Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,02:26)|
| The thousands of points are the twists and turns of bone after bone that brings about to the human eye such sameness of form that a whole concept of convergence must be invoked to explain it.|
Again, you completely fail to provide any useful definition of your system. You've just repeated the same assertions. Nothing you've said would allow anyone to objectively compare your "method" (pretending for the moment that you actually have one) with other methods. Your vague philosophical objection to convergent evolution is irrelevant to providing a definition to your alternative.
It's not enough to say that the vaguely specified similarity important. You have to clearly define which similarities you are talking about, provide an objective way of identifying which ones are important, provide a logically consistent way of measuring and comparing them, and then demonstrate that you get better* results than current methods produce.
You have done none of these things. You've just repeated "I'm right because I say so!". This is a level argument one might expect from a 5 year old, but it's down right embarrassing from an adult.
* better in some well defined way, not "it fits my twisted interpretation of some ancient myth"