Joined: Nov. 2006
|Quote (jeannot @ July 28 2007,13:46)|
So provide it. You could write thousands or scientific paper and earn a few nobel prices.
|I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.|
I have heard about nobel prices for literature, physics, economy etc. Is there any Nobel price for "darwinism"? Who got it?
Common descent is a complicated problem considering Dacque underestanding of evolution as "entelechie of forms", see my previous post on German idealistic morphology. Did you read it or not?
Which thread? Let's stick to this one. Search is broken on this board and I don't have the time to read all your previous posts.
PS: I don't read german.
Try latest pages on Frontloading's thread or EvC where I started the thred about it on Biological evolution section. I summarized there main ideas of Dacque, Naef and Troll.
Why in the world someone babbling on a random discussion board on how darwinism is wrong, while hundreds of papers that support the theory of evolution are published every months, should drive me angry?
Nice way to avoid the question.
That's your argument? When something is published it must be right. Once they published in Nature an article that babies faces are similar to those of their fathers, because our predecessors would have killed them otherwise. The Nature was honest enough to publish another article that our predecessor didn't have mirrors.
And do not please confuse darwinism with theory of evolution (ToE). Another theory of evolution is Lamarckism, Nomogenesis or professor John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. They are all theories of evolution.
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-