Replies

Although, I really shouldn't bother trying to educate you on how to read tables, because I doubt you even read these articles. You just do information-free text dumps into every crevo-thread, regardless of what the thread is talking about.

I read your "argument H"; you obviously haven't. Like I say, if you're gonna be a BS artist, at least try to keep your BS coherent. You clearly haven't even tried.

In fact, the discussion you link to for H doesn't mention anything remotely like the argument I make regarding features devolving while others were evolving and you are basically lying if you're trying to claim that it does.

Like I say, if you're gonna be a BS artist, at least try to keep your BS coherent. You clearly haven't even tried.

Okay, Ted, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor. I really shouldn't read these threads while drinking coffee...

I read your "argument H"; you obviously haven't. Like I say, if you're gonna be a BS artist, at least try to keep your BS coherent. You clearly haven't even tried. In fact, the discussion you link to for H doesn't mention anything remotely like the argument I make regarding features devolving while others were evolving and you are basically lying if you're trying to claim that it does.

I am willing to open this point to the rest of the people on this thread. I interpreted your statement as saying that no gains could be made in evolution because of directionless mutations with one feature never following another in time for a fully formed animal to appear. This, to me, is a form of this argument: A relatively recent argument, it claims things like 'gains of genetic information are impossible', or 'mutations have never been observed'. Both statements are, of course, false.

I am willing to change my opinion if someone else has a better fit for your argument compared to the chart above.