On Nov 4, 12:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > accurate.
> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > Forrest?
> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > correct?
> Ray
See that's what's so cool about science, anyone can say anything they want about it, there's no inquisition to kill you if you question their interpretation. Now if this hypothetical any-one doesn't have any-thing to back up their assertions, they will be ignored or ridiculed. The thing about something so far reaching as biological evolution is that there are so many different things you can talk about, if you study populations and study their change over time the facts that are important to you are different that the person who studies gene expression and inherited mutations. They are both studying, ostensibly, the same subject, at least from a layman's perspective; but if one were to go to each lab, or research area, you would find quite different materials. Science is not like a religion where you have a holy book whose word cannot be questioned. Science is a collaborative effort, frequently multidisciplinary, where people are trying to figure out how things work. The how things work part doesn't change, just people's interpretations. And since we are continually increasing our knowledge, we are continually revising our ideas. Not everyone is working on exactly the same thing, so they don't all work with the same models, math is important to some, not so much to others. so one person may dismiss another person's model because it's not useful to them, even if it's useful to the person using it. Coming up with a model that is useful in all circumstances, to all people is neither desirable nor possible.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or >accurate.
>Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard >Forrest?
>Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is >correct?
There is nothing at all to stop anyone from saying anything, including being harshly critical of (other) scientists interpretation of how things work. The issue is that such criticism is completely ignored unless the criticizer can present cogent evidence to support the alternative position.
What you must understand (if such a thing is possible) is that there is an enormous difference between disagreeing with the technical details of a theory and saying that simply because there are disputes about such technical issues that the enormous body of evolutionary theory is somehow thereby called into question.
When Dawkins or Gould or anyone else presents popularizations to explain the working of the well accepted and unquestioned body of evolutionary biology, you cannot criticize it unless you have a better alternative theory. However if Dawkins or Gould or anyone else makes particular technical claims about particular technical points, then criticism is quite commonplace. Gould certainly suffered severely in this way and wrote an enormous book, the famous "boat anchor" to try to justify his own particular slant on evolution.
It is also true that ideas in evolution develop over time and what some extremely famous and influential evolutionary biologist (including Darwin) may have said some decades or a century and a half ago may now be out of date.
Ray Martinez wrote: > Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > accurate.
> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > Forrest?
> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > correct?
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or >accurate.
>Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard >Forrest?
>Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is >correct?
>Ray
The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are.
Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying that there is no general agreement among atheists about specific observable, testable mechanisms causing genuinely novel transformational change. There are no observable, testable mechanisms.
The reason for the disagreement among atheists is that the fossil record shows stasis NOT transformation change. And transformational change has NEVER been observed in the living world. Lenski's 40,000+ generation breeding of E coli experiment is a testament to the fixity of species not nature's ability to transform them.
For example, the Gouldian naturalist camp has argued vigorously for almost 35 years that Darwin's (and now Dawkins's) reductionist gradualism is contradicted by the fossil record. Notwithstanding their unbridgeable disagreement neither side can produce an observable, testable mechanism for transformational change.
On Nov 4, 6:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are.
really? as fuzzy as the 38,000 denominations that exist in xtianity, all claiming to have the 'truth'?
i think that's what has you confused. you're in a theological blizzard with all the xtian confusion and you assume it extends to science
> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying > that there is no general agreement among atheists about specific > observable, testable mechanisms causing genuinely novel > transformational change. There are no observable, testable > mechanisms.
uh...no. there is general agreement on the MECHANISM of evolution being natural selection. what there IS, from my perspective as an outsider who's a scientist but not an evolutionary biologist, is disagreement on its speed in all cases and its capacity to branch (the 'punc eq' argument.)
but this is like saying that all chemists agree on the existence of atoms; we have disagreement on bond angles, orbital overlap mechanisms, etc. minutiae that don't call into doubt the existence of atoms
evolution is a fact. natural selection is a well supported theory
and your view? the creationist mindset? for 2000 years it's been wrong. it led to belief in vampires, ghosts, goblins, demons, etc as causes of disease, as causes of earthquakes, etc
all wrong. 100% wrong. for 2000 years. wrong. always.
> The reason for the disagreement among atheists is that the fossil > record shows stasis NOT transformation change.
and another lie. pagano has been given references to check. i myself gave him a reference to a november 2001 issue of 'nature' describing tens of millions of years of observed speciation in diatoms in the carribbean
he ignores it. that's because he'sa religious fanatic
And transformational
> change has NEVER been observed in the living world. Lenski's 40,000+ > generation breeding of E coli experiment is a testament to the fixity > of species not nature's ability to transform them.
well...no. no speciation even happens in a human lifetime. pagano pretends it does. he's lying.
and lenski himself observed a SIGNIFICANT evolutionary change in his experiment; the ability of e coli to metabolize citrate.
pagano ignores it. again, because of his religious beliefs.
> For example, the Gouldian naturalist camp has argued vigorously for > almost 35 years that Darwin's (and now Dawkins's) reductionist > gradualism is contradicted by the fossil record. Notwithstanding > their unbridgeable disagreement neither side can produce an > observable, testable mechanism for transformational change.
actually gould did nothing of the sort. as i pointed out above, the disagreement is over the SPEED of certain evolutionary events.
pagano knows nothing of science. he's unable to differentiate between a criticism of a theory, a modification of a theory and a fatal challenge to a theory
no surprise. for 2000 years creationists had us sacrificing goats to appease gods to control disease
didn't work out very well. that's why they're begging and pleading with scientists to get one more chance to fail
Ray Martinez wrote: > Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > accurate.
> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > Forrest?
> Is ToE open to wide interpretation?
All scientific theories are open to interpretation.
>How do you know which version is > correct?
By seeing which one best matches the evidence. That's why science is superior to religious beliefs when it comes to describing how things work. There are standards by which one can decide which scientific concept is most correct.
On Nov 4, 3:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > accurate.
> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > Forrest?
> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > correct?
> Ray
Thanks for bringing this up, Ray. In order to determine the answer, I will ask you to pick 25 journals that publish articles about evolutionary biology. Please read every article published in those journals over the last 75 years. Come to a conclusion and report back.
> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > accurate.
> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > Forrest?
> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > correct?
> Ray
There are different versions of the bible...
In evolution, you usually pick the one your parents taught you..
Either the Old Darwin Testament, or the New Darwin Testatament
whatever you grew up beliving...
Of course you might like the Darkins New Testament....he seems to use a dectective like Columbo or Scotland Yard Sherlock Holmes to investigate the crime 'evolution' for evidence...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Subject: Whose version of evolution is correct?
Whose version of snow is correct?
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> > Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > > accurate.
> > Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > > Forrest?
> > Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > > correct?
> > Ray
> There are different versions of the bible...
> In evolution, you usually pick the one your parents taught you..
> Either the Old Darwin Testament, or the New Darwin Testatament
> whatever you grew up beliving...
> Of course you might like the Darkins New Testament....he seems to > use a dectective like Columbo or Scotland Yard Sherlock Holmes to > investigate the crime 'evolution' for evidence...
and the creationist continues to try to out-weird other creationists.
it's like watching stuff circle the bowl after flushing the toilet...who will be first down the pipe?
On Nov 5, 9:54 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > accurate.
> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > Forrest?
Nothing. Despite creationist claims to the contrary, criticism of scientific theories is not suppressed.
> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > correct?
No version is 100% correct. Different versions may have different degrees of correspondence to reality in different situations. Experiment (including field work) establishes that degree of correspondence.
This is why your paper, which, while eagerly anticipated for its comedy value, will ultimately prove futile. You aren't doing any experiments to show that your version of evolution corresponds to reality better than the other versions. Since you persist in willfully misunderstanding the usual claims of evolution, it is hard to see how you could do this, even if you wanted to.
On Nov 4, 8:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > accurate.
No, I said that Mayr's book "What evolution is" should be called "What Mayr says evolution is".
Evolution is a phenomenon of nature. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain *how* this phenomenon operates. As is the case with all theories on all branches of every science, it is subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. This process of sceptical criticism means that different researchers may have different views over how the evidence should be interpreted. Such disputes are resolved by further research.
This process is what drives science.
> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > Forrest?
> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > correct?
By accepting that we don't know everything, that evolutionary theory is provisional in the same sense as every other scientific theory, and by investigating the evidence using the tools of science to try to resolve disputes over the interpretation of evidence.
It's called "science". You might benefit by learning something about it.
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >accurate.
> >Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >Forrest?
> >Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > >correct?
> >Ray
> The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are.
Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of evolution.
> Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying > that there is no general agreement among atheists
FALSEHOOD #1 ..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> about specific > observable, testable mechanisms causing genuinely novel > transformational change.
There is no universal agreement amongst scientists either. However, there are very large area in which there is agreement.
> There are no observable, testable > mechanisms.
FALSEHOOD #2 There are, and they have been observed and measured in nature and replicated in the laboratory.
> The reason for the disagreement among atheists is that the fossil > record shows stasis NOT transformation change.
FALSEHOOD #3 According to the authority you cited in support of this claim, the fossil record *does* show such change.
> And transformational > change has NEVER been observed in the living world.
FALSEHOOD #4 It has been studied in exhaustive detail and published in numerous scientific paper
> Lenski's 40,000+ > generation breeding of E coli experiment is a testament to the fixity > of species not nature's ability to transform them.
FALSEHOOD #5 ..and an assertion which blatantly contradicts the conclusions formed by Lenski's experiments.
> For example, the Gouldian naturalist camp has argued vigorously for > almost 35 years that Darwin's (and now Dawkins's) reductionist > gradualism is contradicted by the fossil record.
FALSEHOOD #6 Not according to Gould, they didn't. What do you know about Gould's views on evolution which Gould didn't know himself?
> Notwithstanding > their unbridgeable disagreement
FALSEHOOD #7 Far from being an "unbridgeable disagreement", the issue of Punctuated Equilibrium is one of evolutionary tempo.
> neither side can produce an > observable, testable mechanism for transformational change.
FALSEHOOD #8 Actually, science can.
> Regards, > T Pagano
Only 8 falsehoods, Tony. Mind you, it was a short post.
Bearing in mind that you have been corrected numerous times on most of these falsehoods and have been provided with evidence which shows that they are falsehoods, what do you think you gain by such outright lies?
Not that I'm complaining. After all, as I keep explaining, I post on boards such as this to expose the ignorance and dishonesty of creationists. Your contribution is gratefully accepted.
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e9a5ad35-99e4-4726-910a- 31ca61ae8...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > accurate.
> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > Forrest?
> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > correct?
And here we have it in a nutshell. The mindset that allows somebody to doggedly cling to a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (and I'm not talking about just Ray here) simply can't comprehend the idea that there may be different interpretations of a theory without the overall thrust of that theory being called into question. I genuinely think Ray (and others) can't grasp that concept. I'm not saying he's stupid, but I honestly don't believe he can understand it.
> > Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > > accurate.
> > Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > > Forrest?
> > Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > > correct?
> > Ray
> There are different versions of the bible...
...and disputes over which is correct are usually resolved by violence.
> In evolution, you usually pick the one your parents taught you..
FALSEHOOD #1 In science you go where the evidence leads.
> Either the Old Darwin Testament, or the New Darwin Testatament
FALSEHOOD #2 Darwin's works are not holy writ. Most evolutionary biologists have not read them as they are largely irrelevant to research in modern evolutionary theory.
> whatever you grew up beliving...
FALSEHOOD #3 Actually, history shows that scientist change their views if the evidence shows that they are wrong.
> Of course you might like the Darkins New Testament....
FALSEHOOD #4 Dawkins is a very successful populariser of science. His works are not holy writ, and many evolutionary biologists think that he presents a rather slanted case in favour of William's gene-centred model of evolution.
> he seems to > use a dectective like Columbo or Scotland Yard Sherlock Holmes
FALSEHOOD #5 Sherlock Holmes didn't work for Scotland Yard. He is described as a gentleman of independent means.
Of course, he is a fictional character, but in some ways his forensic methods of investigating crimes mirrors the scientific method used by scientists.
Why not educate yourself in the subject?
> to > investigate the crime 'evolution' for evidence...
> The Starmaker
Why do you think that making a public display of ignorance adds weight to your argument?
On 4 Nov, 20:54, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > accurate.
> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > Forrest?
> Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > correct?
> Ray
What surprises me is that you can throw down a question like this, and yet seem to be either unwilling or unable to defend your own view on the formation of new species by "creation ex materia (from a clay-like ground)", except for the rather weak comment that, "According to the Bible: with God all things are possible".
richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Nov 5, 12:31 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect >>> that Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, >>> correct or accurate. Based on the standard seen above what is to >>> stop anyone from saying the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, >>> Harshman or even Richard Forrest? Is ToE open to wide >>> interpretation? How do you know which version is correct? Ray >> There are different versions of the bible...
> ...and disputes over which is correct are usually resolved by > violence.
>> In evolution, you usually pick the one your parents taught you..
> FALSEHOOD #1 In science you go where the evidence leads.
>> Either the Old Darwin Testament, or the New Darwin Testatament
> FALSEHOOD #2 Darwin's works are not holy writ. Most evolutionary > biologists have not read them as they are largely irrelevant to > research in modern evolutionary theory.
>> whatever you grew up beliving...
> FALSEHOOD #3 Actually, history shows that scientist change their > views if the evidence shows that they are wrong.
>> Of course you might like the Darkins New Testament....
> FALSEHOOD #4 Dawkins is a very successful populariser of science. His > works are not holy writ, and many evolutionary biologists think that > he presents a rather slanted case in favour of William's gene-centred > model of evolution.
>> he seems to use a dectective like Columbo or Scotland Yard Sherlock >> Holmes
> FALSEHOOD #5 Sherlock Holmes didn't work for Scotland Yard. He is > described as a gentleman of independent means.
> Of course, he is a fictional character, but in some ways his forensic > methods of investigating crimes mirrors the scientific method used > by scientists.
> Why not educate yourself in the subject?
Absolutely! And he should start by reading: Burkhard Schafer, Doug Walton 'Arthur, George and the Mystery of the Missing Motive: Towards a Theory of Evidentiary Reasoning about Motives' (2006) International Commentary on Evidence Vol 4 (2) on a comaprison of Sherlock with Conan Doyle's real life investigative activities ;o)
> Only 8 falsehoods, Tony. Mind you, it was a short post.
> Bearing in mind that you have been corrected numerous times on most of > these falsehoods and have been provided with evidence which shows that > they are falsehoods, what do you think you gain by such outright lies?
> Not that I'm complaining. After all, as I keep explaining, I post on > boards such as this to expose the ignorance and dishonesty of > creationists. Your contribution is gratefully accepted.
> RF
The only accomplishment that you can boast about is that you addressed every single point. The unfortunate fact is that you didn't provide anything concrete or rigorous.
You're just another evocheerleader. Nothing to see here.
Dana Tweedy wrote: > Ray Martinez wrote: >> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that >> Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or >> accurate.
>> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying >> the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard >> Forrest?
>> Is ToE open to wide interpretation?
> All scientific theories are open to interpretation.
>> How do you know which version is >> correct?
> By seeing which one best matches the evidence.
Yes but the evidence is ever shifting.
That's why science is
> superior to religious beliefs when it comes to describing how things work.
Science is a human construct. It doesn't exist independently of humanity.
> There are standards by which one can decide which scientific concept is most > correct.
Do you have a University education or are you just pulling this out of your orifice?
> > Only 8 falsehoods, Tony. Mind you, it was a short post.
> > Bearing in mind that you have been corrected numerous times on most of > > these falsehoods and have been provided with evidence which shows that > > they are falsehoods, what do you think you gain by such outright lies?
> > Not that I'm complaining. After all, as I keep explaining, I post on > > boards such as this to expose the ignorance and dishonesty of > > creationists. Your contribution is gratefully accepted.
> > RF
> The only accomplishment that you can boast about is that you addressed > every single point. The unfortunate fact is that you didn't provide > anything concrete or rigorous.
> You're just another evocheerleader. Nothing to see here.
Let's see: FALSEHOOD #1 - Tony conflates scientists with atheists. Many scientists, including many evolutionary biologists are devout religious believers, and according to the criteria Tony uses the Pope is an atheist.
Do you think that the Pope is an atheist, as Tony implies, or just a liar, as Tony has stated? And do you think that all the scientists who claim to believe in God are lying?
FALSEHOOD #2 Mechanisms for evolution. Tony claims that no such mechanisms exist. There is an extensive scientific literature which describes such mechanisms in exhaustive detail. If you, or any other creationist think that they authors of *all* those papers are either 1) Lying or 2) Misinterpreting the data ...I suggest that you present evidence to support such a gross defamation. If you can't - and you know perfectly well that you can't - you are making false accusations. The Bible calls this "bearing false witness".
FALSEHOOD #3 Tony quotes Gould in support of his assertion that the fossil record shows "stasis NOT transformation change". Yet Gould *himself* has stated that this is not the case.
Are you suggesting that Tony knows what Gould meant better than Gould did?
