Joined: Mar. 2008
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 29 2011,07:50)|
|Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2011,00:34)|
|What I counted:|
"if evolution were a real science, " - this pretends that it isn't.
"biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, " - the theory doesn't imply ability to predict that level of detail.
"as well as which population groups within a species " - same fallacy as in previous line.
"were more evolved than the norm. " - there's no such thing as "norm". (unless you're watching Cheers.)
(Although I suppose the 2nd and 3rd ones in that list could be considered duplicates; they just refer to different sized groups.)
There's no such thing as 'more evolved' either. 'More evolved' implies that a population has a history that is longer than other populations.
If it is coupled with a specific point, "more evolved" can give us comparisons. For example, which species is more evolved for climbing trees - sloths or whales? Other then that, yeah, it's incoherent.
As for the original OP, the only mistake that I saw was Teddy trying to play as if he understands science. With that mistake, everything he says is useless twaddle.
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G