not enough intermediate species
Dale Kelly
no man-pig
no elephant-bird
etc.
also not enough time for all mutations to add up
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Kelsey Bjarnason
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
And no reason for such to exist.
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
Yes, I see, your equations and the figures they apply to are most
compelling.
--
Do not contact me at kbjar...@ncoldns.com
John Harshman
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
Why should any of these exist? Cats didn't evolve from dogs, or vice
versa. Nor humans from pigs, nor birds from elephants.
Now if you're looking for intermediate fossils, those do exist, but most
of them bear no particular resemblance to either of the modern groups,
since both lineages have continued evolving. The closest to a cat-dog
intermediate would be an early carnivore, say Vulpavus. The pig-human
ancestor would be an early placental, far back in the Cretaceous, and
these are poorly known, but try Zambdalestes. The elephant-bird ancestor
would be a primitive amniote, say Hylonomus.
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
Not that I can see. In fact mutation rates from phylogenetic inference
and from observations of extant populations are about the same, within
the accuracy of measurement.
Do you get tired of making ridiculous pronouncements?
Bobby Bryant
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> writes:
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
any such creatures ever existed.
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
You forgot to show your calculations.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
raven1
>there is no cat-dog
>no man-pig
>no elephant-bird
>etc.
No one expects there to be, except for people who don't have a clue
about science
>also not enough time for all mutations to add up.
Why not?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
mel turner
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> there is no cat-dog
But there was a common ancestor to both cats and dogs [and also
weasels and bears and seals and hyenas and mongooses...].
> no man-pig
But we and pigs did have a common ancestor a while back.
> no elephant-bird
Well, not any more. Look up "Aepyornis".
> etc.
"Etc."? Did your imagination dry up?
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
Let's see your undoubtedly terribly impressive calculations of
the time needed for "all mutations to add up". Show your work.
cheers
r norman
wrote:
>In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,
> Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> there is no cat-dog
>> no man-pig
>> no elephant-bird
>> etc.
>
>And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
>any such creatures ever existed.
More evidence for evolution. Evolution doesn't predict that such
creatures existed and there weren't any such creatures. Therefore
evolution must be true!
(no, I am not serious)
Chris Thompson
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
> In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,
> Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> there is no cat-dog
>> no man-pig
>> no elephant-bird
>> etc.
>
> And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
> any such creatures ever existed.
>
>
>> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
>
> You forgot to show your calculations.
>
>
Calculations? He would probably put forth something along the lines of my
daughter's estimation of the math abilities of her (ahem) less stellar
classmates:
"It's not my fault they think 2+2=fish"
Somehow it seems especially apropos wrt creationists.
Chris
(different username due to Google Groups being stuck)
Steve Marshall
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
You seem to be suggesting that cat's evolved in to dogs and men evolved in
to pigs. That would have to be the case for you intermediate species. As
you are yet again wrong your examples are ludicrous.
There are however things like frogs and lungfish.
Steve M
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:
>there is no cat-dog
>no man-pig
>no elephant-bird
no creationist-rationalist
>etc.
Yep; unrelated forms don't seem to show up.
>also not enough time for all mutations to add up
To what?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mark VandeWettering
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
Should there be?
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
Really? Can you show your math?
Shane
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
Actually that presents more of a problem for creation that evolution, as
the ToE predicts no such animals. A creator, however, could easliy
produce such animals, which would clearly refute the theory of
evolution, and the continued absence of such animals is making it look
more and more like a cretor does not exist.
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
What theory requires all mutations to add up?
Ross Langerak
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
>
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
Haven't we already covered this? And didn't you run away like all the other
times you couldn't defend your assertions? You're a coward and a liar. You
have no integrity.
Mickey Mouse wears a Dale Kelly watch.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
inside. I don't know shit about science. Thus I cling tooth and nail to
babblical cretinism - everyone can understand the 'goddidit!!!' fairy tale"
Thanks for the openness.
Moron.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>there is no cat-dog
If evolution is true then there would not be.
>no man-pig
If evolution is true then there would not be.
>no elephant-bird
If evolution is true then there would not be.
>etc.
>
>also not enough time for all mutations to add up
4 billion years has been long enough.
--
Bob.
Dale Kelly
> 4 billion years has been long enough.
divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
less than any predicted mutation rate
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
LSR
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
>
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
But there's at least one man-troll.
--
LSR
Ernest Major
<dale....@comcast.net> writes
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>
>> 4 billion years has been long enough.
>
>
>divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
>less than any predicted mutation rate
>
>
consequently your calculation is not relevant. (If it was we could point
out that new species are being observed to form at rate more than
sufficient to produce the observed number of species in 4 billion
years.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
> less than any predicted mutation rate
Everytime you think you've seen it all (i. e. all the possible idiocy of a
cretinist), someone pops up to break the record.
TomS
<0JsXh.4399$rO7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, Bobby Bryant stated..."
>
>In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,
> Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> there is no cat-dog
>> no man-pig
>> no elephant-bird
>> etc.
>
>And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
>any such creatures ever existed.
And creationism does.
At least, just as much as it predicts cats and dogs or anything else
that happens to be real.
Oh, by the way, there was an animal called an "elephant bird". Look
it up in Wikipedia.
>
>
>> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
>
>You forgot to show your calculations.
And don't forget to compare the time available for evolution
with the time available for design.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>):
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>
>> 4 billion years has been long enough.
>
>
> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
> less than any predicted mutation rate
>
>
>
Err... To quote Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not even wrong". You really have no
clue as to how biology works, do you?
1 evolution operates on _all_ species _at all times_. Some species don't
change very much over a long period for various reasons (little or no
competition, specialised niche, etc.) while others will change rapidly.
Examples: the tuatara, a New Zealand lizard, and the Queensland lungfish, an
Aussie fish, are little changed from their ancestors of considerable time
ago. (aprox 200 million years for the lizard, double that for the fish.)
Meanwhile, there is a species of mosquito which lives only in the London
subway system, which by definition cannot possibly be older than 144 years
old as the London subway was first started in 1863. IIRC that species is
actually something like 40 years old, max.
2 when you say 'number of species' do you mean number of _animal_ species,
number of _plant_ species, number of _fungi_ species, number of _bacteria_
species, number of species of various other types of life, some combination
of the above? Do you mean number of species known to science, or the actual
number of species out there, and if the latter, how'd you determine that
number? Do you mean to include man-made species, such as dogs, ortaniques,
domesticated cattle, and assorted domesticated grasses including but not
limited to maize, wheat and sugar cane? How about the various lifeforms which
live only on or inside other lifeforms, including but not limited to human
fleas, dog fleas, head lice, pubic lice, assorted varieties of influenza
(hint: there's a _reason_ why last year's flu vaccine won't work on this
year's flu...) and spirochetes such as syphilis? Note that it's real
difficult to have a parasite or a spirochete or other such item which
specialises on living inside humans if there ain't no humans, so such items
gotta have speciated _after_ humans did...
3 when you say 'age of the earth', do you mean YEC 6000 years, or reality
which is in excess of 4 billion years? If you don't like the 4+ billion year
figure, what figure _do_ you like and how did you get that figure? Be
prepared to show how you got your figure. Please note that William Thompson,
Lord Kelvin, a rather famous scientist, creationist, and extremely religious
person, objected to the ToE on precisely the grounds of the age of the
Earth... but as _he_ was a scientist, he provided a reason for his
objections, one which could be independently tested and verified. _His_
figures said that the Earth was a _maximum_ of 40 million years old, but was
probably closer to half that figure, _and he could prove it using the data
available to science at the time he did his calculations_. _ANYONE_ can make
those same calculations, using that same data, and come to _exactly_ his
conclusions. _ANYONE_. Kelvin's problem was that he didn't know about
radioactive isotopes and how they affect among other things the core
temperature of the Earth. When his calculations are re-done in the light of
new data, the age of the Earth is extended by several orders of magnitude.
Again, _ANYONE_ can do the calculations, given the raw data.
