tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post814455602009593528..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution is a Fact, Or is it?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38449961532235005262010-06-08T21:38:36.533-07:002010-06-08T21:38:36.533-07:00teleological blog said...
thorny: Look at Car...<i>teleological blog said...<br /><br /> thorny: Look at Carroll's own words that you're fond of quote-mining<br /><br /> Do you even know what quote mining means? </i><br /><br />Yes, it's the dishonest way you have taken Carroll's words out of context. Here they are again <b>in</b> context.<br /><br />Carroll: “The two greatest revolutions in biology, those in evolution and genetics, were driven by such insights. Darwin explained the parade of species in the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms as products of natural selection over eons of time. Molecular biology explained how the basis of heredity in all species is encoded in molecules of DNA made of just four basic constituents. <b>As powerful as these insights were, in terms of explaining the origin of complex visible forms, from the bodies of ancient trilobites to the beaks of Galapagos finches, they were incomplete.</b> Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.<br /><br />Hmmm..."As powerful as these insights were, in terms of explaining the origin of complex visible forms..they are incomplete". Doesn't sound anything like the dishonest spin you put on it, claiming Carrol says Neo-Darwinism is bankrupt.<br /><br />And yes, I've read his books. I have them sitting on the shelf behind me. Have you actually read them, or are you just C&Ping your quote-mined dishonesty from a creto source?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47581936710634509702010-06-08T21:05:33.976-07:002010-06-08T21:05:33.976-07:00thorny: Look at Carroll's own words that you&#...<i><b>thorny:</b> Look at Carroll's own words that you're fond of quote-mining</i><br /><br />Do you even know what quote mining means? Neither go look it up or look in a mirror. You are taking the words in isolation and not in context. You can’t take the general meaning of a single word and apply a generic meaning that obviously does not fit the context. It is incomplete because it describes NS and heredity but not where new forms come from. There is no direct explanation because it explain something else not new forms. Did you even read any of his books? I am done with your lame arguments, you Darwinian drone.teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45717454193278395332010-06-08T20:38:15.901-07:002010-06-08T20:38:15.901-07:00teleological blog said...
Are you daft? Stop ...<i>teleological blog said...<br /><br /> Are you daft? Stop acting like a Darwinian drone and repeat the word incomplete like a mantra. What does it mean to be incomplete in the context of what he is saying? </i><br /><br />It means exactly that, incomplete, i.e. the other two provided some but not all of the answer to the puzzle.<br /><br />Look at Carroll's own words that you're fond of quote-mining again:<br /><br />Carroll: ”Neither natural selection nor DNA <b>directly</b> explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.”<br /><br />Go get your dictionary. What does the adverb <b>directly</b> mean in that sentence? What does the opposite of directly, <b>indirectly</b> mean?<br /><br />Your feeble attempts at dishonest quote-mining and word game are both childish and pathetic.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89964218639887138892010-06-08T19:34:20.425-07:002010-06-08T19:34:20.425-07:00thorny: What Carroll showed and said was not that ...<i><b>thorny:</b> What Carroll showed and said was not that Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt but rather that it is incomplete.</i><br /><br />Are you daft? Stop acting like a Darwinian drone and repeat the word incomplete like a mantra. What does it mean to be incomplete in the context of what he is saying? Does he show anywhere in his book how the first 2 revolution even provide a partial/incomplete answer to how macroevolution occurred? Has Carroll written any papers demonstrating how the first 2 revolution created macroevolution? What he said was <i><b>”Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.”</b></i>teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11882762224041987862010-06-08T14:20:52.363-07:002010-06-08T14:20:52.363-07:00teleological blog said...
