I am a critical mind. You are a master at baiting.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:00 amWhy am I not surprised you are a creationist.Walker[/quote wrote:...
Examine the doubts of Darwin rather than the certainties of his acolytes.
The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
What doubts of Darwin?Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:07 amI am a critical mind. You are a master at baiting.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:00 amWhy am I not surprised you are a creationist.Walker[/quote wrote:...
Examine the doubts of Darwin rather than the certainties of his acolytes.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
If he had no doubts, he was no scientist.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
I agree. I would stress master there. Baiting critical minds couldn't be more counter-philosophical.
I agree. I would stress scientist there. Not doubting one's won judgements couldn't be more counter-scientific.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
No you're not you're a creationist so by definition critical is not the word.Walker wrote:I am a critical mind. ...
And you're a godbothering wanker.You are a master at baiting.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
The book written by creationists to try and pretend they aren't so they can teach their godbothering guff as science in the US.davidm wrote:What doubts of Darwin?
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
I'm aware that there is a (bogus) book by a creationist entitled "Darwin's Doubt." I was just trying to find out if his "Darwin's doubts" was referring to that (bogus) book. I imagine he was referring to that (bogus) book.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:09 amThe book written by creationists to try and pretend they aren't so they can teach their godbothering guff as science in the US.davidm wrote:What doubts of Darwin?
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
He never heard of it.davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:56 amI'm aware that there is a (bogus) book by a creationist entitled "Darwin's Doubt." I was just trying to find out if his "Darwin's doubts" was referring to that (bogus) book. I imagine he was referring to that (bogus) book.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:09 amThe book written by creationists to try and pretend they aren't so they can teach their godbothering guff as science in the US.davidm wrote:What doubts of Darwin?
The misquote is yet further confirmation that youse twoins hear what you need to hear.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
Referring to yourself in the third person now?Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:04 amHe never heard of it.davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:56 amI'm aware that there is a (bogus) book by a creationist entitled "Darwin's Doubt." I was just trying to find out if his "Darwin's doubts" was referring to that (bogus) book. I imagine he was referring to that (bogus) book.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:09 am The book written by creationists to try and pretend they aren't so they can teach their godbothering guff as science in the US.
The misquote is yet further confirmation that youse twoins hear what you need to hear.
What misquote?
If you weren't referring to the bogus creationist book "Darwin's Doubt," then what "Darwin's doubts" were you referring to? After all, you advised us to study these doubts, so perhaps you could share what you think we should study.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
So, if I understand you correctly, you "don't doubt evolution occurs", but you "think natural selection is a flawed theory". Fair enough; do you have abetter one?PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:45 pmI don't doubt evolution occurs either. This is the point missed by a few people here that suspended discussion by flooding this with posts calling me creationist. It's their opinion and they're entitled to be wrong (not only here), the problem is the polluting nature of their flood.
The problem is that I think natural selection is a flawed theory and is supported by circularity not only in their tenets but also in its observational nature.
Not sure what you mean by this. If you take a hard nosed instrumentalist (shut up and calculate) approach, then no; the theories you generate to explain the phenomena are irrelevant. Some prominent physicists, Steve Weinberg and Stephen Hawking, for example (dunno about biologists) dismiss any such speculation as philosophy; and then go and do it anyway. Very few scientists, in practice, are as instrumentally pure to the degree they would have us believe.
On the other hand, if you mean to say that science isn't theorising about future observations, it is generally accepted that one of the tests of a theory is its success in doing precisely that. Which perhaps is what you mean by this:
Again though, that is simply to take Popper's Conjectures and Refutations as definitive. Which it isn't.
As I keep saying, biology isn't my field and I have no idea what mitochondrial endosymbiosis is. Couple of things though. Firstly: why is mitochondrial endosymbiosis in opposition to natural selection? Again; what is your better theory? By what mechanism do you explain mito-thingummybob?
Secondly; the fact that anyone accepts an hypothesis because it "makes sense" is never a good sign. More often than not, it simply means they mangled it into a shape they can hammer into their own world-view.
How? What is your better explanation?
This smacks of an appeal to authority. I think you are assuming a great deal of psychology, by proclaiming that it can back up your interpretation. I rather think psychology might have more success explaining why you interpret things as you do.
PauloL, I may have missed it, in which case by all means direct me to it, but where is your exposition of your alternative to natural selection? How, in your view, does evolution work if not by natural selection?
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
"If" ?davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:44 amReferring to yourself in the third person now?
What misquote?
If you weren't referring to the bogus creationist book "Darwin's Doubt," then what "Darwin's doubts" were you referring to? After all, you advised us to study these doubts, so perhaps you could share what you think we should study.
Wrong again.
Since, or because. Not, if.
No doubt not even Darwin was so full of Darwin.
Last edited by Walker on Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
You haven't answered the question. What Darwin's doubts do you advise that we study? Please be specific.Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:03 am"If" ?davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:44 amReferring to yourself in the third person now?
What misquote?
If you weren't referring to the bogus creationist book "Darwin's Doubt," then what "Darwin's doubts" were you referring to? After all, you advised us to study these doubts, so perhaps you could share what you think we should study.
Wrong again.
Since, or because. Not, if.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfct?
Not we.davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:08 amYou haven't answered the question. What Darwin's doubts do you advise that we study? Please be specific.Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:03 am"If" ?davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:44 am
Referring to yourself in the third person now?
What misquote?
If you weren't referring to the bogus creationist book "Darwin's Doubt," then what "Darwin's doubts" were you referring to? After all, you advised us to study these doubts, so perhaps you could share what you think we should study.
Wrong again.
Since, or because. Not, if.
You.
You're the expert. What doubts has your critical mind discovered in your parroting, if any?