Posted on 08/23/2005 10:39:22 AM PDT by woodb01
I won't be back until tomorrow morning now, either!
That's because evolution isn't simple math and high school chemistry.
Life forms are basically chemical engines, yet we're far from understanding everything chemically relevant to them. But still, there is no question that life operates on chemistry.
Likewise there's no real question that species diverge via evolution. That there's questions about the intimate details of Archy is meaningless vs. that fact.
He may have written A book on it. There figure to be better ones.
Pretty much, yeah. Okay, that's putting it a bit too harshly in his case, but calling him something a bit milder like a "crank" wouldn't be at all inaccurate.
Do a Google on his name, skip the fawning creationist websites (they love anyone who "bucks the evolutionist party line", even if he still espouses Darwinian evolution as Feduccia does), skip Feduccia's own personal pages, and most of what you're left with is pages of folks pointing out Feduccia's many mistakes on the subject.
For example:
The problems with The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Discussion of the problems with hypotheses made by Dr. Alan Feduccia in his new book on bird evolution, plus general discussion on the dinosaurian affinities birds.
He literally wrote the book on avian evolution.
ROFL! He wrote *a* book on avian evolution (*his* book). That's not the same thing as being the person who wrote "the book" on a subject, i.e. the person who established the field in a way that all others follow.
He's not alone.
You're right, there's *one* other prominent guy who feels the same way (Miller). But the *pair* of them are alone...
The disagreement among evolutionists are there because it's not like math and chemistry where the answers are obvious and testable.
No, it's because there are always a few cranks in any field. Make it worth my while and I'll go find you some folks who sign on to "2+2=5" and "there's carbon in a water molecule" too.
There is a blog section.
It may just need to be put in the right forum.
Thats a pretty mild "offense".
ERB stole that from Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
What's the matter? Hasn't the statute of limitations run out by now?
(End smart-ass answer). I will check out your link. Thanks!
I'm not making a display. I'm asking genuine questions and generally getting insulted for asking them. Trying to pin down the evolutionary arguments presented is like trying to squeeze jello. Transitional fossils shown to prove evolution may not actually be transitional fossils, but are presented to show that transistions in evolution exist. Does that sound weird to anyone else?
The Tap-Dancer then declares fossil series evidence to be irrelevant. How do we know ... various things? The dates of the fossils? Whether fossil A lies exactly on the ancestral line of fossil B?
I'm serious here. For the life of me I can't figure out why actual dates seem like an afterthought to evolution. Now I find out that it's not important because things may devolve, and not evolve, so dates mean nothing. Is that about the argument?
They'll proclaim that where previously there was one "gap" in the fossil sequence, there are now TWO "gaps," one on either side of the "missing link." They will then conclude that the case for evolution is weaker than before, because the number of "gaps" in the fossil sequence is increasing!
See how easy anti-Evo thinking is? Why it doesn't even take any brains at all....
And yet you posted drivel from the "NoDNC.com staff" on FR a few days back and got bitch slapped then too.
Even if she did spend a year below the Temple of the Sun.
One of the editions has a cover with a nice Dejah view.
later read.
Randomness has little to do with the conclusion. All that is needed is a distribution of insertion loci. Were the same virus DNA inserted in different places in closely related species, that would suffice.
The difference is that anybody who believes that 2+2=5 won't get scientific papers published. Peer review and testing will quickly establish that there are serious problems with their hypothesis. Not so with evolutionists who stray from the camp. Generally they go against a consensus of opinion, not against established facts. Can you see why evolution is falling out of favor? Evolutionists not only attack non-evolutionists, but they also attack eminently qualified scientists who disagree with the idea that is currently in vogue.
Actually, transitions are roughly smooth.
There are those who will follow the data where it leads. They are called scientists.
There are those who will follow the Bible/CS/ID where it dictates. They are not called scientists. In fact, they do their best to destroy science, the scientific method, and any scientist who disagree with their faith-based positions.
It is becoming increasingly useless on these threads to conduct meaningful discussions between the two opposites. There are different world views and different languages being used. It only leads to frustration.
Some of those who are in-between may be educated by the exchange, and that's a good thing, but I have given up trying to convince the young-earth and similar proponents of anything. Life is too short to deal with that level of obfuscation. Live and let live.
But these folks trash the scientific method, scientists, and the entire data-driven, logical, scientific world at their peril. What do they think keeps us ahead of the game in Iraq and Afghanistan? And in the next hot spot?
Trash science like this and you may well be toe-to-toe with scimitars. Kept up on your fencing lessons?
Well thank you, an honest answer is always refreshing.
Life forms are basically chemical engines, yet we're far from understanding everything chemically relevant to them. But still, there is no question that life operates on chemistry.
Very true.
Likewise there's no real question that species diverge via evolution. That there's questions about the intimate details of Archy is meaningless vs. that fact.
There is certainly a question as evidenced by the growing debate. You haven't done it as far as i can see, but it's going to be increasingly difficult for evolutionists to continue their tactic of labeling those who don't accept their worldview as ignorant kooks and nuts.
For a pun like that you are banned in civilized company roughly forever.
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.