Quote:

LOL. I will be doing very well if I understand enough about general relativity to refute Einstein. However I find myself more than capable to refute you and jcl. And in your case, with all of these oddball statements of yours, I consider it childsplay.



You missed the point, you are qualified to refute neither Einstein nor Darwin. Darwin is regarded with as high regard (perhaps more) than Einstein by the scientific community. Whereas Einstein extended our knowledge of physics, and gave us a new way of understanding, Darwin essentially brought about modern biological sciences. His ideas form the basis of all modern biological thought. You cant possibly have modern cladistics without Darwin, you cant explain early humans wihtout Darwin, you cant even explain the lengths of bird's beaks without Darwin. One of the measures of the worth of a scientific theory is it's abilioty to predict. Darwin predicted that the easliest humans would be found in Africa, and indeed they were (australopithicus, ardipithicus, etc). Darwin predicted intermediate forms, and they were found, even in his lifetime (archeopterix).

If you think evolution falls on the legs it stands on, you clearly have NO idea of what evolutionary theory is. Seriously, educate yourself on it and then come back and talk to us. Have you read Origin of Species? Have you looked at the fossil record at all? Are you aware of all the 'intermediate' forms that have been found that directly contradict your belief that they havent been found?

There are so many evidences of evolution that I couldnt even begin to list them. But you have completely ignored everyhting I have said. What about my examples of the coconut crab for instance, having both non-functioning gills, and air-breathing "lungs" that still need some water to function? How do you account for this unless you accept that at some point this animal's ancestors lived wholely in the water?

What statements do i make that are "oddball"? Everything I've said represents the mainstream of scietific thinking. Nothing you've said has refuted anything I or JCL has said. You seem to reject evolutionary theory out of hand for emotional reasons, not valid scientific reasons. You keep saying that evolution fails, but you havent given any specific reason why.

All your arguements have been gone through more than a hundred years ago,and they have all been dealt with. There are arguments you are not even aware of that are more interesting.

What about Schrodinger's idea that evolution violates the third law of thermodynamics(entropy in a system)? This is an interesting attack, because on the surface it makes some sense. The idea is that no complex closed system can go on indefinitely; it has to degrade over time. Therfore evolution shouldnt produce more ordered lifeforms, instead it should produce increasingly degenerate ones.

This attack has been dealt with easily though, because evolution is not a closed system-- it is instead constantly changing and being influenced by outside sources. We just conveniently view as closed for experimental purposes.

All you can do is find little inconsistencies and nitpick, or use false premises(like some assumed probability of life evolving) and try to demolish the whole edifice. You also seem to love straw man arguements (like man evolved from monkeys).

You like to attack our arguements as being "oddball" or silly, or nonsensical, without giving adequate reasons why. You seem to not understand the most basic facts of modern science, and are unwilling to learn.

Sphere Engine--the premier A6 graphics plugin.