Skip to comments.
Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience
Columbus Dispatch ^
| February 17, 2002
| Editorial
Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,340, 1,341-1,360, 1,361-1,380 ... 1,421-1,440 next last
To: Nebullis
"
Also, various pre- and post-zygotic barriers which can arise by mutation of single genes. Species is such a loose concept that any definition has to be sufficiently broad. In other words 'species' is whatever you want it to be? How can you call evolution a science when no one can agree on what the theory is and on what a species and speciation means?
When you guys finally find the answer to these questions (perhaps in Junior's Ultimate Evolution garbage pile?) let me know so we can explore whether the theory of evolution is true or false.
To: gore3000
Science, as we think of it has only been around for some 500 years. Are you so daft that you have missed the entire debate surrounding Post #99? Medved's quote mining was specifically refuted, including that post. I addresse the age and veracity of the quotes. Vade posted Gould's reply to the quote-miners, which refuted your interpretation. You then JUMPED TO MEDVED'S DEFENSE!!!!
Is any of this ringing a bell?
Now, like one born yesterday (and just as bright) you ignore all that went before and claim the Gould quote as your support. Amazing.
G3k, you are so incomprehensible a defender of creationism, that I accuse you of being en evolutionist, in disguise, in your study, with the lead pipe. Further, I accuse of smoking the lead pipe.
To: gore3000
I do not know or care what a gas tube is That much has been obvious for quite a while.
To: cracker
As to Gould, the quote in post#99 The observant will note that my earlier post should have been directed at this idiocy... I apologize for any confusion.
To: gore3000
The evolutionist 1/1,000,000,000 or whatever amount of zeros he uses was propounding the ridiculous notion that scientific advances occur miraculously without knowledge of the theory behind the advances. I draw your attention once more to this statement. This is the paradigm of scientific development you asserted. You cited as your support the invention of the cathode ray tube. It was pointed out to you at post 1040 that you were incorrect. After a short back-and-forth, I exposed you as a fraud at post 1087. Your recent responses can only constitute an admission.
I take then you admit that you were wrong, and that science does not operate now as it did 200 years ago (before you answer, please note that all the relevant events in the gas discharge tube - cathode - CRT series took place after Francis Bacon).
I take it that you also admit that you were totally wrong regarding the development of the gas discharge tube, and that your assertions regarding M. Faraday were so much poppy cock.
And you still have not answered Vade's whale-hippo DNA challenge. I would say you were slipping, but you could not fall any further behind.
To: gore3000
Vade, you have the word archaic in a chart you yourself drew! And that is supposed to mean something? Paleontologists all the time refer to archaic this and archaic that for bones that they have not found. As usual you are talking semantics, not substance.
Your arguments are so pathetic! I sourced the chart the first time I pasted it in. (I only pasted it because you're such a notorious slacker at clicking links.) Once again, the chart is from
The TalkOrigins Fossil Hominid Species Page. Lest you go after the messenger for making up this species, we'll try a web search:
980 hits.
Let's look at the first page up:
Early Modern Homo sapiens. (Is "early modern" an oxymoron? Is Homo sapiens an oxymoron?)
Current data suggest that Homo sapiens sapiens very likely evolved from archaic Homo sapiens relatively rapidly in Africa and/or the Southwest Asia.
Link 3 has a nice timeline of the archaic/modern/neanderthal overlap:
From Archaic Homo Sapiens. Your gap game is over for this era.
The text with this figure speaks of the intergrading of the various specimens that makes species assignment so difficult:
It is difficult to speak of our ancestors in terms of specific species during this long period of accelerated change from 600,000 to 100,000 years ago. Some paleoanthropologists now classify the more biologically progressive post-600,000 B.P. populations in Europe and parts of Africa as a distinct species--Homo heidelbergensis. By 300,000 years ago, some of these populations had begun the evolutionary transition that would end up with Neandertals and other peoples that have been collectively referred to has archaic Homo sapiens (shown as red in the diagram below [Well, now it's above.--VR]). By 100,000 B.P., some of the later archaic Homo sapiens had evolved into modern Homo sapiens. Complicating the picture is the fact that, in at least one area of Southeast Asia, a few Homo erectus remained until around at least 60,000 years ago.
