Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Subduction Zone]

Oh so now you move from disbelief in the falsehood to the belief that I'm the falsehood. Look. I don't care if you believe me or not. My statement is true. I know what I experienced.

You may believe your statement to be true, but that does not make it so. The human memory is amazingly unreliable at times, especially when your own personal biases enter the picture.

More than anything you WANT the theory of evolution to be wrong. Your mind is simply editing what you remember. Don't worry, it is only human nature. It is not as if you tried to lie. But the two examples that you have been given have been shown to be wrong. Simply admit your error and move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claiming I gave no answer is not honest, that or you lost your way here and are confused what post is what.

It was a yes or no question. There was no "Yes" there was no "No". You did not answer.

Anyway, pretty senseless to even rest of your post, you know it, I know it and they know it.

Yes, because you can't. But the "proof" that you demanded was given to you.

Once you have posted your proof or answers to questions you keep avoiding (Oh, I get it now, that why you accused me of not answering so you could have an excuse not to yourself...you don't. ) I'll respond, and to save me the time going through the mud looking for it, just start any post to me with "here it the proof", if you actually posted proof so I can know how to deal with the post. Thanks.

Oops, it looks as if you are going to have to go over that whole post after all.

 

[Sanoy]

Seriously, getting mad just because your claims were shown to be totally fallacious is nothing to get angry about. Simple admit that you are wrong and no one will mention your errors again.

Lol, I'm not mad. I'm actually enjoying your petty responses.

 

[pitabread]

Oh so now you move from disbelief in the falsehood to the belief that I'm the falsehood. Look. I don't care if you believe me or not. My statement is true. I know what I experienced.

I didn't believe you from the get-go, especially since your original claim was "As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes." And I said so in my very first response to you.

Maybe there is a bit of hyperbole snuck in there, but assuming you really are only 37, I seriously doubt that any high school textbook used in the late 90's actually used Haeckel's drawings to "prove" or otherwise support biological evolution. I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this, but I think we both know that's probably not going to happen.

And the peppered moths, as discussed, are neither false nor frauds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, I'm not mad. I'm actually enjoying your petty responses.

Hardly "petty". Perhaps beyond your ability to understand. But I tell you what, rather than getting into a snark war why not see if you can find some reasonable questions about the theory that you do not understand?

Politely and properly asked questions will be answered politely and properly.

 

[Sanoy]

I didn't believe you from the get-go, especially since your original claim was "As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes." And I said so in my very first response to you.

Maybe there is a bit of hyperbole snuck in there, but assuming you really are only 37, I seriously doubt that any high school textbook used in the late 90's actually used Haeckel's drawings to "prove" or otherwise support biological evolution.

And the peppered moths, as discussed, are neither false nor frauds.

Doubt it all you want. What I said was true.

Thats the problem with Darwin apologists. They think gluing dead moths on a tree trunk as if it were naturally occurring to show an advantage isn't fraudulent and then accuse you of lying.

 

[Sanoy]

Hardly "petty". Perhaps beyond your ability to understand. But I tell you what, rather than getting into a snark war why not see if you can find some reasonable questions about the theory that you do not understand?

Politely and properly asked questions will be answered politely and properly.

I'm good with this man. I haven't laughed so hard in long time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, Talk Origins is an excellent source when countering creationist claims. All that creationists have are PRATT's today (Point Refuted A Thousand Times). And Talk Origins will probably answer any questions that you have if you don't want to ask them here. For example you can find a more complete answer to the Peppered Moth claim along with references there:

CB601: The peppered moth story

 

[pitabread]

Doubt it all you want. What I said was true.

No it wasn't. In fact, we've already proven that it wasn't.

Thats the problem with Darwin apologists. They think gluing dead moths on a tree trunk as if it were naturally occurring to show an advantage isn't fraudulent and then accuse you of lying.

The photos are a red herring. Any photos of dead moths is completely irrelevant to whether or not Kettlewell's work was valid. And as I will link for you a second time, now, modern research indicates that his work was valid: | Biology Letters

The fact that you are still obsessing about photos sounds like you just cribbed this from a creationist site which in turn likely took in from Well's Icons of Evolution book.

