I showed you what was wrong with this and you simply repeat. Darwin agrees with me. Who agrees with you?
As for the KH challenges to IDers, you do know that requiring the opposition to prove you are not right is a logical fallacy.
Occam's Razor is not a fallacy. The horse series looks like evolution. The challenge to people like you who do not accept it as what it looks like is to provide some rational alternate scenario. You are dodging. Why is that, since (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) you are not a creationist?
Dogmatic answers are coming from Evolutionists. IDers don't have anything worthwhile to add to NS. But they sure have the right to ask pointed questions. Dogmatic Evolutionists sure hate answering those questions.
Maybe it's because we answer them on every thread and the militant ignoramuses show up with amnesia every few hours or less?
Here's a quiz for you. 1. What have I cited to you as wrong with your objection to morphology as useless? 2. Give a brief statement of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
By the way, you need to study more philosophy, especially WRT fallacious reasoning and the scientific method.
You're projecting here, nothing more.
Gees VadeR, you are tedious, even for an imagined scientist. I've asked for a prediction from NS, and you can't give it. Theories, prediction...reality...scientific method.
Something future related. You're really good at not responding to questions. What does NS add to biology outside of morphology and taxonomy?
NS does not provide results. Why should we fund it?
The horse series looks like evolution. <<
NS. You do remember the theory we are discussing. NS and evolution are not the same. As a scientist, you can remember the difference between an observation and the theory...right?
You should be the first one questioning this article. Especially on the species definition. You did not.
Crappy science, crappy logic, crappy theory. That is why those IDers give you heartache.
DK
Who agrees with you?
Logical fallacy.
Occam's Razor is not a fallacy. The horse series looks like evolution. The challenge to people like you who do not accept it as what it looks like is to provide some rational alternate scenario. You are dodging. Why is that, since (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) you are not a creationist?
Ad hominem.
Occam's razor assumes you have a theory, and it is useful in prediction. Are you reading your responses...the horse series looks like evolution...not NS the theory.
Are the horses different species? Untestable theory is a fallacy...with a name.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/untest.htm