Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...

In your argument it can be understood that evolution is proved fact.Wow!despite of the important dispute among top evolutionary scientist about whether chemical evolution could have taken place?For example would pronounce a certain mathematical equation 2x+2=4 as correct if one expert would say x is 1 and the other would say no!it is 2 and the other one would say no it is 8......and so on??if the evidence of evolution is as strong as what you believe then why there is still argument?

quote:

---

In your argument it can be understood that evolution is proved fact.Wow!despite of the important dispute among top evolutionary scientist about whether chemical evolution could have taken place?

---

If you choose to revive a thread that is more than FOUR YEARS old you could at least try to read and understand it before doing so. The only evolution under discussion is the evolution of humans and any arguments over chemical evolution are completely irrelevant.

Irrelevant?So do you mean some scientist are arguing absurdly because some of them are arguing from the stand point of chemical evolution?For example Dean kenyon former supporter of evolution say that it is completely implausible that unassisted energy and matter organized theirselves.Is his argument irrelevant?And can you give enough reason to show that discussing about whether chemical evolution could have taken place is irrelevant?

quote:

---

Irrelevant?

---

To this discussion which is all about a quote relating to human evolution, chemical evolution is a complete and utter irrelevance.

quote:

---

So do you mean some scientist are arguing absurdly because some of them are arguing from the stand point of chemical evolution?

---

I don't see any such arguments in this thread.

quote:

---

For example Dean kenyon former supporter of evolution say that it is completely implausible that unassisted energy and matter organized theirselves.

---

And how is this relevant to this thread ?

quote:

---

Is his argument irrelevant?

---

It doesn't seem to be. It has nothing to do with Milton's use of Pilbeam's work.

quote:

---

And can you give enough reason to show that discussing about whether chemical evolution could have taken place is irrelevant?

---

This thread is about RIchard Milton's alleged misuse of a quote from Pilbeam. Pilbeam was discussing human ancestry and referred to a fossil "void" which (at least at the time) covered a period from 4 to 8 million years ago. THere is nothing to do with chemical evolution there.So come on, just what IS the relevance of chemical evolution to this discussion, which YOU chose to revive ?

Opppss!Sorry if I misunderstood the thread, but why not consider all topics of evolution?So that we have a nice discussion?Besides how much evidence do you have.?I think you missed some of my questions:Is there still argument againts evolution if it has been established as truth?

quote:

---

Opppss!Sorry if I misunderstood the thread,

---

Did you actually read the OP ? Or even note the dates ?

quote:

---

but why not consider all topics of evolution?

---

We do, on the appropriate threads.

quote:

---

Is there still argument againts evolution if it has been established as truth?

---

I'll give just a brief answer here because it is not on topic."Evolution" written without modifiers usually means "biological evolution" and there is no doubt that it occurs and that it explains a good deal of the diversity of life on Earth. Probably all of it. Chemical evolution is really a separate subject.

Hi, Traste. Welcome to EvC!When you say "chemical evolution," I'm not sure whether you're talking about abiogenesis or cosmology. If you mean the evolution of pre-biotic systems, here are some links to visit here at EvC: The Source of Life (open: you can post to this one) Transition from chemistry to biology (old thread that was revived last year: maybe this has some good information for you) From Protobionts to Living Cells (closed due to conflict and disarray, but there are a few good posts) Biogenesis (an older, closed thread, but some good stuff about abiogenesis there)If you're talking about the cosmological process, I haven't kept track of that topic here (I'm just a lowly biologist, and I can't ever keep up with those debates): you might try looking in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum for some threads to peruse.But, try to focus your posts on the original topic in the thread. You can propose a new topic at Proposed New Topics if you really think what you want to talk about isn't available somewhere else.Have fun at EvC!

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Ok.lets go back to pilbeam and milton.But before that let me ask you first.You said that no doubt darwinian could have taken place do you have any evidence to support that claim?And if you have what are you going to present the "mearge"fossil?Does it show to you fish slowly turning to amphibians?

Ok.lets go back to pilbeam and milton.But before that let me ask you first.You said that no doubt darwinian could have taken place do you have any evidence to support that claim?And if you have what are you going to present the "mearge"fossil?Does it show to you fish slowly turning to amphibians?

a) I don't intend to discuss that here.b) I certainly don't intend to discuss it here with somebody who misrepresents even the short answer that I already gave.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Ok.No problem.

In case lurkers are interested in Ray Martinez/WT/Willowtree/Cold Foreign Object`s mention(twice) of the empty glass case at Kensington and desire to visit, it can be found right next to the completely-empty glass case containing Bible autographs.