Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To the creationists - the tough question
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 78 (3982)
02-10-2002 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Cobra_snake
02-10-2002 11:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

What are evolutionists teaching? That humans are a freak rearrangement of matter, and our most distant ancestor was a one-celled organism that arose from pond scum.

Inelegant, but basically sound, apart from the "freak" part.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

Sounds like a nice story. Please give me one way in which evolutionary thought can be important for moral reasoning. After all, moral reasoning is perhaps the MOST important thing for a young individual

What on earth has evolutionary theory got to with moral reasoning?
If you think homosexuals are immoral, or giving babies congenital diseases is actually OK, because someone allegedly ate an apple 6,000 years ago, then you really need to take a long hard look at the bibles so called "morality". Because to me it just looks like spiteful, nasty, vindictiveness. I find it hard to believe that Lucifer is worse than God.
As I have shown in the "Always a laugh" thread, message 20, there was plenty of evidence that pointed to evolution, BEFORE Charles Darwin came along. So why do you persist with this "sounds like a nice story" crap? Does the bible have any evidence to support its divine nature? Or evidence to support the divine actions that allegedly took place? No. Does the bible provide us with any evidence that compares to the COLOSSAL amount of data now available, that supports the ToE? No.
To mutter that the theory of evolution is a story, is a triumph of hope over expectation, & frankly, uttering it in the face of such evidence, just makes you look silly & unreasonable.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-10-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-10-2002 11:00 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 78 (4024)
02-10-2002 7:05 PM


I am not being unreasonable. What exactly the collosal amount of evidence points to is what we are debating in this forum.
I simply thought toff was being unreasonable in saying that we are "forcing" views upon other members of society. I also don't see why he thinks Creation science is such an evil thing. It's not like we want to teach students how to be Nazis! I realize that what we hope for has nothing to do with what is true, but my point is that I don't think Creation scientists are trying to "force" views upon the helpless.

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by lbhandli, posted 02-10-2002 8:59 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 02-18-2002 12:42 PM Cobra_snake has replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 78 (4030)
02-10-2002 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Cobra_snake
02-10-2002 7:05 PM


creation science isn't evil--it just doesn't exist. The evidence being no one can identify a clear theory that hasn't been falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-10-2002 7:05 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 65 of 78 (4036)
02-10-2002 9:46 PM


has any scientific theory been proven to the point where it holds true everywhere in the universe and throughout life and time.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

toff
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 78 (4087)
02-11-2002 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Cobra_snake
02-10-2002 11:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
So us Creationists are imposing our views on helpless young members of society? Well, first of all, I don't think many Creationists want a "Creation-only" textbook in the classroom. Last time I checked Creationists wanted a two-model textbook. Most evolutionists don't even seem to think that textbooks should contain problems with the evolutionary theory. Upon close examination, it would seem as though evolutionists are being the most oppresive of the two groups.
It also seems very morally incorrect for evolutionists to cite examples such as peppered moths or wingless beetles as "examples" of evolution in action. It is very unfair to tell students something true (variation within a kind) and then tell them it proves something else (information-gaining evolution).
Next, let's see exactly what Creationists are attempting to supposedly "force" upon the helpless minds of youth in our society. They are trying to teach children to live a good life and to think of others. They are basically wishing to teach them many of the basic principles of the bible. Sounds evil to me.
What are evolutionists teaching? That humans are a freak rearrangement of matter, and our most distant ancestor was a one-celled organism that arose from pond scum. Sounds like a nice story. Please give me one way in which evolutionary thought can be important for moral reasoning. After all, moral reasoning is perhaps the MOST important thing for a young individual.