Now, you can ignore the evidence if you so desire. However, that will only
make you look (more) foolish.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>
>> 4 billion years has been long enough.
>
>
>divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
>less than any predicted mutation rate
Where do you get such a daft idea from? What articles/websites have
you been misreading?
--
Bob.
Rich Townsend
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>
>> 4 billion years has been long enough.
>
>
> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
> less than any predicted mutation rate
>
>
If you divide the age of the Earth by the number of people on it, that means
everyone is less than a year old, right?
You dolt.
Chris Thompson
@comcast.net:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>
>> 4 billion years has been long enough.
>
>
> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
> less than any predicted mutation rate
>
>
So birds stop evolving all of a sudden? How do they know when it's the
mammals' turn to get a new species?
You're so, so, so frikkin' stupid.
Chris
Chris Thompson
news:f0nc2i$jtc$2...@online.de:
> Dale Moron Kelly:
>
>> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to
>> be less than any predicted mutation rate
>
> Everytime you think you've seen it all (i. e. all the possible idiocy
> of a cretinist), someone pops up to break the record.
>
Nah, this isn't a record. Stupid, yes, but do you really think it tops
McNameless saying Jackson's Chameleon is really a devolved Triceratops?
Chris
CreateThis
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>, Dale Kelly
><dale....@comcast.net> writes
>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>>
>>> 4 billion years has been long enough.
>>
>>
>>divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
>>less than any predicted mutation rate
>>
>>
>You seem to have forgotten
His brain is addled by too much LSD. He's forgotten his name.
CT
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Nah, this isn't a record. Stupid, yes, but do you really think it tops
> McNameless saying Jackson's Chameleon is really a devolved Triceratops?
I must have missed that one :)
Bob Casanova
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>
>> 4 billion years has been long enough.
>
>
>divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
>less than any predicted mutation rate
And if you then multiply by the number of G-type stars in
the Milky Way, divide by the number of pips on an average
pomegranate, then take the cube root of the result, you get
another irrelevant number.
Math and logic weren't your strong suits, were they?
Gerry Murphy
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>
> > 4 billion years has been long enough.
>
>
> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
> less than any predicted mutation rate
Breathtaking! Absolutely breathtaking. And to think, the brain that
produced
this has enough energy left over to allow his/her/its heart to pump and
lungs to
draw breath.
Ron O
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
>
>
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
So I guess Intelligent design is ruled out because biological
evolution would not create such entities. New species are derived
from existing species, there is no evidence that species as distantly
related as cats and dots let alone elephants and birds could produce
viable descendants.
Enough mutations for what?
Could you possibly try to rationally consider the evidence with out
the use of recreational drugs? It might help, but then again it might
not make any difference.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
Scooter the Mighty
> there is no cat-dog
Perhaps that's because cats didn't evolve from dogs, nor dogs from
cats.
> no man-pig
Yes there is. Rush Limbaugh.
> no elephant-bird
Elephants didn't evolve from birds.
> etc.
>
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
Why don't you show your math here.
Radix2
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
>
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
>
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
See - now you are showing your disengenuous creationist colours. You
*know* that that is not something we would expect to see if evolution
occured, but you inist on fabricating a strawman. This is
intellectual fraud. Otherwise known as lying. But what else would you
expect from a creationist troll.
ayer...@hotmail.com
> In article <pan.2007.04.24.17.31...@comcast.net>,
> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > there is no cat-dog
> > no man-pig
> > no elephant-bird
> > etc.
>
> any such creatures ever existed.
>
>
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada
>
> Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
evolution is what it is theory or blind faith. it takes more faith
for evolution then it does for ID. i wonder if you can come back with
somthing other than hate? we clearly don't see eye to eye on fact and
sci-fiction, but i wonder if you can answer this. what if your wrong
and ID is the way it is, and you reap what you sow. what if your
wrong? answer__________________? be honest.
Bobby Bryant
ayer...@hotmail.com writes:
> On Apr 24, 3:17 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>> In article <pan.2007.04.24.17.31...@comcast.net>,
>> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> > there is no cat-dog
>> > no man-pig
>> > no elephant-bird
>> > etc.
