Who is your target audience here? The person dumb enough to be fooled? Is this person allowed to stay up this late?
I have correctly stated the output of the function for all values of n, not just n = 1. The general solution is always preferred to special cases.
I gave an example of adding three fossils and getting out four gaps and cited that the function is f(n) = n + 1, not n * 2. Please show for the case of n = 50 where my version is wrong and yours is correct.
He will carry on like this until beddybye time. LOL
This is what I have against many evolutionists - they can't handle being wrong. VadeRetro, you are wrong and turning to insults will not make you any less wrong. Your version is wrong because you are not addressing the question at hand.
These are the statements in question:
shubi - "Actually, every time we find a "missing link" creationists say that creates two more gaps. ;-)"
VadeRetro -" I used to say that a lot, too, but it's wrong."
You are wrong, every missing link does indeed create two new gaps. You claimed the fact that the gaps do not increase exponentially proves this statement is incorrect but you overlooked the fact that while each missing link creates two new gaps, it also eliminates one gap. Your math is correct but you conclusion is wrong. The claim is each missing link creates two new gaps (which is factual) not each missing link causes the gaps to increase exponentially.
Part of the problem is shubi misstated the position - the position is: Every time we find a "missing link" that creates two NEW gaps
So if you want to play pure semantics (which I doubt is your game) you are correct (two MORE gaps are not created - two NEW gaps are created). But if you want to address the actual position, you are wrong. The spirit of the statement is each missing link creates the need for two more missing links and I think you know that.