-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Nope, just as so many like Pierre Grasse insisted, adaptive evolution via Neo Darwinian means was and is untenable.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Except that selectionism is still a vital part of the evolutionary process. The only thing that's changed is that, thanks to our discovery of DNA and the related genomic evidence, we know it's not the only part.
Grasse, and you, and Davison and Behe and Denton and everyone else, are still just as wrong as you've always been. And science (and evolutionary theory) marches on, completely impervious to your repeated failed attempts to hold it back.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Nope. They were all correct and evos now shown to be wrong by the very fact they have moved so far away from adaptive evolution as an explanation for macroevolution.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
I like how you get to claim victory in your arguments no matter what scientists do. If they never update their theories based on new data, you claim that the theory of evolution is rigid dogma built on old and possibly bad information, and therefore it's wrong. If they do update their theories based on new data, then you claim it just shows how scientists don't know anything and keep changing their minds about the theory of evolution, and therefore it's wrong.
Talking about how evos use data. It's disingenuous to claim you have a fully explanatory mechanism (adaptive evolution) and then turn around and admit that's not the case, try to come up with new mechanisms and pretend the idea the first, adaptive evolution, being fully explanatory was not an overstatement and incorrect.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
You really have no idea how science works, do you?
I know to parade around insisting that a flawed mechanism was fully explanatory was wrong and unscientific. I know using faked data (Haeckel) was wrong. I know pretending the fossil record showed gradualism when it did not was wrong.
Real science promotes a careful, objective and judicious view of the data.
Evolutionism has done the opposite.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
You're the only one beating that strawman (and, in addition to not knowing how science works, you also apparently have no idea what the term "adaptive evolution" is referring to).
So do scientists. Which is why they stopped once the problems with Haeckel's drawings were identified by another scientist. And, because scientists know that, they also like assembling lots of data together to support something, rather than relying on a single data point. Which is why the removal of Haeckel's drawings did nothing to harm or even change the science and theory of comparative vertebrate embryology in evolutionary theory.
You know nothing about the fossil record and what paleontologists and other evolutionary scientists think and have thought about it. All you know is what people like Wells and Davison and the bloggers at Uncommon Descent have lied about it.
Which is why evolution is real science, and what you and your ID/front-loading pals spout isn't.
Wow. Can you explain then how so many seem to be so mistaken regarding evolution and only a small percentage are clued in like yourself. It's like a . . . a conspiracy or something.
More unsubstantiated comments claiming I don't know what something is. Reminds me of someone insisting, rudely, that placentals evolved from marsupials.
On Haeckel, why did it take so long? Creationists had pointed out they were faked for 130 years. What took you guys so long to come clean on the issue, or just partly?
Yawn. So you make up a bald-faced lie about me and call that an argument?
Were you one of those that insisted I was wrong in saying evolutionists do not mean a fossil is ancestral or evolved any later forms at all when they call a fossil "transitional"?
I was right there too. Some of you ought to read up more on what your own side believes before going off and calling others ignorant when they are actually more informed than you.
On Haeckel, why did it take so long? Creationists had pointed out they were faked for 130 years. What took you guys so long to come clean on the issue, or just partly?
Yawn. So you make up a bald-faced lie about me and call that an argument?
Were you one of those that insisted I was wrong in saying evolutionists do not mean a fossil is ancestral or evolved any later forms at all when they call a fossil "transitional"?
I was right there too. Some of you ought to read up more on what your own side believes before going off and calling others ignorant when they are actually more informed than you.
First, let's ask how they were so wrong and mistaken on promoting Neo Darwinism. Plenty of people, btw, don't accept Neo Darwinism. It's not just a small group, and that includes scientists of note like Pierre Grasse.
What percentage of experts in the field of evolution reject macroevolution? Just a round number if you will.
Guess that depends on whether you are talking about macroevolution by strictly Darwinian mechanisms or not?
Regardless, some do not, though few, but an argument from authority is no real argument at all here for you.
There was a time when nearly all scientists thought time was constant. They were still wrong or thought to be since relativity has been accepted.
iknownothing
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,357
You do realize that was a direct response to your statement, right?
I asked you to explain given the data, why so many got it wrong, and only a relative few like yourself got it right.
a lack of a critical approach to the data and theory is why they got it so wrong on Neo Darwinism.....plenty of scientists showed it was wrong, but they were ignored by Darwinists.
Now biology is going back to some other mechanisms and exploring them, including Neo-Lamarckian ideas such as epigenetics, non-random mutation, and evolution without the emphasis on natural selection, etc,....
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Unlike relativity, ID/ creationist proponents do not offer an alternative narrative that comes anywhere near the explanatory power of evolution. They don't even offer interesting arguments against evolution.