Changes

:::::::Irrelevant? On the contrary, the beginnings of life are far more material (pardon the pun) and far more relevant than you would have us believe.

:::::::Irrelevant? On the contrary, the beginnings of life are far more material (pardon the pun) and far more relevant than you would have us believe.

:::::::It took me awhile to understand what you meant by a self-replicating process. But now you have to show two things:

:::::::It took me awhile to understand what you meant by a self-replicating process. But now you have to show two things:

:::::::# That life consists of only ''one'' self-replicating process. In life, you have several--indeed, hundreds, each conforming to a different "kind."

:::::::1. That life consists of only ''one'' self-replicating process. In life, you have several--indeed, hundreds, each conforming to a different "kind."

:::::::# That one "kind" ''ever'' gave rise to another, radically different kind. Going back to those lectures I had, and again I have seen no updates worthy of the name: the evolutionistic paradigm that I was taught, stated that a [[gene]] is a mutated [[virus]], that [[mitochondria]] and [[chloroplast]]s were originally independent organisms, and that ''all species'' more complex than viruses (with the possible exception of sponges) derived from [[coelenterate]]s. All [[protist]]s, [[plant]]s, and [[animal]]s--they all came from one kind, the coelenterates. Now ''that'' you can't show. And my proof? Evolutionists speak of "missing links"--hypothetical species intermediate in form between two species that are known. Guess what? ''The missing links are still missing''. Of course they are. You can't find a never-was. And none of your mathematical algorithms will find a single piece of tangible evidence to suggest that they ever existed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It doesn't have to be one, it could be more than one. It happens to be the case that we only observe one type of life on earth, the one based on DNA. And hence the idea arose, that they all might have a common ancestor. But for evolution to happen you can have in principle multiple kinds of life competing. No problem. It just happens that in practice we don't. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::2. That one "kind" ''ever'' gave rise to another, radically different kind. Going back to those lectures I had, and again I have seen no updates worthy of the name: the evolutionistic paradigm that I was taught, stated that a [[gene]] is a mutated [[virus]], that [[mitochondria]] and [[chloroplast]]s were originally independent organisms, and that ''all species'' more complex than viruses (with the possible exception of sponges) derived from [[coelenterate]]s. All [[protist]]s, [[plant]]s, and [[animal]]s--they all came from one kind, the coelenterates. Now ''that'' you can't show. And my proof? Evolutionists speak of "missing links"--hypothetical species intermediate in form between two species that are known. Guess what? ''The missing links are still missing''. Of course they are. You can't find a never-was. And none of your mathematical algorithms will find a single piece of tangible evidence to suggest that they ever existed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Sure, the mathematical foundation won't tell you where to look for missing links in biological evolution. So what? You mentioned yourself that probabilistic and stochastic explanations predict averages, and not particulars. But it will tell you that the missing links that creationist are looking for, something like half cow half man, doesn't exist. This kind of missing link is nothing but a creationist strawman. It also tells you that at no stage the successor was radically different. It tell you that you make best progress if the changes are moderate. And some of the missing links that science was looking for they did find. Do you really want to tell me that you faith depends on such a benign event as a person who digs up a fossil in Canada that is somewhere in-between land and sea mammal? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Sure, the mathematical foundation won't tell you where to look for missing links in biological evolution. So what? You mentioned yourself that probabilistic and stochastic explanations predict averages, and not particulars. But it will tell you that the missing links that creationist are looking for, something like half cow half man, doesn't exist. This kind of missing link is nothing but a creationist strawman. It also tells you that at no stage the successor was radically different. It tell you that you make best progress if the changes are moderate. And some of the missing links that science was looking for they did find. Do you really want to tell me that you faith depends on such a benign event as a person who digs up a fossil in Canada that is somewhere in-between land and sea mammal? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

---

---