|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
These guys have published their paper, and though refuting Darwinism, it is still evolution. Yeah, Rand. That's why folks like us have to keep repeating that it's an error to equivocate "Darwinism" and the theory of evolution. But folks like you keep on doing it; as though by disproving features of evolution we abandoned decades ago you can somehow scientifically prove God, or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You mean these 2 university professors that published their theory just recently? I don't see them equating Darwinism with evolution. I see them doing the opposite, in fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My point is that this is an admission of what I and many have been saying about the fossil record all along. You've got it backwards. You've only been repeating and misunderstanding what we've already known for decades.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am not sure how better to characterize their posts. As arguments that you should rebut with reason instead of playground antics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Maybe if there was some argument in there to refute and some reasoning, you'd have a point. I guess you'd have to actually read the post to see it. Why don't you try to defend your equivocation of Darwinism and evolution, then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Even Richard Dawkins, when pressed with this issue, had no viable response: Actually, that's false. He did have a very viable response; that segment of the footage was edited out by the producers of the video tape in order to make Dawkins appear foolish.
quote: CB102.1: Dawkins interviewed about evolution increasing information This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-13-2006 10:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It is likely that once the actual process is better understood, we'll see this as the product of a designed mechanism rather than that of a chance mutation. It's already sufficiently understood to know that it's the result of mutation; moreover, it is sufficient to observe that if this were the result of a designed mechanism, they would all be able to do it. Bacteria reproduce clonally and are haploid. They do not experience gene recession or other Mendelian inheritance patterns. If one bacteria gains an ability that its sisters do no share, the only explanation for that is mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Is there an example of a known natural process that will increase the information content? Mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crash, actually it looks like AIG is correct and TalkOrigins is wrong. Read the end of the article. I'm not inclined to take Gillian Brown's word for it, especially when the only corroboration AIG offers is "Gb is a creationist, and creationists, being Christians, cannot lie. Dawkins can lie all he likes." Dawkins has answered the question in four different books. Are we to believe, honestly, that Dawkins was unable to recollect a single rebuttal despite having written four of them? Brown refers constantly to the "unedited video tapes", but there's no proof that anybody else has seen them, or is able to verify his statements. The best he can do is an excerpt from a post purported to be from Glenn Morton, who doesn't corraborate that post at any other source. So, the best evidence I can see is that Brown is simply lying to cover his lies, and AIG is lying along with him. Their idea that we should trust the word of Brown over Dawkins because one is a Christian and the other is not is ludicrous and insulting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Note this is from someone unfriendly to the creationist position. Maybe it is. Maybe it's from Brown himself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Are you claiming crashfrog's wife is working on trying to review the arguments and data for ToE to see if it is true? As yet, she has no published body of work. Moreover, her work itself constitutes an implied argument for evolution; if evolution is false her work cannot proceed. It would be absolutely impossible for her to work on what she is working on were evolution false. However, her work does work. Thus, evolution must be accurate. No, her job is not to review the arguments and data for evolution "to see if it is true." That would be the job of the referees of the journals in which those arguments and data were originally published; a job that they have already performed. It would be redundant and a waste of her time and the university's money for her to retrace their footsteps.
If so, can you please provide some papers she has written to that effect so I can comment on them? Speaking for my wife, it's not your place to comment on her papers, I assure you. Unless you'd care to present your B.A. in biology, your doctorate in entomology, and your extensive published research in the field of agricultural insect manegment, phylogenetic analysis, and taxonomy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
why? Why what? How useful do you think the wrong model is? How much work do you think you can get done when you're absolutely wrong about what's going on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What differs in the genetics and heridity mechanisms between those that say life evolves after special creation or ID and those that say life evolved from one single life form that spontaneously generated all on it's own? You tell me. Aren't you one of the ones always asserting that a genetic barrier exists beyond which heredity cannot extend?
Isn't the science the exact same for all the models? If it were, why would the ID people be trying to have their science taught in schools? If their models could proceed from the same scientific basis as the evolutionary models, wouldn't they be debated on their scientific merits? Wouldn't Demski have been able to avoid testifying under oath that ID was only valid science under a different definition of the word "science"; a definition expansive enough to include mythological creatures and ESP, which he admitted? As creationists so often remind us, the science is not the same. If you believe, on the other hand, that you've proposed a "competing" model that can't be distinguished from evolution under any test or circumstances, then what's the point of creationism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1789 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Small "evolution" is incorporated into creationist and ID models. Uh-huh. And the definition of "small" is, "any time we actually observe it, it's just 'small' evolution." Circular reasoning, of course.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025