Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- From: John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:45:14 GMT
Zoe wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yet all three show a 13% molecular difference. The reasoning and
> conclusion does not fit the data.
That's because you are looking at the wrong distances. The 13% distances
are between A and C, and between B and C. A and B are a shorter distance
apart.
> What I just described is right there in your diagram. You can see it
> for yourself.
The diagram I'm looking at doesn't have a scale at all.
> And if you don't see it, then please submit your diagram to Wesley
> Elsberry, and if he disagrees with the above, then he would be
> disagreeing with his own line of reasoning that I have read in one of
> his writings, and I will hold him to that line.
>
> And, no, don't ask me for the link. I first want to see how Mr.
> Elsberry would interpret the above diagram.
>
> snip rest until this is cleared up.>
The only thing to clear up is your own confusion, as usual.
.
- References:
- Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- From: Zoe
- Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- From: Eric Rowley
- Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- From: Zoe
- Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- Prev by Date: Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- Next by Date: Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
- Previous by thread: Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- Next by thread: Re: More on Kitz/Dover
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|