So I recently took some time to respond to another one of Mr. Knott’s posts , in which he continues to let other creationists think for him, without a lick of original thought or research of his own. Needless to say, the crap that Sirius’s latest prosthetic brain came out with was wrong, and his interpetations were even more so (not that you can always tell where the opinions of other creationists end and Sirius begins).
Needless to say, my reply hasn’t been posted and probably won’t be, mainly because of how badly I called him out last time I did this but also because he now believes me to be forknowledge’s sock puppet. Now to be fair, we live together (we’re brothers) and there isn’t really any way I can prove I’m not forknowledge, except to point that it would make no sense on FK’s part to give his alter-ego the third-level science education when he’s the one writing most of the posts. Anyway, here’s my reply. Quotes from Sirius are in italics, as per last time.
Dr. Jackson has been announcing the Death of Darwin, a conscious distancing of darwinists from Darwin’s original defunct theory, since 2005.
What’s this? I detect the earthy aroma of the strawman!
“Darwinsts” have been distancing themselves from Darwin’s original ideas for a very long time, and they’re not shy about admitting that. Credit for the initial idea will always be his (and Wallace’s), but he probably wouldn’t recognize evolutionary theory as we understand it today. There’s a good reason for this: Darwin got a lot wrong. He didn’t know about genes or DNA, for a start, discoveries that completely revolutionized evolution (it’s not called the Modern Synthesis for nothing).
“[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.”
This quote gets a lot of mileage on creationist websites. Rather than rely on quotes I tried to track down the article itself, but unfortunately you need to pay to read it online and it appears that my university doesn’t have a copy in the library. Bah.
I did discover that this same article has been quote mined- extensively- to make it look as if Lewin supports the notion that the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution (needless to say, he doesn’t) so I’m wary of accepting this at face value unless I can see that quote in context. Not that it means a whole lot, since it’s just an appeal to authority anyway.
noting that since Redi and Pasteur have disproven spontaneous generation, naturalistic darwinism has no foundation.
There’s that strawman again!
The idea that Pasteur refuted was that fully-formed animals (ie flies) could emerge spontaneously from organic matter (ie rotton meat). This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
He also noted the discovery of dinosaur contents in the stomache of repenomamus robustus, a pit-bull sized mammal. He notes how this discredits the picture of tiny rat-sized mammals scurrying and hiding in the shadow of the dinosaurs.
The amount of dishonesty on display here is truly mind-boggling. Honestly, Sirius, do you research this stuff at all before you post it?
The repenomamus robustus fossil in question was, according to the American Museum of Natural History, about the same size as an opossum (it seems to have been a small specimen). The dinosaur it ate was a juvenile of a very small dinosaur species (there were far more small dnosaurs than large).
So how does this discredit the scientific view of early mammals? All we have here is a slightly larger than average mammal eating a very small dinosaur. What does that prove?
The comments about the ape-to-human family tree that follow aren’t really possible to reply to without more detail.
He then turned his attention from the fossil record to genetics, noting that molecular clocks don’t really work
That quote on the top of your page against appeals to authority is getting more and more ironic every day.
I don’t actually know a whole lot about molecular clocks. More detail would be nice.
At the end of his lecture, Dr. Jackson discussed the up-coming Extended Evolutionary Synthesis [EES],
The straw-men are taking over! Just in time for halloween, as well.
The Altenburg 16 conference and everything connected with it has been blown out of all proportion by creationists. What happened was that 16 scientists came together to discuss new discoveries related to evolution- specifically, things like epigenetics and plasticity. The idea was floating around before and after that maybe a new “extended” model of evolution was needed to incorporate these discoveries, since it’s becoming obvious that evolution is a lot more than just mutations and natural selection. This is how science works- if we discover new things about a theory, the theory changes.
But that’s all this ever was. There isn’t some work-in-progress version of evolution waiting in the wings to be unveiled, like a new version of the iPod before an Apple conference. That’s not how science works.
When one reads Pigliucci’s notes of the A-16 meeting, we’re left with the possibility that EES will incorporate some sort of vitalism.
Where on Earth are you getting this idea from?
They’re scrambling around the emergency room table, trying to pump new life into a theory that’s been dealt lethal doses of scientific truth.
I just can’t get over how deluded you people are. You’re like soccer fans insisting that the opposing team have all dropped dead of spontaneous heart attacks when everyone and their grandmother can see that they’re alive and kicking (pun intended).