(October 28, 2017 at 12:22 am)Godscreated Wrote:(October 27, 2017 at 8:27 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: And what's going to stop it?
Typical of you. When reality delivers a result you don't like, you simply deny reality.
A hypothetical is not reality now is it,
A hypothetical may represent reality, it may not; you can judge nothing about whether it is realistic simply because I referred to it as a hypothetical.
(October 28, 2017 at 12:22 am)Godscreated Wrote: and you don't like it when I'm right, sorry but right is right and C can never be,
I like it even less when you're not right and only think you are.
(October 28, 2017 at 12:22 am)Godscreated Wrote: not enough info for C.
You're just restating your original claim which the example disproved. If you don't have an actual reason why a series of mutations can't reverse the process which resulted in a loss of information, you're effectively claiming that "it can't be because it can't be." That's just dogmatic denial. If you have no justification for why you believe this cannot occur other than to quote the alleged law that the example put into question, then you're just begging the question. And that's a fallacy. Which means that there is no credible reason to believe your conclusion is true.
In other words, you're still wrong, though you're inventing new ways to be so.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)