- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 3,999
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
The great creationist Jerry Bergman once wrote:
"A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about."
Bolding mine.
If only creationists - including the 'professionals' like Jerry himself - would heed this sage advice. But then, this would leave most creationists with next to nothing to say, I suspect.
Along these lines of pontificating when you would be better of staying quiet, we have the fellow that wrote this, some bolding for emphasis:
It's telling that evolutionary pontificator's [sic] think a copy error, rewriting what already existed, is not a continuous variation.......
That they then claim it is the record of continuous variation that allows them to trace lineage.
Pontification to the extreme........ and might we add hypocritical and contradictory as well....
So sad - so sad that this chap is so confident in his ignorance that he deigns even to condescend - the Dunning-Kruger effect in a grand display.
Here is what "continuous variation" is:
So odd then that this guy who has started more threads on what he thinks is 'genetics' doesn't understand the basics. This is, in my experience, the norm among creationists.
Best to take fellow YEC Jerry Bergman's advice.
"A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about."
Bolding mine.
If only creationists - including the 'professionals' like Jerry himself - would heed this sage advice. But then, this would leave most creationists with next to nothing to say, I suspect.
Along these lines of pontificating when you would be better of staying quiet, we have the fellow that wrote this, some bolding for emphasis:
It's telling that evolutionary pontificator's [sic] think a copy error, rewriting what already existed, is not a continuous variation.......
That they then claim it is the record of continuous variation that allows them to trace lineage.
Pontification to the extreme........ and might we add hypocritical and contradictory as well....
So sad - so sad that this chap is so confident in his ignorance that he deigns even to condescend - the Dunning-Kruger effect in a grand display.
Here is what "continuous variation" is:
Continuous variation of a character shows an unbroken range of phenotypes in the population (see Figure 1-12). Measurable characters such as height, weight, and color intensity are good examples of such variation. Intermediate phenotypes are generally more common than extreme phenotypes and, when phenotypic frequencies are plotted as a graph, a bell-shaped distribution is observed. In some such distributions, all the variation is environmental and has no genetic basis at all. In other cases, there is a genetic component caused by allelic variation of one or many genes. In most cases, there is both genetic and environmental variation. In continuous distributions, there is no one-to-one correspondence of genotype and phenotype. For this reason, little is known about the types of genes underlying continuous variation, and only recently have techniques become available for identifying and characterizing them.
So odd then that this guy who has started more threads on what he thinks is 'genetics' doesn't understand the basics. This is, in my experience, the norm among creationists.
Best to take fellow YEC Jerry Bergman's advice.