thorny: TB: "I...<i>teleological blog said...<br /><br /> thorny: TB: "In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution."<br /><br /> What Carroll showed and said was not that Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt but rather that it is incomplete.<br /><br /> I never claimed he used the word bankrupt. His is a Darwinian Prior there is no way that he would use that word to describe Darwinism unless he comes to his senses. If you actually get you head out of the fog long enough, you might see the sentence right after that. ”Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.” Why is neo-Darwinism bankrupt/incomplete? Because it cannot explain how macroevolution happen. It cannot explain directly because all Darwinism tells you is that genes are inherited and life has a fitness pressure. If Darwinism was able to explain directly/indirectly how macroevolution occurred he wouldn’t have to come up with this cockamamy Evo Devo to try to convince people of macroevolution. </i><br /><br />I guess half way to honest is as far as you're willing to go. Got it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91767811943231669532010-06-08T14:07:53.826-07:002010-06-08T14:07:53.826-07:00thorny: TB: "In other words, Darwinism/neo-Da...<i><b>thorny:</b> TB: "In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution."<br /><br />What Carroll showed and said was not that Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt but rather that it is incomplete.</i><br /><br />I never claimed he used the word bankrupt. His is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori_%28Stargate%29#Priors" rel="nofollow">Darwinian Prior</a> there is no way that he would use that word to describe Darwinism unless he comes to his senses. If you actually get you head out of the fog long enough, you might see the sentence right after that. <i>”Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.”</i> Why is neo-Darwinism bankrupt/incomplete? Because it cannot explain how macroevolution happen. It cannot explain directly because all Darwinism tells you is that genes are inherited and life has a fitness pressure. If Darwinism was able to explain directly/indirectly how macroevolution occurred he wouldn’t have to come up with this cockamamy Evo Devo to try to convince people of macroevolution.teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72454911762177146292010-06-08T13:11:34.645-07:002010-06-08T13:11:34.645-07:00teleological blog said...
Thanks to thorny fo...<i>teleological blog said...<br /><br /> Thanks to thorny for catching my mistake of incorrectly attributing the quote from CSM to Sean Carroll. I made the mistake of thinking that the author of the CSM article was quoting Carroll when in fact she seems to be giving a paraphrase of what Carroll said in his book. This should have been the quote I used from Carroll’s book.</i><br /><br />Props to you for admitting and retracting your first mistake. Now will you admit and retract your second? Up above you claimed this:<br /><br /><i>TB: "In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution."</i><br /><br />What Carroll showed and said was <b>not</b> that Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt but rather that it is <b>incomplete.</b><br /><br /><i>Carroll "As powerful as these insights were, in terms of explaining the origin of complex visible forms, from the bodies of ancient trilobites to the beaks of Galapagos finches, <b>they were incomplete."</b></i><br /><br />You're half way to being honest about this. Can you make it the whole way?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66529569618993109812010-06-08T12:55:32.055-07:002010-06-08T12:55:32.055-07:00Thanks to thorny for catching my mistake of incorr...Thanks to thorny for catching my mistake of incorrectly attributing the quote from CSM to Sean Carroll. I made the mistake of thinking that the author of the CSM article was quoting Carroll when in fact she seems to be giving a paraphrase of what Carroll said in his book. This should have been the quote I used from Carroll’s book.<br /><br /><i>“The two greatest revolutions in biology, those in evolution and genetics, were driven by such insights. Darwin explained the parade of species in the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms as products of natural selection over eons of time. Molecular biology explained how the basis of heredity in all species is encoded in molecules of DNA made of just four basic constituents. As powerful as these insights were, in terms of explaining the origin of complex visible forms, from the bodies of ancient trilobites to the beaks of Galapagos finches, they were incomplete. <b>Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.</b><br /><br />The key to understanding form is development, the process through which a single-celled egg gives rise to a complex, multi-billion-celled animal. <b>This amazing spectacle stood as one of the great unsolved mysteries of biology for nearly two centuries.</b> And development is intimately connected to evolution because it is through changes in embryos that changes in form arise. Over the past two decades, a new revolution has unfolded in biology. Advances in developmental biology and evolutionary development biology (dubbed “Evo Devo”) have revealed a great deal about the invisible genes and some simple rules that shape animal form and evolution. Much of what we have learned has been so stunning and unexpected that it has profoundly reshaped our picture of how evolution works. <b>Not a single biologist, for example, ever anticipated that the same genes that control the making of an insect’s body and organs also control the making of our bodies.</b>” --- Sean Carroll, “Endless Forms Most Beautiful”, pg ix-x (emphasis added)</i>teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47079049365249882442010-06-07T19:33:10.841-07:002010-06-07T19:33:10.841-07:00teleological blog said...
thorny: Shame on yo...<i>teleological blog said...<br /><br /> thorny: Shame on your dishonesty.<br /><br /> Are you trying to overcompensate for some inadequacy like your diminished intellectual capacity? Is your atheistic Darwinism so threatened by the powerful case that I’ve presented that you are betting your entire religious faith on this ad hominem? </i><br /><br />No, I'm just calling you out on your dishonest quote-mining. Seems to be your only trick, since you've yet to show the slightest clue about any technical scientific points on evolution.<br /><br /><b>Shame on your dishonesty</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37493075937122574482010-06-07T19:15:51.792-07:002010-06-07T19:15:51.792-07:00thorny: Shame on your dishonesty.
