Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.

Ray Martinez wrote:
On May 19, 9:39 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:29:16 -0700, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>



Darwin provided a big idea and established the initial foundation.
That foundation has been entirely replaced (and one could make the
argument that it has been replaced twice over: once with genetics
and the modern synthesis, and again with molecular biology).

"entirely replaced"

Gould 2002 and a vast majority of mainstream scholars say you are
completely wrong.

I just spent a semester learning firsthand what mainstream scholars
think via lectures and textbooks (and some really vicious problem
sets). Gould wrote well and widely, but he'll be remembered more as
a popularizer of evolution than a scientist (and there's nothing
wrong with that).

If you want to know what mainstream scholars think, then you're
going to have to read what they write for each other, not for wider
audiences.


This comment says Gould was not a mainstream scholar. Of course your
belief is ridiculous. It seems you define "mainstream scholar" to be
those of whom you agree with.

Your comment also says that which is written for the public or wider
audience is somehow less accurate. Of course this belief is also
ridiculous. You have implied that evolutionists lie to the public.

If scholarship cannot be explained to the public it is illegitimate.
Convincing other scholars and no one else is meaningless, private
knowledge.



So, just for sake of argument, let's assume all Darwin's work on
barnacles, finches, pollination --- all if it is suddenly
discovered to be completely wrong. While that is of historical
interest, it wouldn't affect biology at all, and that's because
that data is no longer foundational.

You could (for sake of argument) work your way through the entire
_Origin_ and show each line was either wrong or unjustified. That
is perhaps a valid and even valuable contribution to the history of
science, but you've not touched biology at all.

Utter nonsense. "Origin" is a biology theory.

Yes, and it's no longer taught except as history.

Completely false.

The main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains ratified by
modern evolutionism. This is a round earth fact.


Just as gravity works and can be verified today without any references to
Newton, evolution works and can be verified true today without any
references to Darwin.

As relativity is an established fact, and we need no reference to Einstein
to observe and prove that fact.

Those are 'round earth facts.'

How many more facts do I have to show before you admit that you are (insert
all the invectives that ever have been used about you here)?

In addition to Gould, off the top of my head:

Ken Miller
Richard Dawkins
Janet Browne
Ernst Mayr
Michael Ghislein
Tim Berra
David Quammen
John van Wyhe
Jerry Coyne
Daniel Dennett

....have all written books establishing the round earth fact.

Modern evolution is built on Darwin 1859.

It started with "The Genetical Theory Of Natural Selection" (1930) by
Professor of Eugenics, Ronald Fisher.

You really have no idea as to what you are talking about.

If you want to
critique _Origin_, you're doing historical analysis, not scientific
analysis. And that's fine, but don't expect biologists to get too
excited about it.


Their biology is based on Darwin 1859. You seem to think that modern
evolution has no beginning point. And I agree that very many modern
evolutionists are completely ignorant, plagiarizers. These persons are
not scholars. They have passed classes like a mindless robot.




The **foundation** and **general structure** of the "Origin" is
vehemently defended by ALL scholars.

Not in graduate biology classes. Not in graduate biology textbooks.

Have you had any college biology classes, Ray?


Those classes and textbooks are based on Darwin 1859.

Your comments reveal yourself to be a yuppie.

I suggest that you peruse a modern bookstore and see the number of
books written defending Darwin 1859.





If you want to go after evolution, you need to go where the math
is. That's the current foundation.

LOL

Start with nothing later that Motoo
Kimura's "Neutral Theory" and work your way though Tomoko Ohta's
"Nearly Neutral Theory". That's where the foundations currently are
for evolution (to the best of my limited understanding).

(There are many other pieces of the foundation as well; I don't
want to give the impression that Neutral Theory replaces evolution
--- it just happens to explain large swaths of the data we have
available. In my instructor's words, it's a great null hypothesis.)

While the scientific literature is filled with critiques of
"Neutral Theory", there is still room for one more. Critiques of
Darwinism will be relegated to the history shelf, though. That's a
respectable place to be, but it won't change any science.

(2) everything else is more or less
falsified.

Assume that's true: so what? You haven't even started on the
genetics, much less molecular biology. That's the current
foundation.

You have provided zero support for your opinions.

