you left out the consensus reached by the conference billvon, what was it?
you need to separate what was printed in the article from your opinion and third sources instead of lumping them all together like in your last post.
Last edited:
Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
you need to separate what was printed in the article from your opinion and third sources instead of lumping them all together like in your last post.
leopold
The consensis was that gradualism was not the only mechanism that evolution has, that rapid changes in genomes were possible followed by long periods of stasis. They did not say that evolution did not occur, as you seem to be implying. If your ignorance of evolution leads you so far astray that you can't even comprehend that this cite DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, IT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION, your ignorance is probably terminal. You are the one who evidently didn't bother to read the whole paper, trying to data mine it in a vain attempt to support your position. If you know so little about the subject, why make yourself look like a fool again, avoid that subject. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Grumpy
The consensis was that gradualism was not the only mechanism that evolution has, that rapid changes in genomes were possible followed by long periods of stasis. They did not say that evolution did not occur, as you seem to be implying. If your ignorance of evolution leads you so far astray that you can't even comprehend that this cite DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, IT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION, your ignorance is probably terminal. You are the one who evidently didn't bother to read the whole paper, trying to data mine it in a vain attempt to support your position. If you know so little about the subject, why make yourself look like a fool again, avoid that subject. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Grumpy
"Even the most ardent punctuationists do not dismiss gradual change as a force in evolution." Read that a few times before replying.
And you need to read AND UNDERSTAND that article if you are going to understand this. Perhaps even read a few more sources. Gould and Dawkins are good starting points.
that WAS NOT the consensus.leopold
The consensis was that gradualism was not the only mechanism that evolution has, that rapid changes in genomes were possible followed by long periods of stasis. They did not say that evolution did not occur, as you seem to be implying. If your ignorance of evolution leads you so far astray that you can't even comprehend that this cite DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, IT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION, your ignorance is probably terminal. You are the one who evidently didn't bother to read the whole paper, trying to data mine it in a vain attempt to support your position. If you know so little about the subject, why make yourself look like a fool again, avoid that subject. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Grumpy
furthermore i never posted ANYTHING from said article in this thread so how in the hell can i be "quote mining" anything?
and neither was this.
leopold
That was PRECISELY the consensus. Your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension(not to mention basic understanding of the science)is astounding. And all the drumming your heels on the floor or holding your breath won't change the fact you simply don't know a thing about evolution and are incompetent to comment on any aspect of it, especially if such comments are as dishonest as your posts here.
Grumpy
That was PRECISELY the consensus. Your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension(not to mention basic understanding of the science)is astounding. And all the drumming your heels on the floor or holding your breath won't change the fact you simply don't know a thing about evolution and are incompetent to comment on any aspect of it, especially if such comments are as dishonest as your posts here.
Grumpy
i read the article grumpy and i know for a fact this was not the consensus of this meeting.
unfortunately i do not have access to the issue anymore.
i implied no such thing.
i never said "evolution is false".
i said "evolution as you know it is false".
there are a number of reasons why certain people do not like the sound of that.
prestige, ego, loss of power, etc.
edit
i think the biggest fear is that theists are going to be all too willing to jump all over something like this.
it's a shame too.
there are a number of alternate possibilities.
protiene folding malfunctions, dna structural defects, the list goes on.
Last edited:
hmmm . . .
you seem to be speaking as if you read the article.
tell me, what do you think of the ayala quote?
do you think he was speaking from analyzing the data or was he commenting on the consensus reached?
Well, if you want to get technical, they are both. Based on the definition of belief (The psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true), and the definition of theory (A contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking), you can deduce that, for example, the Theory of Evolution is a belief and a theory, because it can be believed in, and it is a type of generalizing thinking.
it's a rational belief, the real question is one of mechanism.
i fail to believe the gun slinger from alpha somewhere story.
Beans obviously has no idea what a theory is in science. No surprise there.
Wrong. Here's a post of yours from March 2011 that references the same article. That's over two years ago. I remember it because I remember correcting your misconceptions about punctuated equilibrium back then as well.
Honestly, you should have been permabanned from this place for your dishonest bullshit long before now.
garbanzo said:
You can test that statement by asking yourself: which of the following statements, which constitute the Theory of Evolution, is a belief?
• A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.
• Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them.
• Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:
— More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.
— Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.
— Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.
— Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.
— Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation.
— Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct.
Replication better refers to asexual reproduction in monocytes, in which some sequences may be more sensitive to mutation than others, so "programming" comes to mind. It's also a huge step in evolution that monocytes "got wired" to do chemical signalling, which was the innovation that led to sexual reproductin, through a phase in which the organisms were capable of both the old and new way of repoducing. In sexual reproduction the grandparents' DNA is randomly mixed during meiosis, to assure that no two fertilized eggs will be alike (called crossover). Without a doubt all sexually reproducing species are wired to increase the rate of variation within a gene pool, and undoubtedly crossover has been a vital ingredient to the rate of speciation and progress of evolution among the higher classes of organisms.
The phrase "after a certain number of replications" brings to mind the question of frequency and stability of speciation. The environment plays a big role in this. For example, primitive organisms encysted their spores to preserve them during seasonal changes in temperature, drought, etc. The ability to exchange DNA by broadcasting encysted spores happens to closely follow the ability to encyst spores that ancestral asexual organisms used. Thus the egg resembles an encysted monocyte, and the sperm resembles the hatched monocyte that might merge with the spore and "break its casing" - by chemical signalling (the hallmark of the primitive monocytes, and the means by which they specialized to form metazoans - and the means by which they differentiated into male and female versions of their immature form). We could conclude that sexual reproduction was "wired" into the DNA of earlier asexual monocytes, but the stimulating circumstances that led to this new feature - encystment and broadcasting - were selected in by the unrelated fact of weather. And then we note that seasons are merely a consequence of the 23° tilt of the Earth on its axis. So it seems to me that cause and effect can be traced to quite an elaborate chain of unrelated events.
So, you're dictating notes for me to take in science class, it sounds like. I took those notes in 6th grade.
like i said, within the last year or so.
go play in the traffic with your buddy.
edit
for you to post that i am being dishonest about what was printed in said issue is a lie.
it isn't my fault you either refuse or unable to acknowledge what was printed in it.
the quotes you referenced above came directly from the issue, i know because i copy/ pasted them from the issue myself.
at that time the link to the issue was active.
Last edited:
That must have been the last science class you took.
- Status