Nice try, Cobra Snake. A number of straw men, and a few outright lies.
Certainly, creationist leaders want a creation-only view taught in classrooms. They have repeatedly over the decades tried to achieve this. Settling for an 'equal time' arrangment is their current ploy. Better half the text than no mention in the text at all.
I have never heard any evolutionist propose that texts on evolution should not contain details of problems with the theory, both ones which have been solved and ones which have not. Nor, I suspect, have you.
Regarding peppered moths and so forth - sorry, they do prove it. Evolution is proven by any number of examples, of which those moths are merely one.
Then you go for the straw man - moral teachings of christianity have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, and are completely irrelevant. Nor does evolution have any moral teachings. It is a scientific theory, not a moral belief.
And what is evil is teaching children that religious beliefs - believed by a comparitively small percentage of the population - are fact, and that scientifically established data is not fact. Sorry if you don't like it - but I believe lying to children on matters like this is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-10-2002 11:00 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-17-2002 2:52 PM toff has replied

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 78 (4834)
02-17-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by toff
02-11-2002 4:17 AM


"Certainly, creationist leaders want a creation-only view taught in classrooms. They have repeatedly over the decades tried to achieve this. Settling for an 'equal time' arrangment is their current ploy. Better half the text than no mention in the text at all."
Sorry buddy, but you can't chant Conspiracy, Conspiracy! without backing up your claims.
"I have never heard any evolutionist propose that texts on evolution should not contain details of problems with the theory, both ones which have been solved and ones which have not. Nor, I suspect, have you."
Well, I've mentioned the idea in another topic, to which no evolutionist (to my knowledge) has given me approval. Also check out this site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp
If you honestly read the whole link I think you will see that my statement is reasonable. In addition, I have read the evolution chapters in many biology textbooks (Suprise, written by evolutionists!) and find them completely lacking of any of the difficulties with the evolutionary theory. So yes, my position is backed by significant evidence on this matter.
"Regarding peppered moths and so forth - sorry, they do prove it. Evolution is proven by any number of examples, of which those moths are merely one."
Well if peppered moths prove evolution, I might as well just give up. I wasn't aware that natural selection in action proved evolution and falsified Creation.
"Then you go for the straw man - moral teachings of christianity have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, and are completely irrelevant. Nor does evolution have any moral teachings. It is a scientific theory, not a moral belief."
Well, I have read material with evolutionists preaching moral standards, and I agree that these discussions hold no merit scientifically.
"And what is evil is teaching children that religious beliefs - believed by a comparitively small percentage of the population - are fact, and that scientifically established data is not fact. Sorry if you don't like it - but I believe lying to children on matters like this is wrong."
Actually, Creation Scientists "evil" goal is to introduce to children the idea that there is more than one possible explanation for the history of Earth. Whereas evolutionists "valiant" goal is to exclude the discussion of difficulties with the evolutionary theory. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 4:17 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by toff, posted 02-18-2002 10:11 AM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 72 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 9:49 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 78 (4926)
02-18-2002 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cobra_snake
02-17-2002 2:52 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"Certainly, creationist leaders want a creation-only view taught in classrooms. They have repeatedly over the decades tried to achieve this. Settling for an 'equal time' arrangment is their current ploy. Better half the text than no mention in the text at all."
Sorry buddy, but you can't chant Conspiracy, Conspiracy! without backing up your claims. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
I'm not chanting anything. I'm stating simple fact, easily verifiable from the statements of any one of a number of creationist leaders. They have been trying, and will continue to try, to get evolutionary theory out of the schools and get creationism in.
Oh - and I'm not your 'buddy'. [QUOTE][b]
"I have never heard any evolutionist propose that texts on evolution should not contain details of problems with the theory, both ones which have been solved and ones which have not. Nor, I suspect, have you."
Well, I've mentioned the idea in another topic, to which no evolutionist (to my knowledge) has given me approval. Also check out this site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp
If you honestly read the whole link I think you will see that my statement is reasonable. In addition, I have read the evolution chapters in many biology textbooks (Suprise, written by evolutionists!) and find them completely lacking of any of the difficulties with the evolutionary theory. So yes, my position is backed by significant evidence on this matter. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
*sigh* Because there ARE no significant difficulties with evolutionary theory. The difficulties are so comparatively minor that you would have to look in something a little more thorough than a biology textbook to find them. [QUOTE][b]
"Regarding peppered moths and so forth - sorry, they do prove it. Evolution is proven by any number of examples, of which those moths are merely one."
Well if peppered moths prove evolution, I might as well just give up. I wasn't aware that natural selection in action proved evolution and falsified Creation. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Nobody is talking about falsifying creationism, and nobody is talking about falsifying creation at all. But yes, the peppered moths prove evolution, a part of which is natural selection. [QUOTE][b]
"Then you go for the straw man - moral teachings of christianity have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, and are completely irrelevant. Nor does evolution have any moral teachings. It is a scientific theory, not a moral belief."
Well, I have read material with evolutionists preaching moral standards, and I agree that these discussions hold no merit scientifically. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Then I give you full marks for TRYing to muddy the waters by bringing up an irrelevant point. Too bad it didn't work.
And nobody preaching moral standards has any scientific merit. Morality is outside the realm of science. But, like I say, nice try.
quote:

"And what is evil is teaching children that religious beliefs - believed by a comparitively small percentage of the population - are fact, and that scientifically established data is not fact. Sorry if you don't like it - but I believe lying to children on matters like this is wrong."
Actually, Creation Scientists "evil" goal is to introduce to children the idea that there is more than one possible explanation for the history of Earth. Whereas evolutionists "valiant" goal is to exclude the discussion of difficulties with the evolutionary theory. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp

No, creationists (there are no 'creation scientists') goal is to remove evolution from the school curriculum, and replace it with creationism, teaching everyone as 'fact' their own religious belief.
And thanks for that link - I needed a good laugh. Pleasing to see there are enough rational politicians left to stop such a stupid amendment. The theory of evolution isn't in the least controversial - except as far as a comparatively few religious fundamentalists are concerned, because it upsets their religious belief. That's the only 'controversy' about it.
Every time I start to lose hope for the US, I recall how they have steadfastly refused to allow creationism into schools under the lie that it is science, or an alternative to evolution. Gives me hope for the US all over again.
[This message has been edited by toff, 02-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-17-2002 2:52 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 69 of 78 (4946)
02-18-2002 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Cobra_snake
02-10-2002 7:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I am not being unreasonable. What exactly the collosal amount of evidence points to is what we are debating in this forum.

Are you seriously telling me you have rejected the ToE without making yourself familiar with the evidence?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-10-2002 7:05 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-18-2002 9:28 PM mark24 has not replied

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 78 (5014)
02-18-2002 9:24 PM


Toff, I'm sorry to say that your last post is so overflowing with bias, ignorance, and arrogance.
"I'm not chanting anything. I'm stating simple fact, easily verifiable from the statements of any one of a number of creationist leaders. They have been trying, and will continue to try, to get evolutionary theory out of the schools and get creationism in."
Well, "buddy," if there ARE any intelligent Creation scientists who believe this, I doubt much of the Creation Science community would back that position.
It's also interesting to note that you responded to my post (which inquired that your claim was basless) with yet another baseless claim. You can whine all day about this supposed Conspiracy, but it is complete hogwash unless you can identify ANY evidence AT ALL that it is even REMOTELY true.
"*sigh* Because there ARE no significant difficulties with evolutionary theory. The difficulties are so comparatively minor that you would have to look in something a little more thorough than a biology textbook to find them."
Well, in that case, mentioning the difficulties should be no problem! Actually, your claim is completely nonsensical. Ever read "Darwin's Black Box?" And again, it would be nice if you would stop with the baseless assertions that are a result of your intense bias towards the evolutionary theory.
"No, creationists (there are no 'creation scientists') goal is to remove evolution from the school curriculum, and replace it with creationism, teaching everyone as 'fact' their own religious belief."
Hmmm. My claim (that evolutionists are unfair) had an included link. Your claim (That creationists wish to monopolize the education system) was backed with nothing. It doesn't take a really smart person to deduce which claim is more baseless. If your future responses continue in the same way, I see no reason for continuing to debate with you.
"And thanks for that link - I needed a good laugh. Pleasing to see there are enough rational politicians left to stop such a stupid amendment. The theory of evolution isn't in the least controversial - except as far as a comparatively few religious fundamentalists are concerned, because it upsets their religious belief. That's the only 'controversy' about it."
I really don't see how I can respond to this nonsense.
Toff, I don't want to start a personal debate with you. I simply want to discuss in a kind manner what the evidence points to. Your baseless assertions and claims that evolution has no flaws are making it very difficult to carry out intelligent discussion. Please don't take this as an insult, but as a suggestion to open your mind a little farther than you have shown in recent posts.

