Non-Darwinian evolution, the new synthesis?

[LuisDantas]

Yes. Sounds to me as if further scientific investigation has debunked the ToE, yet ToE adherents cling tenatiously to their theory anyway. It is proving to be as Behe said: "“The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell—to investigate life at the molecular level—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’” (quote from W98 5/1 pp 3-4)

​

​

I wish I had a penny for every time the death of the ToE is announced.

 

[McBell]

Yes. Sounds to me as if further scientific investigation has debunked the ToE,

Of course it sounds that way to you.
You have shown a remarkable ability to glean the exact opposite meaning from scientific papers than what the scientific papers actually state.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Creationist incorrectly interpret the self correcting mechanisms built into the scientific method as a weakness.
If we were to use their line of thinking, we would have never advanced past the Stone Age.

 

[outhouse]

None of the papers I have cited debunk evolution, they prove the fact of evolution, please read them. The papers are debating the mechanisms in evolution not questioning the fact of evolution. Just becuase neo-Darwinian mechanisms are incomplete, wrong or have been replaced, does not disprove evolution. It means evolution is more complex than the Darwinians thought, that is all.

and that I agree with

neo darwinism is ancient and often misinterpreted and quote mined by creationist.

 

[painted wolf]

None of the papers I have cited debunk evolution, they prove the fact of evolution, please read them. The papers are debating the mechanisms in evolution not questioning the fact of evolution. Just becuase neo-Darwinian mechanisms are incomplete, wrong or have been replaced, does not disprove evolution. It means evolution is more complex than the Darwinians thought, that is all.

Rusra won't understand that. Nor do I think he will care to.

wa:do