darkstar writes:
I have no doubt that as we progress through the thousands of available quotes exposing macroevolution for what it is, a myth of gigantic proportions, that the truth will be made known...
I'm not sure about your quote obsession. You could provide a billion quotes and not falsify evolution - though a few appropriate pieces of scientific evidence would do the trick. Short on evidence-based arguments?
However, since you seem intent on a quote-party, I'll give you another quote from L.L.Cohen, also out of Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. Keep in mind this is the first quote by Cohen I've found:
Cohen writes:
'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories.
This quote discredits Cohen multiple times:
- "any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides"
-
False. We have witnessed random mutation give rise to changes in size, shape, and form - therefore "strictly...purposeful" is incorrect. This statement denies the possibility of micro-evolution.
- "Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them."
-
False. Duplications, rearrangments, point mutations, insertions, deletions are all methods that can contribute to a changing, and sometimes 'increasing', genome. Cohen's statement denies that mutations of any kind occur, and thus denies microevolution.
- "The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence"
-
False, again. Essentially restating the lie that DNA is immutable except by a designer. The statement denies microevolution.
Darkstar - Cohen flat out denies the possibility of micro-evolution through his statements. Indeed, he denies the possibility of
mutation of any kind through his statements.
Perhaps this is not someone you should be quoting, though part of the Cohen quote you provide:
Cohen writes:
It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers.
Is absolutely true, and no true scientist should argue with this specific point.
However, Cohen remains a poor choice to support your pro-micro-evolution view.
™ Version 4.2