Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   That's curious, given that I have made absolutely no claims about the
>>> evolution theory. 
>> No you have, you said for instance that: 'You don't have to accept the 
>> entire evolution theory as true in order to accept the similarities 
>> between the hearts and take advantage of that'. Which is incompatible 
>> with my definition of evolution.
> 
>   What I said does not say anything about the evolution theory.

It does, it says it is something that can be subdivided. See also my 
next lines that you snipped.

> Accepting something which can be used as evidence pro evolution is not
> the same thing as accepting evolution.

you lost me there. I don't see what this open door has to do with this 
discussion. Possibly caused by the misconception that I want you to 
accept evolution, see also below.

>> I also note that you did not answer any question on how you can apply 
>> any knowledge derived from mice to humans without a common ancestor. You 
>> don't have to, but I am still curious.
> 
>   You are asking me to give arguments against the evolution theory.

No, not at all. You claim that you know a way to reconcile applying 
knowledge from animal experiments to humans and not believing that they 
have a common ancestor. That made me curious because I don't know one. I 
am not asking whether you believe it or not. It is just for the 
intellectual fun of it.

> I won't. I have never claimed the evolution theory is false (nor that
> it's true, for that matter). I don't want to get into a discussion on
> whether the evolution theory is true or not. You can try to drag me on
> that direction all you want, but I won't go there.
>

Post a reply to this message