Summations Only

Dredge earlier used the quote here.JonF posted a substantial response here.Tangle posted a substantial response here.Moose

So the correct quote should be

quote:

---

"That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."
Professor Bounoure, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79.

---

The main objection to using this would be that it is now 60 years old.

There are lots of objections; it's age being one, it's context another, his religious dogma yet another, but the main one is that it's utterly irrelevant what any individual, no matter how renowned, says about any aspect of science - unless it's backed-up by real work to defend it; unevidenced opinion is useless.Suppose I changed the attribution:"That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."Prof Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, Emeritus Fellow, New College, Oxford. 2017Tell me what has changed about our understanding of evolutionary biology - except that one of its proponents has lost his mind. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I would conclude that Prof Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, Emeritus Fellow, New College, Oxford, had at last come to his senses.

Yes you would and the entire creationist world would errupt in howls of joy and plaster it over every publication they could find and quote it forever more on forums like this.But nothing at all would have changed in biology. Several million other scientists would simply point to the 150 years of research, evidence and thought and get on with their work.Back in the real world - and mental illness aside - if Dawking ever did say anything like that he'd have a mountain of real, peer reviewed, research evidence to back it up and if proven right, science would honour him. He'd become one of the most famous scientists that have ever lived.That's how it works - not by quoting insignificant dead, scientists with religious prejudices, but by producing real, evidence-backed work. Time you guys got on and did some. The ToE is falsifiable - do it.

This shows in a nutshell, what I see as the difference in approach between creationist thinking and scientific thinking -- to the creationist the source, the authority, is more important than the validity of the information, while for the scientific thinking people the validity of the information is more important than the source.Why do you suppose that is?Enjoy

Nope.

quote:

---

The problem [of the origin of the quotation] apparently stems from the confusion in the discourse of these three scientists between the fact of evolution and the explanation of this fact. None were creationists but they all felt that the explanations given for the understanding of evolution were insufficient, even totally inexact.

---

Well put.

Dredge writes:
Biologists regularly cite antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution. Antibiotic resistance is nothing more than natural selection. Genetic variations in a bacteria population mean that some bacteria may survive the antibiotic and thus eventually come to dominate the population. This scenario is, in effect, no different to colour variations in a Peppered Moth population allowing the dark-winged variety to dominate during the "sooty years" - in other words, a simple case of natural selection.The famous case of natural selection in the Peppered Moth is cited by mothscount.org as "one of the best known examples of evolution by natural selection"
... i.e., natural selection = evolution. Huh? The theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor = common descent ... and this is not evolution? It has been pointed out to me that antibiotic resistance and Lenski's E. coli can't be used as evidence that all life shares a common ancestor - that is to say, evolution cannot be used as evidence of evolution. Clear as mud.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

It is a "known lie" that Bouroune never said, "This theory (evolution) has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"?What "known" proof do you have that he never ever said that?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I quoted from somewhere without reading the original sources. Nevertheless, evolution remains a useless theory. As I've already mentioned on this site, it took me a mere twelve years to complete primary school - Grades 1 to 7. Furthermore, I graduated (well, more or less) from Grade 10 before I turned 40. Therefore I suggest you are seriously underestimating the calibre of mind you are dealing with here.

Talk Origins claims this is the original quote. Maybe ... maybe not. This quote is quite different to the one I originally supplied. The quote I supplied may be a paraphrased version of this one or it may have a different source altogether ... a source as yet unknown. I concede it's not wise to use either a paraphrased quote or a quote of unknown origin. By 1957, Darwin's Tree of Common Descent had no useful scientific application. Sixty years later, nothing has changed.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

No doubt useless when trying to peddle pseudoscience, misinformation and anti-science. The caliber is quite clear and so is the misconceptions about what a scientific theory really means.

You're a creationist ... therefore it is impossible to underestimate the caliber of mind we are dealing with.Enjoy

The peppered moth is an excellent example of natural selection. At least you get that.It's also an excellent example of beneficial gene mutation. NOT variation within the genome, not gene plasticity - gene mutation. The mutations have been found and even dated to the industrial revolution.Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed - BBC News How many times does this need to be explained to you? Common descent is a conclusion drawn from the ToE, it's not evolution itself. It's not necessary for there to be a single descendant for all life on earth but it's quite probable.At least try to understand what you object to. If you don't you just look like an idiot.