Some Evidence Against Evolution

Mr Jack says:

quote:

---

Mere 'change' is no explanation.

---

You're absolutely right. 'Evolution' should be defined by the observation of this change in allele frequency, but I don't think anyone's claiming that this definition explains anything. As an analogy, I think 'the colors of the visible spectrum' is an adequate description of a rainbow. However, the mechanisms of molecular structure and optical refraction are necessary to explain the phenomenon.Natural Selection is what explains changes in allele frequency, etc., and Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the framework for understanding the patterns of change we see in the intricate complexity of life on Earth.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I don't think your quasi-Vulcan objectivity is even worth that much. Dawkins was characteristically forthright in announcing his disgust with Milton's work, but he also accused Milton's publishers of irresponsibility for their failure to submit Shattering the Myths of Darwinism to any reasonable professional review process. In other words, if Milton expected his work to be taken seriously as science, he should have insisted that it be reviewed by scientists before it was published. Otherwise, he's like a chess player who doesn't play by the rules, but thinks he can beat Kasparov. It's his opinion, but it's not chess.You've never made clear your views on any subject, Thronacx, except that we all have our preconceptions. Tell us something we don't know.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Thronacx,Dawkins wasn't necessarily demanding that Milton subject his ravings to professional peer review, he simply pointed out that no one with even a reasonable scientific background seems to have judged the technical shortcomings of the book. I too think the motivation for publishing such nonsense is strictly financial, and that's the publisher's business. So let's not pretend that Milton is aiming at anything more than making a buck off people who don't know any better.I don't know whether you're suggesting that Milton may be on to something that the scientific establishment wants to keep under wraps, which would be a typically paranoid creationist fantasy. Dawkins mentioned that Milton's work confuses scientific terminology so often and so egregiously that it's unlikely that scientists harbor jealousy for the keen scientific insight displayed in Milton's book.So the matter seems to boil down to this: we feel Milton deserves a fair hearing, but his work lacks scientific merit. The alternative is that we're horrified that he has exposed the vast Darwinist conspiracy to which every scientist on Earth as well as every last one of us is a party. Which seems more likely? Or am I just being biased again?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall