"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

Maybe it is. Maybe it's from Brown himself.

Please take this to the 'Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?' thread or somewhere else where this discussion is on topic.TTFN,AW

quote:

---

it strikes me as a bit hypocritical that evolutionists mock creationists for their dogma, when evolutionists follow their views just as dogmatically even though they change on a whim as evidenced by the many shifts in evolutionary thought. I do understand science is learning and that it takes trial and error at times to achieve this learning, but I don't understand how evolutionists can maintain that this is all fact when they themselves will shift their theories from year to year.

---

Well, views that change in response to improved understanding of the evidence can hardly be considered to be dogmatically held, can they?Additionally, anyone who considers the Modern Synthesis to be some kind of 100% perfect knowledge would be wrong to do so. Science doesn't advance through the dogmatic procalmations of absolutes (like religious views are put forth), but by the constant improvement of the methods used to test theory.

quote:

---

One reason I wonder about taking evos seriously is the tendency to never acknowledge a fact or argument as having merit until evos can come up with some explanation for it. This smacks of me of a sort of deliberateness and straightforward biasness which calls into question whether objectivity is part of the evo mindset.

---

So, are you saying, for the record, that Crashfrog's wife, along with all of the hundreds of thousands of other life scientists are such poor scientists that they cannot help but be hopelessly biased?

Are you claiming crashfrog's wife is working on trying to review the arguments and data for ToE to see if it is true? If so, can you please provide some papers she has written to that effect so I can comment on them?

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. 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?

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?

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?Isn't the science the exact same for all the models? And so wouldn't her research work for a creationist model talking of evolution within a kind just as much as a evolutionist model insisting on evolution from as a yet determined single life form that came into being from chemicals all on it's own?

Are you now saying the you accept evolution via decent, and that I.D. is basically conflicting with Abiogensis rather than evolution?

Define "kind".

You tell me. Aren't you one of the ones always asserting that a genetic barrier exists beyond which heredity cannot extend? 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?

So you are not going to answer? Let me try again.Small "evolution" is incorporated into creationist and ID models. Since they adopt the scientifically relevant and observed aspect of evolution needed to do work in science, the facts of reproduction, etc,...creationist models work just as well for your wife's work as evo models.

Nah, you can do that, please. Define kind, and while you are at it, define species, random, and vestigal.

Ramoss, I am discussing the different models out there because I have bothered to learn what others believe and the science behind their claims.I suggest you do the same.