Posted on 07/22/2009 7:26:42 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Just curious: did you not read the article, or just not understand it?
There is no theory called “Darwinism”. There are no “Darwinists”. As revolutionary as Darwin’s original theory was, even in its day it was never claimed to be the complete story of evolution. The theory has been greatly expanded upon in the 150 years since. Calling today’s theory of evolution “Darwinism” is like calling aviation “Wrightisim”
Not exactly the same word but it conveys the same idea.
Also you seemed to have overlooked this part of the article:
“The differences that make us human are more likely due to mutations that were favorable to us in the particular environment into which we moved, and these mutations then accumulated through time.”
As usual straw men and misdirection.
What are you smoking?
He's talking out of both sides of his mouth. Can't take any chances that he might say something that'll get him in hot water.
I didn’t see anywhere in the article that the methods in question were used to prove evolution, did you?
Not to worry. They won’t let insignificant details like this hurt their theory.
For that matter, they won’t let ANYTHING hurt their theory.
But it sure is fun watching them try to prevent it.
Thanks for the ping!
Muuuaaaahahahahahahahaaa !!!
==“The differences that make us human are more likely due to mutations that were favorable to us in the particular environment into which we moved, and these mutations then accumulated through time.”
I’d be curious to know why Ira’s Temple of Darwin sect considers the quote issued by the above Temple of Darwin sect as being comprised of “straw men and misdirection”???
Never, no never! Doubts have never crossed my mind! Please don't cancel my fellowship, please don't make my tenure difficult, please don't stop my funding, please don't look askance at my research!! Here, take my brain and lock it up for safekeeping in case I am ever tempted to think unacceptable thoughts!
And in the quote you have “mutations” instead of natural selection is held responsible for “differences that make us human”.
Perhaps you should explain to the believers in evolution that there are no “Darwinists’ or “Darwinism” since they use those terms to refer to themselves.
Hello Strawman!
Where DO you find your art work? Quite good!
Just to yank people's chain, because I'm mad at my wife's job for keeping her up past midnight the last couple of nights, and I want to take it out on somebody...
Is that why the site is called "Darwin Central"? /sarc>
(...and yes, it can be defended perfectly well by any one of a number of rationales. But seriously, the selective pedantry is just as much an error as quote-mining and completely incorrect definitions of technical terms.
Cheers!
Beep!
Nope.
The little Amish dude is a doctoral student, in a few years he may are may not be a real scientist.
Of course. Just like anyone that understands Newton's theory of gravity* is a "gravity-ist."
*remember, its just a "theory." It should be qualified as such whenever it is taught in public schools, and competing ideas about "intelligent falling" should be given equal time.
Of course, the reason you consider this to be scandalous is because there is no equivalent review process whatsoever when it comes to creationism. Accordingly, you fail to understand how it is exactly this kind of constant scientific examination that has made the theory of evolution incredibly robust and powerful tool for understanding the world around us over the last century.
Question: why is it that you often see articles about aspects of evolutionary theory being updated or re-considered, but never any similar articles about creationism?
Answer: Because creationists don't perform peer-reviewed research and creationism isn't science.
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.