Thursday, November 24, 2011

gordo is a laugh a minute

5.1.1.1.4
kairosfocus
November 20, 2011 at 10:23 pm

P:

but common descent requires the transitions to be incremental

See the “it MUST have been like that” rather than, on evidence this is what was the case?

One assertion to substantiate another, do you not see the circle of argument?

There is but one definite fact about the world of the deep past, however deep is was: fossil life is the only directly evident life from the time beyond prehistory.

The evidence, as Gould et al have admitted and as the Cambrian fossils plainly say [cf the Meyer PBSW paper . . . which passed proper peer review by renowned scientists], is, sudden appearance of diverse forms [top down at that], stasis of body plans, disappearance or continuity into the modern era.

If there was common ancestry, the actual evidence does not support Darwin’s incrementalism. And, common descent is compatible with common design, e.g. by frontloading or even episodic engineering [try using viri as vehicles for directed mutations], etc.

The issue is that the dominant mechanism proposed cuts clean across the actual directly relevant evidence.

And if we go for more indirect evidence, the protein domains also fit in with islands of function.

As does the very nature of complex digital code.

But, some will insist, this is the way it MUST have been . . .

Darwinian a priorism . . .

GEM of TKI

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look who's asserting "it MUST have been like that" (god-did-it). All you ever do is assert your non-evidential religious crap to try to substantiate your non-evidential religious crap. You don't actually succeed of course, and never will.

I see your "circle of argument" in pretty much every word you spew. It's hilarious that you expect evidence (which is already substantial regarding common descent and evolution) but you don't have ANY to support your ID or other religious claims.

gordo, what is the exact measure of an 'increment'?

Gould isn't the last word on evolution, and meyer is a wacked out IDiot.

The "issue" is that you and your fellow IDiots don't have a clue about science and reality and are trying to force your religious and political agenda into every aspect of everyone's life.

And speaking of islands, I sure would like to put you on a barren one that is far, far out to sea.

Delusional religious a priorism . . .

Twt of planet Earth