Joined: July 2007
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:11)|
|Quote (JAM @ Sep. 20 2007,17:43)|
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 20 2007,02:13)|
|I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton.|
Didja happen to notice that the latter book walks back from the position taken in the former book?
Not really. In the first book, he doesn't really give us an alternative hypothesis; all he does is point out the many deficiencies of the currently held evolutionary theory.
Yes, really. In the first book, he treats the reader to such dishonest misrepresentations as a "purely random process of natural selection," as well as the somewhat more sublime idiocy of his failure to understand basic taxonomic relationships, as well as the idea that conserved amino-acid residues represent functional constraints, in his laughable centerpiece of cytochrome sequences.
|In the second book, he starts to give us his own alternative: a designed universe and directed evolution.|
I see no conflict.
That's predictable. Do you see any evidence? I'm struck by the mind-boggling conflict between your claim to be interested in evidence, while simultaneously conflating evidence with opinion.
Have you ever read a paper from the primary biological literature--you know, those ones that have new data in them?
Has Denton ever published any data? If not, why not?