Teach "Evolution," Not Darwinian Evolution

Leopold, you failed to point out flaw my logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The flaw in your logic is that you operate without any.

Obviously if one would like to know that the modern view on evolution is one would have a look at new editions of textbooks and review articles.

One might actually be surprised if one actually took a look at those basic writings.

For instance:

Needles to say, the creationists like Iceage are hopelessly stuck in their own limited world and are still trying to refute a book that is more than a century old. They do not take into account the gigantic body of work produced on evolution every year. They fail to see that the theory is the motor of modern biology, that it connects everything, that it raises questions, that the theory is the lifeblood of biological sciences.

Denying evolution is the same as denying all biology. Thousands of people around the world are all fools, except our friend Iceage. He says evolution is foolish and hence it must be.

Unfortunately for him it doesn't work like that.

1. you come with a viable alternative theory.
2. the alternative theory has to be more attractive than the current one.
3. you build your case that the new theory outclassess the old one.

So far, Iceage failed to go passed stage 1. In fact he didn't even go near stage 1.

Darwin's idea was very simple and instantly attractive for many people because it made sense.

How come that iceage is having trouble projecting an attractive idea (Other than for religious people who need a mental crutch to support their own believes)?

How is a series of one-liners ever going to convince anyone? Especially if the general theme of them is that the opposition is foolish and that's it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From your link, monkster, "...or at least has the potential to be..., need I say more?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. I didn't give a link. I gave a quote. If you refer to some post down the line you will have to be more specific. We are not mindreaders.
2. You will indeed have to say more. A sentence out of context is meaningless and you should have noticed by now that nobody can follow your illogical thoughts. To a normal person this would indicate that they have to formulate their ideas more carefully and fully so other people might understand them. Apparently you are so one with jesus that you don't feel the need to do so, however, this is the same as talking to yourself. Maybe interesting to you, but not on a discussion forum.

If we do mindread you think that the whether the effect of comparative genomics is profound or potentially profound disproves evolution or the concepts that follow in that paragraph.

It doesn't change the fact that our vision on genomic change is changing.

 

It was the quote, and it says it all, you should be more careful about the quotes you use.

 

If we do mindread you think that the whether the effect of comparative genomics is profound or potentially profound disproves evolution or the concepts that follow in that paragraph.

It doesn't change the fact that our vision on genomic change is changing.

What your post says is that you have no sense of logic, nor do you have an argument.

 

"Our vision on genomic change is changing," may I quote you on that?

 

You just did.

Of course someone like you would never realize that this doesn't disprove natural selection.

We know genomes changed. Evolution predicts this. We now know they changed more radical than previously thought.

The basic reason for this is that evolution sparked of the entire field of genomic change. The more you study a subject the better you understand it. You may feel you found something radical, but all you now quoted is a confirmation that natural selection and evolution do work. And they can produce radical changes in relatively short time frames.

Results that perfectly support evolution.

 

Source of the quote btw:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...sef[book] AND 235260[uid]&rid=sef.chapter.298
The previous quote is followed by this one. It is an introduction into how genomics is going to change our views, how a new tool can give us new insight into evolution.

How hard is it to find this stuff?

Very easy: go to pubmed. Select pubmed books. Type in evolution.

 

It will all confirm the syngameon reality.

 

When? When jesus returns to his people?

 

When our "vision on genomic change" stops "changing."

 

basically you still just producing hot air. Why can't you confirm it now? It's not like anyone will do any research ever to confirm your delusions. If you can't confirm it now you can never do it.

Make an argument. Be a man. Don't hide behind your meaningless one-liners.

You don't even have a coherent theory do you?

 

I shouldn't, but can't resist.

He can't. He has not evolved that far yet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(He is still at the "parrot stage" - parroting his religous leaders.)

 

what really kills me about iceage is that he agrees that naturally occuring substances can alter genes and those genes can be passed on to offsprings but yet refuses to believe it's evolution.

 

Goo to you, ya man.

 

Tell that to Barox Max, who refuses to believe black people's nose is a result of the evolution of warm climates, not a beauty flaw. Vice versa, White people have slit nose because it reduces the inflow of cold air. In warm enviroments we find it difficlut to breath, and in cold enviroments we try to cover our nose. Q.E.D

 

Goo to you, and a beach to the top of Mount Everest, this is what nature can do given enough time.

 

If a 10,000 meter peak (everest is less than 9000m) were worn down at a mere millimeter per year, in 10 million years (an eyeblink geologically) everest would be a rolling plain.

 

Currently the himalayas are actually rising with 5mm per year.

wikipedia

Actually the Alps are still rising with 1 mm a day (and more) and the effect of erosion is to wear this down.

also wikipedia