No, I think I provided a specific citation to my opinions as well as
some quantitative data.

And your opinions
exist in direct contradiction to Gould 2002.

It might be more accurate to say that my opinions contradict your
reading of Gould.

Contradiction.

Your opinion contradicts Barton's _Evolution_. Since the
latter is a biology textbook, I think I'll stick with that.

As if the Harvard Professor
was completely wrong (that is what you are saying). How could a
Harvard Professor be so wrong and out of touch?

?

Again, it is YOU who is so wrong
and out of touch with mainstream scholarship.

Ray, I still have claw marks from mainstream scholarship that haven't
healed yet (the semester just ended last week).

Take a class, Ray. It'll do you good.



Sorry Garamond.

Don't be sorry for me --- when I'm curious about something, I take a
class. My papers get published. After seven years I'm within two
semesters of graduating and will spend the rest of my life teaching
and doing research.

Earlier you had mentioned that you thought the bibliography of your
paper should come last.
That's not correct --- that's the first thing you
should write. It gives you a sanity check on where your ideas fit in
with what has already been published.

Usually when I'm reading a paper, the bibliography is the first
thing I check after the abstract. I'm looking for work I'm familiar
with (both good and bad) and a mix of dates that's biased towards
more recent work. If I don't see many citations, I'm less inclined
to take the author seriously. Ditto if all of the citations are from
the last couple years, or if there's nothing within the past five
years.

Granted, the bibliography will be revised as you write (along with
everything else), but if you don't have a draft version when you
begin, you're not yet ready to write.

I'd be interested in seeing your bibliography. Please consider
posting it here.

<snip>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Look, don't worry about my bibliography.

Fact: modern evolution is based on Darwin 1859.

I am going after Charles Darwin. That is, his foundation and general
structure, that is, that which modern evolution is built and based
upon. When I topple that structure everything built on top goes with
it----EVERYTHING.


Poor deluded Ray! You obviously are a crackpot. The fact is that Darwin
doens't count at all, what he did or what he wrote.

Tell you why?

Because we have established that evolution works, have been at work all
throughout the history of our planet, and is working all around us, every
day. And will continue for as long as there is life on this planet.

That is established beyond any doubt, the amoutn of evidnece is overwhelmin.
To the extent that even if you had a time machine an could go back an kill
both Darwin and Wallace before they had even learned to speak, we would
sitll have the theory of evolution as it stands today.

All Darwin did was set the train in motion - but you know what: scientific
inspiration, scientific progress happesn all the time, and if someone fails
to see whatever there is to be seen today, someone else will the next day.

Would we not have rejected that old Christian science with the Earth at the
center of the universe, with the moon, sun, the planets and the stars in
spheres around the Earth were in not for Galileo?

The whoel world of science, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Newton, and lots of
other names, they studied the world and understood that it worked by natural
means and was not run by God.

Do you really think you are a greater genius than any scientist that ever
walked on this planet? That's what you got to be if you think you can
falsify the theory of evolution. It is more likely that you are worng, that
you are an idiot. What do you think?

Besides, evolution is an explanation of evidence. The explanation is
not eligible for falsification. Neither is how evolution occurs. It is
only eligible to be modified (not falsified). I am only obligated to
explain why persons accept these explanations.

Idiotic statement. It is typical of you; you pretend to KNOW "why persons
accept these explanations." What you are incapapable of understanding is
that they accept the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE beacuse the SEE the evidence, they
UNDERSTAND the evidence and they UNDERSTAND what it means, HOW evolution
works.

Therefore, your "explanation of why persons accept these explanations" is
useless, worthless, it is just excrement from your shitbrain.

You will have to demontrate why and how the EVIDENCE that these people
accept does not show what they SEE, what the application af the best brains
in the world, with the most advanced, sophisticated tools at their hands
document as facts. Evidence that would be accepted in any court.

I am also obligated to
produce scientific evidence showing the explanations false and I am
obligated to produce scientific evidence showing Creationism-ID true.
I can do both in spectacular fashion.


Nonsense. You can not do what you say you can do because you do not
understand science.

Your track record is evidence you can not and never will.

Why don't you publish that toilet paper so we can get rid of you for good?

Just look at who are your friends in this forum. Some references!

Ray


.

Loading