Evolution My ToE

[nPeace]

I’m sorry, but population genetics doesn’t jibe with the relatively short timeline for such massive changes. It’s way more than just novel appendages. But you know that...
This video discusses it. It’s a long video... the relevant part starts @ about 36:00.

Take care.

Nice presentation, in thirty minutes, after 30:00. Then the liar at 1:01:30 just made me sick... but I like how Stephen interjected, and showed up his dishonest strawman.

 

[nPeace]

Such childish natterings

Oh dear. Look who's talking about childish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People can choose to believe in Jesus actually. Your ability to verify stuff is negligible at best.

dad, if this is the case then why can you not debate properly? It looks to me as if you are bearing false witness against your neighbor again.

I doubt you even realize you are a slave. He is so against people being that way He died to set us free.

What have you done for the oppressed?

Now you are using an equivocation fallacy by trying to use a different definition of "slave". Of course since the Bible paints God to be rather immoral you have no choice. And the God of the Old Testament was rather pro-slavery. He told people how to buy slaves, who and where they could buy them from, and how to trick your fellow Hebrew into being a slave for the rest of his life. That does not sound like being anti-slavery to me. Oh and let's not forget, as long as you did not kill your slave beating him to within an inch of dying was fine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People can choose to believe in Jesus actually.

No, beliefs are not a matter of choice.

Your ability to verify stuff is negligible at best.

Not if you care about being rationally justified in your beliefs.

I doubt you even realize you are a slave.

Here we go down the hilarious hole of redefining what "slave" means, all just to distract from the very real fact that the character "god" in the bible doesn't see anything wrong with keeping and treating human beings as your personal property.

He is so against people being that way He died to set us free.

No he didn't. Not even in the story.

What have you done for the oppressed?

Well, I sure didn't ask vague silly questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice presentation, in thirty minutes, after 30:00. Then the liar at 1:01:30 just made me sick... but I like how Stephen interjected, and showed up his dishonest strawman.

I listened and you appear to be very confused. There was no liar at 101:30. Nor did I hear any strawman arguments. I think that you are rather confused. Please check the times or name the supposed lies and the supposed strawman.

Creationists do not tend to understand the concept of "strawman". By the way, you do realize that both of the anti-evolution people have little to no credibility, don't you?

EDIT: Interesting fact about that video. It was put up by creationists but as usual they dishonestly disabled comments. They tend to do that whenever their idols get refuted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. We don't.

Yes. We do.

Mankind shares ancestry with mankind.

And apes. And all other mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.

You try to attach meaning to similarities with other creatures

You try to pretend as if mere "similarities" are the basis for this.
Off course you know that that isn't true, because plenty of people told you already.
But you don't care. You have no ethical standards when it comes to defending your beliefs. You have no problem with lying for your bible.

of other kinds that you interpret to mean there is a family relation.

"kinds" has no biological meaning.

And the family relation is determined genetically.
Just like we can genetically tell who your cousins, siblings, etc are.

But by all means, you can keep your head firmly lodged into the ground. That's your right off course.
Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[dad]

Yes we do. Demonstrably so.

No. That is why you talk the talk, not walk the walk and post the goods.

 

[dad]

Of course since the Bible paints God to be rather immoral you have no choice. .

Your inability to see does not mean the paint is the color you thought.

 

[dad]

No, beliefs are not a matter of choice.

False. You, as a slave, can choose to be free.

Not if you care about being rationally justified in your beliefs.

You have no monopoly on what is rational, or indeed little connection.

Here we go down the hilarious hole of redefining what "slave" means, all just to distract from the very real fact that the character "god" in the bible doesn't see anything wrong with keeping and treating human beings as your personal property.

No. God is clear.

John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

 

[nPeace]

It is so easy to deny reality.

You would know.

But that only demonstrates that you at best do not know what you are talking about. Either whether we are talking about evidence or logic. By the way, it is a strawman to claim that there is some sort of miraculous change from microevolution to macroevolution. And macroevolution has been observed in real time. So I do not see why you have a problem with it. And by the way, speciation is macroevolution. You do not get to redefine terms for your own benefit. The person that invented those terms defined them.

This opens up several possible topics of discussion. There is almost endless evidence for "macroevolution". Even beyond the species level. How about discussing the concept of evidence first?

I am not a scientist, but I listen to what scientist say, and what they write.
Perhaps you should do that sometimes, instead of making false statements, as though you know what you are talking about... just because they are claims you wish were true.
(I am not using any red ink, which you call green... although you won't tell me if you are color blind. I know someone who is, so I can understand, if that is the case with you. Or something is wrong with your screen. It may be bad, or the gamma may need adjusting. Whatever the case, let's see what your excuse will be. Gish Gallop? I know that posters on here can't be that ignorant, so I know that just a distinctive plea.

These are the things scientist say...
Richard Goldschmidt, argued that microevolution does not, by the sheer accumulation of small, adaptive changes, lead to novel species. In his words, “the facts of microevolution do not suffice for macroevolution”.

Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Abstract
Recent debates between proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis (the standard model in evolutionary biology) and those of a possible extended synthesis are a good example of the fascinating tangle among empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology. In this essay, we briefly discuss two case studies from this debate, highlighting the relevance of philosophical thinking to evolutionary biologists in the hope of spurring further constructive cross-pollination between the two fields.

For a number of years now, there have been debates in the biological literature about the status (i.e., whether it is necessary) of the so-called extended (evolutionary) synthesis (ES). The idea has been put forth and elaborated by a number of authors (e.g., Pigliucci and Müller 2010 and the references therein) that the time has come for a broad reevaluation of the current standard model in evolutionary biology, known as the modern synthesis (MS), which was crystallized by the classical writings of Dobzhansky, Huxley, Mayr, Simpson, and others during the 1940s and early 1950s (Mayr and Provine 1980).

More recently, the theory has expanded again, it is argued, to the ES, which builds on earlier work previously considered peripheral to the MS (e.g., Simpson 1944, Eldredge and Gould 1972, Gould and Lewontin 1979, parts of Fisher 1999). This expansion includes new or highly revised concepts such as multilevel selection theory, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche inheritance, facilitated variation, evolvability, and a distinction between microevolutionary and macroevolutionary processes, among others.

The sort of vigorous debate briefly sketched above is, we suggest, both typical of many areas of biology (including discussions on species concepts and on a number of ecological theories) and an excellent example of a dialogue at the interface of empirical biology, theoretical biology, and philosophy of biology. These are issues that can be settled decisively neither on empirical grounds (it is hard to imagine what sort of evidence, on its own, could possibly do that) nor even on a theoretical (as opposed to a broader conceptual) level—say, framed in the kind of mathematical terms that are the bread and butter of population genetic theory. The reason for this is that some of the crucial issues are conceptual (i.e., philosophical) in nature and hinge on not just matters of definition (what, exactly, counts as a paradigm?) but also on the entire framework that biologists use to understand what it is that they are doing (e.g., what is the relationship between systems of inheritance and natural selection, or, in multilevel selection theory, what counts as a level and why?). Kuhn (1962) famously referred to this as the “disciplinary matrix” characterizing a given field of inquiry.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...rn_Evolutionary_Theory_Explain_Macroevolution
Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution
Ever since the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, some biologists have expressed doubt that the Synthetic Theory, based principally on mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection, adequately accounts for macroevolution, or evolution above the species level. Some questions pertain to the history of biological diversity, but the greatest argument has concerned the evolution of major changes in organisms’ form and function. Such changes have been the subject of debate on the nature and phenotypic effect of mutations (especially the role of “macromutations” or saltations), the role of developmental mechanisms and processes, and the importance of internal constraints on adaptive evolution. Bridging the two major macroevolutionary themes, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria invoked constraints on phenotypic evolution and the role of speciation in both diversification and the evolution of form. This chapter describes the Evolutionary Synthesis and the challenges to it and addresses the extent to which the modern formulation of the Synthetic Theory (ST) adequately addresses the observations that have prompted skeptical challenge. I conclude that although several proposed extensions and seemingly unorthodox ideas have some merit, the observations they purport to explain can mostly be interpreted within the framework of the Synthetic Theory.

