Posted on 02/08/2003 7:54:52 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
I suppose you could make that point, but it would be a very silly one.
You said:
Since the quote I pulled is dated 1989, and the one you pulled is dated 1988, one could make the point that your quote is outdated in light of new evidence.So what is this "new evidence" that must have come up between 1988 and 1989 which makes Mayr "outdated"? Or are you only relating to me a fantasy of yours?
Another fine example of an evolutionist pretending to have evidence for something.
Wassamatter, the fact that I'm not running out to read the entire collected works of some deservedly obscure Aussie wanker bother you?
Lemme explain how it works, big guy - this is a discussion forum, not a book club. If you have something you wish to discuss, then feel free to post it here. If you don't, don't bring it up. And if you make idiot assertions about things like "Popperian irrationalism", and someone calls you on it, try, oh try, to present some support for it here, not by presenting one's interlocutor with a book list. After all, if you can't manage to boil it all down to a concise format for discussion, it's rather doubtful that you understand it, and are instead simply parroting catchphrases from elsewhere. Capisce?
And I never expected you to cough up the "new evidence" you mentioned in that silly fantasy of yours.
Obviously the biological community must have, however. Of course,
Then it should be a snap for you to find the "new evidence" that you say popped up between 1988 and 1989.
since it ain't in the Bible, you can simply ignore it.
Ignore what? The "new evidence"? I haven't even seen it yet.
No not at all. This is just another fantasy of yours.
A few years later, creationist biologists Carl Krekeler and William Bloom, who taught creationist biology at the Lutheran Church's Valparaiso University in Indiana, left after concluding that a literal interpretation of Genesis was not supported by any of the available scientific evidence. Krekeler concluded, "The documentation, not only of changes within a lineage such as horses, but of transitions between the classes of vertebrates-- particularly the details of the transition between reptiles and mammals--forced me to abandon thinking of evolution as occurring only within 'kinds'. " (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 302) Krekeler also criticized the creationist movement for the "dozens of places where half-truths are spoken, where quotations supporting the authors' views are taken from the context of books representing contrary views, and where there is misrepresentation." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 303) The two became theistic evolutionists, and later wrote a biology textbook which accepted evolutionary theory.
Perhaps as a result of these defections, the creationist movement no longer finances or carries out any field research of any sort. Its sole method of "scientific research" consists of combing through the published works of evolutionary mechanism theorists to look for quotations which can be pulled out of context and used to bolster creationist beliefs.
If you'd like, I can put it in blue to make it easier to read...
A statement worth bookmarking.
Indeed, the patents which have derived from genetic programming are a new angle to the discussion. But as tortoise mentioned, these programs are domain operable and thus don't quite deliver on the expectation implied by the Scientific American article.
I agree that one can program for self-organizing complexity (e.g. Stephen Wolfram) --- the trick is autonomy, symbolization and, of course, how to bootstrap the algorithm at inception.
There are several branches of research which appear to be related to a casual reader, but on closer inspection - the differences are readily seen.
For lurkers wanting to explore this in more detail, I suggest The Genetic Algorithm Archive. (The NCARAI Web Pages have been approved by Dr. Alan Meyrowitz, Director, Navy Center for Applied Research In Artificial Intelligence.)
First of all you called my posting of Darwin's definition of evolution and the definition of evolution given by the prime site for evolutionists - TalkOrigins in post# 164 "(even positing your own, strawman, version)" So you have no credibility at all. You and your friends have often given the cowardly definition from TalkOrigins as the new definition of evolution - which it is not. Evolutionists still claim that man descended from lower species - as Darwin does and that definition does not even talk about descent. Now let's see you instead of saying what evolution is not give a true, clear and concise definition of what you call 'the modern theory of evolution'. I bet you will chicken out like you and the rest of your friends have been doing (and indeed all evolutioists) have been doing for the last 150 years. As the great sage of the FR threads said - "evolution is whatever lie you want it to be". That is why you ask 10 evolutionists what the theory of evolution and you get 20 different definitions - depending on the discussion, the person being asked and the phase of the moon on that particular day. So let's see, the true definition of evolution, bet it does not cut the mustard - if you do not make a thousand excuses and hurl a thousand insults instead of answering the question.
The mechanics of evolution are still debated, but the fact of evolution is not.
Wonderful rhetoric and absolute garbage. You cannot say what the theory is, you cannot say how it works - but nevertheless the nonexistent theory with nonexistent mechanisms is a 'fact'. Of course when I ask you for the incontrovertible facts proving evolution you will say that there is no proof in science. You have already shown your total dishonesty so I am sure you will shamelessly continue in the same mode.
...and after 150 years of saying that that claim is a scientific 'fact' evolutionists still cannot back it up. Just because some evolutionist says that matter can intelligently design itself - something that no one has ever seen - does not mean it is true, that it is a fact, or that it is science. It is just the evolutionist concession that you need intelligence to organize organisms in the intricate, complex way that science has shown them to have been made. Just because evolution has been FORCED to admit that there is intelligence and design in the universe, it does not mean that such intelligence and design was due to evolution. In fact nowhere do we see intelligence in matter or design coming about at random. We do see everywhere examples of design and order being the result of intelligent human beings.
The guy that said it is an evolutionist. You already disinherited Darwin, now you are going to disinherit every other evolutionist?????????????
This is one of the biggest names in evolution, quoted by numerous other evolutionists. I am sure that because he does not like the definition, Junior will write him off also as he has already written off Darwin and Dozhansky.
There are many problems with the above. The biggest though is at the end. Speciation is not evolution. To have evolution one needs greater complexity, new functions, new genes, new abilities. One cannot deny that a human is far more complex, has far more genes, functions and abilities than a bacterium. The above in no way explains that, speciation is no proof of that. There is also strong proof that selection cannot create speciation - dogs which have been selected for thousands of years from wolves, can still mate and produce offspring with wolves. This is a far more selective process than they would have undergone in millions of years of 'natural selection' and they are still one species with wolves.
False. When theories are disproven by new evidence they are thrown out and the discoverer of the replacement usually has his name put on the new theory. Evolution is not a theory, it is a materialist ideology.
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.