I asked you to show where he states this. If you can't, then he doesn't.
Upvote
0
Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process
- Thread starter justlookinla
- Start date
he should employ your tactics and just completely ignore them.
Upvote
0
okay.
here is the link again for those that are curious:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions
Upvote
0
I really do not understand the point you are trying to make. You have stated you do not believe in evolution (which, by definition, includes macro) Now you post an article that states:
...has laid the groundwork for a completely new and empirically testable theory of macroevolution, a theory that is currently facilitating exponential progress in our understanding of how major evolutionary transitions happen.
You seem, again, to be quoting articles that go against your beliefs.
You seem, again, to be quoting articles that go against your beliefs.
Upvote
0
i'm neither for or against evolution, and like i mentioned in another post i do not consider this a 2 sided affair.
again, here is the link to the entire article.
if you have issues about what this author says, then please take it up with him.
evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html
Upvote
0
ecco quoting from the forward in Evolution for Dummies
If you said evolutionists, I would believe you.
Because a great amount of data supports the idea of biological evolution through natural selection, and because no scientific evidence has yet been found to prove this idea false, this idea is considered a scientific theory. Because lots of evidence supports scientific theories, they are usually accepted as true by a majority of scientists.
I'm not sure I understand intent of your comment.
Upvote
0
Oh yeah, I remember. It was something along the lines of...
3. Humans have always existed
4. Transdimensional something or other.
I guess I need to try again:
- I do not need a link to the article. As I have repeatedly stated I have seen the article. You do not need to post a link to the same article again.
- I do need you to refer me to those portions of the article that you believe support whatever point you are trying to make. Alternatively, you can quote some portions of the article that you believe support whatever point you are trying to make.
Upvote
0
It should be pretty obvious. All evolutionists are scientists, but not all scientists are evolutionists.
Oh no! That one worked just fine
Upvote
0
In the first post you made in this thread #96 you linked to another of your posts in the thread entitled: "Common Ancestor Between Chimps and Humans".
In that post #200 you linked to a dozen articles/websites. All without any comments of your own or quotes from the sites to try to show your intent.
I went to three of them at random:
www.evillusion.net
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...pigenetic_approach_to_evolution._J_Theor_Biol
All of them are anti evolution.
Why would someone who is "neither for or against evolution" link to articles/websites that are against evolution?
Upvote
0
There's plenty of pro evolution information out there, quit your whining. Non evolution sites tend to be less bias. Evolution sites are 100% bought into the lie of macroevolution.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
what makes you think that the last link above is "anti evolution"?
has the thought ever occured to you that you might not know what evolution actually is?
epigenetics is a reality, genes aren't the only inheritance carrier.
Upvote
0
ecco,
here, this pretty well is my take on the subject:
Instead, we discuss aspects of research on these questions that serve to illustrate our general view that a new biology has developed and, in conjunction, many important assumptions of 20th Century biology have been abandoned.
. . .
We should be equally clear that, in arguing for the necessity of this intellectual transformation, we do not think that those who based their research on the Modern Synthesis were "bad scientists" and those who now abandon it are "good scientists." We are simply offering an overview of how a large number of us have changed our thinking, our biological Weltanschauung.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222615/
here, this pretty well is my take on the subject:
Instead, we discuss aspects of research on these questions that serve to illustrate our general view that a new biology has developed and, in conjunction, many important assumptions of 20th Century biology have been abandoned.
. . .
We should be equally clear that, in arguing for the necessity of this intellectual transformation, we do not think that those who based their research on the Modern Synthesis were "bad scientists" and those who now abandon it are "good scientists." We are simply offering an overview of how a large number of us have changed our thinking, our biological Weltanschauung.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222615/
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Oh no! That one worked just fine
So you're proud that you make fallacious arguments? Okay.
That shows the evidence, yes.
I don't see anyone whining. Maybe amusement at the cognitive dissonance but no whining.
By less bias do you mean "agrees with my world view"?
Creationist websites are beyond bias. They are proud of that bias too since they put it in their statement of faith.
So the thousands and thousands and thousands of peer reviewed publications are just lies? Gold medal mental gymnastics.
Upvote
0
Regarding posts 211 and 212.
How about addressing my multiple requests regarding the link you posted:
evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html
I guess I need to try again:
I do not need a link to the article. As I have repeatedly stated I have seen the article. You do not need to post a link to the same article again.
