2 ms·
Oh no, the Brain Eater has come for David Gelernter, and he's apparently swallowed a bunch of creaky old arguments. The arguments are: 1) not enough transitio
by akuchling 7y ago
Oh no, the Brain Eater has come for David Gelernter, and he's apparently swallowed a bunch of creaky old arguments. The arguments are:
1) not enough transitional fossils / http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
2) the low probability of useful proteins evolving (the article mentions 1077 at one point) / http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB150.html http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB150.html
3) "There are no examples of mutations that are not fatal". / http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
This is sad.
- jononomo 7y agoI think the Cambrian Explosion alone stands as a refutation of Darwin's theory as it is commonly understood -- i.e., as a random process.