Sal Cordova responded to my OP at UD, and I have given his post in full below.
Dr. Liddle recently used my name specifically in a question here:
Chance and 500 coins: a challenge
Barry? Sal? William?
I would always like to stay on good terms with Dr. Liddle. She has shown great hospitality. The reason I don’t visit her website is the acrimony many of the participants have toward me. My absence there has nothing to do with her treatment of me, and in fact, one reason I was ever there in the first place was she was one of the few critics of ID that actually focused on what I said versus assailing me personally.
So, apologies in advance Dr. Liddle if I don’t respond to every question you field. It has nothing to do with you but lots to do with hatred obviously direct toward me by some of the people at your website.
I’ve enjoyed discussion about music and musical instruments.
Dr. Liddle asked I respond to this:
My problem with the IDists’ 500 coins question (if you saw 500 coins lying heads up, would you reject the hypothesis that they were fair coins, and had been fairly tossed?) is not that there is anything wrong with concluding that they were not. Indeed, faced with just 50 coins lying heads up, I’d reject that hypothesis with a great deal of confidence.
It’s the inference from that answer of mine is that if, as a “Darwinist” I am prepared to accept that a pattern can be indicative of something other than “chance” (exemplified by a fairly tossed fair coin) then I must logically also sign on to the idea that an Intelligent Agent (as the alternative to “Chance”) must inferrable from such a pattern.
This, I suggest, is profoundly fallacious.
First of all, it assumes that “Chance” is the “null hypothesis” here
No, I’m afraid it’s not. That is your representation of the ID procedure. That is not the way I’ve ever stated it, nor has any other ID proponent to my knowledge. There is no null (default) hypothesis in the Explantory Filter (EF).
You can reject a hypothesis after examination without ever making it the null hypothesis at the beginning of your inquiry. Just as I have done in my analysis of a system of 500 fair coins heads. In the 10 years I’ve defended ID, I’ve never assumed “chance” is the null hypothesis. The general assumption starting out is the system could be the result of:
1. chance
2. law
3. something not-chance and not-law
That is the EF. If anything, the null hypothesis is “anything is possible” which would be kind of useless null hypothesis. I’ve suggested “not chance” as a null, but that’s not exactly right either.
Further, the EF is not purely a statistical test, but a PHYSICAL test. That is, if we see the coins are two-headed, then we can reject #1 and #3 as causes. Most null hypothesis tests I see in literature are purely statistical as far as I know.
You are trying to frame the EF as purely statistical null hypothesis test, it’s not. It is not, or shall I say, it’s not the way I infer design.
Also, “it is useful to separate design from theories of intelligence and intelligent agency”. That means we can talk about design this in minimal terms of statistics without invoking ID. We can simply talk about systems of objects in terms of whether the configuration is the result of expected physical behaviors due to chance and law. The reasons I’ve adopted using the Law of Large numbers is it is a natural way of expressing physical behaviors in terms of expected or predicted outcomes. The original versions of CSI only implicitly capture this, and in order to appeal to intuitions I’ve framed elementary examples in terms of the Law of Large Numbers and expectation.
Finally, if something passes the EF, given Bill’s advice, it doesn’t necessarily logically imply that a conscious intelligence did it. That is a separate argument (obviously ID proponents will argue for intelligence on circumstantial grounds).
An intelligently designed machine may have created the system (like a coin sorting machine). ID proponents have defined design as “negation of chance and law”.
The principal advantage of characterizing design as the complement of regularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency…Nevertheless, it is useful to separate design from theories of intelligence and intelligent agency.
Why would Bill do this? This simple definition of design is good enough to form a critique of OOL and evolutionary theories. I did not have to commit to a doctrine of intelligent agency, for example, to critique OOL using coin analogies:
Relevance of coin analogies to homochirality and symbolic organization
I hope you’ll forgive me for not responding to your questions more frequently, and I hope you’ll understand if I miss some of your future querries.
I hope you have a Merry Christmas Dr. Liddle and I hope you’ll spend some time with good music. I think when I visit my Mom for Christmas, I should perform lots of piano.
Coldcoffee, I notice you failed to answer any of my questions concerning your claims on what macro-evolution supposedly requires.
I’ll take that as an admission you were indeed making up those claims from whole cloth.
Bigger question now is why do you attack the sciences you don’t understand with claims you can’t support?
And in addition CC, why not accept the current best explanation until you have a better explanation to replace it? As it seems you are rejecting out of hand what you don’t understand because it seems to you to have theological implications that you don’t like.
The facts don’t change because you don’t like the implications of those facts. You can’t reject X because of Y, when Y is not actually connected to X at all.
There is an ID journal itching to publish this sort of work: BIO-Complexity. It ekes out three articles a year. Most of them are “critical reviews,” rather than original ID research. I think your assertion about all those “numerous scientists” is an exaggeration. There isn’t much to publish. ID is out of ideas.
