36
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 136:
Line 136: + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 16:25, August 8, 2010
, 16:25, August 8, 2010no edit summary
Allright, in all seriousness, if you could prove "Logical explanation" #3 correct, I will eat my own words and leave science. Period. No kindergarten like arguments or anything weird like that, just show one example of it being true. It would blow nested hierarchies out of the water.
Allright, in all seriousness, if you could prove "Logical explanation" #3 correct, I will eat my own words and leave science. Period. No kindergarten like arguments or anything weird like that, just show one example of it being true. It would blow nested hierarchies out of the water.
== Explanation for some counterexamples ==
Half a year ago, I had posted an explanation for one of the counterexamples, giving a possible process of how a case of seemingly irreducible complexity could have grown through evolution. It was removed then without notice, and my account was blocked afterwards by TK. (If you were wondering: TK and I had an email discussion after that in which I explained my good intentions, and he unblocked my account.) What I'm wondering now is whether I could re-post that thing at this moment. My explanation had received no replies, and I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct. As you all understand, people of any education (including none) can discuss counterexamples, and sometimes our group of editors lacks the right person to explain why a counterexample could be incorrect. In order to improve this page's quality and accuracy, I'd therefore like to discuss again what I tried to discuss half a year ago - this time, however, I would like to not be blocked for it. So I'll ask upfront: Is it alright if I rewrite my theory, and post it here again?
Thanks a lot in advance. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 12:25, 8 August 2010 (EDT)