To Saquist;
After reading posts 83 & 131 the Baron said (in Post 174):
But the Baron is a tough old bird and does not yield ground without a fight so he correctly notes that for most cases we have no hard proof that the various species of creatures we see were not made just made by God or some other process. I actually think that the latter is the case IF “selection by the environment” does not include sexual preference (attractiveness to potential mates), but Darwin did include sexual selection in his theory. (Those who have never read what he wrote often ignorantly think “selection” relates to survival instead of reproductive probability / ability.) In birds especially this factor has often overwhelmed the development of features that aid survival and given some birds great handicaps, even in flying. Have you ever seen a peacock fly? Even chickens do it better and they have been handicapped by man’s selection for preferred flesh / rapid growth, etc. (E.g. Tiny wings over powered by huge breast they must lift.)
Anyway you say:
That is hard to imagine, but possible. (Evolution works in mysterious and marvelous ways.) I.e. possibly evolution has evolved an individual variant even more pig-head stubborn than the Baron, and much more ignorant. The Baron is actually quite intelligent, but often hides it well, for reasons only he knows. I have no reason yet to say the same for you. Try to give me some. (At times you do give reason for hope in this regard, which I rarely see at all in the visitor's posts.)
Back to the thread:
I could only make counter arguments (not proofs, in post 172 &179) based on the improbability that all creatures would use the same 22 amino-acids and optical isomers. For example, dextrose sugar can be used but the mirror image molecule levose cannot be used as a food. (I think - perhaps that is glucose and its mirror image.) And Science's standard preference expressed by Occam's razor which is not nearly as persuasive and argument as the extreme bio-similarity of molecular processes across all living organisms. (For example, if independently created why only same 22 of approximately 10,000 possible amino acids?)
Since you always consider the facts, what is your considered opinion of the discussion of the between me and the Baron displayed in these posts?
After reading posts 83 & 131 the Baron said (in Post 174):
This shows that when presented with the facts of my two posts, the Baron is intelligent enough to accept that in some cases evolution of a new species, even mammals, has occurred....Just because something happened once, doesn't mean that it's happened continuously all throughout the forming of the planet {plants, I think} and the animals. ...
But the Baron is a tough old bird and does not yield ground without a fight so he correctly notes that for most cases we have no hard proof that the various species of creatures we see were not made just made by God or some other process. I actually think that the latter is the case IF “selection by the environment” does not include sexual preference (attractiveness to potential mates), but Darwin did include sexual selection in his theory. (Those who have never read what he wrote often ignorantly think “selection” relates to survival instead of reproductive probability / ability.) In birds especially this factor has often overwhelmed the development of features that aid survival and given some birds great handicaps, even in flying. Have you ever seen a peacock fly? Even chickens do it better and they have been handicapped by man’s selection for preferred flesh / rapid growth, etc. (E.g. Tiny wings over powered by huge breast they must lift.)
Anyway you say:
Have you considered the facts of post 83 and 131? If not please do so. If you have, did you shift your position a little to be that of the Baron? Or are you more pig-headed stubborn in your faith only supported POV?...I will always consider the facts...
That is hard to imagine, but possible. (Evolution works in mysterious and marvelous ways.) I.e. possibly evolution has evolved an individual variant even more pig-head stubborn than the Baron, and much more ignorant. The Baron is actually quite intelligent, but often hides it well, for reasons only he knows. I have no reason yet to say the same for you. Try to give me some. (At times you do give reason for hope in this regard, which I rarely see at all in the visitor's posts.)
Back to the thread:
I could only make counter arguments (not proofs, in post 172 &179) based on the improbability that all creatures would use the same 22 amino-acids and optical isomers. For example, dextrose sugar can be used but the mirror image molecule levose cannot be used as a food. (I think - perhaps that is glucose and its mirror image.) And Science's standard preference expressed by Occam's razor which is not nearly as persuasive and argument as the extreme bio-similarity of molecular processes across all living organisms. (For example, if independently created why only same 22 of approximately 10,000 possible amino acids?)
Since you always consider the facts, what is your considered opinion of the discussion of the between me and the Baron displayed in these posts?
Last edited by a moderator: