• This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).

    If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
    1. the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
    2. the thread will be closed to further posts.
    3. the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
    Thank you for understanding.​

Evolution searching for a mechanism

Status
Not open for further replies.

PeshatBooks

Searching everywhere for truth
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Bathurst NSW Australia
Website
www.peshatbooks.com
Yes, I know, this is a most contentious issue, but it is interesting to see that evolutionists are still not able to demonstrate the fundamentals of the variation-selection mechanisms of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Just to be clear, herein I refer to the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) - that all life on earth arose from a single common ancestor that itself arose from an inorganic form.
More and more evolutionists are admitting that random mutation and natural selection are unable to account for the theory, and are hypothesising other mechanisms such as DPMs (Dynamical Patterning Modules, DTFs (Developmental Transcription Factors), self-organisation, epigenic inheritance, endogenous variables, niche inheritance, form theory, physico-genetic determinants, fitness landscapes, preformationism, and so forth. There is much talk of a shift from the current gene-centred perspective of evolution to the non-centrality of the gene.
In essence, these evolution believing scientists are clinging to the theory without having a clue as to how it could have happened. Whether or not one believes in it, it must be obvious that it is far from proven.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Sigh no.

Evolution is easily demonstrable. It can be done in a lab. I did it myself in High School. Using a throat swab, a petri dish and disks of antibiotics, I evolved some antibiotic resistant bacteria.

What is going on right now is the evolutionary process of scientific theories being created and changed in response to information and experiment. That's how science works.

Let's start from scratch. An evolutionary process requires a generation process (one that creates a diversity of objects), and a selection process (one that culls from that diversity). The repeated or continuous application of one or more such processes creates an evolving system.

The initial Mendelian theory of genetics was a simple theory that observed and tested a basic mechanism of biological evolution. It was a revolutionary theory at the time since the presumption was against creatures evolving.

This was actually a bizarre blind spot since humans had been an active selection agent among plants and animals for longer than recorded history (we made sheep sheepish by selection for example).

The exact generation and selection processes are being studied and their inner workings are creating more and more sophisticated theories that fit reality better and better. That's how science works.

But the underlying reality of evolution is clear and observable.
 

FalconMage

Rob J. Vargas
Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
218
Reaction score
17
Location
Midwest, USA
There have also been experiments mimicking the presumed atmosphere of a newly created Earth, and lightning (electricity) has succeeded in creating fairly complex protein chains. So getting from inorganic to organic has also been illustrated.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Just: no.

Evolutionists in general as 100% happy that variation, selection and differential reproductive success are able to account for all findings over most of the time period relating to organic beings. The details are fun to argue about and what you call competing ideas are more like corollaries.

Abiogenisis (initial development of things that can mutate and reproduce) is a very specialized area with it's own issues that I won't get into here, but that does not undermine the validity of evolution in general as an understanding of how basic protein chains became lemurs and lichens and so forth.

Your scenario makes sense only as creationist propaganda pecking away at the less well documented and most ancient part of the chain (an extreme form of the missing link argument). But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And 'God done it' doesn't grapple with the voids or fill the gap, it goes AWOL on the issue entirely.

p.s. most people who believe life on earth evolved, be it from gloop or space bacteria don't find that this impedes their ability to believe in other stuff as well.
 

Friendly Frog

Snarkenfaugister
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
4,098
Reaction score
4,942
Location
Belgium
In essence, these evolution believing scientists are clinging to the theory without having a clue as to how it could have happened. Whether or not one believes in it, it must be obvious that it is far from proven.
Yeah, no. This is a bit too much wishful thinking. Evolution happens whether you believe it or not. But if you take the Discworld-approach (hey, we're in Science Fiction and Fantasy forum, it's allowed ;)) gods on the other hand have a little more trouble happening without believers...
 

Abderian

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
353
Reaction score
48
Yes, I know, this is a most contentious issue, but it is interesting to see that evolutionists are still not able to demonstrate the fundamentals of the variation-selection mechanisms of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Just to be clear, herein I refer to the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) - that all life on earth arose from a single common ancestor that itself arose from an inorganic form.
More and more evolutionists are admitting that random mutation and natural selection are unable to account for the theory, and are hypothesising other mechanisms such as DPMs (Dynamical Patterning Modules, DTFs (Developmental Transcription Factors), self-organisation, epigenic inheritance, endogenous variables, niche inheritance, form theory, physico-genetic determinants, fitness landscapes, preformationism, and so forth. There is much talk of a shift from the current gene-centred perspective of evolution to the non-centrality of the gene.
In essence, these evolution believing scientists are clinging to the theory without having a clue as to how it could have happened. Whether or not one believes in it, it must be obvious that it is far from proven.

