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

On Feb 23, 2:02 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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".

You should not start a post of with an obvious lie, especially when
the lie becomes even more obvious when you consider the rest of the
post.

Here is a draft:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/EvolutionDiscussion
    *  Humphreys: "... NS is a conjuring trick..."

How serious can you be to quote some basket case YEC creationist?
This is that Humphreys, right?

    * Gould: ".... the mind consists of illusions ..."

Stephen J. Gould has written entire books on biological evolution. He
devoted his life to the field. He has multiple best selling
collections of essays on the subject and you quote mine some junk like
this. What did I say about willful ignorance?

When you ignore all the relevant content to scavenge just what you
want to, to keep believing what you want, that is willful ignorance.
Just look at all your quotes below and tell me that those people did
not make relevant points that you had to ignore to keep going on with
this bogus argument.

Why is it that nearly all the professional biologists (no matter what
religious or nonreligious beliefs they hold) do not have your
problem? Not only that, but the majority of biologists that do have
your problem have it for the same religious, not scientific, reasons.
What are you missing? Why do you have to lie about trying your level
best to understand the issue when all you obviously want to do is
dishonestly prevaricate and blow smoke over the issue?

Ron Okimoto

    * 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 ...."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Quote Mine: Azar asks for help and gets dishonestly quoted
    ... "Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is ... documented by geology and, on the other hand, that geology is documented by ... Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" ... This quote takes the cake for dishonesty. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... Creationism and theist suppositions ruled British science. ... fact of evolution (which does not make them "evolutionists" - that term ... working biologists were convinced of evolution (and that has to be ... Darwin, of course, was a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: randomness, evolution and creationism
    ... Before evolution theory, biologists were mainly just observing nature ... issues that the creationists focused on, and so they made up the ... The black moth reproduced more then the white moth, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evolution v. selection
    ... >>In my field the notion of soci-economic evolution most often means the ... "evolutionary economics" thinks about development. ... Many economists, however, are dissatisfied with deterministic thinking. ... Biologists apply these tools to one ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... But Wistar proves the contrary, in that many biologists with the highest ... What I did was to do the same thing for evolution. ... >> A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke ...
    (talk.origins)