Oh Good - Bart is back

http://EvC Forum: Science rejects Abiogenesis -->EvC Forum: Science rejects Abiogenesis

In the now closed thread, Bart writes:"Evolutionist and Professor G.A. Kerkut stated in his book 'Implications of Evolution', concerning the horse series:"Now, is this the book that Kerkut wrote in 1960?You may want to read this:http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evolves.htm"1. When I wrote "The Implications of Evolution" in 1960, I firmly believed in Evolution but thought that the missing pieces were being glossed over and that students should see the points that required further research.(see my www entry Implications of evolution under "Evolutionary chat by Gerald").Advances have been made over the intervening 40 years and we now know a lot more. "Emphasis mine.The reader should wonder why the creationist feels the need to quote such out of date sources?I know, of course, but does the reader?Of course, there is this from Kerkut's web site:http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evol.htm"The best evidence for Evolution comes from the way that new species are still evolving after geographical isolation. The next best evidence is the 99% similarity of the DNA genome in, for example, Man and Chimpanzees. "Huh... Imagine that. I wonder when creationists will begin quoting that?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-31-2003]

quote:

---

In the now closed thread, Bart writes:

---

You may be referring to something else, but the topic cited in message 1 is still open (not a closed thread).Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

I see, Page is already involved in another personal attack. What else is new.However, since we are all Panomo's let's have a look at your brilliant analysis concerning your utmost evidence of common descent:http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htmI have a couple of remarks and questions about your analysis:Let start here:1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

I see, Page is already involved in another personal attack. What else is new.

---

Peter, in SLPx's defense, my impression is that he has been doing a pretty good job of reigning in his temper. Please back off.Believe me, I am giving SLPx's postings extra attention, to monitor his behavior.This message is NOT a behavior warning - just a plea for peace.Thank you,Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-01-2003]

Dear Admin,As promissed 6 months ago, I registered to bring down evolutionism. Not Page. I didn't even know Page. But, since he is the authority in the field I have to attack his visions. It is nothing personally, though. I wished Page understood that, it would definitely improve the discussions.Best wishes,
Peter

So, it would seem to me that the way to "bring down evolution (ism)" (whatever "evolutionism" is) would be to publish some work in the professional literature.Why should we bother listening to what you have to say until you have produced some good peer-reviewed publications?

quote:

---

Schraf:

​

So, it would seem to me that the way to "bring down evolution (ism)" (whatever "evolutionism" is) would be to publish some work in the professional literature.
Why should we bother listening to what you have to say until you have produced some good peer-reviewed publications?

---

Indeed. Instead, we have denials of counter-evidence, refusals to accept refutations, etc.All part and parcel of the creationist bag-o-tricks.It is interesting, however, that the creationist so often sees the pointing out flawed 'debate' techniques, such as using 40 year old opinions of an individual that has altered them since, as a "personal attack."

quote:

---

Borger:
1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?

---

Ignoring for now the fact that creationist Borger is posting inflammatory and irrelevant nonsense as well as setting up Strawmen, I have a simple reply.Apparently, Borger did not bother to find out what Tob and Cap are.Tob is Trachypithecus obscurus. T. obscurus is an Old World primate. That is, it lives in africa (and asia).Cap is Cebus apella. C. apella is a New World primate, that is, it lives in South America.Biogeographical, fossil, and molecular data indicate that New and Old world primates diverged some 40 million years ago.Is a split of 40 million years sufficient to explain the "sudden transition" to you?

Page, why are you in denial that the TOE has been disproved and the GUToB reigns supreme? Don't you keep up with the latest scientific publications?If evolutionism was true, why would evolutionists put Tob and Cap on top of each other, as if they were related? The mpg explains all. etc. etc.

Your precognitive skills are impressive....

Chirp chirp...Must be that genetic redundancy and the creatons....

Page,In response to:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schraf:
So, it would seem to me that the way to "bring down evolution (ism)" (whatever "evolutionism" is) would be to publish some work in the professional literature.
Why should we bother listening to what you have to say until you have produced some good peer-reviewed publications?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page says: Indeed. Instead, we have denials of counter-evidence, refusals to accept refutations, etc.All part and parcel of the creationist bag-o-tricks.PB: Yeah, you would like to peer review my papers that question your methods, isn't it?Best wishes, and keep up the appearance,
Peter

quote:

---

However, since we are all Panomo's let's have a look at your brilliant analysis concerning your utmost evidence of common descent:

​

http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm

​

I have a couple of remarks and questions about your analysis:

​

Let start here:

​

1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?

---

Now I think it's PB's turn to offer an alternative explanation based on his gutob.

quote:

---

PB: Yeah, you would like to peer review my papers that question your methods, isn't it?

---

How could I 'review' what does not exist?http://EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back -->EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is backWhat I can review is your naivete and ignorance based overconfidence.I give that an A+.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-14-2003]