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. > >