Are you trying ...<i><b>thorny:</b> Shame on your dishonesty.</i><br /><br />Are you trying to overcompensate for some inadequacy like your diminished intellectual capacity? Is your atheistic Darwinism so threatened by the powerful case that I’ve presented that you are betting your entire religious faith on this ad hominem?teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56522988650656082092010-06-07T18:28:39.713-07:002010-06-07T18:28:39.713-07:00Steve wrote:
"ID contests…"
I thought y...Steve wrote:<br />"ID contests…"<br /><br />I thought you guys were trying to claim that ID is a theory. People or groups of people contest things. Are you admitting that ID is a political movement at its core?<br /><br />"... the use of NS outcomes from genetic variation as the mechanism …"<br /><br />How about writing in English? Outcomes are not mechanisms. I have no clue what you are saying in this phrase.<br /><br />"...which accounts for non-reversible morphological change in organisms from generation to generation."<br /><br />So can we agree that populations of organisms do vary from generation to generation? Morphological, genetic, biochemical, or all three? If Darwinian mechanisms (don't forget non-Darwinian ones) don't account for such change, what does, Steve?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35643173033946010392010-06-07T18:26:49.519-07:002010-06-07T18:26:49.519-07:00teleological blog said...
thorny: They have a...<i>teleological blog said...<br /><br /> thorny: They have also been dishonestly quote mined.<br /><br /> I gave the link when I first quoted it in, Nietzsche’s Madman : Finding Darwin’s God </i><br /><br />You didn't give the link at all in this thread. The one you provided now also has the quote-mined quote provided out of context and with the false claim that it was a direct statement from Carroll. <b>Shame on your dishonesty.</b><br /><br /><i>It was a paraphrase of what Carroll said in his book Endless Forms Most Beautiful. </i><br /><br />In neither place was it presented as a paraphrase. <b>Shame on your dishonesty.</b><br /><br /><i>However, it is an accurate representation of what Carroll said. As a matter of fact Carroll’s own words are even more indicting of Darwinism. I am not going to waste my time and transcribe it for you go look it up. </i><br /><br />I don't have to look it up. I read the book and Carroll says nothing like what you are misrepresenting. I also provided the whole context of the statement from the original article you wouldn't.<br /><br /><b>Shame on your dishonesty.</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29656359450605580962010-06-07T15:46:09.096-07:002010-06-07T15:46:09.096-07:00Zachriel: We have no desire to quibble over semant...<i><b>Zachriel:</b> We have no desire to quibble over semantics, but Darwinism is not defined as "an atheistic creation myth cobbled together with some just so stories.</i><br /><br />Really? ‘Cause that is all that it seems to be. :Dteleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48829097388307803742010-06-07T15:44:10.764-07:002010-06-07T15:44:10.764-07:00thorny: They have also been dishonestly quote mine...<i><b>thorny:</b> They have also been dishonestly quote mined.</i><br /><br />I gave the link when I first quoted it in, <a href="http://teleological.org/?p=12#more-22%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">Nietzsche’s Madman : Finding Darwin’s God</a> With no disrespect to Dr. Hunter, my post title was probably meant as a little dig at Kenneth Miller’s book.<br /><br />It was a paraphrase of what Carroll said in his book Endless Forms Most Beautiful. However, it is an accurate representation of what Carroll said. As a matter of fact Carroll’s own words are even more indicting of Darwinism. I am not going to waste my time and transcribe it for you go look it up.teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49180294855637328852010-06-07T13:52:22.171-07:002010-06-07T13:52:22.171-07:00teleological blog: I don’t see where Darwinists ar...<b>teleological blog</b>: <i>I don’t see where Darwinists are using Darwinism as exclusively applying to NS. If you want to quibble over semantics I would give you neo-Darwinism, a term I’ve used in the past but it is just too much trouble to keep typing neo in front of Darwinism all the time. </i> <br /><br />Neodarwinism is not universal among evolutionary biologists. For instance, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis" rel="nofollow">Lynn Margulis</a> says she is a Darwinist, but not a Neodarwinist. That means she sees natural selection as the primary engine of adaptation, but thinks that simple views of mutation and interorganismic competition doesn't reveal the whole story. <br /><br />We have no desire to quibble over semantics, but Darwinism is not defined as "<i>an atheistic creation myth cobbled together with some just so stories</i>.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25680245635486585002010-06-07T13:40:26.664-07:002010-06-07T13:40:26.664-07:00TB wrote:
"Actually, no I can’t seem to grasp...TB wrote:<br />"Actually, no I can’t seem to grasp this simple concept [that populations, not individual organisms, evolve]."<br /><br />If you can't grasp the concept, how can you possibly know whether it is a valid one?<br /><br />"So evolution is even harder than I thought."<br /><br />ROTFL!<br /><br />No, it's much easier. Again, if you don't grasp the concept, you can't possibly know what is easier or harder.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76058287130440804532010-06-07T13:33:35.088-07:002010-06-07T13:33:35.088-07:00teleological blog said...
