> >> 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.

> > Notice here that Forrest doesn't deny the charge that there is no
> > specific, observable, testable mechanism causing transformational
> > change.  

> > The whole dispute with Darwinism is its claim to explain the creation
> > of biological novelty and it is concerning this very aspect that there
> > is no agreement among atheists.    Darwin (and Dawkins with him)
> > argued that the staggering impossibilities faced by the creation of
> > biological features whose function we still don't understand is
> > explained by a simple naturalistic reductionist gradualism.  

> > The Gouldians counter by showing that the fossil record doesn't show
> > the naturalistic continuity of fossil populations that such a
> > gradualism would entail.    Unfortunately all Punc Eq does is attempt
> > to theorize about the initial conditions that "might" lead to the
> > emergence of novelty; it does not offer any genetic or biochemical
> > mechanisms that can be searched for or tested.

> Again, you don't appear to have any idea about the views of either
> Dawkins or Gould. Pity. While Gould flirted with macromutation on
> occasion, in PE the transformation of populations happens gradually in
> the standard Darwinian way.

> What explains that is that when shown a nascent structure you refuse to
> agree that it's nascent.

> > Finally while this may seem like small potatoes to
> > "stick-a-fork-in-me-I'm-done" Forrest the whole theory hinges upon it.

> Wrong as usual. Common descent would be clear even in the absence of a
> mechanism.

> - Show quoted text -