Replies

I read your "argument H"; you obviously haven't. Like I say, if you're gonna be a BS artist, at least try to keep your BS coherent. You clearly haven't even tried. In fact, the discussion you link to for H doesn't mention anything remotely like the argument I make regarding features devolving while others were evolving and you are basically lying if you're trying to claim that it does.

I am willing to open this point to the rest of the people on this thread. I interpreted your statement as saying that no gains could be made in evolution because of directionless mutations with one feature never following another in time for a fully formed animal to appear. This, to me, is a form of this argument: A relatively recent argument, it claims things like 'gains of genetic information are impossible', or 'mutations have never been observed'. Both statements are, of course, false.

I am willing to change my opinion if someone else has a better fit for your argument compared to the chart above.

And in fact, I am willing to open up any of the identifications of medved's arguments with the Cretigo list. We want to have an accurate Cretigo! not some rigged game of Crevo-Bingo that will get shut down by the FR gaming board.

I am willing to open this point to the rest of the people on this thread.

What, you can't figure it out for yourself? Try reading through your own stupid link and see if you can find anything about features devolving while others are evolving, and report back to us. Basically, the discussion you linked to was a sort of a lame attempt to link mathematical entropy theory to evolution arguments somehow or other. It's not even clear that the poster (on t.o) makes any sort of a point which is relevant to evolution at all, much less to the specific argument which I use about features devolving.