Let’s also not forget ...<i>teleological blog said... <br /><br />Let’s also not forget what Sean Carroll said. ”The first revolution came when Charles Darwin … through a process called natural selection … The second revolution came with the merging of Darwin’s theories and the science of genetics … But neither of those approaches revealed how individual animal forms were made or how they evolved.” In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution. What is unfortunate for Carroll and Darwinists is that there isn’t any mechanism including evodevo and non-selective ones that does not involve some form of RM and some form of NS. That means the myth is dead. </i><br /><br />Those aren't Sean Carroll's words. They were written by Lori Valigra in a review of Carroll's <i>Endless Forms Most Beautiful</i>.<br /><br />They have also been dishonestly quote mined. The whole passage is<br /><br /><b>Evo Devo is the third revolution in the field known as evolutionary biology or how animals were made and evolved.<br /><br />The first revolution came when Charles Darwin published his seminal book on evolution, "The Origin of Species."<br /><br />Darwin explained how, over eons, living organisms became diverse through a process called natural selection, meaning that nature decided which species had best adapted to their environment, and thus would thrive.<br /><br />The second revolution came with the merging of Darwin's theories and the science of genetics.<br /><br />But neither of those approaches revealed how individual animal forms were made or how they evolved. That's where Evo Devo comes in, attempting to explain a process through which a single- celled egg develops into a multibillion-celled animal, and why there are such deep connections among animals.<br /><br />And while this third revolution may seem complex, it's based on the ancient tool kit with the small number of common ingredients. </b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0405/p15s02-bogn.html" rel="nofollow">Source</a><br /><br />Did you do the dishonest quote-mining, or did you just mindlessly C&P it from another creto site without checking or caring that it was false?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57035084650243667432010-06-07T13:17:46.990-07:002010-06-07T13:17:46.990-07:00Zachriel: We just used the term "darwinism.&q...<i><b>Zachriel:</b> We just used the term "darwinism." So claiming it isn't used is rather odd. The term does not normally refer to the modern Theory of Evolution, but to theories and mechanisms of natural selection, or sometimes to Darwin's original theory. </i><br /><br />Please, I don’t see where Darwinists are using Darwinism as exclusively applying to NS. If you want to quibble over semantics I would give you neo-Darwinism, a term I’ve used in the past but it is just too much trouble to keep typing neo in front of Darwinism all the time. Beside anyone who has been debating this issue knows what is meant by Darwinism/Darwinian/neo-Darwinism anyway, it is an atheistic creation myth cobbled together with some just so stories. The only reason why Darwinists are objecting to the term now is because they know the public is getting wise to their fraud so this is a PR campaign as evident by E.O. Wilson’s complaint. And maybe Darwinists are thinking it is about time to change the label to delude the public once again into thinking that there is progress being made in the Darwinian myth. <br /><br />Let’s also not forget what Sean Carroll said. <i><b>”The first revolution came when Charles Darwin … through a process called natural selection … The second revolution came with the merging of Darwin’s theories and the science of genetics … But neither of those approaches revealed how individual animal forms were made or how they evolved.”</b></i> In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution. What is unfortunate for Carroll and Darwinists is that there isn’t any mechanism including evodevo and non-selective ones that does not involve some form of RM and some form of NS. That means the myth is dead.teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82722919442441057732010-06-07T10:57:36.757-07:002010-06-07T10:57:36.757-07:00Zachriel: Darwin's original theory has been su...<b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Darwin's original theory has been superseded. In modern science, it refers to natural selection. Many modern evolutionary biologists are not darwinists. </i><br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>the term Darwinist/Darwinism continues to be use by Darwinists and pro-Darwinian journals long after the modern synthesis. Look at this excellent post by Casey Luskin at Evolution News and Views, <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/busting_another_darwinist_myth001684.html" rel="nofollow">Busting Another Darwinist Myth</a> </i><br /><br />We just used the term "darwinism." So claiming it isn't used is rather odd. The term does not normally refer to the modern Theory of Evolution, but to theories and mechanisms of natural selection, or sometimes to Darwin's original theory.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78462914462159765242010-06-07T10:38:49.388-07:002010-06-07T10:38:49.388-07:00Steve: Evolution defined as the change in allele f...