Re: Survival of the Fittest: What was Darwin's pragmatics?

In article <1183457320.316058.157980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
backspace <sawireless2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 3, 11:00 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Your complaint that "you will tell me the same story nomatter what you
find in nature" is flawed. The same logic could be applied to gravity:
Telling me that the hammer fell to the ground doesn't really tell me
where the attractive control mechanism comes from: whenever you see two
masses accelerating towards one another, you declare gravity to be the
reason. This makes the whole thing unfalisifiable because you will tell
me the same story nomatter what you find in nature.
You know Timberwoolf you are wrong and what makes it so sad is that
everybody around here knows your logic is
flawed but because you are on the side of the evolutionists,
Dr.Wilkins won't even bother to correct you in your logic. A professor
in physics won't dream of making the argument you have just made, it
is infantile 6-year old logic and I don't mean to be unkind about
this. It is so simple to help you in clarifying your thoughts
surrounding this. Simply ask a hardcore atheist evolutionist professor
in physics in private - dont' try to posture or fight proxy wars for
atheism - who will be able to help in your logic without embarrasing
you or anything, like you are doing at the moment.

So all you've done here is to quote my argument out of context and
follow it up with a tirade of ad-hominems interspersed with admissions
that you did not understand my argument.

The Cheetah's nervous system did not develop independently of those of
other tetrapods. Nervous systems have been around for a long time, and
have continually been adapted and expanded to fill new roles. So the
answer to where the cheetahs' feedback control mechanism comes from is
more complicated than you imagine. It came, of course, from its
ancestors, and was adapted to this role.
Have you heard of "...its turtles all the way down...."?

Yes, I have, and it does not apply here. The turtles go back forever.
Evolutionary innovations do not.

Darwin's stories are still told because they are
still valid observations. In fact, since he was able to make them
without specific knowledge of genetics makes them all the more valid: he
had no preconceived notions of how things ought to work, and once
genetics was more fully explained, that validated Darwin's theories.

What theory? Darwin's conjecture was that the one species transmutated
into another and said that the fossils will show this like stacked one
ontop of another like the flow of honey. Nobody knows why he called
his conjecture "evolutoin" What was his intent.

You cannot make a credible refutation of a theory if you don't
understand it to begin with. I suggest that you do some basic research
first, and then try to find the problems with it.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.
an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Survival of the Fittest: What was Darwins pragmatics?
    ... The same logic could be applied to gravity: ... me the same story nomatter what you find in nature. ... flawed but because you are on the side of the evolutionists, ... No transmogrification, no transmutation, no morphing, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Survival of the Fittest: What was Darwins pragmatics?
    ... On Jul 3, 11:00 am, Timberwoof ... The same logic could be applied to gravity: ... me the same story nomatter what you find in nature. ... flawed but because you are on the side of the evolutionists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
    ... > I've never read Popper but have read and heard from innumerable sources ... The process of refutation is much more complex than it seems at first ... observed in nature then each respective theory stands refuted. ... absolute assumption) and not just a dictated category (a non evolutionists ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Comparing Creationism against Darwinism
    ... and in nature as a whole. ... evolutionists from being seen as fools and buffoons. ... hallmarks of "Christian" evolutionism. ... Humans are not apes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comparing Creationism against Darwinism
    ... and in nature as a whole. ... evolutionists from being seen as fools and buffoons. ... hallmarks of "Christian" evolutionism. ... I see - so by that logic, Americans are not humans, humans are not ...
    (talk.origins)