Are mutations enough to explain natural selection?

x[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-18-2003]

x[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-18-2003]

Dear Dr Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PW: If you check back I think SLPx did quote Dr.Caporale
in a previous post ... can't seem to find it to
reference for you but I'm sure it's there.PB: You're too eager. It was me who contacted Dr Caporale and I quoted her, not Page. It was about orthodox evolutionists and not understanding NRM (like Page and you).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: Now, now, Peyey - I also emailed Dr.Caporale (other folks have email too, you know). I mentioned you. She forwarded to me her entire reply to you, and mentioned the QUOTE from her that I posted previously - the one in which she lamented that her book was being "misinterpreted."PB: Apparently, --since she forwarded MY mail to you-- she doesn't wanna talk to you.
And there is no such thing as MIS-interpretation. There are interpretations of data. (As if your interpretation is the right one, and anothers is MIS). You really don't get Page. Why don't you do an elementary science course? You demonstrate over and over that you aren't aware of the most elementary scientific things. And that explains a lot.Page: I understand that you are a megalomaniac, but lets not resort so quickly to lies, OK Pete?PB: And the slender goes on. I am gonna beat you on all fronts, Dr Page. Why? Since youre such a nice person to communicate with. A friend of mine --a PROPONENT of evolutionism-- read your responses and he had never seen a worse ambassedor of evolutionism. Yes, Page, I think you are able to convert Dawkins to become a Creationist. So, in fact you do a wonderful job.And you missed another chance to regain a bit of credibility: to quote Dr Caporale.Have a good one,
Peter"I like this discussion. (Yes, I know what you are gonna say, now)"

x[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-18-2003]

duplicate deleted[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-24-2003]

Dear Dr PAge,Page: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Apparently, --since she forwarded MY mail to you-- she doesn't wanna talk to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: I have to conclude that you do these things on purpose...Can you not comprehend ANY words at all?PB: Depends on what kind of words, language. Usually I use my dictionary of coarse language to get any insight in your mails. Apparently, my dear friend, the only thing you are able to learn me is rotten language.Page: In her reply TO ME, she forwarded HER reply TO you as PART of her reply.I ask myself - Why am I wasting time on this guy again?PB: Quote DR Caporale and you do not have to waste further time. Then I will check it out. Big Mouths like you are famous for playing bluff poker.You could have saved yourself a lot of time by being honest.Anyway, meet you at the creation-talk, mate.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Peter Borger, he say::
And there is no such thing as MIS-interpretation. There are interpretations of data. (As if your interpretation is the right one, and anothers is MIS).

---

The above is completely incorrect.Everything in the universe exists in one particular way,
and follows its natural 'laws' of behaviour.An interpretation of data which says that something operates
in a manner other than the manner in which it actually
operates is a mis-interpretation of the data.Determining whether something is a mis-interpretation or not,
in the above context, is a laborious process, often requiring
experimentation and supporting observations.An interpretation of another person's work, which is itself
interpretative, which does not match the original intent
of the author is definitely mis-interpretation.

x[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-18-2003]

bump

Scott and Fred,I am not going to divulge whose side I am a part of at this point in time, because it is completely irrelevant. I take issue with both of you (so maybe you can agree for once in taking issue with me). I tried to read through this thread, as I am a critical thinker who is seeking to gain knowledge. I am dumber for having made the mistake of trying to read everything on this thread.Both of you should know better than to resort to the other's tactics, so saying "He started it." doesn't cut it. Why don't you guys let go of the rhetoric, satire and other unnecessary crud when you post and just deal in the facts. Fact vs. Fact! As a layperson, I don't need to see someone belittle another person for me to believe their viewpoint, if anything, it's going to make me question the bully. Problem here is, we have a bully-bash where two bullys are going back and forth at each other. I know where a willow tree is if you guys really need to settle this the old-fashioned way.I know the history both of you have, as I am not one to read only one person's side of the story -- I have read a great deal about virtually all of your encounters. You guys need to bury the past and start anew. Tomorrow is a new day; maybe you guys can try to clean up your acts and return to science. I speak for many when I say it would be greatly appreciated by the learning community at-large.Thanks!

Moose,I'd like to report this person to the Moderator Recruitment branch of the Policies Development and Enforcement Division of EvC Forum.--Percy

My objection would be that a moderator should be considering closing this ( apparently dead) thread rather than resurrecting it. And addressing someone who is quite likely not even reading this forum is a bit pointless.

Paul, I hope you don't mean to insinuate that I have not read this thread. I truly was ready for someone to give me a medal or a cookie for digging through the minutiae that is...this thread![This message has been edited by jdjewell, 04-17-2003]

x[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-18-2003]

I'm suggesting that you probably wasted your time reading this thread.The last post before you resurrected the thread was nearly 2 months old. And there wasn't much posted in the month before that. The last one from Fred Williams was more than three months old.So what exactly was the point of intervening in a discussion that was already over ?