Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[quixotecoyote]

Robert Bloome, Goldschmidt, Otto Schindenwolf, Pierre Grasse, and more recently, Davison, Denton, etc,.....are you guys honestly unaware of the history of evo theory and how so many scientists reject NeoDarwinism?

Since NeoDarwinism is your creation, they very well might. However, as far as rejecting evolution for creationism and ID goes: fail. Granted, you've got plenty of people who didn't agree with natural selection, but that's not the same thing, now is it?

 

[Halfcentaur]

Doesn't sound like you understood the article, nor the fact it's not the only research making the same discovery.

Is there anyone who disagrees with you that understands what you're talking about at the same time?

 

[randman]

My post wasn't about rejecting "NeoDarwinism", it was about accepting Creationsim and IntelligentDesign. And you're the one who yawns?

Most of these men would be considered or are considered to be in the ID camp.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Since NeoDarwinism is your creation, they very well might. However, as far as rejecting evolution for creationism and ID goes: fail. Granted, you've got plenty of people who didn't agree with natural selection, but that's not the same thing, now is it?

Precisely. But once again the logic is mangled in a hamfisted fashion.

 

[randman]

Since NeoDarwinism is your creation, they very well might. However, as far as rejecting evolution for creationism and ID goes: fail. Granted, you've got plenty of people who didn't agree with natural selection, but that's not the same thing, now is it?

Since NeoDarwinism is your creation

Your ignorance is amazing for someone being so dogmatic and claiming objectivity. Google NeoDarwinism. Check even a biased site like wiki.

I suppose my influence is truly massive as you will find thousands of links.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Most of these men would be considered or are considered to be in the ID camp.

And yet,...

Of course I am aware there are a few creationists who claim to have been converted, but you'd be hearing this all the time were your position truly one based on just being reasonable and correct. I predict you will act as if I am unaware of anyone claiming this conversion has happened to them, and even try to show someone beside yourself. But this ignores the fact you're still part of a small fringe group most of the world mocks for being so deluded.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Most of these men would be considered or are considered to be in the ID camp.

Hah. Your first example got kicked out of Fundie U for not being in that camp. Maybe you should engage your own data before showing it to others.

 

[randman]

Here ya go. If you hyphenate it, you get around 137,000 results with the first one being a wiki entry. Non-hyphenated is around 48,600 results.

http://www.google.com/search?client...=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1a4710ff8668eaea

I dominate the internet?

 

[quixotecoyote]

And yet,...

And yet it's just not true.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Here ya go. If you hyphenate it, you get around 137,000 results with the first one being a wiki entry. Non-hyphenated is around 48,600 results.

http://www.google.com/search?client...=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1a4710ff8668eaea

I dominate the internet?

I guess in your position you have to claim what little victories you can.

 

[randman]

And yet,...

Oh, missed what you are saying. Seems like around half of creationists I've heard of or met were once evolutionists. Many changed their mind after becoming scientists and becoming more acquainted with the evidence.

 

[randman]

I guess in your position you have to claim what little victories you can.

Anyone never even hearing of the term NeoDarwinism and thinks it's a creationist term is about as ignorant as those claiming microevolution was coined and is a creationist term.

 

[devnull]

 

[quixotecoyote]

I guess in your position you have to claim what little victories you can.

If you actually look at the sources, Neo-Darwinism was used for a while as a blend of Mendel and Darwin from the 1900's, but in the mid-80's got replaced by Modern Synthesis, which took into account many other things. Neo-Darwinism, as used today, is generally (eta: yes generally, I know you hounded off to go google exceptions, rand) a term the fundies dug up to play more Humpty Dumpty games with, as evidenced by this thread and the fact that just about the entire first page of results is denalist crap and even going back through, those sites are what the term tends to bring up.

That and the fact rand gets hopping up and down mad when I point out it's not the right term.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Anyone never even hearing of the term NeoDarwinism and thinks it's a creationist term is about as ignorant as those claiming microevolution was coined and is a creationist term.