Oh, this beverage is not just against evolution, it is also against the Big Bang! How old is the Universe in your estimate, coldcoffee?
Please read up Douglas Axe’s experiments on protien folding and new organ structures. Isn’t ‘Body plan’ evolution 101? Read up enlightening From Morphogenes to Morphogensis by Harold. I recommend reading Stephen Meyer’s book ‘ Darwin’s Doubt’ – I know you hate that suggestion ,but if you want anti-evolution scientific view, you need to read it. Every claim is backed by references (judge for yourself if it is ‘quote mining’ or not).
Universe is 13.8 billion years and the CMBR data is good enough to back up that claim. Did you know Big Bang is not the ‘Birth of Universe’? Space-time existed as a singularity BEFORE Big Bang.
No one knows why the singularity occurred and where the energy for inflation came from (Big Bang is not an explosion- it is just inflation), so this beverage understands what it is talking about.
When the theory is unproven (you admitted it when you said ‘ current best explanation’) , there is no need to worry about it’s theological implications.
Since you know that, then why on Earth did you spout this piece of garbage:
IF YOU aren’t worried about theological implications, then why on Earth do you keep bringing up god and saying hateful things about atheists?
It’s called taunting. All ID/creationist wannabe debaters do it hoping to get a chance to practice their Gish Galloping skills.
Because singularity and the energy for the inflation is unexplained and so are other birth of universe theories like multiverse Bubble universes ,multidimensions etc
“Before the Big Bang” is nonsense. The Big Bang is the singularity. See here, for example: arXiv:0802.2005 (p. 18).
So what! So scientists don’t know everything (and we never claimed we did), how does that give you an excuse to jam god into the gap? How is god a better “explanation” for the inflation than “I don’t know”? How do you imagine, specifically, your god caused the inflation? What, exactly do you picture god’s mechanism of action was at that time?
Why do you think your fuzzy speculation about god-did-it-somehow-based-on-nothing is more respectable than the scientists’ speculation based on the most advanced mathematics we humans have managed to discover so far?
Oh, you mean the one where he and Gauger “proved impossible” something that no one in science thought ever happened in the first place. That was a real winner.
Yep. That’s why I understand the concepts and you don’t. You claimed macro-evolution requires new body plans. You were wrong.
Sorry but making the excuse “go read the Creationist literature” is a worthless cop-out. I read plenty of papers from the primary scientific literature, that place Creationists never event try to go. Why don’t you reference any thing from there to support your rather silly assertions? That you can’t explain your claims in your own words means you’re merely mindlessly regurgitating Creationist nonsense you don’t understand and can’t defend.
Coldcoffee – Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt is an epic piece of Creationist trash written by a borderline scientifically illiterate philosopher. It has been soundly rejected by virtually every professional paleontologist on the planet. There are numerous smackdowns of Meyer’s stupidity and ignorance all over the web.
Your other recommended source is here.
From morphogenes to morphogenesis – Franklin M. Harold
I looked through it. It’s an almost 20 year old opinion piece on animal body organization written before most of the current work on Hox genes and evo-devo was done. I can’t find a single place where it supports your claim that macro-evolution is impossible. Maybe you’d be good enough to C&P the parts that support your outlandish assertions.
You don’t get it at all do you? Nothing is ever proven, everything is provisional. This is not an admission by me, just a acknowledgement of the way things are. “Darwinism” could be overturned tomorrow and replaced with something that explains the observed data even better. It’s called “science”. But we both know that replacement won’t be ID, will it…
The only place that contains the kind of “facts” you are looking for is the Bible. Eternal, unchanging, and “true”. So perhaps it’s time to return to the Bible study group and explain how you defeated the evilutionists with your amazing knowledge.
So, no, there is no need to worry about evolutions theological implications as to do that you’d have to have a passing knowledge of evolution in the first place. And it’s quite clear that you don’t!
Page : 18-19 :
Great paper ! What it says is early universe was radiation dominated and later universe was matter dominated. When you go back to t=0, the radiation energy density was infinite – that’s what everyone is saying- inflation happened and universe proceeded towards higher entropy. Does it explain where the energy came from? Or why the space-time was in crunched state at origin?
I am sure you are aware of cosmologists scrambling to explain singularity and low entropy of early universe. They have Big Crunch to try and explain how singularity happened, they have multiverse and eternal inflation theories etc. and here you are saying there is no problem with how universe originated and that Big Bang is THE SINGULARITY?
Great! Since formally all scientific theories are unproven, there’s no proof in science, you don’t have any issues.
(We do use “proof” informally to mean “established to a degree that makes it silly to expect it to be overturned” but that’s not the formal manner).
Your arrogance in dismissing the entire book which is based on reams of scientific references is unparalleled and disheartening. I have nothing more to say to you. You can either read for yourself and understand that anti-evolution is as much science as evolution is, or you can ignore it and live in your own world where Darwinism trumps truth.