>>
>> And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
>> any such creatures ever existed.
>>
>> > also not enough time for all mutations to add up
>>
>> You forgot to show your calculations.
>
> for evolution then it does for ID. i wonder if you can come back
> with somthing other than hate? we clearly don't see eye to eye on
> fact and sci-fiction, but i wonder if you can answer this. what if
> your wrong and ID is the way it is, and you reap what you sow. what
> if your wrong? answer__________________? be honest.
If I'm wrong, evidence doesn't have anything to do with reality.
You're not appealing to Pascal's Fallacy, are you?
Tom McDonald
As we know, Intelligent Design does not require a deity. So, if
ID is the better, more comprehensive theory, then it is
irrelevant to my salvation. So what I would reap is more
knowledge, and a better scientific understanding of the world.
What if God used evolution to develop the vast, complex and truly
awesome biosphere, and you reject God's method, and you reap what
you sow, what if you are wrong?
Answer:
Be honest.
Cemtech
ayer...@hotmail.com says...
> On Apr 24, 3:17 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
> > In article <pan.2007.04.24.17.31...@comcast.net>,
> > Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> > > there is no cat-dog
> > > no man-pig
> > > no elephant-bird
> > > etc.
> >
> > And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
> > any such creatures ever existed.
> >
> > > also not enough time for all mutations to add up
> >
> > You forgot to show your calculations.
> >
> > --
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Reno, Nevada
> >
> > Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
>
> evolution is what it is theory
And a fact. In fact (pun intended), if you say that it's a theory,
you're implying there are facts. Thank you for favoring evolution. =)
Or are you so stupid, that you don't know what a theory is?
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
CreateThis
The crackhead in front of my local Starbucks every morning says he's
God. What if He is and you don't believe in Him? If you want to
really cover your ass you've got a lot of Believing to do. Better
hurry up.
Moron.
CT
Kermit
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
> > 4 billion years has been long enough.
>
> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
> less than any predicted mutation rate
>
Not very good with practical math, are you? Are you sure you're an
engineer?
We humans average about 200 mutations each. There are what, seven
billion people right now? 1,400,000,000,000 mutations to choose from,
in this lifetime alone...
Even paleolithic humans, with perhaps a population of perhaps 100,000,
average lifespan of maybe two generations, would have 10,000,000
mutations every generation. Multiple beneficial mutations could
usually be selected for simultaneously. Did your math take that into
account? We really don't have to stand in line politely and wait for
one beneficial mutation to get established before trying another.
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Kermit
Ernest Major
ayer...@hotmail.com writes
natural selection and other processes is supported by literally billions
of observation. The only faith required for acceptance of factuality of
common descent with modification by the agency of natural selection and
other processes is faith that evidence means something.
2) With regards to hate, I suggest that you examine your own eye; you
may be projecting your emotions onto other.
3) According to orthodox Christian doctrine there is no penalty for
acceptance of factuality of common descent with modification by the
agency of natural selection and other processes. Also, Satan's Wager is
a dreadful argument for belief - so bad that from a Christian viewpoint
it could be the work of the Devil.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> On Apr 24, 3:17 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <pan.2007.04.24.17.31...@comcast.net>,
> > Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > > there is no cat-dog
> > > no man-pig
> > > no elephant-bird
> > > etc.
>
> > And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
> > any such creatures ever existed.
>
> > > also not enough time for all mutations to add up
>
> > You forgot to show your calculations.
>
> > --
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Reno, Nevada
>
> > Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
>
> evolution is what it is theory or blind faith. it takes more faith
> for evolution then it does for ID.
This would be a neat trick to demonstrate since even the ID scam
artists are now claiming that they never had any science to teach, and
that teaching ID is "premature." Why would they have to make those
admissionis if ID took less faith, or wasn't much better than basing
belief on faith alone?
>i wonder if you can come back with
> somthing other than hate?