<b>Steve</b>: <i>Evolution defined as the change in allele frequency of a population is an observed fact and its mechanism is the NS outcome of genetic variation. </i><br /><br />Evolution is directly observed, and Common Descent is inferred. Both are considered scientific facts; the former by way of observation, the latter by the strength of the evidence.<br /><br /><b>Steve</b>: <i>However, this is not what is being contested. </i><br /><br />That's understood. <br /><br /><b>Steve</b>: <i>ID contests the use of NS outcomes from genetic variation as the mechanism which accounts for non-reversible morphological change in organisms from generation to generation. </i><br /><br />Natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolutionary change, but is important to adaptation. We should start with the evidence for Common Descent. This provides us the historical sequence of events. Then we can discuss the mechanisms involved with those events.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9709592045346409542010-06-07T09:45:24.827-07:002010-06-07T09:45:24.827-07:00Zachriel: Darwin's original theory has been su...<i><b>Zachriel:</b> Darwin's original theory has been superseded. In modern science, it refers to natural selection. Many modern evolutionary biologists are not darwinists.</i><br /><br />Really, many? How many? If Darwinists spend less time obfuscating terms to a bankrupt hypothesis maybe they just might see what a total failure it has been. In any case, the term Darwinist/Darwinism continues to be use by Darwinists and pro-Darwinian journals long after the modern synthesis. Look at this excellent post by Casey Luskin at Evolution News and Views, <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/busting_another_darwinist_myth001684.html" rel="nofollow">Busting Another Darwinist Myth</a><br /><br /><br /><i><b>Zachriel:</b> Common Descent as it applies to the vast majority of taxa is well-established. Universal Common Descent is strongly supported.</i><br /><br />One thing I think we will both agree on is that you have represented Darwinists well in authenticating the thesis of Dr. Hunter’s OP.teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22906469326906503832010-06-07T09:43:01.415-07:002010-06-07T09:43:01.415-07:00Smokey: TB, this is just plain stupid. Evolution h...<i><b>Smokey:</b> TB, this is just plain stupid. Evolution happens to populations, not individual organisms. <br /><br />Can you grasp this simple concept?</i><br /><br />Actually, no I can’t seem to grasp this simple concept. I guess I am not smoking whatever that you are smoking. So evolution is even harder than I thought. Using your logic evolution have to turn an entire population of fish with the exact mutations to every fish at the same time over and over again until the entire population turns into amphibians. I am sure you have empirical evidence of how all of this happened right?teleological bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06267994656995639019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14138418483135136212010-06-07T08:56:24.195-07:002010-06-07T08:56:24.195-07:00Zachriel,
Evolution defined as the change in alle...Zachriel,<br /><br />Evolution defined as the change in allele frequency of a population is an observed fact and its mechanism is the NS outcome of genetic variation.<br /><br />However, this is not what is being contested. <br /><br />ID contests the use of NS outcomes from genetic variation as the mechanism which accounts for non-reversible morphological change in organisms from generation to generation.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40717428292773800242010-06-06T16:15:34.239-07:002010-06-06T16:15:34.239-07:00TB: Did someone see a fish turned into an amphibia...TB: Did someone see a fish turned into an amphibian? <br /><br />TB, this is just plain stupid. Evolution happens to populations, not individual organisms. <br /><br />Can you grasp this simple concept?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41571587248745739662010-06-06T10:59:40.484-07:002010-06-06T10:59:40.484-07:00teleological blog: In what modern sense do you mea...<b>teleological blog</b>: <i>In what modern sense do you mean, you guys change the meaning of words (e.g. fact) so much it is hard to keep up? </i><br /><br />Darwin's original theory has been superseded. In modern science, it refers to natural selection. <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-im-not-darwinist.html" rel="nofollow">Many modern evolutionary biologists</a> are not darwinists. <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>You are not seriously resorting to this type of rhetorical sophistry to justify your lack of support for Darwinian evolution are you? </i><br /><br />It was your sophistry, er, standard of evidence, "<i>You have no innumerable measurable intermediaries to connect you from point A to point B.</i>" <br /><br /><b>teleological blog</b>: <i>Putting aside how strongly you might think common descent is supported. Let me ask you once again, are you now saying that UCA is a fact like gravity is a fact? </i><br /><br />Common Descent as it applies to the vast majority of taxa is well-established. Universal Common Descent is strongly supported. There is some ambiguity at the root of the tree, and is under <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/abs/nature09014.html" rel="nofollow">active investigation</a>.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.com