Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,108 Year: 3,365/9,624 Month: 236/974 Week: 125/130 Day: 0/73 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some Evidence Against Evolution
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6024 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 256 of 309 (72737)
12-13-2003 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object
12-13-2003 5:16 PM


Re: Confusing
quote:
If mutation is by random chance then it would be almost miraculous that by chance so many virtually identical creatures could evolve on two different continents.
Mutation is random. Natural selection, by the very definition of the word "selection", is not.
The creatures you refer to are hardly "virtually identical", which has already been pointed out. Instead, they have superficial similarities because of adaptations to similar environments or ecological niches. (aka "convergence"). This is a prediction of natural selection, NOT a problem.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-13-2003]
Replace the quoted word in my first paragraph; it now reads "selection"; I originally mistyped it as "random", which doesn't make too much sense...
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-13-2003 5:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 257 of 309 (72745)
12-13-2003 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object
12-13-2003 4:47 PM


quote:
Variety is the spice of life, you place God on trial with your standard of what makes sense, which said standard is erected to have only one concluson - that God must neatly fit into your previously decided subjective dogma.
Not quite sure what this means. I'm trying to point out that your ID is only an ad hoc explanation to every phenomena you think evolution can't explain.
I want you to explain to me how presuppsoing God would explain why a mammal on one continent and a marsupial on another would be "virtually identical". Why would God create every other wolf on every other continent to be mammalian and the ones in Australia to be marsupials? On that note, why would he produce all of these virtually identical marsupial counterparts of mammalian creatures on the same island?
Are you just saying that ID can explain everything, no matter the circumstances?
quote:
How could God and His status as Creator (if true) depend on creation
always making sense to you ? You wrote this comprehensive post that ended with a ridiculous question. What difference does it make as to why there are so many varieties and why does variety or how does variety disprove God ?
You are saying it makes sense to suppose a creator exists. I'm simply asking how this "inconsistency" you cited about evolution can be explained by God. If your answer is God explains everything, then that's fine. This conversation would be over.
I'll reiterate. You are saying that God can explain this "inconsistency" in the evolutionary paradigm with regard to Marsupial convergence. I'm asking you how he can explain this inconsistency.
Are you saying it "makes sense" that God would create a marsupial and mammal with similar characteristics, or are you just saying that God explains anything you can ever imagine. I thought you were saying the former. If not, I am mistaken.
[This message has been edited by JustinCy, 12-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-13-2003 4:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9000
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 258 of 309 (72746)
12-13-2003 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object
12-13-2003 5:16 PM


Milton Wrong
WT writes:
If mutation is by random chance then it would be almost miraculous that by chance so many virtually identical creatures could evolve on two different continents.
You did mention convergence but failed to prove what that is and how exactly it solves the "mystery".
But, WT, did you not look at the side-by-side comparison of the thyacine and the wolf? They are NOT, as Milton claims, so 'virtually identical' that only an expert can tell them apart. I can, with just pictures, see the differences. Milton's statment is wrong.
The similarities are to be expected through "convergence". All that says is that with similar selective pressures there will be similar outcomes. Even though those outcomes are based on very different underpinnings. A very good example are the ocean going mammels and similar sized fish. There are superficial similarities. Even closer are the icthysaurs and dolphins.
Ok it is random and by chance because that is the way you observe it. Creationism simply says that this process that you call "mutation by random chance" was created and designed by God. What don't you understand ? We have been going around and around on this. I have said it time and time again over and over that I believe that what is made was created by God. Why is it that you associate the process of mutation and its random factor with God not being the Creator of that process ? Like a computer program that decides a winner by random chance - who designed the program ? In this example : God, this is the claim of creationism.
No, that is NOT the claim of creationism. Creationism (as it is mostly used here and being argued with) is a claim that not only did God design the program but that he explictly designed the outcome of the process. And you lottery picking program is a bad analogy. Much closer as an analogy is a genetic algorithm. God designed the program as human programmers do. God did not design the individual outcomes nor do the human programmers of genetic algorithms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-13-2003 5:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-15-2003 11:05 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 282 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-15-2003 11:06 PM NosyNed has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5884 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 259 of 309 (72889)
12-14-2003 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object
12-13-2003 5:16 PM


Re: Confusing
Hi Willow,
I assume you haven't forgotten my previous posts, and at some point you will take the time to respond? There's no rush - I'm only marginally on-line for the next week or so (although I'll try and check in), and at the connect charge of USD$.50 per minute, my participation and on-line time will be necessarily somewhat limited. However, be aware that I do expect a reply, and I will be checking as I can.
------------------
"Cuisve hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare." Cicero

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-13-2003 5:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 309 (72937)
12-15-2003 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object
12-13-2003 3:19 PM


WillowTree writes:
As a creationist all I/we are saying is that God is the ultimate Creator - the Intelligent Designer and every scientist that concludes for whatever reason that He does not exist or did not create the universe is wrong, mistaken, confused, dishonest, or lying or a combination of any of these.
Yeah, I’ve gathered that. Please provide some evidence to justify those assertions. Because I for one am neither lying nor dishonest, and I don’t see how I’m confused. So demonstrate that I’m wrong.
To use scientific data as a proof and a basis to deny the existence of God is a leap of bias originating from one of their starting assumptions.
Nonsense. It is perfectly possible, without any pre-testing bias, to test the predictions of hypotheses such as yours; they have been, and the data refute the hypotheses. Remember that early scientists (the term wasn’t coined till the 1840s) were natural philosophers, and creationists. But as the data has emerged, creationism has been roundly refuted. This does not of course mean that god(s) in general have been, just the specific versions that creationism proposed.
Name something that creation claims, and I will show you how this is the case.
this is why the "theory" exists - as an alternative explanation for the origin of life because the creationist account is deemed "irrational".
Nope, not ‘irrational. It is plain wrong. It does not fit the facts. Name something that creation claims, and I will show you how this is the case.
Of course, this is what we are saying that these natural laws and mechanisms that you brilliant scientists have discovered were designed and created by God.
So a loving, caring etc god invented natural selection?
Things do not mutate by random chance
Yes they do. Are you seriously proposing that god reaches into each genome and tweaks it? Even though you yourself contain a few million mutations -- changes from what you inherited? Even though most mutations are neutral, having no effect whatsoever? Even though many mutations are harmful? What about well-verified mutagens such as radiation? You seem to be claiming that cancer is directly caused by god. Oh well. Smokers can blame him instead of themselves I guess.
improvement by chance is not random or by chance it is God programmed or directed.
Okay. Sez you. No chance of some evidence to support that claim I suppose?
This is what infuriates God
You know his mind? I’m sure your bible mentions the hubris of that...
that Scientist credits a dunce called Random Chance instead of Him.
Ah, I see. You criticise us for our lack of neodarwinism-101... yet you yourself are unaware that evolution by natural selection is the antithesis of chance.
God wants credit just like any scientist wants credit for his discoveries.
Surely an omnipotent being wants for nothing? Unless you do claim to know his mind, what you really mean is that you want him credited for it. Considerable difference.
Post #112, and 136 says this lack of credit triggers God to react a certain way which has already been covered by me in the aforementioned posts.
Yeah, you seem to be saying that we ‘believe in’ evolution because god has darkened our minds for some reason. Not because of the evidence. Not because evolution is the most reasonable explanation of the evidence.
You are making an awful lot of assumptions about your god. Care to justify any of them?
The next segment of your reply quotes the Bible verse in question,
Are we talking about the same post 81? Where’s there a biblical quote? What are you on about... and what therefore do you think I’m on about?
then makes an illogical observation.
How so?
Your point is to focus on to what you believe are "sadistic" or senseless abnormalities in nature
No, I do not believe that they are. I can demonstrate that they are... or would be, if they were designed, created that way.
which is offered to say "If God is the creator and He is intelligent then why ...." are there cave dwelling rodents born with no eyes or this or that.....etc. etc.
I see you’ve delved deeply into this (ie a quick glance at the top one or two from a list of 60-odd examples). Please let me know what these rodents are, so I can add them into the list.
What we’ve got are salamanders, fish, etc, that live in complete darkness. They do not, therefore, need eyes. They were created, allegedly, to live in those conditions. Therefore it is no surprise that they cannot see. But the curious thing is, if they were created like that, why did the creator give them tiny / incomplete / otherwise non-functional eyes at all?
No eyes at all would make sense. Malformed eyes is plain stupid. It is a waste of materials, which is not good design.
And, if you had bothered to read the explanatory page linked at the top of my list, you would see why these things are poor design. There is no way to redefine ‘intelligent’ to include what, if a mere human were to do it, would be called stupid. For a creator or vastly intelligent designer to produce wantonly stupid designs would be conceptually absurd.
In other words just because you do not understand the reason why then we must conclude that an intelligent Creator would not do this , therefore this is evidence that He is not the Creator.
You appear to accept that these things are indeed -- apparently -- stupid.
You are placing God in a box that you constructed previously (it must make sense to me) or I will deduce what I already believed (that He does not exist or is not the Creator).
