Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (damitall @ Nov. 27 2012,07:36)|
|I see Giggles is using the "intimation without explanation" method of weaseling - as perfected by "Socrates"/Doug Dobney at TR, but used by IDiots everywhere|
he INTIMATES that he knows that known evolutionary mechanism cannot account for this or that new phenotype, but consistently fails to explain what other mechanisms are responsible, let alone give any evidence for the existence of such mechanisms IRL
He's desperately trying NOT to say that he believes that organisms actively and with foresight as to result change their genomes to reach a specific goal, because he knows he has no evidence.
Nevertheless that is what he believes. That's what his "molecular intelligence" bafflegab is all about.
Of course it's what he believes, but he's too scared to stand up for his own beliefs, hence his continual changes to his 'paper'.
I will admit, he knows a lot of the tricks: arrogance, demanding that people use his terminology his way, strawman and personal attacks instead of evidence, posting from Wikipedia instead of answering questions, etc.
Gary, in your new version, did you address your fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection that I mentioned some 20 pages ago? Did you address the remarkably poor graphing skills that were mentioned at the same time.
Do you have a single reference work to support anything you've said in your 'paper'? I only ask because, when I was in 6th grade, I had to write a paper and my teacher forced me to include references. I've been doing that now for almost 30 years. It's sort of standard. Will you ever include a list of references and works cited? Or is this just another time-cube?
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.