Some of the other links look pretty interesting too, but I'll get on to your other replies.
To: gore3000
VadeRetro: "There is a gap in hominid species after 4mya." is based upon . . .gore3000: The statement you misrepresented does not say that. You continue to try to assassinate my character with total lies about what I said.
You are/were saying that modern humans (which arose about 120K years ago) have no ancestors. (Older hominid skulls are "too old," etc.) That's gap-gaming. Please show where I misrepresented anything.
To: gore3000
Evolutionists cannot agree on what the theory of evolution is.We know what evolution is. The disagreement is over how to best to write a version for dummies. You were given the kindergarten version earlier and have yet to mount a substantive response against that one.
To: gore3000
Here you simply repeat medved's original quote of Gould. Brazen. What's wrong with this?
1) Medved posted that quote.
2) Various people called him on the known dishonesty of creationist quote salads, especially quotes of Gould who once had to spend a lot of time defending his Punk-Eek against "Neo-Darwinists."
3) I linked and excerpted Gould's long article in which he lays out in detail what he believes about transitional fossils (citing several examples, including reptiles-to-mammals and the hominid series) and repudiates such insidiously abusive quote-mining as you and medved do.
4) You told me that I in my quoting misrepresented Gould's article.
5) Challenged on that, you repeated Step 1.
Note that you might have accused Gould of repenting and recanting in one lying article just to hit back at the creationists riding on his coattails, but you were too dumb to parse your own statements. You accused me of misrepresenting Gould, when his article totally repudiates your position and your attempts to hijack his life's work. (Punk-Eek is not creationism.)
To: cracker
Further, I accuse of smoking the lead pipe. Hey! That's a good one! :)
To: cracker
Don't forget his claim, circa post 1260, that a central tenet of the theory of evolution is the non-existence of God. I'd like to see him cite that from any peer-reviewed journal or biology textbook... Easy, isn't it? All you have to do is get this guy going and he shoots all his toes off.
To: Nebullis
We know what evolution is. The disagreement is over how to best to write a version for dummies. It's been done. The adult version can be expressed in a paragraph or two, i.e. a reasonable person might could at least listen to a theory which required one or two probabilistic miracles in the whole history of the Earth, but evolution requires an endless sequence of probabilistic miracles, and no reasonable person should want to hear about that.
The version for kindergardeners and feebs is here
To: medved
The version for kindergardeners and feebs is here. [Jack Chick]
You can say that again!
To: Nebullis
We know what evolution is. Yes, then tell us exactly what the theory of evolution is. You and Vade keep disagreeing with each other. If it were a scientific theory there would be no disagreements as to what the theory is.
The reason I will not respond to it yet is quite simple. Once I refute your theory, you folk will say that you forgot something, that you did not mean something or that the theory had changed in the last 6 seconds. I will not play that game. Agree to a definition and we will discuss it.
To: gore3000
To: cracker
Hadn't read your 1345 when I posted 1349. I notice we noticed the same thing.
Not that it'll lead gore to reappraise his behavior.
To: VadeRetro
Like I say, them as can comprehend the adult version of the thing, don't NEED Jack's version...
To: gore3000
Incipient Neanderthal? Don't these hominid species appear from nowhere and then disappear leaving huge gaps between them? And aren't they all so different it's easy to agree how many kinds there are and what goes where?
To: medved
Like I say, them as can comprehend the adult version of the thing, don't NEED Jack's version... The problem with Jack is he's taking advantage of the kindergarteners and feebs. I think you guys should sue.
To: VadeRetro
(Punk-Eek is not creationism.)I never said it was, I said the opposite. That is why I call him a whore of evolution. The point is in spite of all your sophistry and semantics that the quotation is true, that the quotation expresses Gould's beliefs about paleontology when he made them and now. Let's review what he, one of your icons of evolution, said: the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,340, 1,341-1,360, 1,361-1,380 ... 1,421-1,440 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson