Here's a fun game: How long until randman can make a Bingo?
Creationist Bingo!
Regardless, there are no negative numbers conceived of in the modern synthesis's claims of "a gradual accumulation" of genes. You don't want to admit they said "gradual accumulation"? That's your business, but don't waste my time.
Another attempt to constrain the conversation to what YOU want to talk about, randman. The paper says "accumulations".
How can something accumulate changes but not genes? Well, lay ten pennies face up. Every second, flip one penny. After three seconds you've accumulated three changes. How many pennies do you have? Note that it doesn't matter if you flip the same one all three times--it's still three changes. And it's still ten pennies.
Antpo knocked the web-source for the quote. What do you think she is implying about the quote?
The source means nothing if the quote is accurate,
The last phrase here is the issue. Creationists love to cherry-pick quotes, as you've so amply demonstrated.
Some you guys need to take a basic course in what Neo-Darwinism is.
I provided the textbooks from four college-level courses on evolution and genetics. randman has refused to acknowledge that. I can only call this a lie.
It is apparent that not too many, maybe none, are aware of criticisms of NeoDarwinism, to be hereafter referred to as Darwinism or ND, among front loaders and esteemed scientists like Grasse, etc,..... I use those terms rather than "evolution" because these men all accepted common descent. Behe and some IDers accept common descent as well but are not generally considered "evolutionists." I hope the terminology brings some clarity.
No, it doesn't. Behe is a died-in-the-wool Creationist who only nominally accepts common decent when he's been shown to have no other options. As for esteemed scientists, I can throw all kinds of names at you in favor of evolution: Gould. Eldritch. Sepkoiski. Feldmann. Ward. Quade. Dibblee. Yaccabucci. Freeman. Herron. Klug. Cummings. Campbell. Reece. Zimmer. Dawkins. Meyers. If you want to talk about evolution, THOSE are the guys and galls you need to discuss, ranging from world-renowned speakers to the people who do the day to day data analysis and accumulation. YOU DO NOT GET TO REDEFINE TERMS TO SUIT YOUR ARGUMENTS WHEN THOSE TERMS HAVE AGREED-UPON DEFINITIONS.
randman said:
He calls "evolution" a "myth", a lie perpetuated in part by fraud.
For the peanut gallery, this is slander. And not just a vague "Those people are frauds", but slander against members of this forum engaged in research into evolution. If there are SPECIFIC accusations that can be backed up, let's hear them; otherwise, this is pretty much the height of incivility in scientific debate. And as it's a flat-out lie that the guy randman is "quoting" said it, the slanderer is randman.
It's sad really, but that's typical with so many evos. They've never even understood what their critics are saying because they are convinced they know what they think and are going to say.
This is called projection. As far as I can tell no one here has put randman on ignore because of his antics. However, I was specifically put on ignore because he refused to actually read what I wrote concerning coral neural net complexity.
