The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[OmarKhayyam]

MoF:
I stand by my post #982.

IF- a BIG IF – you read the Newman paper you did NOT understand. You couldn’t. You don’t have the science background to get past the 1st three technical terms. You wouldn’t be able to summarize his theory and you still can’t.

What you did is called “quote mining.” It a technique of reading over material you cannot understand and don’t agree with in hopes of finding a few sentences that seem to say what you want them to say. You creationists are notorious for this. The classic example is “Darwin’s eye.” For years you guys keep quoting a passage from Origins that outlined how difficult the eye would be to evolve. All exactly what Darwin said. What you guys DIDN’T do is quote the passages following in which he outlines exactly how the eye has evolved with examples. By quoting what you did you create the false impression that Darwin knew the eye could not be explained by ToE. A falsehood. And you guys KNEW it was false.

You MoF, did the same thing with the Newman quote. You quoted what you wanted to ignored the rest and made the absolutely false claim that the idea of common descent was "in trouble."

As I was saying about intellectual honesty . . .

 

[OmarKhayyam]

BTW MoF, just curious. In your mind was Darwin an atheist?

 

[Alceste]

You MoF, did the same thing with the Newman quote. You quoted what you wanted to ignored the rest and made the absolutely false claim that the idea of common descent was "in trouble."

Actually, a creationist blogger did the quote mining. MoF simply attempted to pass himself off as having read the original paper to gain some credibility with people like us, who actually read such things, by linking to that instead of the blog he got the quotes from.

MoF is also being dishonest, but not in nearly as sophisticated a way as you suggest. He's lying the way a 4 year old lies - obvious, pitiable, transparent and needless fictions to make himself look bigger than he feels.

 

[Autodidact]

I've been reading and listening to some interesting stuff. Did ya'll know that commmon descent is a dying theory? Check out this paper by Stuart Newman a professor of cell biology.

“Incremental changes in an existing biological structure the alterations in beak shape of the finches that so impressed Charles Darwin during his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, for instance – can indeed be attributed to natural selection. Even most creationists do not deny this. But when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures (‘‘morphological novelties’&#8217 such as segmentally organized bodies (seen in earthworms, insects, and vertebrates such as humans, but not jellyfish or molluscs), or the hands and feet of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs), Darwin’s mechanism comes up short. This is a reality that is increasingly acknowledged by biologists, particularly those working in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘‘EvoDevo.’’ ”

The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. But it and its liberal advocates are so wedded to a neo-Darwinism that has effectively become the house philosophy of the market economy that they are barely holding on in their attempts to prevent naturalistic accounts of the history of life from being expunged from school curricula. Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.”

Stuart Newman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nymc.edu/sanewman/PDFs/CNS_Evolution_08.pdf

Did you know that quote-mining is a form of lying? That makes you a liar, which is not helping your case. Stuart Newman is an evolutionary biologist who fully accepts ToE and is pushing and developing it further.

Since you don't understand epigenetics [you don't even understand ToE] you have no way of knowing that.

Here's a clue: If it's cited at AIG or their dishonest, lying ilk, it's probably a quote mine. And remember, quote-mining is a form of lying.

Now, did you have anything to say about the EVIDENCE I've presented? That stuff that you deny exists?

(Please don't say it isn't proof. I hate starting over with your education.)

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't skip it, I just cut and pasted the pertinant things that I wanted to show, the things that look shiney and new to me and make the creationists case. I understand that the person still believes that natural processes created everything we see, however Darwin's common descent theory is in trouble according to him.

No, it isn't. You're too ignorant to realize that. If you don't want to be chided for your ignorance, don't quote mine.

You didn't read Newman's work, did you MoF? You copied this gem off a creationist website, didn't you? You couldn't understand Newman if you tried.

 

[Autodidact]

So you disagree with Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology. I will make a note of that.

Stuart Newman has never said, and does not believe, that ToE is a dying theory.

I see that you however disagree with him very deeply. Hypocrite much?

 

[Autodidact]

People don't give up on the ToE so easily, I'll have to keep trying.

First respond to the evidence I've presented that supports ToE. Refute it if you can.

Then respond to the evidence I've presented that repudiates HoK. Defend it if you can.

Then define "kind."

Then deliver the posts you promised earlier, destroying radiometric dating without knowing any physics.

Then I'll go on with the rest of the mountain of evidence in favor of ToE. Next up: geographical distribution of species.

 

[Man of Faith]

BTW MoF, just curious. In your mind was Darwin an atheist?