I do need you to refer me to those portions of the article that you believe support whatever point you are trying to make. Alternatively, you can quote some portions of the article that you believe support whatever point you are trying to make.
It really shouldn't be too difficult.
Upvote
0
i think the point has already been made.
you referred to one of my links as "anti evolution" when in fact it isn't even close to that.
quite simply my friend, evolution is not what you think it is.
if post 212 doesn't make that clear to you, then you need to read the link again until it is clear.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Actually you have that 100% backwards.
There is no "lie" to macro-evolution. In fact there is no doubt in the scientific community as a whole. The number of scientists that understand and oppose evolution is extremely small. Less than 1%.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Not the best of sources. He looks like he is merely a pathologist for hire:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/08/man_guilty_of_second-degree_mu.html
A man beat his child to death and your source tried to claim it was a seizure disorder. Yes, the problem was that the father seized the young girl by the ankles and slammed her head onto the floor.
Try to find someone that is not willing to claim anything for the almighty dollar.
Upvote
0
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
So why are all of you debating when the scientific method demands observation and empirical evidence?
Observations of the natural world show conclusively that infraspecific taxa mate with infraspecific taxa producing new infraspecific taxa within the species. There is no magical mutation of one creature into another - just what we observe - the recombination of genomes (separated from the start) producing variation within the species through new recessive and dominant traits. No links are missing.
Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Husky mates with Husky and produces a Husky. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a Chinook. Triceratops mates with Triceratops and produces a Triceratops. Triceratops mates with (insert infraspecific taxa here) and produces a T Horridus.
Such is why all fossils of all creatures remain the same from the oldest fossil to the youngest fossil - and new variation appears suddenly in the fossil record. With no missing links missing. There were none - because those infraspecific taxa remain within the species - just as we observe in real life. T-Rex remains T-Rex, Triceratops remains Triceratops, Brontosaurus remains Brontosaurus.
There is no need to imagine Fairie Dust evolution when all one must do is apply actual observations of how life propagates to the fossil record. 90% of the fossil record is classified incorrectly. Those that are not in actuality simply babies and adults of the same infraspecific taxa classified wrongly - are different infraspecific taxa within the species (breeds/races/formae/subspecies/varieties/etc, etc, whatever you finally decide you want to call them when you all make up your minds).
And we have not yet even begun to discuss your propensity for ignoring your own scientific definitions when it comes to classifying species. Scientific definitions of species one and all refuse to post because then they can not uphold their Fairie Dust.
Observations of the natural world show conclusively that infraspecific taxa mate with infraspecific taxa producing new infraspecific taxa within the species. There is no magical mutation of one creature into another - just what we observe - the recombination of genomes (separated from the start) producing variation within the species through new recessive and dominant traits. No links are missing.
Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Husky mates with Husky and produces a Husky. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a Chinook. Triceratops mates with Triceratops and produces a Triceratops. Triceratops mates with (insert infraspecific taxa here) and produces a T Horridus.
Such is why all fossils of all creatures remain the same from the oldest fossil to the youngest fossil - and new variation appears suddenly in the fossil record. With no missing links missing. There were none - because those infraspecific taxa remain within the species - just as we observe in real life. T-Rex remains T-Rex, Triceratops remains Triceratops, Brontosaurus remains Brontosaurus.
There is no need to imagine Fairie Dust evolution when all one must do is apply actual observations of how life propagates to the fossil record. 90% of the fossil record is classified incorrectly. Those that are not in actuality simply babies and adults of the same infraspecific taxa classified wrongly - are different infraspecific taxa within the species (breeds/races/formae/subspecies/varieties/etc, etc, whatever you finally decide you want to call them when you all make up your minds).
And we have not yet even begun to discuss your propensity for ignoring your own scientific definitions when it comes to classifying species. Scientific definitions of species one and all refuse to post because then they can not uphold their Fairie Dust.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Haven't found a single evolutionist biologist yet that isn't seeking that next funding source and saying whatever it takes to get it, regardless that it fails to match the observational data every single time.
And then the supporters of these same evolutionists, refuse to accept the premier definition of species agreed upon by the majority of evolutionists. Even when those same supporters always insist the majority opinion is always the correct one. Except now I expect sudden;y their stance on the majority will switch 360 degrees within the next few pages.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
