What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Try here .ICR History but I think someone criticized this accreditation, rightly or wrongly, here on EVC as due to influence of the Elder Morris, now deceased. I do not know how mych that, is true.

Of course that is (evidence for evolution) just as domestic breeding always was for Darwin. The question is, is the experienced artificial selectionist who despite the lability discoverable after generations if there is not some "sense" or intuition developing in the subjectivity that indicates that perhaps there are some bounds of variation that CAN NOT be transformed but are ones that cross trait categories that otherwise are traditionally thought of as pertaining to other species such that if one had had intuition of these other species flexibility to change could diagram an incidence of shapes that change but mutually exclusively in the phenoytypes where the genotypes under further nanoselective change might be prodded to either change (hence show the transitional form) or else reveal a physical barrier and thus indicate lack of species possibility from the phenotypic perspective.That seems to be the criticism that Will Provine had had with Phil Johnson who asserted that dogs do not change into anything but dogs. Will knowing chickens the likes of Mr. Miller does guppies said (1996 Standford) that he, Will, did not know of any limits to change and challenged Phil to display them. As far as I know no one has shown this. (My own ideas are to show up the theoretical issues that prevent such ideas from developing in and of themselves. I do think there are theoretical predilections that inhibit the search for such existence of boundaries. Chris Miller may have said there is great variability but he also might have the sense that no matter how much change he has seen in his and other guppies they can not get them to change into plecostomous catfishes(phenotypes) or cichlids(phenotypes) for that matter (but for the duration of his experience he might have first felt and thought that such larger change was possible) even if they were still all guppyish genetically. Gould simply calls this "lumped morphospace" without regard to the clade being discussed. Edited by Brad McFall, : emphhasis on wrong syylable

Yeah, I noticed that. I get email from ICR and I kinda remember an update this year. That might not be correct however. If it was true then there should be a searchable update. I did not find that in during a quick research for it. But given how much emphasis they put on accreditation if they are not currently under this credit I would bet that they are trying to do something to keep what they already have had.Dont know fur shure, really.Ok, look here.
Not Found | School of Biblical Apologetics
The grad school pages DO look and "feel" different, I could have mentioned that too, as I knew THAT much.Edited by Brad McFall, : found it

Gosh, cut what?
I do not know what you guys are trying to read between the posts I post.Consider- Gould's reading of DeVries then and read "fluctuating" as Miller's and mutational as "Darwin's" and make a sport out of it. I do not think I said anything "extraordinary " nor monstrous.

quote:

---

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by S.J. Gould

---

Well indeed it can affect THE VERY MOST RECENT DISCUSSIONS in evolutionary theory where Gould admits that every body who was attributing species selection to Stanley in the 70s had been formulated by De Vries in the 00s(written up in the early 90s). It WAS THIS idea, that was being proffered me at Cornell and by a philosopher and not a biologist. I do not think that Gould's reading is correct. De Vries seems to me to refer to "species" in the sense I was studying species IN an ecosytem while at Cornell contemporaneously not as that which is different for sorting vs selection. Any way the species CAN be a guppy or a sport, your pick but lets not cut the buz out of the justice here, pretty please. Look Gould never completed the comparison of Bateson and Goldschmidt. My guess is that history"" will read my own ideas in that line not in the special creation line but I can not speak for the future.

It is always fine with me Buz. I think your hearing such a person as Miller who has some subjective opinion at the very idea that can be at issue of what is a "species" was a good case perhaps for another thread. I will not bring this up as you wish as I have had the same thought myself but not with guppies. Holmes had a good question about how from ONE species one was supposed to know. That IS the problem. This is about science and I see now that you find this case of Miller to be about hobby vs research, Oh, well....Edited by Brad McFall, : letter