|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is not science | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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: 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: Please provide a citation to a Biology textbook or scientific source which supports this claim.
quote: 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: Why couldn't a finite Universe have a natural origin?
quote: What is the evidence for a "Creator Force"?
quote: This is a nonsense statment, as is the rest of your muddled and contentless rant. There is no evidence in this list, only babblings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024