FALSEHOOD #4 "Transformational change has NEVER been observed in the living world." There is an extensive scientific literature which describes such changes in exhaustive detail. If you, or any other creationist think that they authors of *all* those papers are either 1) Lying or 2) Misinterpreting the data ...I suggest that you present evidence to support such a gross defamation. If you can't - and you know perfectly well that you can't - you are making false accusations. The Bible calls this "bearing false witness".
Tell you what: demonstrate that I am wrong in any of these case in which I identify falsehoods, and we'll go on to the next four.
If you can't - and you know perfectly well that you can't - I suggest that you condone such blatant dishonesty provided it comes from another creationist.
But please - demonstrate that you are not just another pathetic creationist coward and produce a substantive response.
> Dana Tweedy wrote: > > Ray Martinez wrote: > >> Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > >> Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > >> accurate.
> >> Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > >> the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > >> Forrest?
> >> Is ToE open to wide interpretation?
> > All scientific theories are open to interpretation.
> >> How do you know which version is > >> correct?
> > By seeing which one best matches the evidence.
> Yes but the evidence is ever shifting.
Care to support that statement?
> That's why science is
> > superior to religious beliefs when it comes to describing how things work.
> Science is a human construct. It doesn't exist independently of humanity.
If humanity didn't exist neither would religion, therefore religion is also a human construct.
> > There are standards by which one can decide which scientific concept is most > > correct.
> Do you have a University education or are you just pulling this out of > your orifice?
Why some people feel the need to be abusive towards others has always been a puzzle to me.
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Nov 4, 11:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Not too long ago Richard Forrest said something to the effect that > > >Ernst Mayr's version of evolution is not really true, correct or > > >accurate.
> > >Based on the standard seen above what is to stop anyone from saying > > >the same about Dawkins, Gould, Fisher, Harshman or even Richard > > >Forrest?
> > >Is ToE open to wide interpretation? How do you know which version is > > >correct?
> > >Ray
> > The "versions" are too fuzy to know how far from the truth they are.
> Actually, the "versions" are rather close. The issues in dispute are > the relative contributions of various factors to the mechanism of > evolution.
> > Varying "positions and interpretations" is simply a kind way of saying > > that there is no general agreement among atheists
> FALSEHOOD #1 > ..and once again you are dishonestly conflating science with atheism.
> Tell us, is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
> > about specific > > observable, testable mechanisms causing genuinely novel > > transformational change.
> There is no universal agreement amongst scientists either. However, > there are very large area in which there is agreement.
> > There are no observable, testable > > mechanisms.
> FALSEHOOD #2 > There are, and they have been observed and measured in nature and > replicated in the laboratory.
> > The reason for the disagreement among atheists is that the fossil > > record shows stasis NOT transformation change.
> FALSEHOOD #3 > According to the authority you cited in support of this claim, the > fossil record *does* show such change.
> > And transformational > > change has NEVER been observed in the living world.
> FALSEHOOD #4 > It has been studied in exhaustive detail and published in numerous > scientific paper
> > Lenski's 40,000+ > > generation breeding of E coli experiment is a testament to the fixity > > of species not nature's ability to transform them.
> FALSEHOOD #5 > ..and an assertion which blatantly contradicts the conclusions formed > by Lenski's experiments.
> > For example, the Gouldian naturalist camp has argued vigorously for > > almost 35 years that Darwin's (and now Dawkins's) reductionist > > gradualism is contradicted by the fossil record.
> FALSEHOOD #6 > Not according to Gould, they didn't. > What do you know about Gould's views on evolution which Gould didn't > know himself?
> > Notwithstanding > > their unbridgeable disagreement
> FALSEHOOD #7 > Far from being an "unbridgeable disagreement", the issue of Punctuated > Equilibrium is one of evolutionary tempo.
> > neither side can produce an > > observable, testable mechanism for transformational change.
> FALSEHOOD #8 > Actually, science can.
> > Regards, > > T Pagano
> Only 8 falsehoods, Tony. Mind you, it was a short post.
> Bearing in mind that you have been corrected numerous times on most of > these falsehoods and have been provided with evidence which shows that > they are falsehoods, what do you think you gain by such outright lies?
> Not that I'm complaining. After all, as I keep explaining, I post on > boards such as this to expose the ignorance and dishonesty of > creationists. Your contribution is gratefully accepted.
|
