Re: Commentary: Evolution is factual science, the best type of theory

On Feb 17, 2:43 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:19 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 16, 4:09 pm, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The Origin of Species was not "perfect." Darwin got some things
wrong. 150 years of the most rapid advances in science and what we
got is a scientific theory that has stood up to the tests of time and
grown with the advances.

What is the theory ? Not everybody is brain dead Ron, how much longer
do you think you will get away with this incessant referral to some
theory yet nobody knows what is the theory!

Not everyone is brain dead. I have never said otherwise. Posters
like yourself are mostly just willfully ignorant and refuse to learn
anything about the topic that they are claiming to argue against. I
mostly leave you alone because you aren't as smart as you think and
you tend to self destruct so that no one has to do much to counter
what you come up with. I haven't even read any of your posts since I
responded to one of your threads and you never posted a response
(several weeks ago). Just look at your above post. How long have you
been posting in this forum and you don't even know what a scientific
theory is? Isn't that the first thing that you should get straight
before you open your mouth?

You might claim that no one has given you a satifactory answer, but
isn't that just your willful ignorance? How else would you explain
the fact that thousands of biologist do not have your problem? Is
there some world wide conspiracy to keep this information from you?
Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc. biologists all conspire to
keep you in the dark so that you can keep making a fool of yourself.

You aren't braindead, but you are no better off than a belligerent
drunk in this forum.

I am trying my level best to understand this theory you know by
carefully documenting what each person says about the labels
"evolution" and "natural selection".
Here is a draft:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/EvolutionDiscussion
* Humphreys: "... NS is a conjuring trick..."
* Gould: ".... the mind consists of illusions ..."
* Timberwoof: "... NS is a handy label ... and refuse to proceed
to any deeper understanding..."
* Harshman1:"... NS is a cause ...."
* Harshman2:".... NS is an effect ...."
* Harshman3:".... NS can be both a cause or an effect...."
* Harshman4:".... ToE is difficult to define ...."
* Dawkins: "... NS produced everything in the universe and
precedes design but I can't prove it but believe it ..."
* Chomsky1: "... saying that NS produces something is extremely
sloppy language...."
* Chomsky2: " .... NS can't explain where language came from ...."
* Pinker: ".... NS is all we have what other explanation could
there be ...."
* Darwin:"... NS is a force incessantly ready for action ....."
* ChrisColbyPragmatics: "... NS can only be an effect ..." What is
the cause then ?
* Wilkins:".... ordinary language is not suited to discussing
selection in evolution ..."
* BerlinskiPragmatics: "... NS as some sort of universal mechanism
is just as impossible as a single differential equation explaining all
of physics...."
* JerryCoynePragmatics: "....Humans are the product of non-random
NS ...."
* Coyne1: ".... NS produces order ...."
* Fox priest Johnathin:".... NS is random ...."
* GordonRattrayTaylorPragmatics:"... NS is random ..."
* KingsolverOnNaturalSelection: ".... it explains everything ..."
* BerlinksiPragmatics: ".... theories that explain everything
explain nothing, their control of the facts is an illusion..."
* KennethMillerPragmatics: "....with natural selection pushing or
pulling or splitting, species can change over time. ...." Thus NS
actually does something and it is a cause ?
* Miller2: "....natural selection does have to work gradually.."
Is NS a cause or an effect ?
* Miller3: "...NS is blind...." Why is NS never stupid ?
* WilliamProvinePragmatics:"...Natural selection does not act on
anything..."
* Williamprovine1:"...It doesn't select for or against nor pull or
push anything. Natural selection does nothing..."
* SparkNotesPragmatics:"...As far as NS is concerned survival
alone isn't enough..." Says who ?
* MarcelSchtutz:"....stability is a necessary condition for the
existence of NS ..."
* PzMyersPragmatics:"..We are not dealing with "Darwin's theory"
anymore....It was a preliminary proposal published in 1859.."
* KermitPragmatics:"...Current ideas do not depend on how Darwin
used or defined terms...."
* HersheyPragmatics:"... RS2-RS1 = NS ..."
* KampisPragmatics:".... Darwinism is not defined ...."
* RusePragmatics:".... Darwinism is the mechanism accepted by 90%
of evolutionists ...."

.

Relevant Pages