"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"There's a fair bit of modern Evolutionary Theory that doesn't support straight Darwinian theory.That's why it's called "The Modern Synthesis" these days, since it includes the rather major evolutionary fields in Genetics.And Elderidge and Gould introduced Punctuated Equilibrium what, a couple of decades ago? PE isn't Darwinian, either.So what's your point, again?

quote:

---

My point is that this is an admission of what I and many have been saying about the fossil record all along.

---

So why didn't you or others submit such a paper to a scientific journal and why wasn't it published?

quote:

---

You mean these 2 university professors that published their theory just recently?

---

You can't have it both ways.Either the scientific community is conspiring to promote falsehoods, or are grossly negligent and incompetent, or they aren't.You cannot point to a couple of scientists whom you think are telling you what you want to hear and say that these scientists are the good, honest, competent ones but then refer to others who's scientific work disagree with your religious beliefs and consider them the bad, dishonest, incompetent ones.Could it be that it's actually scientists, doing science in their area of expertise, who are doing the work of advancing scientific understanding?Could it be that Creationist "critics" of Evolutionary theory are actually irrelevant to scientific progress?

"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"
There's a fair bit of modern Evolutionary Theory that doesn't support straight Darwinian theory.That's why it's called "The Modern Synthesis" these days, since it includes the rather major evolutionary fields in Genetics.And Elderidge and Gould introduced Punctuated Equilibrium what, a couple of decades ago? PE isn't Darwinian, either.So what's your point, again?

quote:

---

it strikes me as a bit hypocritical that evolutionists mock creationists for their dogma, when evolutionists follow their views just as dogmatically even though they change on a whim as evidenced by the many shifts in evolutionary thought. I do understand science is learning and that it takes trial and error at times to achieve this learning, but I don't understand how evolutionists can maintain that this is all fact when they themselves will shift their theories from year to year.

---

Well, views that change in response to improved understanding of the evidence can hardly be considered to be dogmatically held, can they?Additionally, anyone who considers the Modern Synthesis to be some kind of 100% perfect knowledge would be wrong to do so. Science doesn't advance through the dogmatic procalmations of absolutes (like religious views are put forth), but by the constant improvement of the methods used to test theory.

quote:

---

One reason I wonder about taking evos seriously is the tendency to never acknowledge a fact or argument as having merit until evos can come up with some explanation for it. This smacks of me of a sort of deliberateness and straightforward biasness which calls into question whether objectivity is part of the evo mindset.

---

So, are you saying, for the record, that Crashfrog's wife, along with all of the hundreds of thousands of other life scientists are such poor scientists that they cannot help but be hopelessly biased?

Define "kind".

quote:

---

Nah, you can do that, please. Define kind,

---

I know of no useful definition of "kind" with regards to how you are using it in this context, which is why I thought I'd ask you to define it.Otherwise, it is meaningless and useless.Please stop dodging this very basic, very direct question of clarification.Define "kind". I'd also like to know what system to use in identifying which "kinds" are which. For example, is my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same "kind"? Are a Chimpanzee and Homo Sapiens the same kind?What consistent system do I use to determine if they are or not?

quote:

---

and while you are at it, define species, random, and vestigal.

---

I definitely will, after you provide a definition of "kind".Considering I have not used "species, random, nor vestigial" in this thread, while you have used "kind" in this thread, I think it makes more sense for you to define your meaning of the word so we can discuss it first.

quote:

---

Sorry shraf. Please define kind,

---

I can't. I have never been able to find a definition....which is why I asked.

quote:

---

will, randomness, etc,....
If you cannot, then why are you mentioning these terms?

---

I would happy to define randomness as it pertains to evolution, although your demand that I define "will" is new and I am not sure why it is relevant.However, YOU are the one who used the word "kind" in this thread.I have never found a definition of that word, so I do not know what you mean when you use it...which is why I asked you to define it.

quote:

---

On "kind", I have defined it before for you and you still bring it up.

---

I am terribly sorry. I don't remember seeing your definition of "kind". Could you please either link to the post where you defined it or provide it again for me?Even better, you could participate in my new thread that is devoted to defining "kind" as you have used it. Faith is on her own in there and could really use your help. she is, in fact, under the impression that "kind" has no definition currently and that there is no consistent way at present to tell the difference between different "kinds".Since you clearly DO have a definition, perhaps you could pop in on that thread and help us all out.I, for one, am looking forward to learning from you, randman.

quote:

---

If you don't want to learn, why should I repeat it for you.

---

Why don't you pretend that we're talking about Haeckel, but instead of talking about his drawings, substitute the definition of "kind"?That way, you might not mind repeating yourself so much.

quote:

---

Kinds refer to the theoritical life form groupings stemming from the first created life forms.

---

I am confused.I thought that the first created life forms as listed in the Bible were the "kinds", not the life form groupings which have stemmed from them.Also, how can I tell what "kind" an organism is? What consistent system can I use to tell where organisms should be grouped?(Don't answer those questions here, please take them to the thread where Faith needs your help.)

quote:

---

Barimonology is the study of kinds.

---

Yes, this a knew.Can you link to a baraminology site which has a precise definition of "kind", and also describes the system they use to determine what "kind" a given organism fits into?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-22-2006 09:56 AM