Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,458 Year: 3,715/9,624 Month: 586/974 Week: 199/276 Day: 39/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 305 (394384)
04-10-2007 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 6:29 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
CoaH, I'm going to be blunt.
Do you think that Biologists are
a) stupid, and/or
b) incompetent, and/or
c) conspriring to deceive everyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 6:29 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 305 (394385)
04-10-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by City_on_a_Hill
04-10-2007 8:05 PM


you've been lied to
quote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)
Oh, dear, another misquote.
Here it is in it's original context:
Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"
2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)
Here's something else Gould has said:
(bolding added by me)
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists”whether through design or stupidity, I do not know”as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge . are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
You've been misled by some website that has either intentionally taken Gould's words out of context in order to change what he meant by them, or by a site that is so sloppy that it doesn't care if it gets the quote right or not as long as it makes scientists look silly or wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-10-2007 8:05 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 75 of 305 (395048)
04-14-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 6:20 PM


hey
I know you've got a lot on your plate at the moment, but I'd love a reply to my posts in this thread, message #43 and message #44
The first, if you answer it, will save everybody a lot of time and effort discussing details. It cuts to the chase.
The second is regarding your posting of a Gould misquote. I'd like you to explain how you feel about the website that you got it from. Do you think they might have misquoted Gould on purpose in order to misrepresent what he said to fool the gullible, or do you think it is mere sloppiness on their part?
Either way, I'd like an acknowledgement on your part that the quote you posted isn't accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 6:20 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 179 of 305 (429124)
10-18-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Medis
10-18-2007 1:24 PM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
quote:
you called it the THEORY that evolution occurred. Still a theory, correct?
Yeah.
Like the THEORY that the Holocaust happened, or the THEORY that the Earth is in an eliptical orbit around the sun, or the THEORY that matter is made up of atoms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 1:24 PM Medis has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 219 of 305 (432116)
11-03-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 3:59 PM


Re: the relative importance of facts
The ToE doesn't apply to the origin of life, nore the origin of the Universe.
The ToE doesn't apply until life first arrived on the scene.
Your argument is with Cosmology and Chemistry, not Biology.
So, what are the facts that support creation?
Start a list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 3:59 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 5:47 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 221 of 305 (432150)
11-04-2007 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by IamJoseph
11-04-2007 5:47 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
The ToE doesn't apply to the origin of life, more the origin of the Universe.
The ToE doesn't apply until life first arrived on the scene.
quote:
Yes it does apply, and it is a false mindset which condones this lie.
No, it really doesn't apply.
If you disagree, then show me a definition of Biological Evolution from any Biology textbook or scientific source that includes the origin of life or of the Universe.
quote:
ToE does not start with life's origin because it is unable to - not because it does not want or intend to; but its doctrines clearly point to a nominated inference how life began.
Please provide a citation to a Biology textbook or scientific source which supports this claim.
quote:
The rest of ToE addicts have no choice but to go where ToE's finger is pointing, like blind sheep, settling into perhaps the most unscientific debacle ever labeled as science: 'IT JUST HAPPENED' - how does that pass as science?
So, is it your contention that hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last century or so are all completely incompetent at doing science, so much so that they've never noticed that all of their work is based upon a false premise?
How is it that any Genetics work has ever been able to be successful, sicne it is based upon the idea of all life having a common ancestor?
quote:
The first thing on the list is that the universe is 'FINITE' - it had a BEGINNING ['In the begging'].
Why couldn't a finite Universe have a natural origin?
quote:
The cause is given as by a Creator force, that at one time, nothing save for the creator existed [In the beginning Gd'].
What is the evidence for a "Creator Force"?
quote:
The next on the list is the perpetration of order in void.
This is a nonsense statment, as is the rest of your muddled and contentless rant.
There is no evidence in this list, only babblings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 5:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 9:15 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 305 (432175)
11-04-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by IamJoseph
11-04-2007 9:15 AM


Re: the relative importance of facts
Sorry, I just don't have any idea how your responses had anything to do with the questions I asked.
But, let me ask you this.
If we apply your "retrospective inference", the study of aerodynamics should be considered invalid because it does not explain where wind comes from, shouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 9:15 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2007 8:51 PM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024