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by toff, posted 02-19-2002 6:30 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 78 (5015)
02-18-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by mark24
02-18-2002 12:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Are you seriously telling me you have rejected the ToE without making yourself familiar with the evidence?
Mark

Nope. What I'm saying is that all data is the same, interpretations are different. The creation/evolution controversy is revolved around which underlying assumptions are correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 02-18-2002 12:42 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 9:51 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 78 (5018)
02-18-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cobra_snake
02-17-2002 2:52 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B]"Certainly, creationist leaders want a creation-only view taught in classrooms. They have repeatedly over the decades tried to achieve this. Settling for an 'equal time' arrangment is their current ploy. Better half the text than no mention in the text at all."
Sorry buddy, but you can't chant Conspiracy, Conspiracy! without backing up your claims. [/QUOTE]
Try here for some beginnings of the evidence:
http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/reprints/darwin100199.htm
quote:
``Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud,'' said House Republican Majority Whip Tom DeLay, by way of explaining the school massacre in Littleton, Colo.
His remark would be merely silly were not similar thoughts commonly expressed by influential religious fundamentalists. Popular anti-evolutionists such as the Rev. James Kennedy of The Center for Reclaiming America and Kent Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism are fond of suggesting that the teaching of evolution is a root cause of a supposed decline in American morality.
The goal of keeping evolution out of classrooms has a long history that begins in detail with the Scopes trial. The movement morphed as they kept losing. If you want to go into the details, I'm happy to, but up till now you haven't shown that you have the knowledge to have that discussion in any detail.
quote:
"I have never heard any evolutionist propose that texts on evolution should not contain details of problems with the theory, both ones which have been solved and ones which have not. Nor, I suspect, have you."
Well, I've mentioned the idea in another topic, to which no evolutionist (to my knowledge) has given me approval. Also check out this site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp

The scientific community doesn't view the theory as controversial. The role of specific mechanisms is controversial and that should be taught. Because you and some other Conservative Protestants don't like a theory doesn't have anything to do with its reliability or validity.
quote:
If you honestly read the whole link I think you will see that my statement is reasonable. In addition, I have read the evolution chapters in many biology textbooks (Suprise, written by evolutionists!) and find them completely lacking of any of the difficulties with the evolutionary theory. So yes, my position is backed by significant evidence on this matter.
Could you be specific here. What texts and how were they lacking in specific areas.
quote:
Well if peppered moths prove evolution, I might as well just give up. I wasn't aware that natural selection in action proved evolution and falsified Creation.
It is an example of natural selection. Given creationism isn't a scientific theory, it is awfully hard to falsify it. Perhaps you could provide some specific observations that would.
quote:
Actually, Creation Scientists "evil" goal is to introduce to children the idea that there is more than one possible explanation for the history of Earth. Whereas evolutionists "valiant" goal is to exclude the discussion of difficulties with the evolutionary theory.
Why don't you start a thread that covers the problems? The problem is you don't understand the debates amongst scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-17-2002 2:52 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 78 (5019)
02-18-2002 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Cobra_snake
02-18-2002 9:28 PM


