(August 24, 2016 at 6:01 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:(August 24, 2016 at 9:51 am)SteveII Wrote: You misunderstand my point. I am not a literal 6-day creationist. I am agnostic on the subject. My point way back was genetics studies have rendered the traditional Tree of Life, not just wrong, but obsolete by finding that individual species have within their genes conflicting evolutionary histories. If this turns out to be a long-term mystery and the theory of common decent has certain facts that do not support it, what does this mean to the greater Theory of Evolution (modern synthesis)? So far I have heard that it won't affect it at all. I think that is rubbish.
You think that a simplistic analogy designed to give laymen a basic idea of what common descent (note correct spelling) being inaccurate disproves evolution? Sir, you are solely misguided, simplistic analogies don't disprive science when they are shown to be wrong, analogies like that are wrong as a matter of course because they massively simplify very complex ideas so that a basic understanding can be built up to make the complex ideas comprehensible ir to allow laymen a basic idea of the reality.
I didn't realize it was you, Constable D.! I kept thinking, 'who is this GREAT new guy?!' ?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