 

[Sanoy]

No it wasn't. In fact, we've already proven that it wasn't.



The photos are a red herring. Any photos of dead moths is completely irrelevant to whether or not Kettlewell's work was valid. And as I will link for you a second time, now, modern research indicates that his work was valid: | Biology Letters

No. You haven't.

Yes. The photo is a red herring. I agree 100%.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doubt it all you want. What I said was true.

Thats the problem with Darwin apologists. They think gluing dead moths on a tree trunk as if it were naturally occurring to show an advantage isn't fraudulent and then accuse you of lying.

Even after you were shown to be wrong?

And no, it was not "fraudulent". How is making something simpler so that students can understand it "fraudulent"? According to your standards the "Dick and Jane" books are fraudulent.

 

[Sanoy]

Even after you were shown to be wrong?

And no, it was not "fraudulent". How is making something simpler so that students can understand it "fraudulent"? According to your standards the "Dick and Jane" books are fraudulent.

You showed yourself what you wanted to believe.

You need to pick one. It is either true and still in the texts books or it is false and removed from the text books.

 

[pitabread]

No. You haven't. I still remember.

Except that peppered moths (via Kettlewell's original data) are in fact evidence for evolution. Neither forgery nor false.

Which immediately makes your original claim, "As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes" to be patently false.

Now you can continue to entrench yourself over this original claim of yours, but it's looking rather foolish at this point.

 

[Sanoy]

Except that peppered moths (via Kettlewell's original data) are in fact evidence for evolution. Neither forgery nor false.

Which immediately makes your original claim, "As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes" to be patently false.

Now you can continue to entrench yourself over this original claim of yours, but it's looking rather foolish at this point.

Like I said. Lying to your face that I know that Rick stole something because I hate Rick doesn't make it not a lie if 40 years later it's discovered Rick did steal something.

 

[Ronald]

All atheist/evolutionists will be soon entering into the next phase of their evolution, Judgment Day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You showed yourself what you wanted to believe.

You need to pick one. It is either true and still in the texts books or it is false and removed from the text books.

What do you mean by "pick one"? It is true, it is still in texts. There was no fraud. It was never shown to be false. Did you not check the link? You are complaining about a photo used for students that made it easier for students to understand. That is neither fraudulent nor is it false.

 

[Sanoy]

What do you mean by "pick one"? It is true, it is still in texts. There was no fraud. It was never shown to be false. Did you not check the link? You are complaining about a photo used for students that made it easier for students to understand. That is neither fraudulent nor is it false.

Then why doubt my memory that it was in the textbook? LOL! I await your contrived response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said. Lying to your face that I know that Rick stole something because I hate Rick doesn't make it not a lie if 40 years later it's discovered Rick did steal something.

And now you are essentially breaking the Ninth Commandment. By claiming fraud when you can not support your case, in fact when the evidence shows that you are wrong, that there was no fraud, you are bearing false witness against your neighbor.

When you make a claim of the sort that you did as a Christian you put a burden of proof upon yourself. If you say something bad about someone you need to be able to show that it is true. You can't since that clearly is not the case. The Peppered Moths, as shown by more than one source, are evidence for evolution.

 

[Sanoy]

And now you are essentially breaking the Ninth Commandment. By claiming fraud when you can not support your case, in fact when the evidence shows that you are wrong, that there was no fraud, you are bearing false witness against your neighbor.

When you make a claim of the sort that you did as a Christian you put a burden of proof upon yourself. If you say something bad about someone you need to be able to show that it is true. You can't since that clearly is not the case. The Peppered Moths, as shown by more than one source, are evidence for evolution.

Your own people say it's fraud. LOL!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why doubt my memory that it was in the textbook? LOL!

That has been explained to you. And how memories can fool yourself was explained to you too.

Seriously this is not rocket science. You made an error, it was a somewhat understandable error considering your biases, but it was still an error.