Did not see where you posted them?
This is a forum. Go look--the post is upthread. Though I have to say, this is your own fault--you openly stated that you were ignoring people whenever they disagreed with you (or, as you put it [paraphrased] posting bunk). I'm going to continue to assume that you've read all of the books I've posted, though, since you demand that we read every loon that comes across your radar.
The claim, maybe it was your's, is that evolution is a change in frequences of alleles, PERIOD,
That quote is on the SAME PAGE. Sheesh.
I didn't appreciate the, period, etc,....stuff. As you say, it ignores the whole debate I was trying to have.
Nope. It shows that you don't understand even the definition of the terms you're debating.
Frankly, that's asinine, offensive and a bald-faced lie.
Funny. I got that from an evolutionary biologist (several, actually). I'll grant one was a biochemist, so he was biased, but still, to call the researchers liars is right up there with accusing them of fraud.
I was correct in saying that definition of evolution is inadequate and pointing out that other evolutionist scientists have objected to it, and for a very long time.
And I pointed to HALF A DOZEN BOOKS showing that nearly everything you've said is wrong. The preponderance of evidence is that you don't know squat about this topic.
Because I actually take the time to learn the various sides and arguments in these debates and so knew that regardless of say what some propagandist site like TalkOrigins may say, at least in my view, there have been large objections to using a change in allele frequency as the definition of evolution.
No. You've looked at fringe theories which have little to no support in the larger community of researchers and have declared them to be perfectly valid theories on par with those which are. This is not research, this is not educational, this is not a good way to learn a science. It's the equivalent of learning geology by studying what the Deluge crowd says because hey, that's the side arguments and debates!
Likewise, there are lots of areas of contrary thought within and outside of evolutionist cirlces. Most evos you talk with are completely unaware of that, however.
This statement is almost contradictory (note the caveat). If most scientists (I'd object to being called an "evo", but after the accusations of fraud it's somewhat refreshing that you're only calling me names) don't even KNOW about the debates, how can there be lots of areas of contrary thought within legitimate scientific research? I mean, have you ever been to an academic conference? I know of one group that can't advertise their meetings anymore because the police got tired of breaking up the annual drunken brawl. I've seen researchers flat-out insult one another during talks over whether an ecosystem that's 66 million years old was top-down or bottom-up controlled. I've heard of people refusing to speak to one another because of differing conclusions, and people dynomiting a competator's find. In short, researchers are not the type of people to back down from a good argument. The fact that "most evos" don't even know about the areas of contrary thought is a pretty good indication that there's nothing to them. Not fool proof, mind you, but a guy who's done no research into the actual theory and who prefers to get his information from fringe cranks isn't going to have the tools to differentiate between the good ideas and the crazy ones.
1. I thought you'd know that there has been longstanding, decades old objection among evos themselves and of course, others, over using a reductionist definition of "evolution" as a change in frequency.
Maybe you were just unaware of that controversy?
The alternative interpretation is that this is a fabricated controversy, like that over Creationism. Another is that the side you're supporting is small but vocal. Another is that they've misinterpreted the evidence (I mean, your whole epigenetic thing was shown to be controlled by genes, so that goes right back to allele frequency). Another is that it's simply too minor a correction to be important. Need I continue?
2. I never said epigenetics was new or unexplained. You once again tried to add words and ideas to just very simple statements to you guys, and no gotcha here. Some idiot calls me ignorant because I don't agree that a change in alleles is the best definition. He's the one ignorant here.
Nope. I've actually cited my sources. The fact that you can't be bothered to look them up is irrelevant--I'm demonstrably not ignorant.
Tied to genes? So we're moving the goalpost now. It would have to be a change in the frequency of alleles or it's not evolution by definition right, according to some of you.
This is called a clloquialism. It means that epigenetic evolution is, as far as I can tell, influenced by allele frequencies. I've already presented arguments concerning gene expression (and references), and ANTpogo presented an argument that the expression of genes is controlled by other genes. Changes in allele frequencies in the controlling genes=changes in allele frequency. Unless you care to actually define what you're talking about?
