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

On Mar 22, 4:25 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

As ignorant and crackpot as it gets.

Yes, Ray, we know you are ignorant, and a crackpot.



ALL prominent scholars and
scientists since 1950 have said the exact opposite.

Would you like to provide a single citation from any "prominent
scholar" since 1950 who claims that Darwin is to be worshipped?
Would you present a single citation from any "prominent scholar" who
says that Darwin's ideas are sacrosanct, and unable to be
questioned?


Let's look and see what real scientists say about Darwin:

"Modern scientists do not worship Darwin and they haven't been wedded
to his ideas for over a century."
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/01/praise-darwin.html

"I make no secret that I admire Darwin as a historical figure very
much, but I recently submitted a paper for an open access journal for
science teachers at secondary level named Resonance, entitled "Not
Saint Darwin". "
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/01/darwin_worship_and_demonisatio.php

Gould states:
" ...the invigoration of modern evolutionary biology with exciting
nonselectionist and nonadaptationist data from the three central
disciplines of population genetics, developmental biology, and
paleontology (see examples below) makes our pre-millennial decade an
especially unpropitious time for Darwinian fundamentalism—and seems
only to reconfirm Darwin’s own eminently sensible pluralism."

Later he says:

"I do not deny that natural selection has helped us to explain
phenomena at scales very distant from individual organisms, from the
behavior of an ant colony to the survival of a redwood forest. But
selection cannot suffice as a full explanation for many aspects of
evolution; for other types and styles of causes become relevant, or
even prevalent, in domains both far above and far below the
traditional Darwinian locus of the organism. These other causes are
not, as the ultras often claim, the product of thinly veiled attempts
to smuggle purpose back into biology. These additional principles are
as directionless, nonteleological, and materialistic as natural
selection itself—but they operate differently from Darwin’s central
mechanism. In other words, I agree with Darwin that natural selection
is “not the exclusive means of modification.” "

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jun/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/





Dana is proven
unread, like his master, John Harshman.

Actually, as I've just shown, it's Ray who is shown to be ignorant,
and highly mistaken.

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.

So, Ray, any citations? Any at all?





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,....

As ignorant and crackpot as it gets.

Once again, I must agree, Ray is as ignorant and crackpot as it
gets.




ALL prominent scholars and
scientists since 1950 have said the exact opposite.

So, let's see some of these prominent scholars and scientists saying
the exact opposite. Here are some scientists who agree with me:

John Henslow, one of Darwin's contemporaries said in 1870:

"Well, but evolution does not even depend on Darwin. Evolution is not
necessarily Darwinism, athough the two words are often
interchanged".

Journal of the transactions of the Victoria Institute, Vol 4, pg 291.
Can be seen here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/46mnmuh


A more recent scientist, P.Z Myers says:

" I talk about the central principles of Darwinism, which are still
valid, but I also point out that he got many things wrong (genetics is
the most vivid example), and that the science has advanced
significantly since his day. I've talked to many other scientists who
do the same sorts of lectures, and nobody portrays him as Saint
Darwin."

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/darwin-is-alrea.html


and here's an article from New Scientst stating that Darwin was wrong
about the tree of life:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html






Dana is proven
unread, like his master, John Harshman.

Once again, I produced scientists who agree with me, and Ray has not
produced a single person that supports his claim. Apparently it's Ray
who is proven "unread".


snip the rest.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
    ... rather than 'evolution' per se. ... it isn't just biology that Fundamentalists oppose. ... Darwin in the U.S.): "The first American Darwinian, ... among European scientists after Darwin. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • 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: Transitional Fossil Challenge is futile. Can evolutionists prove
    ... Dawkins in particular when writing a paper on the Creationism v. ... products of Darwinian evolution, or not? ... Atheist undermine Darwin, however. ... So all those scientists and academics who are actively involved ...
    (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: Timmy, your comments please
    ... - Charles Darwin ... The Overselling of Whale Evolution). ... he's pointing out (as scientists do and should continue to do) what areas ... Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we ...
    (uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool)