OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Joe "own goal" G, strikes out again
| Quote | | My claim vs Andy (and Johnny P) is that Darwian evolution, which posits a gradual process, does not predict a nested hierarchy because such a gradual process would produce a smooth blending of defining characteristics. That means it would produce many, many transitional forms. Nested hierarchies, on the other hand, require clear and distinct categories- no smooth blending allowed. Even Darwin wrote about that. |
Well done Joe, you just proved transitionals... using the actual definition (not your made up one).
LOL
Of course, nested hierarchies is something that you know NOTHING about.
And Joey, it was NOT ended because it was too technical. Here's the link. http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....t-to-do
Please quote the part where Andy said it was "too technical" and therefore changed the subject.
He schooled you dude and you're too Krueger-Dunning to even understand it.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
