Evolution As Science? Really...?

[Caphi]

Because that fits in with your beliefs.
If you saw a quote from a Christian going against christianity, you'd be suspicious.

A bad analogy. A better one would be a collection of quotes from various Muslims, Daoists, Buddhists, and native-American spiritualists going against Christianity. Have you even counted how many of the quote-authors were even in biology?

 

[HairlessSimian]

A bad analogy. A better one would be a collection of quotes from various Muslims, Daoists, Buddhists, and native-American spiritualists going against Christianity. Have you even counted how many of the quote-authors were even in biology?

If mine's bad, yours is worse. If a non-christian criticizes christianity, it's no surprise and would be sloughed off.

If, one day, you read a quote from Bin Laden saying "Christianity is flawed", you would pay no heed.
If, the next day, you read a quote from Billy Graham saying "Christianity is flawed", you'd be suspicious.
If, another day, you read a quote from M. Behe saying "Evolution is wrong", you'd pay no heed.
If, still another day, you read a quote from S. J. Gould saying "Evolution is wrong", you'd be suspicious.

 

[Caphi]

If mine's bad, yours is worse. If a non-christian criticizes christianity, it's no surprise and would be sloughed off.

If, one day, you read a quote from Bin Laden saying "Christianity is flawed", you would pay no heed.
If, the next day, you read a quote from Billy Graham saying "Christianity is flawed", you'd be suspicious.
If, another day, you read a quote from M. Behe saying "Evolution is wrong", you'd pay no heed.
If, still another day, you read a quote from S. J. Gould saying "Evolution is wrong", you'd be suspicious.

Gould is the only individual on Edmond's list specifically linked to anything like biology. The remainder are ambiguously identified as "professors" or heads of museums and such. If any of them were biologists, Edmond would certainly have put it down as to his own credit. Instead, he does what can only be described as waffling. If I gave you a list of obviously mined quotes, a couple of which were from one Christian and the rest identified as "religious leaders" and "spiritualists", you'd pay a little heed, but not much. And remember, these quotes are clearly cherry-picked and truffle-dug, so that hurts them on top of that.

 

[Tomk80]

Hello....Significant statements from repeated prominent scientists are not not classifiable as simple quotes. They constitue the presence of massive evidence. But now try with the oh, that's trivial, escape cliche.

-------------------------------------

No they don't. Out of context and/or out of date quotes are just that, out of context and out of date quotes. They are not significant statements and they certainly are not arguments.

 

[Edmond]

No they don't. Out of context and/or out of date quotes are just that, out of context and out of date quotes. They are not significant statements and they certainly are not arguments.

Sorry, the point is they are very significant statement. The issue you fail to identify is one of the matter of authority on a subject. That word means someone who knows what he is talking about on a subject as opposed to the average person who thinks he knows.

You apparently haven't read a great deal of Steven Jay Gould for starters. One of the leading Paleoentologist his this era had a great deal to say about the very issue that are covered in those quotes and a great deal more.

I would suggest you read some of his writings on the matter if you want to speak with any authority on this matter.

------------------------------------------------------

 

[TeddyKGB]

Sorry, the point is they are very significant statement. The issue you fail to identify is one of the matter of authority on a subject. That word means someone who knows what he is talking about on a subject as opposed to the average person who thinks he knows.

You apparently haven't read a great deal of Steven Jay Gould for starters. One of the leading Paleoentologist his this era had a great deal to say about the very issue that are covered in those quotes and a great deal more.

I would suggest you read some of his writings on the matter if you want to speak with any authority on this matter.

Stop the insanity, Edmond. It's not too late.

 

[Split Rock]

Sorry, the point is they are very significant statement. The issue you fail to identify is one of the matter of authority on a subject. That word means someone who knows what he is talking about on a subject as opposed to the average person who thinks he knows.

Simply quoting someone is not a useful argument in science. I have written a number of scientific papers, and I have rarely quoted another scientist to support my conclusion. Citing evidence presented in papers written by other scientists is another matter.

You apparently haven't read a great deal of Steven Jay Gould for starters. One of the leading Paleoentologist his this era had a great deal to say about the very issue that are covered in those quotes and a great deal more.

OK. Why don't you briefly explain to us in your own words what Gould wrote and what impact you think it has concerning evolutionary theory?

 

[Edmond]

Stop the insanity, Edmond. It's not too late.

I'm not sure what you think one line comments like these are supposed to present. As far as actual usable information they're essentially meaningless. This response for instance seems to tell me you have no understanding of how statements made by a recognized authority on a particular subject differs from any other.

How did you interact with your parents for example. When they told you from evperience that something was true did you think your opinion was as authoritative as theirs or did you see them being a greater authority on that subject at that time?

Do you get the idea of what authoritative statements are and where they come from?....

------------------------.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I'm not sure what you think one line comments like these are supposed to present. As far as actual usable information they're essentially meaningless.

My irony meter just exploded

 

[Edmond]

My irony meter just exploded

Well...for the fun of it...since no meaningful replies are coming back....Maybe your meter exploded because you're using an....'Electirc irony'......LOL ....

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Scientists are allowed to express doubt about theories, in this case Gould is expressing his doubt on the gradualistic model of evolution proposed by Darwin being the sole model of evolution. He proposed the Punctuated equilbrium model, which better explained some of the fossil record.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Sorry, the point is they are very significant statement. /QUOTE]

Then your point is fallacious because they are not. Some our outdated, others you use out of context. Take the Gould one. He isn’t doubting that evolution occurs, he is doubting the gradualist model of it as opposed to the punctuated equilibrium model. So trying to pretend he is claiming that there is no evolution is dishonest.

