin
plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop
species.
BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did not
state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the
guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you and I could ever
agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal actions per sec X 80
billion neurons actions per sec by you X 30 years = ???? (I'm not too good at
math, you do the math).
From a former biology teacher, ken
PS. don't call me, I'll call you back.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, <jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your
unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma
You are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever. If
"Darwinian dogma" (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my understanding
- well maybe its right.
is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions. You
assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis.
For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.
How do you know that?
We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In many
cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you
should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well
educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself.
You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so. Since
your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally
conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. Then a wrong question
stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption. You then ask why the
coelacanth "stopped" evolving? This of course is the wrong question that you
are trying to answer.
What you should do is not assume anything. You then look at the data and
see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data.
What about you? You make one massive assumption (that the history and
legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be
completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how good it
is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive assumption.
Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to
today and why it hasn't evolved? If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong.
Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350
million years? This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if
your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis.
Jojo
PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the
stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that
Darwinian Evolution could be wrong.
Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better to
pick specks of dust from others assumptions.