Testing hypotheses in macroevolution - ScienceDirect
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution
Abstract
Experimental manipulation of microevolution (changes in frequency of heritable traits in populations) has shed much light on evolutionary processes. But many evolutionary processes occur on scales that are not amenable to experimental manipulation. Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes in biodiversity over time, space and lineages) has sometimes been a controversial topic is that processes underlying the generation of biological diversity generally operate at scales that are not open to direct observation or manipulation. Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions.

Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Abstract
The “modern synthetic” view of evolution has broken down, at least as an exclusive proposition, on both of its fundamental claims: (1) “extrapolationism” (gradual substitution of different alleles in many genes as the exclusive process underlying all evolutionary change) and (2) nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation. Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different modes of change at its three large-scale levels: (a) variation within populations, (b) speciation, and (c) very long-term macroevolutionary trends. Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps nonadaptive. Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection operating upon groups of species. Individual species generally do not change much after their “instantaneous” (in geological time) origin. These two discontinuities in the evolutionary hierarchy can be called the Goldschmidt break (change in populations is different from speciation) and the Wright break (speciation is different from macroevolutionary trending that translates differential success among different species).

Jeffrey S. Levinton | Department of Ecology & Evolution
Erwin Baur (1919, 1925, 1932)
Erwin Baur was certainly one of the most important architects of the Synthesis. His early death (1933) prevented him from playing a major partin the actual formation of the Synthesis, but his work made him a centralfigure of the preparatory phase: "If he had lived, he would probably be recognized now as one of the fathers of the synthetic theory of evolution inplants" (Stebbins 1980, p. 140). Baur's very popular genetics textbook Ein-fuÈhrung in die experimentelle Vererbungslehre was probably one of the most influential publications that prepared the ground for the Synthesis in Germany. As early as 1919 (3rd/4th. ed.) Baur presented an evolutionary theory that was based on a synthesis of genetics, the theory of selection and a basic idea of population genetics. He was convinced that the quantity and diversity of mutations in nature is sufficient to guaranty an efficient process of selection (Baur 1919, p. 343). On the other hand, he had some doubts whether this microevolutionary mechanism is sufficient to explain macroevolution and speculated that new types of mutations might be found (Baur 1919, p. 345).In 1925 Baur presented his most important synthetic ideas in a short paperon the meaning and importance of mutations for evolution (ªDie Bedeu-tung der Mutation fuÈr das Evolutionsproblemº). Here he emphasized thatdifferences between closely related species can be explained by the accumulation of (micro-)mutations (see also Baur 1924; Mayr & Provine 1980;Harwood 1993). He demonstrated that in natural populations sufficientgenetic polymorphism (resulting from random mutations and recombina-tion) for selection to act is present. Baur had no clear notion yet of genepools, gene flow and genetic isolation but he emphasized that the (at thattime dominant) criticism of selection was unproductive. Baur clearly re-jected Lamarckian inheritance.

What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.

 

[nPeace]

I listened and you appear to be very confused. There was no liar at 101:30. Nor did I hear any strawman arguments. I think that you are rather confused. Please check the times or name the supposed lies and the supposed strawman.

Creationists do not tend to understand the concept of "strawman". By the way, you do realize that both of the anti-evolution people have little to no credibility, don't you?

EDIT: Interesting fact about that video. It was put up by creationists but as usual they dishonestly disabled comments. They tend to do that whenever their idols get refuted.

The liar said that Mr. Sternberg brought up an argument about gaps (between whales... and besides speaking as though he is a school teacher talking to a child), which Mr. Sternberg did not even mention.
As Stephen rightly observed, it as though the dishonest dude was reading from a debate manual, and talking to a YEC "who just fell off the turnip truck". LOL. That was epic!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would know.


I am not a scientist, but I listen to what scientist say, and what they write.
Perhaps you should do that sometimes, instead of making false statements, as though you know what you are talking about... just because they are claims you wish were true.
(I am not using any red ink, which you call green... although you won't tell me if you are color blind. I know someone who is, so I can understand, if that is the case with you. Or something is wrong with your screen. It may be bad, or the gamma may need adjusting. Whatever the case, let's see what your excuse will be. Gish Gallop? I know that posters on here can't be that ignorant, so I know that just a distinctive plea.

