Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    not according to a 1983 issue of "science".
    "science" trumps anything you want to say.
    look the other way, and walk on by.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    You're a saltationist?


    ....



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Fill your hand you son of a bitch.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It totally jives with the evidence. Look up the Equus series and get back to me.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Oh, your stupid article. Not a lot to hang an argument on, especially when it contradicts everyone who has a clue.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,102
    I don't really think you are in any position to declare anyone of being ludicrous after this:

    What..

    The..

    Fuck!?!

    Do you think it has a set time?

    There is a mountain of evidence to support evolution, and yes, with transitional fossils. I know, I know, you are still blathering on about an article back in 1983 which misrepresented the author and which the author corrected at a later date and corrected most vehemently, but really, this is ridiculous. But then again, you're the dude that just argued there is no evidence of evolution because there is no proof that a rat can turn into a rabbit....

    Words actually fail me..
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    hey, where did you get my picture!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Papers without data? What planet are you on?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,509
    leopold,

    The last time you read anything new on evolution was 1983 or something, wasn't it?

    I've just finished reading Neil Shubin's book Your inner fish. It outlines, for the non-specialist reader, a whole heap of the actual data that shows that you, leopold, are descended from a fish-like creature (and from jellyfish, and tube worms etc.)

    Do yourself a favour. Go to your local bookshop and get a copy. Or pick one up online. You really need an education, and this isn't a bad place to start.

    Right. Evolution has moved on quite a bit since Mendel. See, for example, the above book, which details many recent discoveries.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    read the article, ask THEM what they meant.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2015
  15. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    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.
     
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    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.
     
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    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.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,509
    leopold,

    Yes. Try googling Neil Shubin to find out who he is.

    It sounds like you're dismissing the book I recommended to you without having read any of it. Why is that?

    Are you still blathering on about an article reporting on one discussion that was had in a conference back in 1982 or 1983, or whenever it was?

    Evolution doesn't stand or fall on that one article, leopold. You need to get over it and read something new.

    Yes, you really do need an education. If you're interested in evolution at all, you need to go out there and find out something about it. Don't fret over a single 30-year-old article that isn't even important or significant in evolutionary theory. A lot has happened in evolutionary science over the past 30 years. Go out and buy a book such as the one I recommended to you (I can recommend some others if you'd prefer), and actually learn something about what you're criticising.

    Don't take your pastor's word for it that evolution is bullshit. Don't just believe Answers in Genesis. Go out there. Engage your brain a little. Learn something new. Learn some real science.

    Where can I find that book?

    How about we make a deal? I'll read yours if you read mine.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,509
    leopold,

    So your mind is closed. I thought so. You don't really want to learn at all. You want to preach.

    What fraudulent BS? Who are you accusing of fraud?

    Yes. Unfortunately, you've just told me you don't actually want to learn anything new.

    Fine. When you have the proof of the Great Scientific Conspiracy or whatever it is, let us know.

    In the meantime, we can write you off as just one more internet crank.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
     
  23. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Then, maybe, you should teach yourself.
     

Share This Page