You quote a lot of long words you don't really understand and conclude with a statement that makes no logical sense. Evolution isn't something you believe in.

Why not try reading some information about what evolution actually is? It is an observed fact, observed through fossil evidence and in contemporary evidence and laboratory experiments. Evolutionary theory is a theory in the scientific sense of the word, i.e. something that has been rigorously proven as far as our abilities currently allow.

Unfortunately the fact of evolution runs counter to the beliefs of people who choose to interpret the Biblical creation myth literally, and thus evolutionary theory comes under a lot of attack from people who don't really understand it and have no wish to do so. They don't follow scientific principles when generating their ideas; instead, they take whatever information they hear and use it to fit their preformed explanation - that the Bible is the true and factual interpretation of the natural world. Thus you get illogical statements such as the one you have posted here.

Think about it - is learning more about a subject and improving on your understanding of it evidence that you were wrong?
 

PeshatBooks

Searching everywhere for truth
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Bathurst NSW Australia
Website
www.peshatbooks.com
Rebutting Evolution

Isn't it interesting how many people immediately bring God and creationism into the argument even when it was not initially raised. Richard Dawkins does this a lot, particularly in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, but there is extensive literature by evolutionists who argue that random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the General Theory of Evolution. As for the other hypotheticals such as DPMs, DTFs, self organisation etc, I would be interested in the scientific literature that demonstrates these as real, not just hypotheses. For some evolutionist literature by evolutionists, try "What Darwin Got Wrong" by Jerry Fodor & Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, "Beyond Natural Selection" by Robert Wesson, and some interesting interviews of evolutionists by Suzan Mazur, "The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry". Even the highly respected biologist, Prof Douglas Futuyma in his textbook "Evolutionary Biology" had cause to remark, "It is important to ask, though, whether true evolutionary novelties actually arise by mutation. For example, can both a new enzyme and the regulatory system that modulates its production arise by mutation?" (page 250) Despite many claims that GTE has been proven, I have been unable to find a single instance of a scientific experiment that provides substantive evidence of the theory. Certainly, there are many examples of what can and does happen AFTER a genome is present, but none that can demonstrate a genome arising, or life arising from non-life.
If you have such examples, I would be delighted to hear of them.
 

PeshatBooks

Searching everywhere for truth
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Bathurst NSW Australia
Website
www.peshatbooks.com
Evolution Information

You quote a lot of long words you don't really understand and conclude with a statement that makes no logical sense. Evolution isn't something you believe in.

Why not try reading some information about what evolution actually is?

I had expected that writings and replies on this site would be polite and assume integrity on the part of all parties, but sadly it seems I was mistaken.
Why do you assert that I do not understand these terms, and have not read information on "what evolution actually is"?
So here is my challenge to you.
Read my book, "The Dawkins Deficiency", and if you can effectively refute it with scientific evidence for which you can find no contrary evidence, I will gladly refund your purchase price of the book.
Be prepared to join the conversation with well researched information, not just the standard replies - who knows, we may all enjoy it!
 

PeshatBooks

Searching everywhere for truth
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Bathurst NSW Australia
Website
www.peshatbooks.com
Evolution easily demonstrable

Sigh no.

Evolution is easily demonstrable. It can be done in a lab. .

Fair enough, but now explain how your experiment demonstrates that "all life on earth arose from a single common ancestor which itself arose from an inorganic form".
No-one that I know of denies that there are evolutionary processes such as mutation, natural selection, adaptation, genetic drift, etc, but none of those demonstrate GTE. These are all phenomena that depend on the existence of the genome, but none offer evidence as to how the genome arose.
 

Pthom

Word butcher
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,013
Reaction score
1,207
Location
Oregon
No doubt evolution, having taken billions of years to bring us ... well, us, I guess (and all the others who share the planet with us), is way more complex than just assigning a gene here or there to be "the one" that makes wings or thumbs or big brains (or big egos ;) ). Looking at the problem with an overly sharp razor from Mr. Occam is just as problematic. Certainly it can be demonstrated that organisms "learn" to evolve. And also that one organism (or group of them) now extinct are no doubt precursors of more modern ones. But to say it happened "just this way" (whatever that way may be) is dangerous, because as soon as one does that, someone else will have an opposite viewpoint.

