RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,11:10   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,11:06)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)
but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

Okay well they could just answer well whatever the number is, the one that you got isn't enough, as the super scientist dr. Behe has clearly shown. Gain of function is just to rare to justify evolution in the time frame that we have.

If you have a better number with a wider study prove it.

Playing devils advocate

make them do the math anyway.

At some point you have to cut your losses.

Dr Behe has shown no such thing. What paper did he publish that has this information you should ask.

EDIT: Lenski.

I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]