Denial of Evolution VI.

Evidence, yes, but not proof. What if she were to go insane and become a psycho killer?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I assume that's an elaboration rather than a correction? It's clearly consistent with what Gould himself is saying in any case

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

gradualism does not explain evolution and i'm not quite sure how PE will.
i feel it will be structurally related instead of environmental.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PE is fast gradualism. Mechanisms are the same.

 

Evidence, yes, but not proof. What if she were to go insane and become a psycho killer?

Yes, it is a theory, but technically, even if scientists do not say it, it is still a belief too.

 

I asked you earlier which of the tenets of evolution is belief. The answer is, none. So it can't properly be called a belief.

 

OK, fair enough, I'll stop prying into your beliefs.

What I understand so far is that you accept "micro" evolution but think the case for speciation through evolution has not been made to your satisfaction. Would that be about right?

It's an eccentric view - but then I had one (very good) physics teacher at school who professed to be agnostic about the existence of molecules! (He got murdered, some 20 years later, in a gay bar, but I'm sure that was due to his other eccentricities.)

 

AKA adaptation.
yes.

fine choice of words but that's basically it.

 

that's an assumption.
since it works for adaptation you assume it will work for diversity.

 

Leopold re your last line, I'm afraid I can't see how you reach that view from the report that Rav made available. What in that report are you relying on?

More to the point though, what in the CURRENT world of evolution theory makes you think that, 30 years on?

 

i'm sorry, i retract the statement.
i no longer have the original manuscript.

 

This would all be true, of course, assuming that you take after your mother. Think about it. It could be very difficult to admit. I think actually learning to live with her has made me quite the opposite.

 

I didn't say anything about adaptation or diversity. However, adaptation causes diversity over long enough time periods.

 

garbonzo

The only proofs are in math and rhetoric and only reach certainty because they are not about the real world, but are artificially constrained by rules. When someone says "proof" it's a pretty good indication they know little about real science.

leopold

Rav posted the original paper, it just didn't say what you were told it said.

No, evolution and adaptation are two different concepts. When an individual loses a leg it can adapt and survive but it's offspring will not be born missing the same leg no matter how well it does. An environment that requires adaptation by a lifeform over several hundred generations will tend to lead the random changes of DNA toward an organism that needs less adaptation to survive in that environment. Most random changes in DNA do not survive and those that better fit the environment survive better. Adaptations are not heritable, evolutionary changes are.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i see.
then how do you explain the fact that at least one of the quotes that i copy/ pasted from the original text at jstor does not match the one posted by rav?

 

What quote are you even talking about? The one you posted 2+ years ago in the thread I linked to? If so it's still there, in the copy I linked to in this thread, so stop with all the absurd conspiracy theory nonsense, OK?

Furthermore the quote was addressed, in it's proper context, in the aforementioned thread as well. And this is where your dishonestly comes in. You perpetually treat every instance of legitimate correction as if it had never happened. I realize that you're one of those people who thinks he is holding his own just by being tenacious enough to remain in a discussion (we have a few around here), but tenacity can't hold a candle to content in terms of the service it does your intellectual reputation (which is pretty fucking bad already).

 

leopold

Your own dishonesty and ignorance and the dishonesty and ignorance of the sources you use. It's pretty plain you will stoop to any level in order to promote your BELIEFS over science's KNOWLEDGE because that knowledge is dangerous to your beliefs. That is also the source of the "Science is a belief" false meme, trying to bring the status of knowledge down to the same level of uncertainty as beliefs have, trying, falsely again, to build an equivalence between the two. The only way ANY ignorant paradigm of belief can survive is if the people remain ignorant, thus the dishonest tactics employed by the believer against the sources of knowledge. Our current political problems are largely caused by the thrashing of dying belief paradigms plus the blatant racially based hatred of that black man in the White House.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

that doesn't even come close to explaining why the issue at jstor is different from the one rav posted.

 

You've never shown that to be the case. You simply stated it, and quite frankly, no one believes you.

So post what you think is the original.

 

leopold

OK, I'll be blunter and more plain spoken, I think you are lying and the paper ALWAYS said what Rav posted. I don't think you ever actually read the paper, you simply parroted the insane talking points about the paper of whichever creationist cesspool site you got them from. I KNOW you don't understand what's discussed in the paper and you STILL think it supports the anti-evolution claptrap you keep spewing, here and in several other threads over the last few years. That you are lying or misrepresenting what is said in that paper is a much more likely explanation than there being some sort of vast conspiracy to make you(and those who believe as you do)look foolish, it's obvious you need no help from any conspiracy to do that.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!