you know- when you’re a johnny come late to an issue being discussed- it might be good idea to make sure you understand what is going on before deciding to chime in and risk looking foolish.
Did I say Woese didn’t beleive in eovlution? Nope- Did i EVER claim ANYONE didn’t beleive in evolution who attended the symposiums? Nope- Having trouble following? Just chime in and I’ll go slower. Did I state that evolutionsits have trouble with the model of evolution as proposed by Darwin? You betcha- Why did I state this? Because Stultis said he wasn’t aware of even one accredited scientist who had problems with the model of evoluition as proposed by Darwin
Thank you for highlighting the fact that Woese PERFECTLY demonstrates his problems with evolution from common descent- His hypothesis is a MUCH MUCH different one than the old model of evolution and had you understood that you’d have not posted damning evidence that backed up my statements of fact. His assertion is not ‘slightly different’ it’s so radically differentas to be totally asnd wholly unconnected to Darwins hypothesis. I suggest stdying a bit more on what exactly lateral gene transference involves before stating it is ‘slightly different’ as you did. What you state is a massive downplaying of a major issue for the sake of petty arguing.
Apparently you sir are part of a conmspiracy to increase ignorance. And just for the record- I could care less what Weose beleives about lateral gene transference- it’s all biological garbage- the fact that he gloms onto the one last remaining hope for NEW information being introdueced to a species STILL has it’s biological problems associated with it and has NEVER been witnessed in nature EXCEPT within the same species. If you care to go completely OFF TOPIC and continue your rediculous line of arguments that have absolutely NOTHING to do with what I dsaid to stultis, and if you wish to keep deceitfully misrepresenting what I’ve said in hopes of derailing the truth about what I DID say, then perhaps it would be better for you to start a new thread relevent to your points because quite frankly, they have absolutely NO rleevence to what was being discussed here- I apparently gave you more credit in the past thasn I shoudl have for being able to follow and rationally and honestly discuss matters relevent to the topics.
Did I say scientists have problems beleivign in ANY forms ofd evolution? Nope- Got that? Understand it well becausde what I’m abotu to say is apparently difficult to understand judging by the responses of some here to my points- I said “Some Evolutionsits have problem with the model of common descent” - please let me know what it is that is throwing you for a loop concerning that statement. Next time you jump into a conversation late in the discussion- be more civil and you’ll receive a more civil respoinsde explaining your obvious error.
What an odd thing to post in light of your post 214 to this thread. It contains this statement:
3 - SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTIONhttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_23.htm
“We cannot expect to explain cellular evolution if we stay locked in the classical Darwinian mode of thinking,” Woese says. “The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent.”
“Neither it nor any variation of it can capture the tenor, the dynamic, the essence of the evolutionary process that spawned cellular organization,”
Perhaps someone tampered with your post? Because otherwise “SCIENTISTS SPEAK AGAINST EVOLUTION” and the Woese quote salad would give the disinterested reader the idea that you were trying to give exactly that impression.
By the way, Woese is talking about cells, which aren’t species.
And just for the record- I could[sic] care less what Weose beleives[sic] about lateral gene transference- it’s all biological garbage-
Which is why you bothered posting and linking to it.
And how is it you’re qualified to judge what he’s saying?
…if you wish to keep deceitfully misrepresenting what I’ve said in hopes of derailing the truth about what I DID say, then perhaps it would be better for you to start a new thread relevent [sic] to your points because quite frankly, they have absolutely NO rleevence[sic] to what was being discussed here …
You don’t need me to misrepresent what you post; you’re doing a fine job all by yourself.
Did I say scientists have problems beleivign[sic] in ANY forms ofd[sic] evolution? Nope- Got that? Understand it well becausde[sic] what I’m abotu[sic] to say is apparently difficult to understand judging by the responses of some here to my points- I said “Some Evolutionsits[sic] have problem with the model of common descent” - please let me know what it is that is throwing you for a loop concerning that statement. Next time you jump into a conversation late in the discussion- be more civil and you’ll receive a more civil respoinsde[sic] explaining your obvious error.
It’s rally too tedious to keep this up. Your idea of “evolutionists who have a problem with common descent” appears to be anyone trying to figure out how the process works. Your attempts are beyond silly.
I realize now that the depths of your ignorance are far too deep for me to attempt to even attempt to plumb. Post anything you like. I’ll do the same.