To: GourmetDan
You would just assume that the related species 'lost' that particular gene.
You do not show that evolution is non-falsifiable by making presumptious pronouncements.
Evolution is unfalsifiable since the 'fact' that it occurred is assumed 'a priori'.
Incorrect. Evolution is concluded from observations, and further reaffirmed by the lack of defined contradictory observations, such as precambrian rabbit fossils or transposons present in two related species but absent in another.
768 posted on
07/05/2006 8:27:20 AM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Except that the observations (aka facts) are also consistent w/ a created biology that is in decline.
Therefore the 'evolutionary' interpretation has no unique basis and is not as strong as adherents would propose.
You are aware that fossil reworking and overthrusting are invoked to explain away out-of-order fossils.
Of course you are.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson