Re: Hershey ends up proving Adman's point

On Dec 23, 2:35 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greg Guarino wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:19:01 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:39:19 -0600, "\(M\)-adman"
<g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The nested hierarchy is a Guess.

If so, then it was a spectacularly accurate and successful guess,
predicting as it did the pattern that would be found in genomes
that were entirely unknown at the time and would not be decoded
for 150 years..

This not 100% true. It is a somewhat accurate and successful guess.

Show us the flaws in the nested hierarchy.

I have done a lot of reading on Darwin the man.

Why? Would you introduce yourself to physics by reading up on Newton?
Do you think evolutionary theory is contingent on the information in
Darwin's work? Do you think it would pose some kind of problem if
Darwin's work were all lost, burned and forgotten tomorrow?

I find that it is mainly only religious folk who seem to attack
Darwin's work as if it were the jugular of evolutionary theory. This
is because they are so accustomed to deferring directly to their own
ancient texts, that they assume other ideas must have their own holy
books also. They are projecting an image of religion onto evolutionary
theory, and so attack Darwin's work as if it were somehow still
important.

Who he was prior to and after his Theory; how he
grew up; what motivitated his passions and desires and how he thought. And guess what? Darwin
stole some of his work from bits and pieces of other works already underway or even dropped by
others as useless persuits.

Stole? It's non-fiction. One cannot copyright statements of supposed
fact.

As I have already pointed out, the entire process that led up nested
hierarchy was based on prior guesswork going as far back as Aristotle.

What utter rubbish! You obviously have no idea what the nested
hierarchy even is.

There's nothing to guess. The nested hierarchy is a diagram drawn from
a set of descriptions of contemporary organisms.

A computer could do it, given the list of statments such as (`has
forelimbs but no tail`).

--Iain

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Junk Dna!
    ... "Artificial nested hierarchy" ... In the case of biological organisms, there are, of course, several ways ... Or, more properly, with a designer who didn't use common descent as his ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does similarity indicate descent to have occurred?
    ... conspicuous absence of six-legged mammals, milk-giving birds, etc. ... Because natural selection is constrained in a way that a designer is ... a nested hierarchy is not a sensible design choice but it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Commentary: The Christian duty to understand Gods creation
    ... it has no explanation or verifiable clues about the ... "For any thinking Christian and/or scientist, it should at least raise eyebrows that evolutionary theory actually explains very little about evolution, about how, as a process, it could work to change organism A into organism B particularly when expanded over the breadth of molecules to man. ... If you can think of an alternative explanation to nested hierarchy in nature, then we can talk about Anthony being right. ... In the case of anatomical resemblance, there are just too many ways for chance resemblance to happen, while that's not true of the genetic data. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Junk Dna!
    ... "Artificial nested hierarchy" ... In the case of biological organisms, there are, of course, several ways ... Or, more properly, with a designer who didn't use common descent as his ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do bacteria or Viruses form a nested hierarchy?
    ... When evidence, like nested groups, indicates evolution then we all ... the nested hierarchy itself, but the fact that *several* nested ... Agreement among characters, regardless of what bin you want to put them in, is what counts. ...
    (talk.origins)