"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

Yeah, Rand. That's why folks like us have to keep repeating that it's an error to equivocate "Darwinism" and the theory of evolution.But folks like you keep on doing it; as though by disproving features of evolution we abandoned decades ago you can somehow scientifically prove God, or something.

I don't see them equating Darwinism with evolution. I see them doing the opposite, in fact.

You've got it backwards. You've only been repeating and misunderstanding what we've already known for decades.

As arguments that you should rebut with reason instead of playground antics.

I guess you'd have to actually read the post to see it. Why don't you try to defend your equivocation of Darwinism and evolution, then?

Actually, that's false. He did have a very viable response; that segment of the footage was edited out by the producers of the video tape in order to make Dawkins appear foolish.

quote:

---

According to Dawkins, he paused because the question revealed that the interviewers were creationists, that he had been duped about their motives. He paused to think about how to handle them, and the change of subject occurred due to the several minutes when he confronted them being omitted from the video (Dawkins 2003).

​

The question is equivalent to asking how complexity could evolve, which Dawkins has covered in at least four books (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and A Devil's Chaplain). He has answered the question at great length.

---

CB102.1: Dawkins interviewed about evolution increasing informationThis message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-13-2006 10:56 AM

It's already sufficiently understood to know that it's the result of mutation; moreover, it is sufficient to observe that if this were the result of a designed mechanism, they would all be able to do it. Bacteria reproduce clonally and are haploid. They do not experience gene recession or other Mendelian inheritance patterns. If one bacteria gains an ability that its sisters do no share, the only explanation for that is mutation.

Mutation.

I'm not inclined to take Gillian Brown's word for it, especially when the only corroboration AIG offers is "Gb is a creationist, and creationists, being Christians, cannot lie. Dawkins can lie all he likes."Dawkins has answered the question in four different books. Are we to believe, honestly, that Dawkins was unable to recollect a single rebuttal despite having written four of them?Brown refers constantly to the "unedited video tapes", but there's no proof that anybody else has seen them, or is able to verify his statements. The best he can do is an excerpt from a post purported to be from Glenn Morton, who doesn't corraborate that post at any other source.So, the best evidence I can see is that Brown is simply lying to cover his lies, and AIG is lying along with him. Their idea that we should trust the word of Brown over Dawkins because one is a Christian and the other is not is ludicrous and insulting.

Maybe it is. Maybe it's from Brown himself.

As yet, she has no published body of work. Moreover, her work itself constitutes an implied argument for evolution; if evolution is false her work cannot proceed. It would be absolutely impossible for her to work on what she is working on were evolution false.However, her work does work. Thus, evolution must be accurate.No, her job is not to review the arguments and data for evolution "to see if it is true." That would be the job of the referees of the journals in which those arguments and data were originally published; a job that they have already performed. It would be redundant and a waste of her time and the university's money for her to retrace their footsteps. Speaking for my wife, it's not your place to comment on her papers, I assure you. Unless you'd care to present your B.A. in biology, your doctorate in entomology, and your extensive published research in the field of agricultural insect manegment, phylogenetic analysis, and taxonomy?

Why what? How useful do you think the wrong model is? How much work do you think you can get done when you're absolutely wrong about what's going on?

You tell me. Aren't you one of the ones always asserting that a genetic barrier exists beyond which heredity cannot extend? If it were, why would the ID people be trying to have their science taught in schools? If their models could proceed from the same scientific basis as the evolutionary models, wouldn't they be debated on their scientific merits?Wouldn't Demski have been able to avoid testifying under oath that ID was only valid science under a different definition of the word "science"; a definition expansive enough to include mythological creatures and ESP, which he admitted?As creationists so often remind us, the science is not the same. If you believe, on the other hand, that you've proposed a "competing" model that can't be distinguished from evolution under any test or circumstances, then what's the point of creationism?

Uh-huh. And the definition of "small" is, "any time we actually observe it, it's just 'small' evolution."Circular reasoning, of course.