Wrong. It is testing the hypothesis that you propose. The designs of living things are offered as evidence for the designer. How are we to judge the designs, if not by the criteria we normally would use? How do we know that an eye or a wing are ‘good’ designs? Is it not because they fit the needs of the organism so well? Because they are so good at their function?
What then should we make of structures that are poor at their function? Structures that do the same job which are inferior to other versions? What should we make of a designer that leaves out some clearly beneficial element (eg Nautilus eyes; Chinese grass carp digestion)? Structures that blatantly waste materials?
If you deny that we can call these things poor designs, you reject our ability to perceive good designs too.
You cannot have it both ways. If the good stuff is in fact good design, and hence evidence for the designer, then the lousy stuff is in fact lousy design, and hence evidence that the designer is foolish. Reject our criteria for judging designs, and you reject the very basis for your argument from design.
Well that’s fine with me. I don’t think these things were designed at all.
Next, you’ll probably counter by saying that we cannot know god’s intentions. Yet you have merrily done so yourself. And again, if apparently poor design is really good design in disguise, then we cannot know that the good stuff is genuinely good design either. You throw out our means for identifying good design. So again, you pull the rug out from under your own argument from design.
There are an endless amount reasons as to why God might have purposely allowed the mechanisms that He designed to produce [...]
Ah. Allowed the mechanisms? Surely you don’t mean random mutation plus natural selection, that well-observed genuine mechanism in nature?
Please clarify: did god create -- intentionally design -- the route of the giraffe’s laryngeal nerve, or not? Did he deliberately form the bodies and lifecycle of mayflies -- and if so, did he deliberately give their non-feeding adults mouthparts that are not used? Or are these the result of the known mechanisms of nature (that he set up, if you want)? Are they designed, or are they created by god using natural selection?
an eyeless rodent, perhaps to be defenseless prey as a food source to another animal ? I don't know and it is not the point.
Oh but it very much is the point, if you are claiming that god designed and created these things. If he created giraffes, then he created them with a wonderfully stupid piece of nerve wiring too. If they are the product of millions of years of natural selection -- his chosen mechanism for making stuff -- then there’s no problem, because natural selection has no foresight.
I’d like to propose to you that, if there were a vastly intelligent, immortal creator, then the one thing that the world might be is boring. Where’s the fun, if you’ve made and control everything? I’d suggest that the one thing such a being would do is to use mechanisms that are inherently unpredictable in their outcomes. Why is a universe involving quantum indeterminacy, chaos theory, and natural selection not just the sort of thing that such a being would make, so as to constantly produce novelty and surprises, even to himself?
One slight fly in that ointment: it’s not the Christian god by any stretch of the definition. But it does let you have a god that is in keeping with science.
Question : IF you deduce that God does not exist or that creation was not intelligently designed from the so called flaws ( that was your point) then how come you cannot deduce the reverse from all that is not flawed ?
Three reasons.
Firstly, there is comparatively little that is not flawed in some way or other. The backward-wired retina of mammals -- all of them -- is also found in the rest of the vertebrates. The ‘correct-way-round’ retina of cephalopods is better, but cephalopods aren’t perfect: the aforementioned Nautilus lacks a lens in its eye, and cephalopod gills are not set up as countercurrent flow, which makes them less efficient than they could be. Another great group of creatures, the arthropods -- crustaceans, insects, spiders etc -- have an external skeleton, which means that it has to be cast off and wasted when outgrown...and their respiratory system is such that they can never grow to science-fiction movie proportions. All eukaryotic organisms -- which is probably all of them you’ll readily think of -- have a bizarre and pointless set-up with their cell organelles having their own, separate DNA. Most living things have ‘junk’ DNA in their genomes, which is a waste of materials. And so on. Looks like the only ‘perfect’ organisms are viruses and maybe bacteria!
Secondly, it is logically inconsistent for a single, vastly intelligent designer to make so many mistakes. However one defines vastly intelligent, it does not include ‘frequently prone to cock-ups’. Perhaps we can conclude that living things were designed, but by a committee, or a bunch of amateurs, or some other group: good at some things, less good at others, and not communicating -- the designer of birds not sharing the plans for throughflow lung ventilation with the designer of bats, for instance.
For both of these reasons, it is illogical to deduce the sort of creator that creationists propose.
And thirdly, we do not need to deduce a creator, because there is an observed and understood mechanism in nature which can produce design. What’s more, this mechanism is expected to produce good designs. But crucially too, since it is contingent, building on what is already available, and has neither foresight nor forethought but instead operates on what’s good enough in the here-and-now, this mechanism is expected to produce convoluted designs, and leave remnants of past forms behind.
The mechanism is of course natural selection.
Why do we not deduce god from design? Because we cannot logically deduce the kind of god you want there to be, and because such a god is superfluous. Have a god involved by all means, if you wish. But it will have to be a god that has used evolution... or has made things look exactly that way.
As I read somewhere: if god has gone to the trouble to ‘darken our minds’ and deceive us into thinking evolution is correct, shouldn’t we do him the courtesy of allowing ourselves to be deceived?
TTFN, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-13-2003 3:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

