Search results

oh i dunno, falsified data maybe? edit: BTW, i thougfht this was a thread about scientist misinterpreting data, not a specific topic.

you can start here: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 interesting reading: members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/archaeology.htm www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution

i have done nothing except to point out the very things you are doing furmious. and it's a cancer that pervades evolutionary debate, you certainly aren't the only one that does it, and you are very far from being the worst offender. review post 478. as to the points above: 2. why treat...

unfortunately you did. you called both noble and margulis "questionable authority" in post 478. in post 464 you presented a link that refered to margulis as a rebel. in post 459 you referred to her as a renegade. and that's the point. margulis put forth hypothesis that went against standing...

i've given my opinion on this. i believe transposons are responsible for the variations we see within a species. this type of mutation is neither fixed, gradual, adaptive, or accumulating it's just a variation of the germline. the explanations do nothing to fill these gaps. the very fact that...

i find posts like this interesting. we don't know how or why (because we have no proof) but we know it's a fact. IOW, we don't know it was a natural process, but it's a fact it was. do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

one other aspect i find interesting concerning this debate is the following: if it's presented from a creationist site, it's dismissed as creationist. if it's presented from a scientist, they are dismissed as being a renegade. if neither of the above can be applied then it's dismissed as a quote...

when i say gradual changes, i don't mean it as some kind of progressive or adaptive change. i mean it as "variations around a norm" sort of thing i didn't just pull this out of the air. there is more than one source that refers to the gaps in the record, and these gaps aren't the result of an...

i believe i have done a MUCH better job at explaining my viewpoint than you have yours. although you might not like to admit it, you are using the same outmoded concepts that all supporters of the modern synthesis make, and you do so relying on the work of others. i have, on the otherhand have...

i've had this conversation before, with dogs for the win. i went to church and was saved/ baptized as a presbyterian at an early age. so, saying i'm a non christian isn't technically correct, neither is i'm a complete dummy. OTOH, i have no idea what the book of john is about, nor any other book...

some scientists have even put forth a multiverse scenario for abiogenesis. whether it's being seriously considered is questionable. well, suggesting it and discussing it, doesn't mean they support it. this is where physicists have an advantage over evolutionists. physicists can discuss their...

i am so glad frumious include the link about margulis (i'll get back to this) there is no doubt there is such a thing as "gradual" evolution. the variations within a species is typical. it's when we talk about macro evolution is where the non gradual part comes in. judging from my understanding...

because there is other evidence that support a nonm gradual paradigm in regards to evolution. HGT is a primary example, and that is what endosymbiosis basically is. HGT is incorporated into the germline immediately, not by some gradual process. HGT also isn't confined to one gene but can include...

noble: So my argument for saying this is a matter of replacement rather than extension is simply that it was a direct intention of those who formulated the modern synthesis to exclude the inheritance of acquired characteristics. frumious; Do you have evidence for that? I'm skeptical; isn't it...

i mentioned this because endosymbiosis is the proposed method of prokaroyte to eukoroyte transition. this apparently happened in one fell swoop. also, there is mounting evidence that evolution in general is not a gradualistic paradigm. as a matter of fact, gradualism has been one of the tenets...

i disagree. lamarkism was known in darwins time. to say they didn't have evidence of it is questionable.

re: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/famous-physiologist-embarrasses-himself-by-claiming-that-the-modern-theory-of-evolution-is-in-tatters/ And so he constructs a case that not only is the Modern Synthesis wrong, because all its tenets have been disproven, but that his own...

some have said the same about the emerging biology. it's a more radical change from the modern synthesis, than than the modern synthesis was from darwinism. my sources do not give any examples, unless they are in the references. you can read about it here, but it's behind a paywall: Science...

is that why scientists such as ross and oakely SPECIFICALLY use the word, because they really didn't mean it? i seriously doubt these scientists are trying to muddy or confuse the issue.

there is a major difference here that you seem to be glossing over. for example: what are the many important assumptions of newtonian physics that were abandoned? in regards to the modern synthesis, one of those key assumptions is that evolution is driven by natural selection. natural selection...