In article <473dda5c$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Wouldn't that be, "Why it doesn't make sense to doubt it?"
> 
> Yah. Forgive me. I've been ill. :-)
> 
> > this guy makes some common mistakes. First one is suggesting that their
 
> > are some huge number of *possible* combinations that would work. Really
? 
> > How does he determine this? 
> 
> Actually, I read somewhere that someone had figured out (well after that
 
> article was written) that there are something like 12 different 
> isomorphic ways you can arrange the codons to do the same job. So 
> instead of 41^22! or whatever it was, there were at least 12. :-)
> 
> > do anything at all, such as INC X followed immediately by DEC X. 
> 
> That's a completely different point. That just means there are genes 
> that don't code for anything. He's assuming that there's no good reason
 
> for the bit patterns in the instruction set to be arranged in any given
 
> pattern for a particular instruction.
> 
> > But none of that really matters, since the article says *nothing* about
 
> > the likelihood of macro vs. micro,
> 
> So here's the question: What is "macro vs micro"?  How do you know when
 
> you have "macro" evolution? What makes something of two "kinds"?
> 
> I suspect you'll wind up coming up with a tautologically false answer, 
> if you want to invent something that hasn't been observed.
> 
Well, strictly speaking "kind" is a word the Creationists came up with, 
which is entirely meaningless. They place species that **can't** breed 
at all in the same "kinds", including the donkey/mule/horse version, 
which can breed, but produce the third on in that list as a sterile 
result. The correct term "Species" means it cannot breed at all. This 
has recently gotten a bit fuzzier, since you obviously can breed most 
cats, even though they are recognized as different species. Likely we 
need a subcategory for those, instead of using species. But, even with 
cats you do also get things like Ligers, which are sterile about 50% of 
the time, so Tigers and Lions have diverged enough to *almost* be two 
distinct "kinds" in the parlance of these nitwits.

Basically, science's distinction is that, sure, you can get 5 million 
different sorts of birds from one proto bird, but 99.9% of them can't 
breed with each other, so they have become different species. The ID 
version of this would be, there are 5 million different kinds of birds, 
all from some proto bird, but they are all the same "kind". They gloss 
over the fact that you can't breed them, so they don't have to admit 
that they are different species. Point it out to them and they back 
peddle and claim it all happened in a few hundred years after the flood 
(since all those different birds(not to mention other animal) would have 
had to exist **immediately** after the flood ended to explain how many 
people saw them over 5,000 years ago.) It just doesn't work at all. And 
that is the main problem here. They **literally** want evolution to mean 
that tomarrow your dog will give birth to an elephant, never mind the 
fact that it doesn't work that way, and if it did, it **would** imply 
intervention.

> > There is nothing in there that would suggest denial of common descent o
f 
> > macro evolution.
> 
> Sorry. I meant it as an explanation of evidence in favor of common 
> descent, regardless of how I misworded the original statement.
> 
Ah, ok. Kind of confusing there.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message