Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   front loading: did evos get it backwards
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 164 (470890)
06-13-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-12-2008 10:52 PM


Could you include a sentence or two describing what "front loading evo theories" are?
Also, if by NeoDarwinism you're referring to the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution with genetics, and if you believe that "front loading evo theories" are not part of the modern synthesis, then you need to explain that a little, since it seems unlikely that scientists like William Loomis do not accept the modern synthesis. That there are signficant schools of evolutionary thought that reject the modern synthesis would actually be a more significant issue than "front loading".
Please post a note when the edits are complete and I'll take another look.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:52 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 12:19 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 164 (470926)
06-13-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
06-13-2008 12:19 PM


I think the phrase you really want is "front loading ID theories about evolution." Since "evo" is normally a reference to traditional evolution or its supporters, the phrase "front loading evo theories" implies that there's some facet of evolutionary thought within mainstream circles that accepts "front loading."
What I'm trying to avoid is your thread bogging down in accusations that you're misrepresenting the scientific views about evolution within biology.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 12:19 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 1:36 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 164 (470936)
06-13-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
06-13-2008 1:36 PM


I did further modifications to the 1st para, see if they're okay with you. Your original 1st para is still there, just hidden.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 1:36 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 2:15 PM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 164 (470945)
06-13-2008 2:56 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 33 of 164 (471384)
06-16-2008 1:37 PM


Guidelines Reminder
Rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines states:
  1. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
Violations of rule 10 that occur after this message will result in a 24 hour suspension.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 120 of 164 (473131)
06-27-2008 8:47 AM


Moderator Comments
Two things:
  • Please leave moderation issues to the moderators. Possibility of suspension is a moderation issue. Discussion problems should be reported to the Windsor castle thread.
  • Please follow rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines:
    1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 138 of 164 (473425)
06-29-2008 6:16 AM


Topic Reminder
The efforts to stay on topic are appreciated.
Concerning the diversion onto the fossil record, it appears to have begun in Force's Message 105, and it resulted a couple exchanges later in this from Randman's Message 108:
Randman in Message 108 writes:
Evos do indeed find studies on living animals as evidence for common ancestry. The fossil record contradicts evo models in reality which is one reason they have started harping on the claim the fossil record isn't the primary evidence for evo theory, though they would claim it isn't that the fossil record contradicts evo theory (though it does) but that it is too incomplete or some fossil rarity claim.
As there do not seem to be any recent threads discussing the fossil record, those who take issue with this characterization may want to propose a new topic.
All discussions will *by necessity* touch on a variety of off-topic issues. It would help keep discussions from digressing if references to other topics and issues were kept non-controversial.
For instance, if in a thread discussing Isaiah's passage about a virgin giving birth I were to reply, "The phrase actually refers to a young woman having a child, not a virgin giving birth to the Lord Jesus, who never existed anyway," I've pretty much guaranteed that the thread will now discuss the existence of Jesus.
In other words, no matter how much noise one makes about striving to stay on topic, making "fightin' words" types of declarations on off-topic issues doesn't lend such protestations much credibility.
Please, no replies.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024