Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
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.


That statement was false. That you didn't understand that I
had referred to alternatives does not change the fact that
I did. _YOU_ split your own comments in the article to
which I replied. I addressed them in order.

In
your response you mentioned one evolution alternative to
Darwinian Evolution, one that has been taken seriously
for some time. Let' not play games.


Transmutation theory is not one alternative, it is a school
of alternatives. Your reply indicated that you mistakenly
thought transmution theory was 'Darwinian'. That is why
I suggested you look up 'Lamarck'. Now you seem to think
that because you didn't understand that transmution theory
is not 'Darwinian', I never mentioned it, even though
it appears in plain English in the article in question.


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.

ID is a pre-Darwinian model. If you are aguing that 'dissent
from Darwin' implies support for ID then you are arguing that
'dissent from Darwin' implies support for a pre-Darwinian model.

Regardless, dissent does not require support of any alternative.
To conclude that signing onto a 'dissent from Darwin' statement
that mentions NO alternative implies support for a specific
alternative is a serious error of logic.


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?

Who said I was refuting what you said?

Since ID is not seriously considered as a part of evolution nor
has been for some time, by YOUR logic, the signatories of that
list surely are no more likely to support ID than they are
Lamarckism.




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.

So? ID fell out of favor long before transmution theory did.



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.

Nah, DAGS on macromutation theory.

Also, random mutation and natural selection may be
inadequate to explain the developement of antibiotic
resistance among bacteria. And while 'ID' surely _could_
explain it, to my knowledge no researcher is approaching
the problem using 'ID'.

Do you know of any?


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


Huh??? Surely you jest?

--

FF