Re: [OT] Darwinism for Bob & Bob

Bob Masta wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:28:08 +1200, "Roger Dewhurst"
<dewhurst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Mike" <nomtrxspam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tsg6f29tnh3a4dr0vi3am85dhbvjq3vonj@xxxxxxxxxx

Bob Masta, see my previous post first.
The other Bob, read on.

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:36:06 GMT, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Mike" <nomtrxspam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to
point out:- "The known fossil record fails to document a single
example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model
can be valid." Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and
Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.

No idea where this thread started, so just popping in here.

Yeah, It seems to be stated quite a bit that a there must be a gradual
evolution for Darwinian Evolution to be valid. I disagree. The Darwinian
Algorithm simply requires that there exists Selection, Replication, and
Random Generation of traits. That's it. End of story. Its irrelevent
wheather this change is gradual or in large steps. One might also note
that a single, tiny gene variation can cause massive changes in the
physical characteristics of the host.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
431infoEXTRACT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"There are none more ignorant and useless,than they that seek answers
on their knees, with their eyes closed"


.

Quantcast