Posted on 04/21/2006 9:17:58 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
This is not true in any way shape or form and represents a severe misunderstanding of genetics and biological science.
The opposite is accurate. Genetics and findings that have come from basic genetics can and are interpreted within a theoretical evolutionary framework.
Your comment is interesting in that it is wrong and to to thextent that it is accurate or coherent it is 180 degress from the actual situation. It's interesting to see it turned around in such a manner and I'm wondering where you read the claim.
Perhaps partanoia will be the one next month.
Let me ask you a question. Have you ever taken a biology class in university?
Naw - its just that News/Activism is flooded by these threads daily by the same characters (even though they don't have jack to do with pressing issues like nukes in Iran and illegal immigration), so one can't help replying to the same people multiple times. Sometimes they have a meltdown and scamper off to a moderator to invoke the "don't talk to me rule". I guess that is their version of furthering conservatism in America (since you rarely if ever see them on any other kind of thread).
This is not true in any way shape or form and represents a severe misunderstanding of genetics and biological science.
Not in any way shape or form? Isn't this blanket denial as absurdly extreme as you're portraying evolutionists as being? For instance the mathematical formalisms, arguably the entire field, of "population genetics," which is certainly part of "the modern science of genetics," were explicitly developed, but leading evolutionary biologists, to address issues arising from evolutionary theory.
For instance the mathematical formalisms, arguably the entire field, of "population genetics," which is are certainly part of "the modern science of genetics," were explicitly developed, but by leading evolutionary biologists, to address issues arising from evolutionary theory.
the entire field, of "population genetics," which is certainly part of "the modern science of genetics," were explicitly developed, but leading evolutionary biologists, to address issues arising from evolutionary theory.
This is not an example of the claim I responded to. It's kind of 180 from it as well. (The modern science of genetics is based, in part, of the demonstrable facts of evolutionary theory.
To the extent that there is any merit in population genetics and the like, I'd say that again, it is the populatioin genetics that drives evolutionary theory and provides fodder for interpretation with evolutionary theory.
My point again being the discoveries that have saved evolutionary theory and provided information to becoe instrinsic to the ideas over tie have all coe from hard/basic scientists such as Mendel, Sutton, Morgan/Stuyvestant, Avery, Hershey and Chase, Watson and Crick, Pauling, Sanger and many others.
Never ever have evolutionists studying evolution moved the feld forward. Ironic, eh?
Tells us something.
It was no problem.
You are 100% wrong.
Evolution is a fact. Live with it.
I myself am very grateful for all the very knowledgeable supporters of evolution, who willingly provide lots of info, and links, and try to answer the many questions that are asked...I am constantly learning on these threads...
I certainly did not argue evolution is not a fact. My comments did not impact on evoltution as factual either. They addressed your mistaken comment on the nature of reseach vis-a-vis evolutionary theory.
See the discussion with stultis.
Perhaps you could provide some examples illustrating your original comment (the one I said was wrong and 180 degrees off).
Never ever have evolutionists studying evolution moved the feld forward. Ironic, eh?
I guess you must have a theory as to why paleontologists don't count as "evolutionists" as well?
Tells us something.
I guess so.
For example, that the discovery of facts from fields outside classical darwinian paleontology which confirm Darwin, somehow works to discredit his theories. Do you have a theory about how the Illuminati and the Rigelian Lizard People are somehow behind this?
This makes no sense. Why do you think findings that "confirm Darwin" "discredit his theories".
It doesn't even make coherent sense what you have written.
!?!?!?!?!?!? Wrong. Wildly wrong, in fact.
This was exactly my point about population genetics. Population genetics was constructed by evolutionists specifically studying evolution. The primary architects of population genetics were Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane and Ronald Fisher. These were all evolutionary biologists, specifically and intentionally applying mathematical genetics to evolutionary problems, and creating thereby this important and central field.
Tells us something.
Yep. Just not what you intended to tell.
I am merely observing that this is the third time in a week that I've seen the word obsession applied to evolutionists. The first time was directed at me. The two most recent instances were applied to someone else. At one point, one of us was positively stalked by an accuser.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, but I have taken a year of college biology, a year of college geology, a course in history of science, and chemistry and physics in high school.
I have been reading about the evolution debate since about 1965. I don't argue very deeply in the technical issues, but I can spot quote mining a mile away.
None of this matters if what I say is wrong, but I haven't been called on very many goofs. Mostly I don't have to worry. Neither you nor any of the other evolution critics have presented an alternative to debate.
Keep in mind the greatest critics of evolution should be evolutionists themselves, if it is a real science.
As far as being a critic of it, I don;t think that's what you mean and in terms of what you mean I am in no way a critic.
As far as alternatives to evolution, why do you think someone should present an alternative?
Thanks for the honest upfront answer on your scientific background.
Why do you believe so strongly in evolution if you are scientifically unlearned, as you have honestly and graciously admitted?
Give me some evidence from my years of posting that I am scientifically illiterate.
This makes no sense. Why do you think findings that "confirm Darwin" "discredit his theories".
I don't, but you apparently do. I was being sarcastic.
It doesn't even make coherent sense what you have written.
That's because I'm repeating what you said in post 46, minus the slightly insane suggestion that, for example, Watson doesn't count as an evolutionist.
In addition to population genetics, there's also the phenomena of "fragile breakage". This is the theory that chromosomes rearrangements aren't random, but that instead chromosomes tend to break at certain points. (Kind of like volcanoes don't occur randomly, but are more common at boundaries between tectonic plates.)
This also came directly out of evolutionary studies, specifically when researches found problems explaining conserved chromosome segments between humans and mice on a "random breakage" model. Since then the fragile breakage theory, IIRC, has turned out to have other implications, e.g. in medicine.
I'd bet there are dozens more examples, if I was more conversant with genetics.
Post 54.
I don't mean anything negative by it.
Also, I just read my comment earlier. It was: "Why do you believe so strongly in evolution if you are scientifically unlearned,".
I did not say you were scientifcally illiterate. I used the term unlearned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.