DBowling wrote: ↑
Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:20 pm
Audie wrote: ↑
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:51 pm
Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.
And your baseless statements about Behe reveal more about your knowledge and credibility than it does about Behe's professional credentials.
Have you even read Behe's books?
Or are you just repeating ignorant nonsense from Behe's detractors?
I thought you meant ToE was easily disproved.
I meant exactly what I said...
Behe and Meyer have demonstrated that the Darwinian processes of Random Mutation and Natural Selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record (especially the Cambrian Explosion), and they also cannot explain the structure, complexity, and diversity of information that we see in the DNA of life today.
If you had actually read Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt, you would be aware that Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil finds since the time of Darwin only exacerbate the difficulties that Darwin was already aware of when he wrote Origin of Species.
Your baseless name calling does nothing to change those facts.
Far from baseless. Name -calling, no. His status in the
science community is crackpot. Like Velikovsky, say.
I am far from what one would call "skilled in the art" with only
a BS in biology / geology, and a long term interest.
Lets say, like a serious football fan v a professional in
the sport. Either could smoke me out as knowing nothing
if I went in talking about the rink, net, goalie, innings.
Likewise, one can see that your peculiar use of capital
lettersmaking proper nouns where none ever went before
indicates that deep formal education may not have been
your route in life. It is ok, lots of smart decent people
went other ways. I dont pretend to know football,
I know my limitations and avoid naievely displaying them
Your resort to pop / fringe,unpublished -in- respectable
journals is a clear demontration of agenda, and of course,
of one unschooled in the art. Easy for even a semieducated
amateur such as myself to smoke you out. Any legit work
that shows Darwin made mistakes is deeply redundant.
Sorry-ah, but you make it too easy. Low hanging fruit.
All that aside, as I noted and you ignored, going after
Darwin for (gasp)errors
or uncertainties is
shootin' up fish in a barrel. Get after Ptolemy,
Aristotle, Galileo while you are at it, stand bold
on the tombs of the foes falling before you!
It is moldy oldy news of the universally acknowldeged
that Darwin is out of date!
Nobody but the clueless creo insults
his own intelligence talking about
"Darwinism" or how it is-double gasp-
That the mechanisms he proposed
are partly but not entirely the drivers of
evolution is so well and so long known
that to bring it up as if it were fresh,
and try to credit "Behe" with some significance
in this, all the time talking about
'Darwinism" is kind of sad, but a true and
yet another certain sign of someone not skilled
in the art. As if another were needed!
(speaking of credibility, as you without
cause questioned mine).
And as if yet more were needed on "NSIA"
(not skilled in the art) you entirely
failed to understand (as krink, I believe,
gently pointed out) that showing Darwin
got some things wrong in absolutely
no way under the sun disproves ToE.
But it is all good. You meant what you
said, about "Darwinian evolution", it is
defunct. No need to mention it, or trot out
woo artists trying to take credit like an
Iraqi kid hitting a fallen Hussein statue
with his shoe.
And I meant what I said: ToE has in no
way been disproved.
If someone manages to, the Nobel
Committee, and all educated persons
will be electrified by this stunning development.
Meantime, premature declarations
of victory esp over long fallen pioneers
of science is, as noted, churlish at best
and withal, rather ludicrous.