What a joker. It isn't hate it is just reality, and the fact that you
still want to believe the junk that spews out of dishonest "think
tanks" like the Discovery Institute should make you think twice before
you also spew the same dishonest bunk, but that doesn't seem to be the
case. How do you reconcile the fact that the ID scam artists are now
hawking a creationist replacement scam that doesn't even mention that
ID ever existed? If what you claim is true, why would they have to
dump ID for a stupid obfuscation scam?
>we clearly don't see eye to eye on fact and
> sci-fiction, but i wonder if you can answer this. what if your wrong
> and ID is the way it is, and you reap what you sow. what if your
> wrong? answer__________________? be honest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What does Pascals wager have to do with your lack of faith, and
apparent dishonesty? How could your first statement possibly be true
given what the ID scam artists that lied to you for years about the
"science" of ID are now doing?
Why did they cook up the replacement scam back before 1999 if they
really believed that ID was going places? Why did they run the bait
and switch scam on the Ohio rubes that wanted to teach ID, but all
they got from the ID scam artists was a scam that didn't even mention
that ID had ever existed in 2002? Why did Dover have to happen in
2005? Why didn't they start the Biologic Institute in 2006 only after
they had to admit under oath that they had never been doing any ID
research worth talking about? Why did the Discovery Institute used to
claim that ID was their business, but now they are hawking "teach the
controversy" or "critical analysis?" Why isn't ID even mentioned as a
controversy or something to critically analyze?
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Gerry Murphy"
<gerry...@comcast.net>:
Those don't require a cerebral cortex.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by ayer...@hotmail.com:
>On Apr 24, 3:17 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>> In article <pan.2007.04.24.17.31...@comcast.net>,
>> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> writes:
>> > there is no cat-dog
>> > no man-pig
>> > no elephant-bird
>> > etc.
>> And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
>> any such creatures ever existed.
>> > also not enough time for all mutations to add up
>> You forgot to show your calculations.
>evolution is what it is theory or blind faith. it takes more faith
>for evolution then it does for ID. i wonder if you can come back with
>somthing other than hate? we clearly don't see eye to eye on fact and
>sci-fiction, but i wonder if you can answer this. what if your wrong
>and ID is the way it is, and you reap what you sow. what if your
>wrong? answer__________________? be honest.
Since this garbled collection of opinions (mostly incorrect,
and all showing a lack of proficiency in English) addresses
nothing of the post to which you're supposedly responding,
can we assume you have it stored in a textfile and cut/paste
it whenever there's a post you dislike, but which confuses
you so badly that you have no idea how to actually respond?
raven1
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:21:15 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "Gerry Murphy"
><gerry...@comcast.net>:
>
>>
>>"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>>>
>>> > 4 billion years has been long enough.
>>>
>>>
>>> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
>>> less than any predicted mutation rate
>>
>>Breathtaking! Absolutely breathtaking. And to think, the brain that
>>produced
>>this has enough energy left over to allow his/her/its heart to pump and
>>lungs to
>>draw breath.
>
>Those don't require a cerebral cortex.
Neither do Dale Kelly's posts.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Ohsojourner
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
>
>
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Sounds as if you never took an introductory course in evolution, let
alone a basic biology course, did you?
And how amusing when people who wish to debate evolution generally
can't even name any other species besides the ones they know from
their Noah's Ark play set.
Earle Jones
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>
> > 4 billion years has been long enough.
>
>
> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
> less than any predicted mutation rate
*
Only if they were mutating one-at-a-time. The evolution that
produced the observed diversity of species was not a serial event.
earle
*
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:50:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:21:15 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by "Gerry Murphy"
>><gerry...@comcast.net>:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:16 +0000, Ye Old One wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > 4 billion years has been long enough.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> divide the number of species by the age of the earth, and that has to be
>>>> less than any predicted mutation rate
>>>
>>>Breathtaking! Absolutely breathtaking. And to think, the brain that
>>>produced
>>>this has enough energy left over to allow his/her/its heart to pump and
>>>lungs to
>>>draw breath.
>>
>>Those don't require a cerebral cortex.
>
>Neither do Dale Kelly's posts.
No argument here.