Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

not according to a 1983 issue of "science".
"science" trumps anything you want to say.
look the other way, and walk on by.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're a saltationist?


....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fill your hand you son of a bitch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It totally jives with the evidence. Look up the Equus series and get back to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, your stupid article. Not a lot to hang an argument on, especially when it contradicts everyone who has a clue.

 

hey, where did you get my picture!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yes, i will agree that there is a mountain of "peer reviewed" papers that support the, ahem, theory of evolution.
very little in the way of actual data.
BTW, mendels laws of heredity is not evolution.

it's a highly respected source bells.
"science" never published any errata concerning said article.

i'm sorry, i left my list of 20 letter words in the car.

 

Papers without data? What planet are you on?

 

read the article, ask THEM what they meant.

 

lessee, i think goulds treatise on spandrels was published after that.
goulds bio was published after that. (ever wonder if he HAD to die?)
your assertion is not quite correct james.

a whole heap of actual data?
some people are damned good writers.
some can take you anywhere.
explain these gaps.
what gaps.
the ones mentioned in the article.
the very same ones dr. ayala was reffering to.
but wait, arrowsmith says he didn't say it because ayala told him so.
so, why does ayala bitch and moan to arrowsmith but not to science?
what the fuck is up with all of that james?
we hear NOTHING from science in the way of any kind of errata.
even when science makes a plea for everyone to calm down (the atheists)*, it STILL doesn't mention ayala and the alledged hoopla.

so, what's the story here james?

i really need an education.
listen to you.
it amazes me how you can sit there and not let the implications of this bother you.

thats right, and i wonder how much evolutionists depend on that very connection.

* in her book "the greatest story never told", lana (the author) refers to a group of people called saganites.
they might be one and the same.

 

Even though physically humans haven't changed in the past 300 years or so, I think intellectually we have evolved, look around, especially in the sciences. As for physical transformations, we are finding new species or types of animals continuously, I think this is evidence.

 

What? Oh, is that you in the background, having a dump in the woods.

leopold, you have truly gone off the deep end this time. Enjoy your ignorance.

 

What he's referring to is the difference between Mendelian law and what is called evolutionary theory. The former is undeniable - by anyone - while the latter is attacked by Creationists of whatever stripe since it is not proven, so to speak.

This is the problem with some interpretations of one of the logical fallacies - argumentum ad populum. People unconsciously interpret the preponderance of evidence for macroevolution - and thereby the vast number of evolutionary scientists who agree with it - as being AAP, when in fact it's just the effect of the volume and concordance of the evidence. Thereby leopold falls also, I expect. The difference, for those that are paying attention, is in general adherence without cause versus adherence with cause. Macroevolutionary theory falls into the latter: and the preponderance of that evidence speaks not to theory, but law. If phenotype-genotype correlation be the fourth such genetic Law (this of Fisher and Wright, not Mendel) then macroevolution is assuredly the fifth.

Whether either are seen to operate in any specific system is a question merely of coefficients.

 

yes?

unless he has some lab results that can be duplicated i really don't care who he is.

see above answer.

it isn't just the article james (which was damning enough), it also now includes the fraudulent BS that has been revealed concerning it.

is that your answer for all of this, i need an education???????????????????????????????????????????????

i'm interested in naming names, and proving it.
and i will.

 

i downloaded a copy from the web, i can't remember the site.
i probably have the page saved to my HHD though, i'll have to find it.
anyway, here's a little about it: post 39
www.sciforums.com/threads/hindu-concept-of-creation-new.142829/page-2#post-3255848

 

what am i preaching about?
everything i've presented in this thread comes from a respected science source, and for that i get:

it seems like it's YOU that doesn't want to hear the truth james.

evolution, as i was taught, is nothing but a flat out lie, period.

 

Then, maybe, you should teach yourself.