Some Evidence Against Evolution

Oops, looks like we’ve been found out guys!Holy crap, I’d not realised I was so ignorant!Let’s see... I have read, from cover to cover (though not retained or understood it all of course!), Douglas Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology.I have severely dipped into the textbooks by:
Skelton (Evolution)
Ridley (Evolution)
Gilbert (Developmental Biology)
Alcock (Animal Behavior)
Wilmer et al (Environmental Physiology of Animals)
Raven (Biology of Plants)
Barnes et al (Invertebrates)
Brock Biology of Microorganisms
Bush (Parasites)
Alberts (Cell Biology)
Lewin (Genes VII)
Brown (Genomes)
Begon et al (Ecology)
Eckert (Animal Physiology)
Barrett et al (Human Evolutionary Psychology)
Klein (Human Career)
Aiello & Dean (Human Evolutionary Anatomy)
Lewin (Human Evolution)
Benton (Vertebrate Palaeontology)
... I’ve probably forgotten a few, my shelves are at home, where I’m not.
Plus the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Oxford UP’s ‘New’ Encyclopedias of Mammals, Insects, Reptiles & Amphibians, and BirdsI have also read a large number of books by authors such as S J Gould, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Carl Zimmer, Ernst Mayr, Steve Jones, John Maynard Smith, Jonathan Weiner, E O Wilson, Richard Fortey, Lynn Margulis, Jared Diamond, Mark Ridley, Matt Ridley, John Gribbin, Peter Medawar, Robin Dunbar, Richard Leakey, Ian Tattersall, Carl Swisher et al, Pat Shipman et al, David Raup, David Attenborough, Terence Hines, Lewis Wolpert, Michael Shermer, Carl Sagan, Nicholas Humphrey, Harry Greene, Bruce McFadden, Alan Turner... hell, I can’t remember them all without looking. And I’m attempting Jenny Clack.I’ve also read Futuyma’s Science on Trial, Philip Kitcher’s Abusing Science, Tim Berra’s Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, large chunks of Talk Origins, and all the creationism-relevant bits of the bible.And I have been discussing these things with creationists for over five years.Okay, I’m ignorant of both neodarwinism and creationism, if you say so. Perhaps, then, you could tell this ignorant EvC-101-deficient fool what he’s missed?Perhaps you could tell us what sources you are using for your own ideas please? Just so we can understand each other, of course.TTFN, DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-12-2003]

I think, as in the following defined, science is atheistic.Atheistic - Without thesis; Without considerations of God; Independent of considerations of God; Is neither pro-theistic nor anti-theistic.Unfortunately, Willowtree's definition, and the common definition of "Atheistic" is taken to be "anti-theistic".It's all in how you define "Atheistic".Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

Does this mean that I should put the missing isotopes back?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yes, you should....Rei? All of them. I see that one behind your back.

What? You think we didn't know all this? You have an ever-developed sense of your own ability to keep a secret. "Two people can keep a secret, as long as one of them is dead."

quote:

---

Darwinsterrier:

​

Perhaps you could tell us what sources you are using for your own ideas please? Just so we can understand each other, of course.

---

It seems WILLOW's sources are:1) Professor Huston Smith author of "Why Religion Matters;"2) Daniel Harbour author of "An Intelligent Persons Guide to Atheism;"3) the best preacher in the world, Dr.Gene Scott; and4) Richard Milton, the non-creationist challenger of the ToE.Maybe you need to read these instead of what you've obviously wasted years reading.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-12-2003]

So who's going to travel the world and tell all the other scientists the gig is up?ME ME ME ME!!!! Perty pleez!

Okay, but only because I approve of your Greg Rucka iconery.

Yeah, I'm going to NZ! I'll need about a month or two. shhhhhhhh.....

I think it's time to wrap up this topic. I will look at closing it tonight.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

True enough. However, this probably isn't the best topic to argue that semantic point. Aren't there a couple of threads where we all went 'round and 'round about the definition of atheism?I'm taking Willow at face value on what he means - I'm assuming that he's using the common-usage anti-theist definition. Which, of course, is far away from the process of science.

Actually, it is! Thanks again for producing smiles yet again.

quote:

---

The quote mining from Richard Milton is the only "scientific" evidence that he can throw up.

---

I find that a remarkably appropriate (and hilarious) choice of words.

AdmooseI think willowtree should be given a chance to prove his bona fides. He has said that he will provide his "scientific evidence" against the theory of evolution. Since this was supposedly the purpose of the thread and he has not done so yet, I think he should be given the last opportunity rather than closing down the thread prematurely.O2U willowtree.

My thoughts are that WILLOWTREE thinks he has provided that evidence, but everyone else is too stupid/ignorant/blind to see it. WILLOWTREE doesn't know what scientific evidence is and that's the problem.