These are the things scientist say...
Richard Goldschmidt, argued that microevolution does not, by the sheer accumulation of small, adaptive changes, lead to novel species. In his words, “the facts of microevolution do not suffice for macroevolution”.

Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Abstract
Recent debates between proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis (the standard model in evolutionary biology) and those of a possible extended synthesis are a good example of the fascinating tangle among empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology. In this essay, we briefly discuss two case studies from this debate, highlighting the relevance of philosophical thinking to evolutionary biologists in the hope of spurring further constructive cross-pollination between the two fields.

For a number of years now, there have been debates in the biological literature about the status (i.e., whether it is necessary) of the so-called extended (evolutionary) synthesis (ES). The idea has been put forth and elaborated by a number of authors (e.g., Pigliucci and Müller 2010 and the references therein) that the time has come for a broad reevaluation of the current standard model in evolutionary biology, known as the modern synthesis (MS), which was crystallized by the classical writings of Dobzhansky, Huxley, Mayr, Simpson, and others during the 1940s and early 1950s (Mayr and Provine 1980).

More recently, the theory has expanded again, it is argued, to the ES, which builds on earlier work previously considered peripheral to the MS (e.g., Simpson 1944, Eldredge and Gould 1972, Gould and Lewontin 1979, parts of Fisher 1999). This expansion includes new or highly revised concepts such as multilevel selection theory, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche inheritance, facilitated variation, evolvability, and a distinction between microevolutionary and macroevolutionary processes, among others.

The sort of vigorous debate briefly sketched above is, we suggest, both typical of many areas of biology (including discussions on species concepts and on a number of ecological theories) and an excellent example of a dialogue at the interface of empirical biology, theoretical biology, and philosophy of biology. These are issues that can be settled decisively neither on empirical grounds (it is hard to imagine what sort of evidence, on its own, could possibly do that) nor even on a theoretical (as opposed to a broader conceptual) level—say, framed in the kind of mathematical terms that are the bread and butter of population genetic theory. The reason for this is that some of the crucial issues are conceptual (i.e., philosophical) in nature and hinge on not just matters of definition (what, exactly, counts as a paradigm?) but also on the entire framework that biologists use to understand what it is that they are doing (e.g., what is the relationship between systems of inheritance and natural selection, or, in multilevel selection theory, what counts as a level and why?). Kuhn (1962) famously referred to this as the “disciplinary matrix” characterizing a given field of inquiry.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...rn_Evolutionary_Theory_Explain_Macroevolution
Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution
Ever since the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, some biologists have expressed doubt that the Synthetic Theory, based principally on mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection, adequately accounts for macroevolution, or evolution above the species level. Some questions pertain to the history of biological diversity, but the greatest argument has concerned the evolution of major changes in organisms’ form and function. Such changes have been the subject of debate on the nature and phenotypic effect of mutations (especially the role of “macromutations” or saltations), the role of developmental mechanisms and processes, and the importance of internal constraints on adaptive evolution. Bridging the two major macroevolutionary themes, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria invoked constraints on phenotypic evolution and the role of speciation in both diversification and the evolution of form. This chapter describes the Evolutionary Synthesis and the challenges to it and addresses the extent to which the modern formulation of the Synthetic Theory (ST) adequately addresses the observations that have prompted skeptical challenge. I conclude that although several proposed extensions and seemingly unorthodox ideas have some merit, the observations they purport to explain can mostly be interpreted within the framework of the Synthetic Theory.

Testing hypotheses in macroevolution - ScienceDirect
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution
Abstract
Experimental manipulation of microevolution (changes in frequency of heritable traits in populations) has shed much light on evolutionary processes. But many evolutionary processes occur on scales that are not amenable to experimental manipulation. Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes in biodiversity over time, space and lineages) has sometimes been a controversial topic is that processes underlying the generation of biological diversity generally operate at scales that are not open to direct observation or manipulation. Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions.

Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Abstract
The “modern synthetic” view of evolution has broken down, at least as an exclusive proposition, on both of its fundamental claims: (1) “extrapolationism” (gradual substitution of different alleles in many genes as the exclusive process underlying all evolutionary change) and (2) nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation. Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different modes of change at its three large-scale levels: (a) variation within populations, (b) speciation, and (c) very long-term macroevolutionary trends. Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps nonadaptive. Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection operating upon groups of species. Individual species generally do not change much after their “instantaneous” (in geological time) origin. These two discontinuities in the evolutionary hierarchy can be called the Goldschmidt break (change in populations is different from speciation) and the Wright break (speciation is different from macroevolutionary trending that translates differential success among different species).

Jeffrey S. Levinton | Department of Ecology & Evolution
Erwin Baur (1919, 1925, 1932)
Erwin Baur was certainly one of the most important architects of the Synthesis. His early death (1933) prevented him from playing a major partin the actual formation of the Synthesis, but his work made him a centralfigure of the preparatory phase: "If he had lived, he would probably be recognized now as one of the fathers of the synthetic theory of evolution inplants" (Stebbins 1980, p. 140). Baur's very popular genetics textbook Ein-fuÈhrung in die experimentelle Vererbungslehre was probably one of the most influential publications that prepared the ground for the Synthesis in Germany. As early as 1919 (3rd/4th. ed.) Baur presented an evolutionary theory that was based on a synthesis of genetics, the theory of selection and a basic idea of population genetics. He was convinced that the quantity and diversity of mutations in nature is sufficient to guaranty an efficient process of selection (Baur 1919, p. 343). On the other hand, he had some doubts whether this microevolutionary mechanism is sufficient to explain macroevolution and speculated that new types of mutations might be found (Baur 1919, p. 345).In 1925 Baur presented his most important synthetic ideas in a short paperon the meaning and importance of mutations for evolution (ªDie Bedeu-tung der Mutation fuÈr das Evolutionsproblemº). Here he emphasized thatdifferences between closely related species can be explained by the accumulation of (micro-)mutations (see also Baur 1924; Mayr & Provine 1980;Harwood 1993). He demonstrated that in natural populations sufficientgenetic polymorphism (resulting from random mutations and recombina-tion) for selection to act is present. Baur had no clear notion yet of genepools, gene flow and genetic isolation but he emphasized that the (at thattime dominant) criticism of selection was unproductive. Baur clearly re-jected Lamarckian inheritance.

What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.

Sorry, but quote mining is a dishonest way to debate. So is a Gish Gallop. And I never called red green.

Try again. Bring up your claims one at a time. Or if you like I could pick and choose a point to refute. When you do a Gish Gallop as you just did refuting one claim refutes them all. Are you sure that you want to play that game.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The liar said that Mr. Sternberg brought up an argument about gaps (between whales... and besides speaking as though he is a school teacher talking to a child), which Mr. Sternberg did not even mention.
As Stephen rightly observed, it as though the dishonest dude was reading from a debate manual, and talking to a YEC "who just fell off the turnip truck". LOL. That was epic!

Wait a second. You are saying that Meyer brought up an argument about whales. Aren't they on the same side?

You appear to be very confused again.

 

[nPeace]

False.

Ever hear of "forensic science"? There are many people in prison on that basis alone. And anthropologists are often called in to help in this area as this is what we specialize in!

Yes, I believe they can, but what's a "miracle" versus what's "natural" is for another discussion.

The book of Hebrews, and the Bible in general, are not science books, so you are demonstrating why you know so little on the matter of science.

But another "species" is of different "kinds"-- that's what "species" deals with!

It's far more disturbing that you use your religious approach as a set of blinders. I left my old denomination because of this as the Truth simply cannot be relative. Not only does your approach use blinders, it also has led you to spout, or at least parrot, dishonesty. I don't believe that Jesus and God wants us to do that. Do you?

What do you know about me? Nothing.
So I don't mind the empty words.
Since this is not about religion, I won't respond on you and yours, which you get so upset about.
There are a set of people that like to talk about other people's faith, and criticize other people, and then claim they don't like that, and that people do it to them when the person hasn't. There is a name for that, and it's far worst than having blinders on.

 

[nPeace]

Wait a second. You are saying that Meyer brought up an argument about whales. Aren't they on the same side?

You appear to be very confused again.

I must be speaking German.

 

[Audie]

.

These are the things scientist say...
Richard Goldschmidt, argued that microevolution does not, by the sheer accumulation of small, adaptive changes, lead to novel species. In his words, “the facts of microevolution do not suffice for macroevolution”.


Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened

Your last sentence there is right on. Good.

As for Goldschmidt, he is a bit out of date,but lets see
what Wiki says about his work...


Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a non-Darwinian, however he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He only veered from the synthetic theory in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation. Goldschmidt presented his hypothesis when neo-Darwinism was becoming dominant in the 1940's and 1950's and he strongly protested against the strict gradualism of neo-Darwinian theorists. Becuase of this his ideas were seen as highly unorthodox of the time by most scientists and were greatly subjected to ridicule and scorn.[5] However there has been a recent interest in the ideas of Goldschmidt in the field of evolutionary developmental biology as some scientists are convinced he was not entirely wrong.

And that is all fine, he offered his opinion, and I too think he has
a point, I am not a geneticist, but as I understand it there are
more ways that genetic change takes place than boring old
micro micro

Of course, this is all about refinement-the how-of evolution,
not something contrary to it, a disproof.

What point is it you wish to make about this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I must be speaking German.

No, you said "the liar". That is clearly Stephen C. Meyer in the context of your post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your (?) last sentence there is right on. Good.

As for Goldschmidt, he is a bit out of date,but lets see
what Wiki says about his work...


Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a non-Darwinian, however he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He only veered from the synthetic theory in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation. Goldschmidt presented his hypothesis when neo-Darwinism was becoming dominant in the 1940's and 1950's and he strongly protested against the strict gradualism of neo-Darwinian theorists. Becuase of this his ideas were seen as highly unorthodox of the time by most scientists and were greatly subjected to ridicule and scorn.[5] However there has been a recent interest in the ideas of Goldschmidt in the field of evolutionary developmental biology as some scientists are convinced he was not entirely wrong.

And that is all fine, he offered his opinion, and I too think he has
a point, I am not a geneticist, but as I understand it there are
more ways that genetic change takes place than boring old
micro micro

Of course, this is all about refinement-the how-of evolution,
not something contrary to it, a disproof.

What point is it you wish to make about this?

And he also referred to Douglas Futuyma in his post. After claiming that he listened to what scientists say. Futuyma is a well respected scientist. He was arguing against the oversimplified version of evolution that used to be used and for:

Modern Synthetic theory of Evolution - Definition | Neo Darwinism Theory

Futuyma was not arguing against evolution. And he facepalmed my post. That is irony for you.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, but quote mining is a dishonest way to debate. So is a Gish Gallop. And I never called red green.

Try again. Bring up your claims one at a time. Or if you like I could pick and choose a point to refute. When you do a Gish Gallop as you just did refuting one claim refutes them all. Are you sure that you want to play that game.

LOL. Now it's quote mining. Poor excuse.
I'll make it easier for you.
Scientists disagree that micro is a stepping stone to macro.
Scientists say there are distinctions between speciation, microevolution and macroevolution.
Scientists say that macroevolution on the grandest scale, has never been, and can never be observed in real-time.
Scientists vehemently disagree on mechanisms related to biological evolution. They debate over empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology.
...and you have a problem with people who don't believe this philosophical jazz...

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL. Now it's quote mining. Poor excuse.
I'll make it easier for you.
Scientists disagree that micro is a stepping stone to macro.
Scientists say there are distinctions between speciation, microevolution and macroevolution.
Scientists say that macroevolution on the grandest scale, has never been, and can never be observed in real-time.
Scientists vehemently disagree on mechanisms related to biological evolution. They debate over empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology.
...and you have a problem with people who don't believe this philosophical jazz...

But they don't. I already refuted your claim.