The issue you fail to identify is one of the matter of authority on a subject. That word means someone who knows what he is talking about on a subject as opposed to the average person who thinks he knows.

Funny that because you dismiss any quotes from authority that don’t agree with your interpretation of creation.

However, a further note you may want to look up the “Fallacy of appealing to authority”, so you can avoid using it in future. Basically it reminds us that whilst an expert on a subject should be given more weight than a layman, it does not automatically make everything they say true.

You apparently haven't read a great deal of Steven Jay Gould for starters. One of the leading Paleoentologist his this era had a great deal to say about the very issue that are covered in those quotes and a great deal more.

Yes he has and very little of it is what you want everyone here to think it is (see my point above). How teddibly, terribly dishonest of you Edmond. You should be ashamed.

I would suggest you read some of his writings on the matter if you want to speak with any authority on this matter.

And I would suggest you never try and get away with misrepresenting his stand point again because you will always be caught out.

Ghost

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry, the point is they are very significant statement. The issue you fail to identify is one of the matter of authority on a subject. That word means someone who knows what he is talking about on a subject as opposed to the average person who thinks he knows.

Out of context quotes, out of date quotes, and now the argument from authority fallacy as well. Your a very poor debater Edmond.

You apparently haven't read a great deal of Steven Jay Gould for starters. One of the leading Paleoentologist his this era had a great deal to say about the very issue that are covered in those quotes and a great deal more.

If you would have actually read his books, you would have seen that he criticizes the model that evolution progresses with a constant speed, not that evolution happens. If you would have read any books on evolution by other authorities than Gould, you would have seen that he did some severe strawmanning in that proces himself. If you would have read further in the later writings of Gould and his opponents, you would have seen that this was resolved in the easy solution that evolution does not progress in a constant speed. Not, which you want to imply with the quotes, that Gould ever doubted that the theory of evolution was correct. It is fairly safe to say that it is you, Edmond, not me, that has never read a great deal of Stephen Jay Gould (you even spelled his name incorrectly).

I would suggest you read some of his writings on the matter if you want to speak with any authority on this matter.

------------------------------------------------------

My ironymeter just exploded.

[edited by staff]

 

[Caphi]

No comprenda...?

Edmond's Spanish is as bad as his debate skills. "No comprenda" literally means "do not understand", as a command. He is telling someone not to understand. Good job, Edmond!

 

[SamCJ]

- Francis Crick, Nobel Prize recipient for discovery of DNA structure: "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." (_Life Itself_, p.153)

- G.A. Kerkut, biochemistry professor at the University of Southampton: "The philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified... Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." (cited in _Biology_, Keith Graham et al, p.363)

- Louis Agassiz, Harvard professor, pioneer in glaciation: "The theory of evolution is a scientific mistake." (cited in H. Enoch, _Evolution or Creation_, p.139)

- H. Lipson, physicist: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.... To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all... I know that [considering creation theory] is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." ("A Physicist Looks at Evolution", _Physics Bulletin_, 1980, p.138)

- Pierre-Paul Grasse, past President of the French Academie des Sciences, Editor of the 35-volume _Traite de Zoologie_:"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."

- Steven Jay Gould, paleontologist: "I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment", _Natural History_, Feb 1984)

- Art Battson, professor, University of CA - Berkley: "We must bear in mind that just because neo-Darwinian evolution is the most plausible naturalistic explanation of origins, we should not assume that it is necessarily true.... In retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less concerned with the scientific question of accurately explaining the empirical data of natural history, and more concerned with the religious or philosophical question of explaining the design found in nature without a designer. Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact. The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural science." ("Facts, Fossils, and Philosophy", 17 May 1997)


- Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History: "The explanatory value of the hypothesis of common ancestry is nil... I feel that the effects of the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge... Well, we're back to the question I've been putting to people: 'Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true: evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it." (from speech at the American Museum of Natural History, NYC, Nov 5, 1981)

- John Ambrose Fleming, President British Assoc. for Advancement of Science: "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (_The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought_)

- Steven Jay Gould, paleontologist: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists is the trade secret of paleontology... In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ansectors; it appears all at once and fully formed." ("Evolution's Erratic Pace", _Natural History_, May 1977)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great quotes. Thanks.

I read many of the responses; snide remarks that usually did not check out and had little credibility.

 

[Tomk80]

Great quotes. Thanks.

I read many of the responses; snide remarks that usually did not check out and had little credibility.

And you conviniently ignored those that adressed the topic without snide remarks?

 

[Donkeytron]

Great quotes. Thanks.

I read many of the responses; snide remarks that usually did not check out and had little credibility.

1886!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Guywiththehead]

Great quotes. Thanks.

You call a quote from the 1800s great?

 

[Dannager]

Great quotes. Thanks.

I read many of the responses; snide remarks that usually did not check out and had little credibility.

Thanks for showing us exactly how they didn't check out or how they failed to contain credible information. Oh, wait, you didn't do any of that. Way to support your side of the argument by...not arguing at all. Sorry, but unless you provide some sort of counter, your post doesn't mean anything.

Oh, and your quip about lacking credibility made me chuckle because of the nature of Edmond's quote-mining endeavor. Talk about a series of statements lacking credibility.

 

[Dannager]

1886!!!!!!!!!!

Quote'd, bold'd, italic'd, underline'd and red'd for truth.