wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Please name one scientist that gave up on research because
of ID. Maybe this will help you get started, it's a pdf page
that takes about 15 seconds with a dialup ...




http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443


There is no mention of ID in the statment those on that list
ostensibly supports.


If they are suspect of random mutation and natural selection as
the cause what do you suppose is left?


Everything else, of course.


Like what?

Like the ones I stated below. Crimony!


You didn't state any.


False.


You split my comment up in an unethical way. I said that
you didn't say any in the post I had responded to. In
your response you mentioned one evolution alternative to
Darwinian Evolution, one that has been taken seriously
for some time. Let' not play games.


You mention one, Lamarck, in this post. So you
believe those who are questioning the validity of Darwinian Evolution
would favor a pre-Darwinian model instead?


Uh, I thought that was your position.


No, I made my position clear, if the scientists are skeptical
of Darwinian Evolution it doesn't leave much besides ID,
since no other evolution model seems to be taken seriously.


I don't think it is
seriously considered as part of evolution nor has been for some time.
Certainly, DNA testing can shoot it down these days.


ID is not seriously considered as a part of evolution nor has
been for some time.


How does that refute what I said?


The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account
for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence
for Dawinian theory should be encouraged."

No mention of ID or any other variant of creationsim nor any
mention of any of the variations on transmutation theory.
Not being an expert in the field, I don't now how many others
there may be.


Wouldn't they all pretty much fall under those general descriptions?


Don't those general descriptions extend beyond ID?


They all fall under Darwinian Evolution a far as I can tell.



That is because you do not understand them, even after looking
up Lamarck.


I understand that Lamarck was pre-Darwinian and isn't taken
seriously, especially since his claim was within a generation
and modern DNA testing can dismiss it. But it has been out of
favor before recent times.


Evidently you don't either.

I did some serching and there doesn't seem to be a distinction
between evolution and Darwinian Evolution. I don't see any
others.


Try searching for 'Lamarck'. Surely you remember Lamarck from
high school biology.


Nope. I must have missed that day.



Evidently, if you ever studied biology at all, you never got
up to a normal high school level of understanding.


Evidently you ran out of ammo a few posts back.


You don't see as much about transmutation because transmutation
does not have the financial support that is behind 'ID'.


Huh??? Surely you jest?