OK. I admit it...

[KerrMetric]

6000 years seems more reasonable then a million.

For mileage between oil changes yes, for discussing the age of the human species then no.

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

For mileage between oil changes yes, for discussing the age of the human species then no.

And your proof is what? The decay curve for measuring rock age? Yeah, that's good stuff. I just wish it was something we can all see. But that's right, we can all just imagine. I'll go watch National Geographic now. Maybe they will slip in a worldview or two while they are describing monkeys.

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

So how was it again that nucleotides can build up to form a sequence with meaning in its effects to generate molecular machines and the nose on your face?

 

[KerrMetric]

And your proof is what? The decay curve for measuring rock age? Yeah, that's good stuff. I just wish it was something we can all see. But that's right, we can all just imagine. I'll go watch National Geographic now. Maybe they will slip in a worldview or two while they are describing monkeys.

You can't see an electron but I bet you believe the slowly drift along a wire and provide a current don't you?

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

You can't see an electron but I bet you believe the slowly drift along a wire and provide a current don't you?

You can test it, it has been shown to conform to a mathematical concept or two. Natural selection has none of that. No one knows what the limits to it are because it's already assumed to be limitless. unfalsifiable.

 

[KerrMetric]

You can test it, it has been shown to conform to a mathematical concept or two. Natural selection has none of that. No one knows what the limits to it are because it's already assumed to be limitless. unfalsifiable.

Actually if evolution produced the chimeric nonsense that Creationists ascribe to it in their cartoonlike version of it then that would falsify natural selection.

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

Actually if evolution produced the chimeric nonsense that Creationists ascribe to it in their cartoonlike version of it then that would falsify natural selection.

Yeah, and what's the difference between hybridization and speciation?

 

[KerrMetric]

Yeah, and what's the difference between hybridization and speciation?

When the hybridisation has resulted in groups that no longer will mate.

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

When the hybridisation has resulted in groups that no longer will mate.

No offense, but that says absolutely nothing. Does the miniature poodle mate with the great dane? Are they the same species?

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

How does speciation relate to hybridization? Any takers? Or are we going to be talking about pinecones to people? I want a serious answer.

 

[KerrMetric]

How does speciation relate to hybridization? Any takers? Or are we going to be talking about pinecones to people? I want a serious answer.

I already gave you the answer. Why not, shock - horror, Google. I'm sure there is something on this exact point.

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

Exactly. Or intermediate chimeric forms like half fish/half sheep - an icthyovine if you will.

I don't care about chimeras.

 

[Edx]

You don't even know what natural selection is.

Oh what, and you do? HAHAHA

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

I already gave you the answer. Why not, shock - horror, Google. I'm sure there is something on this exact point.

HOW DO THE TWO RELATE, YOU SAID NOTHING.

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

Oh what, and you do? HAHAHA

And what...You think you were put here without a designer. The point is, its assumed to be limitless, and so far, no one has a means to test its limits.

 

[KerrMetric]

HOW DO THE TWO RELATE, YOU SAID NOTHING.

yes I did say something.

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

yes I did say something.

Nothing about how they relate to each other. I would like to be provided with an answer for that. Your statement did not come up with the answer.

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

How is it that natural selection is purposeless, yet the word 'selection' implies purpose?

 

[Grengor]

How is it that natural selection is purposeless, yet the word 'selection' implies purpose?

OK, gawd, in case you still don't get natural selection, here's a brief summary: It has no "finish line", it has no "goal", it's non random, and it happens every day.

 

[TheRealSkeptic]

OK, gawd, in case you still don't get natural selection, here's a brief summary: It has no "finish line", it has no "goal", it's non random, and it happens every day.

My point exactly. It's limitless.


Once upon a time, you had nothing to select, so what caused it?


So natural selection is not purposeful?