nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: + + + + + +
→I would think…: more on pouches and evolution
::::::No, convergent evolution is not a fudge regarding common ancestors. It means that selective pressures can produce similar results on different branches of the tree. You get the same thing in human cultures and ideas: different cultures developed different number systems independently, because being able to count is a useful thing.
::::::No, convergent evolution is not a fudge regarding common ancestors. It means that selective pressures can produce similar results on different branches of the tree. You get the same thing in human cultures and ideas: different cultures developed different number systems independently, because being able to count is a useful thing.
::::::I maintain that conservative values embrace non-literal interpretations of Genesis, but even if that's wrong, it shouldn't necessarily impact on an article about wombats. You will notice that I am trying to improve the article, in a fair and balance way in accord with conservative principles. I am not a YEC, but I am not attacking those who are. Please accord me the same courtesy.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 03:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I maintain that conservative values embrace non-literal interpretations of Genesis, but even if that's wrong, it shouldn't necessarily impact on an article about wombats. You will notice that I am trying to improve the article, in a fair and balance way in accord with conservative principles. I am not a YEC, but I am not attacking those who are. Please accord me the same courtesy.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 03:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You "differ" that the six days of creation are contradictory to evolution?
:::::::If the pouch is not disadvantageous, in what sense can it be described as "not fully formed"? If it has everything that the echidna needs, then surely it ''is'' a fully-formed echidna-type pouch? So I repeat, have you seen a pouch that is not fully formed?
:::::::The only reason it gives a hint as to how the pouch may have started is if one first ''assumes'' evolution. So a "not-fully-formed" pouch is ''not'' evidence for the evolutionary development of pouches if this "evidence" ''assumes'' evolution to start with. That's a circular argument.
:::::::Different cultures developed number systems by applying intelligence; this is rejected for evolution because it is supposed to be naturalistic, so that analogy doesn't apply. Apart from that, you have done nothing to support that convergent evolution is anything but an ''ad hoc'' explanation to explain evidence that is otherwise inconsistent with the evolutionary idea that features common to two or more creatures originated with the common ancestors of those creatures.
:::::::I do recognise and appreciate that you are being fair in the article. I'm only disagreeing with your comments on this talk page. I'm not attacking you or your edits to the article. Sorry if I'm coming over as being too abrupt.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)