Wow. Two birds had sex and produced offspring. That's proof positive that God couldn't exist, that Adam and Eve are a myth, and that Christians are ignorant. Hail Darwin!
Heck, I'll go you one better. Newton was not a scientist, and I can prove it.
Newton died in 1727.
The first scientist didn't exist until after 1834. In fact, the word didn't even exist until 1834.
Here we go again.
Let me try to explain it again, as though you were a five-year-old kid, and maybe you'll get it.
The sun rose in the east yesterday. It rose in the east the day before. In fact, no one can remember a time when the sun did not rise in the east. You, therefore, claim that the...
I have already answered your question a half a dozen times, but I'll answer it again.
There is no reliable way to determine which liquids are safe to drink and which are unsafe to drink.
You can buy 100 Pepsi's and have no problems whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the 101st Pepsi couldn't be...
From Charles Babbage
Charles Babbage was an English mathematician, philosopher and inventor born on December 26, 1791, in London, England.
That's what I love about you people. You find out that someone is:
English
a mathematician
a philosopher, and
an inventor
then he makes something and you...
Right. The beneficial mutations are selected for.
How do we know that the ones that were selected for were the beneficial ones?
Because they were selected for.
It's a tautology. That's all it is. Fundamentally it's no different from saying "Wherever you go, there you are."
I have seen some stupid arguments, but this one really takes the cake.
My point is that natural selection is a tautology. A tautology is something that is always true by definition. Your rebuttal is that even though it might not always be true, it can be taken to be true as a general rule?
So...
Okay so beneficial mutations = mutations that increase your chance of breeding.
So the natural selection argument boils down to this: Mutations that increase your chance of survival and production of progeny increase your chances of survival and production of progeny.
Therefore, according to...
Point 1: The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Point 2: The statement "Either Zosimus has to admit this or state its irrational...
Again, the only thing that you are showing is that you completely misunderstand the argument!
Let me explain it to you as simply as I can from the beginning. Goodman's argument is this:
P1. Induction ONLY WORKS when we are dealing with law-like properties.
Example: If we say "This icicle is...
Oh, I understand perfectly! You're the one who doesn't understand.
You have said that the prevalence of an allele frequency is a product of beneficial mutations being selected for.
Ahh, but how do you know that the mutations were beneficial?
It's not a flaw in logic. I understand the claim of natural selection better than all of you put together.
It's just that the claim put forth by the previous poster—that the strongest, fastest, sexiest, whatever... breeds more is demonstrably false.
Yet merely pointing out that the fastest...
Untrue. It can be asserted of anything.
You must realize how stupid this argument is. If a steak ends up on your plate and it's cooked, you assume it has been cooked? Of course cooked steaks have been cooked! Geez, man—you're making this too easy!
What you really mean to say is that if you see...
This argument is based on the unproved assumption that science created the computer and the Internet. Since this is the very point being debated, you are begging the question.
Here's a similar argument for you:
Christian: "God lives. Jesus is the Christ. He died for your sins."
Jose: "I don't...
Once there was a group of horses. The king wanted to go to war. So he selected the very fastest, strongest, and fittest horse and rode him into war. During the battle, the king was targeted by a cannon and both the king and the horse were killed.
The horse never bred.
Thus, your definition...
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Imagine that you see an emerald and you say, "This is another green emerald. All the emeralds I have seen so far are green. Thus, the next emerald I see will be green." This is a classic formation of the problem of induction.
Nelson Goodman...