Not true, you’re committed to a priori. In your mind, you established limits/boundaries defining a paradigm, you don’t want to step beyond these limits. Everything must fit within.
Yes, any alternative theory should be verified/tested otherwise it cannot be accepted as scientific theory. On the other hand, if new evidence emerges against an already accepted theory, then the outdated theory gets disproved. Science is ever changing. It’s neither logical nor scientific to...
You wish.
You are not on the science side, you are on the side of denial and concealment of the scientific facts (in case you’re not ignorant of it) as clearly explained to you by another honest, ethical and knowledgeable evolutionist. He showed you an example of rare qualities that many on...
This is one of the most ridiculous claims I’ve seen on this thread so far. Such oxymoron is typically expected from you. Do you even understand what you are talking about?
The theoretical framework provides explanation, proposes mechanisms and makes predictions. The observations/empirical...
You still fail to get it, I don’t need to look them up, as I said many times, I only quote evolutionist scientists because you wouldn’t accept otherwise, would you? My point is not what anyone believes or doesn’t believe, My point is the absence of established agreed upon theoretical framework...
False, the experiment proved directed adaptation not random evolution. It’s a totally different process.
False, Lenski’s “Escherichia Coli” experiment is another example of directed adaptation not random evolution. See the last item in #1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums
Exactly, we should not force conclusions to fit a specific paradigm and ignore the verified data that is logically leading us to a different direction. IOW, our implementation of the naturalistic posteriori view shouldn’t be a commitment to a priori.
You wish
A meaningless empty claim, what really matter is the facts today. See #2399
It appears to be “The ostrich effect". Would it be evidence for sharing common ancestor with an ostrich?
Islam being refuted or not has nothing to do with current absence of any agreed upon evolutionary theoretical framework consistent with empirical evidence. none.
See #2399, #2370, #911 & #781.
I’m not concerned about Darwin; my point is the status of the theory today.
False, the core concern is about the challenges/contradictions posed against Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis because of the recent scientific development and the evident need to replace the outdated/disproved theory...
sure, he is
I’m not concerned about any attempt for any emerging or future explanation/framework that didn’t materialize yet; my point is the absence of that framework now, which doesn’t appear that it would emerge any time soon. Currently there no legitimate scientific theory consistent with...
It’s fine with me if you insist that somehow Islam was refuted. That is your concern/wish not mine. unless you substantiate a claim, its meaningless.
You still fail to get it, my point is not exactly the refutation of evolution, my point is current absence of explanatory theoretical framework...
Are you sure you actually appreciated the articles confirming that the Modern Synthesis is outdated theory that should be replaced? That is a great progress!!
Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis (religiousforums.com)
Beyond the modern...
They cannot differentiate between their opinion/understanding of evolution as an axiomatic system and the fact that currently there is no agreed upon coherent explanatory theoretical framework for the theory of evolution. See # 2399
Per the article below, Critics in connection with the many...
Ok, even so I doubt it would be of benefit to you, but I’ll explain.
In your post # 2369 you said, “one source is not a "refutation". By that standard Islam has been refuted. I can find one expert that will say that Islam is a false religion. By your standards your religion is false.”
You...
It’s not one source. Multiple sources were provided specifically addressing the fact about Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis being challenged and in need for replacement. See #2370, #911 & #781.
The article below stated, “There is a growing constituency among biologists and other evolutionary...