Re: "Reasonable Guesses"
- From: wf3h <wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:14:29 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 25, 9:50 am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:28 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Read the paper, not just the title. It's a test of neutral evolution vs..
selection. There are many other papers that test hypotheses of selection
on the molecular level, and most of them cite Hudson et al. It's an
entry into the literature.
That's the question here. Have any papers that deal with this
particular question? - - with the odds of the mechanism of RM/NS
actually discovering novel beneficial systems in a given span of
time? Of course not. These papers just aren't there in mainstream
literature.
and where are the papers describing why, after having failed for 2000
years to explain ANYTHING in nature, 'god did it' is now suddenly
true! it's your assertion that 'god did it' is science
so why dont YOU answer the question you pose to others?
oh...i forgot. hypocrisy is part of creationism 101
sean's proof of creationism? well...it's pretty much limited to 'i
said it so it must be so. after all, it's what the 7th day adventist
church teaches'.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Reasonable Guesses"
- From: Seanpit
- Re: "Reasonable Guesses"
- References:
- "Reasonable Guesses"
- From: Seanpit
- Re: "Reasonable Guesses"
- From: John Harshman
- Re: "Reasonable Guesses"
- From: Seanpit
- Re: "Reasonable Guesses"
- From: John Harshman
- Re: "Reasonable Guesses"
- From: Seanpit
- "Reasonable Guesses"
- Prev by Date: Re: Chez Watt Re: Bwahahah!!!!!
- Next by Date: Re: Science be damned!
- Previous by thread: Re: "Reasonable Guesses"
- Next by thread: Re: "Reasonable Guesses"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