I am with Peshat in a desire for proof that we are we (or birds are dinosaurs or swine flu was once ...) because something happened back when to make it so. But I'm not going to hold my breath. :)
 

Paul

Banned
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
4,502
Reaction score
482
Location
Close to mother Sea
I had expected that writings and replies on this site would be polite and assume integrity on the part of all parties, but sadly it seems I was mistaken.
Why do you assert that I do not understand these terms, and have not read information on "what evolution actually is"?
So here is my challenge to you.
Read my book, "The Dawkins Deficiency", and if you can effectively refute it with scientific evidence for which you can find no contrary evidence, I will gladly refund your purchase price of the book.
Be prepared to join the conversation with well researched information, not just the standard replies - who knows, we may all enjoy it!
ah, so you're an author. was wondering why you came.

before this is shifted to 'promote your work forum', or elsewhere let me say hope all goes well for you in life.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Isn't it interesting how many people immediately bring God and creationism into the argument even when it was not initially raised. Richard Dawkins does this a lot, particularly in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, but there is extensive literature by evolutionists who argue that random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the General Theory of Evolution. As for the other hypotheticals such as DPMs, DTFs, self organisation etc, I would be interested in the scientific literature that demonstrates these as real, not just hypotheses. For some evolutionist literature by evolutionists, try "What Darwin Got Wrong" by Jerry Fodor & Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, "Beyond Natural Selection" by Robert Wesson, and some interesting interviews of evolutionists by Suzan Mazur, "The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry". Even the highly respected biologist, Prof Douglas Futuyma in his textbook "Evolutionary Biology" had cause to remark, "It is important to ask, though, whether true evolutionary novelties actually arise by mutation. For example, can both a new enzyme and the regulatory system that modulates its production arise by mutation?" (page 250) Despite many claims that GTE has been proven, I have been unable to find a single instance of a scientific experiment that provides substantive evidence of the theory. Certainly, there are many examples of what can and does happen AFTER a genome is present, but none that can demonstrate a genome arising, or life arising from non-life.
If you have such examples, I would be delighted to hear of them.

You seem to be confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

Evolution as mentioned is easy to demonstrate. The question of the mechanisms of mutation as well as other means for genetic change (such as retroviral insertion, non disjunction, bacterial conjugation and other forms of gene swapping), are viable subjects for analysis and indeed are being studied. They add to and evolve the science, as is only right.

The matter of abiognesis is more complex, but not for the reason people commonly think. There is no jump from non-life to life, no jump from non-evolution to evolution. The fact of the matter is that evolution was a thing of chemistry long before it was a thing of biology.

Chemicals have probabilities of reaction depending on relative amounts and environmental factors such as temperature. Certain elements (Carbon in particular) can form immensely complex structures out of relatively simple constituents. Some of those structures are more stable than others in certain conditions. All of this is standard chemistry, but it's not usually described in evolutionary terms.

It's common and tempting to assert the unlikelihood of life forming. But probsability is always relative to circumstance. These days the probability of life being generated is high because it is generated from life using evolved mechanisms of propagation. Let's do a plain old thought experiment. Suppose we say that a complex molecule capable of replicating itself from a CHON rich environment is close enough to the beginning of life to reasonably lead to life.

Let's further suppose that it takes 10 steps of complex interactions to reach this form and the probability of formation is .001 at each step. It looks then like we have a 1/10[SUP]30[/SUP] chance of life starting. That looks impossible. Except that we're talking about chemical reactions over a period of about 1billion years and across the entire Earth. Let's say there's 1 chance of a reaction in 1 cc of water every hour, that's pretty low by the way.

The volume of the Earth's oceans is 1.3 billion cubic kilometers which translates to 1.3 x 10[SUP]24[/SUP]ccs. A billion years is around 8.8x10[SUP]12[/SUP] hours. This produces an expectation value of 1.14x10[SUP]37[/SUP]/4x10[SUP]30[/SUP] or around 10 million chances for life to start within a viable stretch of time.

But this circumstance of time and space cannot be replicated in a lab. Therefore the fact that we haven't been able to reproduce it in a lab in the less than a century we've been trying is hardly refutation.

It is true that the probabilities above are guesswork and approximation. But they are based on the realities of the underlying process and they do show how simple probability of chemical reaction and a laddering up of relatively stable increasingly complex structures can bring about something as sophisticated as simple life out of nothing but CHON.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
God and creationism was clearly behind the post from the very structure of the fallacy being presented (it quacked like a duck). Then I googled Peshat Books I find an author of an anti-Dawkins and so presumably anti-atheist book.

So I think the conclusion I jumped to provides firm footing and this post belongs more in the religion section than the science one.
 