And repeatedly it has been pointed out that this is a silly argument. Science is designed to test specific interpretations. Saying there are different interpretations is pointless. One would instead test a specific interpretation. Please stop posting this fiction and respond substantively to the critiques of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-18-2002 9:28 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 78 (5063)
02-19-2002 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Cobra_snake
02-18-2002 9:24 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]Toff, I'm sorry to say that your last post is so overflowing with bias, ignorance, and arrogance. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
*sigh* more accusations of bias - from such an 'unbiased' source. Try actually debating and discussing the issues, rather than resorting to ad hominem. [QUOTE] [b]
"I'm not chanting anything. I'm stating simple fact, easily verifiable from the statements of any one of a number of creationist leaders. They have been trying, and will continue to try, to get evolutionary theory out of the schools and get creationism in."
Well, "buddy," if there ARE any intelligent Creation scientists who believe this, I doubt much of the Creation Science community would back that position. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Based on the above sentence, I can state that you are either lying or extremely naive. [QUOTE] [b]
It's also interesting to note that you responded to my post (which inquired that your claim was basless) with yet another baseless claim. You can whine all day about this supposed Conspiracy, but it is complete hogwash unless you can identify ANY evidence AT ALL that it is even REMOTELY true. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Sorry, it is true. As anyone who has followed the debate over the last twenty years or so knows. What do you want next, 'evidence' that the earth orbits the sun? [QUOTE] [b]
"*sigh* Because there ARE no significant difficulties with evolutionary theory. The difficulties are so comparatively minor that you would have to look in something a little more thorough than a biology textbook to find them."
Well, in that case, mentioning the difficulties should be no problem! Actually, your claim is completely nonsensical. Ever read "Darwin's Black Box?" And again, it would be nice if you would stop with the baseless assertions that are a result of your intense bias towards the evolutionary theory. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Yes, mentioning the difficulties would be a problem, because they require far more detailed knowledge of the subject than you find in a basic biology text. And yes, I've read Darwin's Black Box, and, like everyone else who knows anything about evolution, I laughed at it. Do a search on the web and you will find any number of detailed critiques of it, pointing out the many places it is in error. [QUOTE] [b]
"No, creationists (there are no 'creation scientists') goal is to remove evolution from the school curriculum, and replace it with creationism, teaching everyone as 'fact' their own religious belief."
Hmmm. My claim (that evolutionists are unfair) had an included link. Your claim (That creationists wish to monopolize the education system) was backed with nothing. It doesn't take a really smart person to deduce which claim is more baseless. If your future responses continue in the same way, I see no reason for continuing to debate with you. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
More ad hominem. Yawn. [QUOTE] [b]
"And thanks for that link - I needed a good laugh. Pleasing to see there are enough rational politicians left to stop such a stupid amendment. The theory of evolution isn't in the least controversial - except as far as a comparatively few religious fundamentalists are concerned, because it upsets their religious belief. That's the only 'controversy' about it."
I really don't see how I can respond to this nonsense. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
You can't, of course, because it's true.
quote:

Toff, I don't want to start a personal debate with you. I simply want to discuss in a kind manner what the evidence points to. Your baseless assertions and claims that evolution has no flaws are making it very difficult to carry out intelligent discussion. Please don't take this as an insult, but as a suggestion to open your mind a little farther than you have shown in recent posts.

What nonsense. If you didn't want to start a 'personal debate' you wouldn't have resorted to ad hominem and insult. And in this last post you have resorted to lying. How sad. I suggest you actually do some reading on the subject (and actually learn something about it) before you try to debate it - otherwise you will have nothing to say but ad hominem and insult, as is apparently the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-18-2002 9:24 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 75 of 78 (5084)
02-19-2002 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by toff
02-07-2002 9:25 AM


TOFF, lets get this straight. I do remember when evos thought that creationist were using the Macro thing as a strategy and that is how it was heard to me but largely because the channel of creationism was not as broad as it is today. But if this is taking sides then you should understand when I tried to make sense of Lerner's concept of genetic homeostatis applied in a book on chickens that seems to have some significance to understand a crossed valley of Mayr with dispute about an agreement between Wright and Fisher that surfaced later then sooner I notice not any of this history but that Lerner was citing Dobshanky about the term "MESO" evolution inbetween what is accused of creationists these days about the difference. I brought this out on Taxacom to no yearly ear so if then, the charge does go both ways. For if any creationism ground were gained in this "tactic" evolutionists would not retreat to Croizat's citing Darlinton of boas on Round Island but to so Dobshanksy that either was the risk Lewonitn knew or something Sturtevant told the DOb. We need to learn more about how to lessent the name calling on C/E disscusion boards and try harder to show where words end and numbers begin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 9:25 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-19-2002 5:22 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 77 by toff, posted 02-20-2002 2:51 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 76 of 78 (5091)
02-19-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Brad McFall
02-19-2002 3:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
But if this is taking sides then you should understand when I tried to make sense of Lerner's concept of genetic homeostatis applied in a book on chickens that seems to have some significance to understand a crossed valley of Mayr with dispute about an agreement between Wright and Fisher that surfaced later then sooner I notice not any of this history but that Lerner was citing Dobshanky about the term "MESO" evolution inbetween what is accused of creationists these days about the difference.
Hey Brad - see those funny little keys to the right of L and M on your keyboard? They are for punctuation signs. You'll save me a lot of aspirin if you use them. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Brad McFall, posted 02-19-2002 3:33 PM Brad McFall 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