It's an actual term yes. I realize how valuable this little victory was for you, even though he's just pointing out your usage of it as a sort of pet term.

But even if half of the creationists in your opinion were once "evos", this doesn't change what I am saying. You're still a fringe group.

Why is it you suppose the entire contemporary educated world can put aside it's differences for evolutionary theory, in light of realizing what's evident (you claim) through being logical and following the reasonable conclusion the evidence demonstrates?

This to me seems like claiming Soviet Russia would not have blown the whistle in an instant if America had faked the moon landing. Is it that the world is just too ignorant? Is it that the world is unified in dogmatically being anti religious?

Why are your evident truths relegated to being considered a fringe theory?

Will you posit that your position is not actually a fringe theory, that this is only how the Neodarwinists portray you?

Why are you fighting such a hard won victory for something you claim is so evident from merely examining the evidence truthfully in a world that is founded on empirical evidence and blossoming free thought?

 

[randman]

If you actually look at the sources, Neo-Darwinism was used for a while as a blend of Mendel and Darwin, but in the mid-80's got replaced by Modern Synthesis, which took into account many other things. Neo-Darwinism, as used today, is a term the fundies dug up to play more Humpty Dumpty games with
No, it is not. It is generally used as synonymous with the Modern Synthesis which isn't such a great term to use since it doesn't have anything to in it's phrase to refer to evolution.

Nope. Neodarwinism is used by evolutionist scientists, even in peer-reviewed literature. You are just ignorant, first assuming I made it up and then suggesting creationists did.

Some object to the term not though because creationists used it but because it originally referred to something another evo claimed, but it's the general, accepted word to describe modern evolutionary theory.

Following the development, from about 1937 to 1950, of the modern evolutionary synthesis, now generally referred to as the synthetic view of evolution or the modern synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian is often used to refer to contemporary evolutionary theory.[7] However, such usage has been described by some as incorrect;[8][dead link][1][4] with Ernst Mayr writing in 1984:

"...the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory."'[9]
Despite this, publications such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica,[10][11] use this term to refer to current evolutionary theory. This term is also used in the scientific literature, with the academic publishers Blackwell Publishing referring to "neo-Darwinism as practised today",[12] and some figures in the study of evolution like Richard Dawkins[13] and Stephen Jay Gould,[14] using the term in their writings and lectures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

 

[devnull]

All I know is that it must be frustrating for randman to "know" something with such passion, make lots of noise about following the evidence, and then have the vast majority of scientists look at him like he's sustained a head injury.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No, it is not. It is generally used as synonymous with the Modern Synthesis which isn't such a great term to use since it doesn't have anything to in it's phrase to refer to evolution.

Neodarwinism is used by evolutionist scientists, even in peer-reviewed literature. You are just ignorant, first assuming I made it up and then suggesting creationists did.

Some object to the term not though because creationists used it but because it originally referred to something another evo claimed, but it's the general, accepted word to describe modern evolutionary theory.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

Funny thing, not only does your link say the usage is incorrect. Not only do you know your link says the usage is incorrect. But if you check the sources used to create the phrases you cherrypicked to support your position, you get stuff like:

Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;
...
To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals.
...
Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name.

And we find that the Gould reference he uses it in the title and once in the opening paragraph and then goes on to talk about how Darwinism has given way to the synthesis, never using the term again and always referencing the synthesis.

The lesson here is to always follow the Wiki articles to their sources, especially on topics like this.

 

[randman]

Funny thing, not only does your link say the usage is incorrect. Not only do you know your link says the usage is incorrect.

Maybe you should tell Gould and Dawkins that and the other evos that use the term then?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Maybe you should tell Gould and Dawkins that and the other evos that use the term then?

Gould already knows (see, reading other peoples posts can be fun and not make you look like a dope).

Say. Ready to admit that genetic changes accumulating is not genes accumulating?