Re: Why does it matter [because Harshman is wrong, that's why]?

On Mar 22, 1:22 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 22, 1:51 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Mar 21, 4:54 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip

No, I didn't say that. I said they were *few*. Could be as few as a
couple thousand for all I know. I also said they were the important and
interesting ones. You're the only one who interprets few as minor. Most
mutations have no effect on phenotype whatsoever.

Ray: "Are we or are we not the products of Darwinian evolution? Any
mainstream biologist will answer in the affirmative.

And as you have been told, they will also say that drift is part of
the mechanism.



John: "I doubt it, but try another biologist and see what they give
you. If you asked me that question I'd say, well, partially. Certainly
the important parts are due to selection. But the important parts are
a small minority of all the fixed changes."

In this context I then said:

"In other words he repeated his position (confirming criticism
validity), but he thought, and still thinks, his explanation somehow
defeats the criticism. Ever see the movie 'Dumb and Dumber'? Harshman
could play both roles." [My criticism was that John is completely
ignorant of the fact that modern science says we are the product of
Darwinian evolution.]

Your criticism is wrong.   John is not 'ignorant' of what modern
science says.  It's you who is ignorant, as you keep reaffirming all
the time.   Humans are the product of evolution, but not all
mechanisms of that evolution were known to Darwin.



Harshman answers "partially" to the question, which places him in la
la land.

No, it just indicates that you haven't been listening to what John is
telling you.

But as a Creaorist it doesn't bother me one bit to see an
Atheist admit Darwinism falsified.

John didn't say that "Darwinism" was falsified, Ray.   This is your
own error.   He's saying that the mechanism of evolution goes beyond
what Darwin knew.

In this context I declare Harshman
a crackpot. No prominent scholar or biologist in the world would
dismiss Darwin so casually and disrespectfully (which shows how
ignorant John is).

Again, you only display your own ignorance, and inability to see your
own mistake.   John has not "dismissed" Darwin.   However it's
fascinating to see your misunderstanding of how Darwin is regarded by
modern science.   Darwin is not seen as a prophet, and his work is not
holy writ.   Scientists are not required to genuflect at the altar of
Darwin.

ALL (without exception) say we are the product of
Darwinian evolution, not Kimuran drift.

Ray, can you give a citation to any modern scientist who feels that
drift is not part of the mechanism of evolution?    Also, Kimura isn't
the originator of the concept of drift.     Your ignorance on this
topic is amazing.

The fact that John would say
such thing, and the fact that his fans here Talk.Origins are behind
him in howler force, show that he and his fans are not in tune with
modern science. Both Harshman and his fans are completely ignorant and
unread----my only point

Your "only point" is objectively wrong.   Not only are you making
accusations that aren't true, even if they were true, they wouldn't be
cause for calling John ignorant.    Evolutionary theory doesn't depend
on Darwin,....

"I need hardly stress Darwin's impact as one of the half dozen or so
most revolutionary thinkers in western history. I want, instead, to
emphasize a more curious aspect of his status----his continuing
relevance, indeed his benevolent hovering over almost all our current
proceedings. We may revere Newton and Lavoisier as men of equal
impact, but do modern physicists and chemists actively engage the
ideas of these founders, as they pursue their daily work? Darwin, on
the other hand, continues to bestride our world like a colossus----so
much so that I can only begin this book on the structure of
evolutionary theory by laying out Darwin's detailed vision as a
modern
starting point, a current orthodoxy only lightly modified by more than
a century of work" (Gould 2002:96).

....and his work may be questioned, and even discarded if it
doesn't fit the latest evidence.


Ray

[....]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rays absolutionism and inconsistency will be his undoing
    ...   Evolution is not atheist ... similarity is one observation that supports evolution, ... not all atheists do accept microevolution. ... came into use a fairly long time after Darwin, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Brief transitional fossil challenge for Tony Pagano
    ... Drift was and is not ... tells us that you are ignorant of historical scientific context. ... Therefore your view concerning cause of human evolution is ... this century would throw Darwin to the dogs like you have. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Brief transitional fossil challenge for Tony Pagano
    ... Drift was and is not ... tells us that you are ignorant of historical scientific context. ... Therefore your view concerning cause of human evolution is ... equivocated) his view to reintergrate Darwin. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Rays absolutionism and inconsistency will be his undoing
    ...   Evolution is not atheist ... similarity is one observation that supports evolution, ... not all atheists do accept microevolution. ... came into use a fairly long time after Darwin, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Adolph Hitler-Nazis were staunch Darwinists: the evidence.
    ...    Hitler was using ideas that were not based on evolutionary ... racist ramblings of Hitler one finds him talking about the *evolution* ... of humans by the process of *natural* selection. ... So, even though you think Darwin gave lip service to Christanity, everything ...
    (talk.origins)