|
 |
In article <473d189a@news.povray.org>,
pte### [at] thecommononethatstartswithY com says...
> Warp wrote:
>
> > Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that's one of the thing
s
> > which always make me laugh. Anti-christian atheists always consider
> > so-called microevolution (eg. wolves and dogs having a common ancestor
> > species) to be the same thing as macroevolution (everything on Earth
> > evolved from one single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting
> > the latter is considered contradictory.
> > Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.
>
>
> Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, makes a claim that neoDarwini
an
> processes could not have brought about irreducibly complex processes such
> as formation of an eye. He actually came to speak at a conference my
> church put on. I asked him about whether a process of "change through
> descent" could bring about speciation. He said yes, he believed it could
.
>
> My 15 seconds of fame in the evolution debate.
>
lol Self contradiction much? Behe is an example of someone who has a
degree, but is clueless anyway. Every time he comes up with something
*irreducible*, someone quotes a paper clearly showing how the mechanism
arose from reducible processes. But the gem is, how can you get species,
which in this case implies an irreducible result, via a process that
can't produce irreducible systems?
Even sillier though is that several people, though I don't remember any
of the links at the moment, have created simple computer programs that
use random selection to produce irreducible function. Its very easy to
get such a thing.
--
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
|
|
