Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
which one of you guys is jerry again?
| Quote | 13
jerry
08/28/2009
10:22 pm
Darwin on evolution was essentially a failure. He was wrong about gradualism. He was wrong that natural selection was a major factor in evolution. He was wrong about the Malthusian struggle for resources. He is probably wrong about common descent. On another thread the discussion of the Cambrian is a major obstacle in the common descent scenario.
Darwin was a decent scientist in his work on barnacles and worms and did a decent job of classifying species during the Beagle trip and apparently was insightful with his analysis of geology in South America but in evolutionary biology he was a bust. That is why it is so hard to defend him and his ideas on evolution. He got it all wrong and if the people of his day knew about the information content of the cell and the problems with the origin of new information they would have laughed him out of the building. He would have probably never have left Down House except to present his work on barnacles and worms. |
wow. that is really something.
from "Clive disproves evolution by peer reviewing WIRED article" thread
example of Clive refuting everything
| Quote |
20
Clive Hayden
08/29/2009
2:12 am
Cabal,
I have to say, that mouse’s fur changing color is the sort of evolution that evidences grand-scale evolution, like molecules-to-man, thanks for linking to it. I’m kidding, of course. You’re presupposition that anything evolutionary occurs over “thousands of years” should be examined before you assume it, and then dismiss observation as being invalid or impossible. It would be begging the question to say that it took thousands or millions of years for something to evolve, and therefore it’s not observable, when you have nothing supporting the initial assertion that it took thousands or millions of years for something to evolve without observation.
ID is not a philosophical presupposition, for it comes after the scientific evidence, not before, that is why it’s not incompatible with evolution. The position that no intelligence was involved, and that a “random” (a word with metaphysical meaning) chance event of mutation and natural selection accounts for all of life’s complexities, is. Really, if evolution is chained to abductive reasoning about the past, then it cannot fault ID for making the ID inference. ID doesn’t discredit such articles as above on the grounds of abduction, it has problems with the philosophical bias against intelligence. With ID, you can fit in evolution, with evolution, you cannot fit in ID, nor can you really even fit in evolution. It’s the difference between waking and dreaming. When we’re awake, we can fit in our dreams from the night before, when we’re dreaming, we cannot fit in our waking life, or our other dreams. |
shorter clive: "Macroevolution is microevolution! ID is Evolution!"
hahahahaha these sad sacks of shite can't tell the difference between a bung and a bang
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