Last edited:

Mara

Clever User Title
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
1,961
Reaction score
343
Location
United States
I notice that anti-evolutionists will pounce on the slightest perceived weakness, but they often don't present their own alternative, which likely has a million times more weaknesses. It's kinda funny how they're so ashamed of their own viewpoints that many of them will deny them. ("Oh, no, it isn't Christian literalism. It's um...intelligent design, that's it!" Or "Oh, no, I didn't bring up religion, you did!")

I don't see why we should debate with someone who too ashamed of his own alternative theory to present it for critique.

I mean, if I wanted to, I could find a ton of things wrong with democracy. But let's see someone present an alternative that doesn't have even more things wrong with it?
 

Abderian

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
353
Reaction score
48
I had expected that writings and replies on this site would be polite and assume integrity on the part of all parties, but sadly it seems I was mistaken.
Why do you assert that I do not understand these terms, and have not read information on "what evolution actually is"?

Because the conclusion you came to - that therefore evolutionary scientists were doubting evolution - did not follow logically from the previous statements you made. Therefore you're either irrational or don't understand what you're talking about.

Also, you speak of 'believing' in evolution as if it were a faith. Evolution is not a faith. You might as well talk about believing in gravity.

So here is my challenge to you.
Read my book, "The Dawkins Deficiency", and if you can effectively refute it with scientific evidence for which you can find no contrary evidence, I will gladly refund your purchase price of the book.
Be prepared to join the conversation with well researched information, not just the standard replies - who knows, we may all enjoy it!

On the basis of what you've written here, I can find no reason for wasting my time doing that.
 

Abderian

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
353
Reaction score
48
Isn't it interesting how many people immediately bring God and creationism into the argument even when it was not initially raised. Richard Dawkins does this a lot, particularly in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, but there is extensive literature by evolutionists who argue that random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the General Theory of Evolution. As for the other hypotheticals such as DPMs, DTFs, self organisation etc, I would be interested in the scientific literature that demonstrates these as real, not just hypotheses. For some evolutionist literature by evolutionists, try "What Darwin Got Wrong" by Jerry Fodor & Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, "Beyond Natural Selection" by Robert Wesson, and some interesting interviews of evolutionists by Suzan Mazur, "The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry". Even the highly respected biologist, Prof Douglas Futuyma in his textbook "Evolutionary Biology" had cause to remark, "It is important to ask, though, whether true evolutionary novelties actually arise by mutation. For example, can both a new enzyme and the regulatory system that modulates its production arise by mutation?" (page 250) Despite many claims that GTE has been proven, I have been unable to find a single instance of a scientific experiment that provides substantive evidence of the theory. Certainly, there are many examples of what can and does happen AFTER a genome is present, but none that can demonstrate a genome arising, or life arising from non-life.
If you have such examples, I would be delighted to hear of them.

I rather think it's you who is bringing God and creationism into everything, Wayne.

My contention is that God's Word is for everyone, the uneducated and the scholar, and unless otherwise directed in the text, the obvious meaning must be true. Certainly, there are additional layers not understood by the original recipients, but this can never invalidate the simple truth, else God is not trustworthy.
 

PeshatBooks

Searching everywhere for truth
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Bathurst NSW Australia
Website
www.peshatbooks.com
You seem to be confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

.

Not at all. Reread the definition of the General Theory of Evolution - abiogenesis is where it starts. If you are only referring to evolutionary biology, then you are correct, because the study of biology refers to living things, according to biologists. But of course, this is simply deflection. What if cosmologists were to say, "Oh, we don't need to bother with where it starts, doesn't matter whether you subscribe to the Big Bang model or Hawkins M-theory". Would you accept that from cosmologists? Then you would be back to the steady state theory of the universe, one held to by scientists for thousands of years, but when various observations were made that the universe was expanding, that demanded a solution to "expanding from what", much to the embarrasment of many cosmologists. Even Einstein was reluctant to accept the idea.
Evolution has the same problem: if life evolved, from what? Being too hard to answer, and various theories such as the amino acid to protein to cell, RNA hypothesis, and pre-RNA hypothesis failing to gain consensus, many evolutionists including Dawkins have decided to redefine "evolution" so that they don't have to deal with it.
So much for science being the search for truth.
 

PeshatBooks

Searching everywhere for truth
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Bathurst NSW Australia
Website
www.peshatbooks.com
I rather think it's you who is bringing God and creationism into everything, Wayne.

.

OK, quote where I have done that?
Why do people assume that just because they have doubts about evolution theory, they automatically advance creationism? In logic, that is called the logical fallacy of the false alternative. Perhaps you are not aware that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix, also expressed doubts about GTE and favoured panspermia, that life came from another planet. Why are people not able to debate the mechanisms of evolution without resorting to God and creationism?
 