darlostt
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 309 (72989)
12-15-2003 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
11-26-2003 9:52 AM


The Natural History Museum
Atheist PETER FOREY refers to it as 'The Natural History Museum' (J. of Paleontology V. 77 #1). He also wrote the Foreword to Patterson's 2nd ed. of 'Evolution' (Colin Patterson is now a creationist, BTW).
On p. 200 of the above issue FOREY said in reference to MACROevolution (this is what the debate is all about), "Do not expect answers." Yup - he's right. When it comes to "major evolutionary changes resulting in new species, genera, orders . . ." (Rudin 1997) do not expect answers - and that's why million$ should be spent in public schools teaching young people they came from prokaryotes. Go figure.
Secularists may cite Darwin's finches, DDT-resistant insects - or 'new species' of weed in England News | The Institute for Creation Research,
but I see no compelling empirical evidence for MACROevolution.
Micro-doesn't-lead-to-macro. This was shown not to happen - ever. See Roger Lewin's report in Science v. 210 pp. 883-87).
Peter Forey also said that the molecular evidence is "fraught with difficulties of interpretation" p. 199. And atheist James Trefil said in 1996, "I am skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions."
I wonder what the darwinist "believes" - fossils OR the molecular evidence (above paragraph)? Keep in mind the 2 mix like water and oil. See Nature v. 406, pp. 230-233. Secular author T. Gura asks "Can the 2 ever be reconciled?" Answer: No, they cannot, because macroevolution is a myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 11-26-2003 9:52 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-15-2003 2:31 PM darlostt has not replied
 Message 263 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-15-2003 2:43 PM darlostt has replied
 Message 264 by Coragyps, posted 12-15-2003 2:55 PM darlostt has not replied
 Message 265 by Coragyps, posted 12-15-2003 3:11 PM darlostt has replied
 Message 271 by Zhimbo, posted 12-15-2003 4:09 PM darlostt has not replied
 Message 274 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 4:18 PM darlostt has not replied
 Message 276 by Zhimbo, posted 12-15-2003 4:58 PM darlostt has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 309 (72999)
12-15-2003 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by darlostt
12-15-2003 2:06 PM


Hmmm. A better class of quote-miner.
Okay, I'll check the Science and Nature ones, can anyone else do the others?
TTFN, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 2:06 PM darlostt has not replied

Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 309 (73002)
12-15-2003 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by darlostt
12-15-2003 2:06 PM


(Colin Patterson is now a creationist, BTW)
Colin Patterson is now dead, btw. Died in 1998. And his friend Per Ahlberg assures me that at no time before then was he a creationist.
So, uh... out of which bodily cavity did you pull that one, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 2:06 PM darlostt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 3:20 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 264 of 309 (73007)
12-15-2003 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by darlostt
12-15-2003 2:06 PM


Re: The Natural History Museum
(Colin Patterson is now a creationist, BTW).
Colin Patterson the palaeontologist died in 1998. And I most seriously doubt that he became a "creationist" pre-mortem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 2:06 PM darlostt has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 265 of 309 (73011)
12-15-2003 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by darlostt
12-15-2003 2:06 PM


Re: The Natural History Museum
Micro-doesn't-lead-to-macro. This was shown not to happen - ever. See Roger Lewin's report in Science v. 210 pp. 883-87).
Hi, Darlostt! Have you actually read that 23-year old article? Would you like a copy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 2:06 PM darlostt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 3:29 PM Coragyps has replied

darlostt
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 309 (73016)
12-15-2003 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Darwin's Terrier
12-15-2003 2:43 PM


