Your one-line drive-by to the Darwin withdrawal. Please address the evidence of Darwin rescinding this claim and the evidence pointing to why he did so.
What I can rationally and logically conclude from the evidence that is known, is that
we don't know why he took that part out of the book.
Making up scenarios about him "rescinding" his position on the basis of speculation over this "withdrawal" evidence is the most flimsy of hearsay arguments based on a molehill of microscopic proportions.
If I were to make some wild hypothesis for the 3 most likely reasons he took it out, what I would come up with would be more on the lines of:
(1) he felt it was an unnecessary analogy and did not add materially to the argument for the theory,
(2) that he saw some people (critics) focusing on the analogy and missing the point of the argument altogether (as did the author of the {wild suppositions re why he deleted the comment} you quoted),
(3) he felt it wasn't a scientific enough comment to include in a text like Origin of Species.
I could probably come up with others but it would still be irrelevant because it would still be speculation and totally unsubstantiated -- just like your author's comments (but probably closer to the mark because ... he didn't change the theory, just took out an example analogy)
In reality, your comment above is an insult caused by the inability to refute. I will not press this point any further as the facts speak for themselves, and until they are answered the silence and evasions confirm their veracity.
ROFLOL. That's an
ad hominem,
Appeal to Consequences, and
Prejudicial Language logical fallacies combined into one (pointless) statement.
Barest of assertions.
Do you deny that speciation has occurred? Hmmm?
If you "have now" bred several new species....what the hell was your theory based upon prior to "now" ?
gosh, I wonder ... maybe something like
"change in populations over time" ... yeah, that might be it, eh?
How can I evidence a negative ?
You claim a barrier exists. Thus you are not trying to "evidence a negative" but rather the opposite. When there is a barrier in the street it is rather hard "evidence" to ignore.
You are the one claiming bears can change into whales.
False misrepresentation of what I said. What I said was "you could develop a totally aquatic bear."
Your argument is microevolution is a fact. Everyone agrees. Then from this fact you assert macro must have occurred. But the data from experimentation says there are natural barriers preventing change beyond a certain point.
What experiments show barriers exist? What are the barriers?
What we see is that species just keep changing. And changing. And changing.
At the genetic level there is no point where scientist can say "this is {horse kind} and cannot change" - mutations are observed everywhere in the genome.
Mayr, the staunchest of evolutionists, was so brainwashed by his creator Evolution, he was blinded to the fact that genetic homeostasis falsified his false Creator.
Or he was just quoted out of context by a creatortionista trying to make a buck off a book.
In fact the Bible says the real Creator blinds every mind that denies Him Creator credit with the poison of Naturalism/evolution - a place where you will never run into Him again
Can you prove the veracity of this assertion? This is the science forum.
RAZD, you ignored the Crick data I posted, and let me say it very plainly: I cannot provide what you ask because I am not aware of any evidence supporting it. If there was evidence, we would not be having this debate.
No evidence of a barrier, and you say I am ignoring evidence.
Speciation cannot and has not been observed. Saying it does not make it true.
Ah, so you
do deny that speciation has occurred. Fascinating. You are, of course, aware that one of the AIG
(click) is:
”No new species have been produced.’ This is not true”new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ”kind’, and involves no new genetic information.
Plainly stated, you are wrong.
The process as you know takes millions of years.
Also false. It has been observed, therefore this "time limit" is not true.
Then you hand-wave away the fact of genetic homeostasis.
FACT? How can I hand wave away something that has not been demonstrated to exist? Do magicians make {thin air} disappear on stage?
Hundreds of years of these experiments have established a natural barrier and its uncrossability.
You are obviously confused by the difference between {breeding a species for specific augmentation of certain preferred characteristics while retaining the other desirable characteristics} and evolution.
Ad hom attack indicates the inability to refute.
ROFLOL again! I demonstrated logical fallacies and false arguments, so they are NOT an
ad hominem attack but a statement of fact. That means I have every right to question the validity of the source of such statements.
You have accepted the Mayr data, now, because you do not like the messenger (Milton) this somehow erases the message.
False. What I have said is that you still have not quoted Mayr directly to verify that what was quoted is actually applicable to the argument as used by your source. Indications from other posters are that it is not applicable, so Mayr could well be meaning something else.
I could easily and arbitrarily brand Darwinian sources as "questionable etc.etc."
Actually you do.
Milton is an atheist, Mensa member, and 30 year science journalist.
Argument from authority -- another logical fallacy. Who he is has no bearing if what he says is false and\or logically invalid.
Btw, I've known a lot of Mensa members and I am underwhelmed.
or continue ad hom/poisoning the well tactic which is only done because you cannot refute.
What it appears - from this whole post - is that you cannot refute the points I made about this argument.
So, no barrier exists. There is no barrier to "macro" evolution because there is no difference from the genetic changes that occur in "micro" evolution, in fact it is the same mechanism of evolution and there is really no differentiation into "macro" and "micro" just more of the same old plain vanilla evolution ... the change in populations over time. Accumulated changes on top of accumulated changes.
As for your questions in yellow. Why can't you answer them ?
Because they are about the absence of a barrier at the genetic level, and my point is that there is no observed genetic barrier, but to prove it I would have to ...
"evidence a negative"
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