Now that you mention it, I know all about Darwin, I have read The Origin of the Species, his diaries, and lot's of internet posts about his life. Darwin had a degree in theology and was a theist for most of his life. His Mother was a Christian. However I don't believe Darwin was a born again Christian because when his child died he decided that if God did exist then he wasn't a good god. That's when he decided to not believe in God and also when he started working on a naturalistic explanation of life.

 

[Man of Faith]

No, it isn't. You're too ignorant to realize that. If you don't want to be chided for your ignorance, don't quote mine.

You didn't read Newman's work, did you MoF? You copied this gem off a creationist website, didn't you? You couldn't understand Newman if you tried.

Question, should I post the part of the document that isn't pertinant to the point I am making? I don't get it.

 

[Autodidact]

Now that you mention it, I know all about Darwin, I have read The Origin of the Species, his diaries, and lot's of internet posts about his life. Darwin had a degree in theology and was a theist for most of his life. His Mother was a Christian. However I don't believe Darwin was a born again Christian because when his child died he decided that if God did exist then he wasn't a good god. That's when he decided to not believe in God and also when he started working on a naturalistic explanation of life.

Great to see you back. You demonstrate courage, if not wisdom. Now would you please engage with the detailed, specific, lengthy posts I've prepared for your edification? Thanks.

 

[Man of Faith]

Great to see you back. You demonstrate courage, if not wisdom. Now would you please engage with the detailed, specific, lengthy posts I've prepared for your edification? Thanks.

Sorry, I don't have time, got to leave in 10 minutes to go meet other Christians for prayer to the Holy Triune God. If you want any prayer requests let me know.

 

[Autodidact]

Question, should I post the part of the document that isn't pertinant to the point I am making? I don't get it.

Quote-mining is when you deliberately cut and paste to make someone appear to say the opposite of what they mean.

For example, if I go:

I decided to not believe in God

I would be quote-mining you. It makes you sound like an atheist, when you're not. Not very honest, is it? So don't do it.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Now that you mention it, I know all about Darwin, I have read The Origin of the Species, his diaries, and lot's of internet posts about his life. Darwin had a degree in theology and was a theist for most of his life. His Mother was a Christian. However I don't believe Darwin was a born again Christian because when his child died he decided that if God did exist then he wasn't a good god. That's when he decided to not believe in God and also when he started working on a naturalistic explanation of life.

Really? You're something of a Darwin scholar? Odd.

So this not believing in god - was that before or after he wrote Origins?

 

[Gunfingers]

I don't know why we're following down that path. The accuracy of evolutionary theory isn't dependent on Darwin's religious beliefs. It's true that his faith in Xstianity failed when his daughter died in 1851, 8 years before Origins was written (though 15 years after he returned from the trip on the Beagle), but so what? I don't see anyone in a rush to say that the treatments Mengele discovered were wrong just because he was a *********.

 

[ragordon168]

“Incremental changes in an existing biological structure the alterations in beak shape of the finches that so impressed Charles Darwin during his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, for instance – can indeed be attributed to natural selection. Even most creationists do not deny this. But when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures (‘‘morphological novelties’’) such as segmentally organized bodies (seen in earthworms, insects, and vertebrates such as humans, but not jellyfish or molluscs), or the hands and feet of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs), Darwin’s mechanism comes up short. This is a reality that is increasingly acknowledged by biologists, particularly those working in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘‘EvoDevo.’’ ”

but Darwin didnt have a clue about prehistoric descent, he saw the standard finch and saw the variations on the Galapagos islands and corrcetly stated common ancestry.

now we know about prehistoric animals, scientists have shown that modern animals descended from them and that younger species have developed from older ones. common descent - exactly what darwin predicted.

eventually we will find evidence of the first anscestor and the origin of life.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

People don't give up on the ToE so easily, I'll have to keep trying.

Why should they give up on it?

You have not presented any alternative nor have you answered some importan tquestions

 

[logician]

eventually we will find evidence of the first anscestor and the origin of life.

One could have existed when life formed and most certainly not known it if it was in the depths of the oceans. I think exactly how and where first life formed will always be conjecture.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

oh no, we bypassed 100 pages, let's shoot for 200!

 

[Autodidact]

If we review and discuss all of the evidence that supports ToE, it will take that long. So far MoF hasn't caught up with the first few chunks of evidence. "Too busy." But not too busy to assert that it doesn't exist.

No, I didn't notice anything unusual, did you?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

(Just whistle and nod everything's cool everything's alright... Relax, if you ignore it it'll walk away...Oh dear, it just crapped on the carpet... Pretend not to notice... just whistle and nod, whistle and nod...)