Patterson & "quote mining"
HA! Don't I love these "answers." DT is indeed correct - Patterson died in 1998 - AND THAT'S WHY HE IS NOW A CREATIONIST. I never said anything about his being a creationist while he was still in his mortal coil.
When a secularist doesn't like what a creationist writes, they just airily wave their hand and say they're lying, taking the quote out of context, or "quote mining" (my favourite). They also resort to vulgar comments. Not very scientific DT, and adds nothing to our scientific discussion.
But, as long as I'm "quote mining" (read, 'a scientific quote that devastates darwinism and the secular community would rather not tolerate') consider:
"Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well-optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts, such as ligands, receptors, and the downstream regulatory factors with which they interact. In these systems it is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the chicken and the egg." - Thornton and DeSalle, Genomics meets phylogenetics, Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 2000, p. 64.
Creation scientists heartily agree, of course. Natural selection can't "create" - Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [macroevolution] Noble, et al., Parasitology, sixth edition, Evolution of Parasitism Lea and Febiger, 1989, p. 516. Secularists also are clueless as to how N.S. works at the molecular level, How natural selection operates at the molecular level is a major problem in evolutionary biology. - Yokoyama, Color vision of the Coelacanth Journal of Heredity, May/June 2000, pp. 216 — 217. So N.S. doesn't 'create' at the macro OR the micro level - and that's why it explains everything from prokaryotes to people. Isn't neo-darwinism (synthetic theory) grand?
To conclude, while the evolutionist views the living world and gives credit to a mysterious, impersonal process (natural selection), the creationist can simply give glory and honor to the One who created it — by the work of His fingers (Ps. 8:3-4).
CHRISTMAS BLESSINGS!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-15-2003 2:43 PM Darwin's Terrier has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Coragyps, posted 12-15-2003 3:31 PM darlostt has not replied
 Message 272 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 4:11 PM darlostt has not replied
 Message 273 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 4:16 PM darlostt has not replied
 Message 275 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-15-2003 4:23 PM darlostt has not replied
 Message 277 by docpotato, posted 12-15-2003 4:58 PM darlostt has not replied

darlostt
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 309 (73020)
12-15-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Coragyps
12-15-2003 3:11 PM


Re: Lewin's "ancient" article
No thanx, Coragyps. I have a well-worn copy - it's right next to my 1859 copy of darwin's infamous work - you know - the book that you & other secularists consistantly quote from - even though it's over 150 yrs. old (I'll take the Lewin's 23 y.o. article over darwin's any day).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Coragyps, posted 12-15-2003 3:11 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Coragyps, posted 12-15-2003 3:40 PM darlostt has not replied
 Message 270 by Zhimbo, posted 12-15-2003 3:55 PM darlostt has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 268 of 309 (73021)
12-15-2003 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by darlostt
12-15-2003 3:20 PM


Re: Patterson &
Patterson died in 1998 - AND THAT'S WHY HE IS NOW A CREATIONIST. I never said anything about his being a creationist while he was still in his mortal coil.
"The grave is a fine and private place
But none, I think, do there embrace"
And that may well apply to embracing points of view, too....
(apologies to whichever poet wrote that.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 3:20 PM darlostt has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 269 of 309 (73024)
12-15-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by darlostt
12-15-2003 3:29 PM


Re: Lewin's
When did you last see me quote The Origin of Species?
And if your copy is well-worn, I suggest trying reading it once instead of wearing it.
Please don't come in here quite so sarcastic, Darlostt. It's unbecoming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 3:29 PM darlostt has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6024 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 270 of 309 (73027)
12-15-2003 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by darlostt
12-15-2003 3:29 PM


Re: Lewin's
Have you read this well-worn copy? What are you referring to in the article?
The article is a journalistic report on a conference, during a time in which punctuated equilibrium was a hot idea in evolution. there are passages which could be misconstrued, in typical creationist style.
For example: "...but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." That's Francisco Ayala.
Is that what you're referring to?
Of course, what he's saying is that the traditional models of uniform, gradual accumulation of tiny changes are incorrect, rather the pace of change is irregular and periodically fast by geological standards.
All pretty ho-hum. Can't wait to see what your other quotes actually reveal...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 3:29 PM darlostt 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