PeshatBooks

Searching everywhere for truth
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Bathurst NSW Australia
Website
www.peshatbooks.com
God and creationism was clearly behind the post from the very structure of the fallacy being presented (it quacked like a duck). Then I googled Peshat Books I find an author of an anti-Dawkins and so presumably anti-atheist book.

So I think the conclusion I jumped to provides firm footing and this post belongs more in the religion section than the science one.


Read my book, The Dawkins Deficiency, and then justify your assertion. Also read my description of the book, wherein I state clearly that I am not anti-Dawkins, but simply contend with his arguments. Of course, you can choose to believe what you like, contrary to my honest intent. It saddens me that every attempt to contend with evolutionary theory always draws the same predictable responses, none of them particularly edifying.
 

PeshatBooks

Searching everywhere for truth
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
Bathurst NSW Australia
Website
www.peshatbooks.com
Because the conclusion you came to - that therefore evolutionary scientists were doubting evolution - did not follow logically from the previous statements you made. Therefore you're either irrational or don't understand what you're talking about.

Also, you speak of 'believing' in evolution as if it were a faith. Evolution is not a faith. You might as well talk about believing in gravity.



On the basis of what you've written here, I can find no reason for wasting my time doing that.

Sadly, Abderian, you have read what you wanted to read, not what I have written. I did not say that evolutionary scientists were doubting evolution, I said that they had doubts about the mechanisms, and that this demonstrated that the theory is unproven. The standard scientific method is to start from observations, state an hypothesis, derive experiments to test the hypothesis and validate predictions. When has that ever been done for GTE? If the mechanisms are unknown, how can one perform scientific experiments? So many like to claim that the General Theory of Evolution is scientifically proven, but no-one can attest to any scientific experiments that demonstrate that proof.
I am open to believing that GTE is true, it is just that there is no scientific proof. SETI researchers like to believe that alien intelligence exists, but again, there is no scientific proof.
Belief in evolution is faith, because there is no scientific proof for it. If you disagree, offer that proof.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Not at all. Reread the definition of the General Theory of Evolution - abiogenesis is where it starts. If you are only referring to evolutionary biology, then you are correct, because the study of biology refers to living things, according to biologists. But of course, this is simply deflection. What if cosmologists were to say, "Oh, we don't need to bother with where it starts, doesn't matter whether you subscribe to the Big Bang model or Hawkins M-theory". Would you accept that from cosmologists? Then you would be back to the steady state theory of the universe, one held to by scientists for thousands of years, but when various observations were made that the universe was expanding, that demanded a solution to "expanding from what", much to the embarrasment of many cosmologists. Even Einstein was reluctant to accept the idea.
Evolution has the same problem: if life evolved, from what? Being too hard to answer, and various theories such as the amino acid to protein to cell, RNA hypothesis, and pre-RNA hypothesis failing to gain consensus, many evolutionists including Dawkins have decided to redefine "evolution" so that they don't have to deal with it.
So much for science being the search for truth.

1. Your analogy with the Big Bang shows other problems. Physicists do not have trouble with the idea 'expanding into what?' because to be technical a four dimensional manifold does not need to be embedded in a higher dimensional Euclidean space to exist on its own. Spacetime does not need to have another space to exist in. It can be all that is.

2. Evolution as a process to be studied in science does not require an answer to abiogenesis before it can be subject to scientific study. That would be like saying we can't study mechanics or electricity and magnetism before we fully figure out a Theory of Everything. Science studies what it finds to study and fields evolve and find new questions and new answers. The demand for a fully worked out first origin of things before doing any other work is not a scientific approach.

3. You responded to one sentence of a very long post I put in discussing how abiogenesis can be approached by probabilistic methods without being easily replicable in the lab. If you won't address the substance of challenges to your view with anything apart from 'read my book' I don't think you'll get much more in the way of responses or new readers.
 

Abderian

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
353
Reaction score
48
OK, quote where I have done that?
Why do people assume that just because they have doubts about evolution theory, they automatically advance creationism? In logic, that is called the logical fallacy of the false alternative. Perhaps you are not aware that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix, also expressed doubts about GTE and favoured panspermia, that life came from another planet. Why are people not able to debate the mechanisms of evolution without resorting to God and creationism?

I was quoting you from your site as you very well know, Wayne, so please stop disingenuously pretending to be trying to have a debate on the validity of evolutionary theory. It is you who are incapable of separating scientific endeavour from 'God's word' as you put it on your site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.