IanBrown_101
Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007
|
Anyone ever heard of a nutcase who goes by the name randfan?
Well, he's started spewing creationist rubbish onto the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology sub-forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation forum and boy is he going well.
Posts like this are fairly indicative of his stlye.
At first, I thought he was some random internet crank, although the use of the term "evos" to describe rational people seemed familiar somehow. It got a whole lot more...interesting (?) recently when he revealed his font of all knowledge on evolution:
| Quote | | Quote | Similarly, in nature, sexual reproduction seems incapable of proceeding beyond the subspecies. I am unaware of a single instance of the production of a new species through the known agency of sexual reproduction. The standard Darwinian response is that evolution takes too long to be observable, an assumption which renders that proposal untestable.
This raises the question – has evolution really been gradual? I confess that the answer to this question depends on what one might accept as an intermediate state. As an example, the horse series shows an increase in size coupled with a decrease in digits. However, this series is not linear so the intermediate organisms cannot be arranged in any certain fashion. Furthermore, they differ from one another in so many independent factors that they must be relegated to separate genera. What we actually observe is the appearance of discrete phenotypes with no evidence of what might be described as missing links. This is exactly what one sees when one observes extant related organisms.
For an amateur bird watcher, like myself, a simple key or even a picture is usually all that is needed to identify any species with certainty. Schindewolf suggested that we might as well stop looking for missing links as they never existed! If they are not present in contemporary species, why should they have been present during their evolution? Any hypothesis for evolution must recognize and offer an explanation for these morphological gaps. The semi-meiotic hypothesis, which I first proposed in 1984, does exactly that (Davison, 1984, 1998). Based as it is on the reorganization of the chromosomes, such events cannot be considered gradual since they are all-or-none events for which intermediate states are inconceivable. In short, they indicate instant evolution. There is also no compelling evidence that new information is required for the expression of such reorganizations (position effects), indicating that the necessary information was already present and only needed to be derepressed (Davison, 2000). |
John A. Davison Professor Emeritus of Biology University of Vermont
http://www.uncommondescent.com/docum...hed_022204.pdf
|
Link
Oh yes kiddiewinks, he's using Javison, which, after remembering how Javison likes to roll, leads me to wonder, could this be the man himself?
--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.
You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK
Roddenberry is my God.
|