JonF
Okay. I agree , but that is not what Darwinists like Dr.Dawkins and his gang of Darwin-terrorists accept. They fight tooth and nail with ID scientists in courts- often fooling gullible judges with unsubstantiated claims, even put pressure to expel scientists for holding anti-Darwin views, cause nuisance in ID seminar and conference halls and terrorize administrators’ supportive of ID.
Oh, no, I have no doubt they accept and understand it too.
But what you are missing is that you’ve been lied to. You are not a scientist, you cannot determine which of the two plausible sounding explanations make most scene so you go with the one that (appears) to have the most concordance with your theological leanings. That’s perfectly understandable, and in fact I view you as the victim in all this.
In fact it’s “cargo cult science”, in that it has the appearance of science but once past that first layer it’s all religion. But that first layer is enough to fool people like you, and that’s exactly what it was designed to do – sell people like you books on the basis that “science is supporting you religion”.
The only reason they have to fight “tooth and nail” to stop ID is that ID wants to bypass the normal process and get taught in schools before it’s actually supported in any way. Perhaps gather some evidence first eh then think about teaching kids it?
Honestly, saying such obviously false things only hurts your own credibility.
Yes, the Big Bang is another way to say “singularity.” You thought they were two different things, but in fact these two terms are used interchangeably in cosmology. Hey, coldcoffee, you have learned something today!
The singularity appears in the equations of general relativity as we go back in time. It means an infinite density: the Universe is squeezed down to zero size. Usually infinities indicate a breakdown of the physical theory, and this is probably the case here, too. General relativity is a classical theory in the sense that it neglects quantum mechanics. Simple arguments show that as we approach the Big Bang (going backwards in time), the importance of quantum effects grows.
One Planck unit of time away from the Big Bang, when the size of the Universe is roughly one Planck unit of length, quantum effects become dominant, which means that the classical theory of general relativity no longer works.
To understand what was happening prior to that point, one needs a new theory that combines general relativity with quantum mechanics. We do not yet have such a theory, so we cannot tell how things were on the Planck time scale. String theory is a leading candidate to describe that, but it is still in early stages of development.
Not just me – the entire scientific community has rejected Meyer’s nonsense as the work of an incompetent amateur.
Why don’t you explain to me how Meyer’s timeline shows macro-evolution is impossible?
We have over 2.5 billion years of life on Earth before the Cambrian period, including over 100 million years of multicellular animals. Meyer’s explanation for that is…?
Meyer says over a 10 million years span some 530 million years ago the Magic Designer showed up and created most (not all) of basic animal body plans. There is no mechanism offered, just POOF. It took the MD 10 million years because…?
For the next 520 million years we have a huge amount of new species appear like the great great ordovician biodiversification event. We also have at least five mass extinctions and subsequent rediversification of the remaining species. Meyer’s explanation for this is…?
Of course you don’t. You got asked to back up your Creationist bluster about macro-evolution and fell flat on your face. If I embarrassed myself that badly in public I’d probably go silent too.
You forgot the third option. I can read and study the professional literature. I can learn about science that was done using the proper scientific methodology, the science that was vetted by critical peer review and which has proved its mettle. Sadly for you that doesn’t include all the ID-Creationist horse crap that is only written to sway gullible laymen like yourself.
There’s been lots of accusations of such behavior, none of them substantiated. Especially the judges!
“Darwin terrorists” accept that the ToE is not formally proven, and that the various flavors of creationism and ID are not scientific theories. Them’s the facts, Jack.
The fact that you choose to use this phrase proves that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth from the big lies you have been fed by your right-wing propaganda sources.
There have never been any “Darwin-terrorists” anywhere in the world of science and education.
The people who lied to you about that – in order to make a fortune from ads on talk radio, etc – are counting on people like you spreading their lies without checking their facts.
However, it is a fact that there are currently thousands of terrorists in the real world inspired by Abrahamic religion, both Christians and Muslims. Since you seem to be a basically good guy and you seem to be concerned about the state of the world, you should be finding the forums where you can educate your fellow religionists not to be murderous terrorists. Go! You have work to do among the faithful !!
BigBang is a theory,an explanation. How can you equate an explantion with Singularity, which is a physical state of space-time?
String theory is a joke – according to Dr.Krauss-who is Dr.Dawkins ideological buddy. I am not sure whether you have watched Dr.Krauss’s lectures on ‘Universe from nothing’, but you should.
It will be funny to see someone like Dr.Kaku explain their string theory’s birth of 10^500 universes -was there Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang more than quadrillion times?
It’s clear you are basing your views on prejudiced opinions of others who too haven’t read the book. Dr.Meyer raises doubts about the absence of complicated species fossils leading up to Cambrian period. He explains how evolution can’t explain the plethora of species in Cambrian period with new body plans(called Cambrian ‘explosion’). He talks about discovery of Burgess shale and the 65,000 specimens discovered there. He talks about Merella and Hallucigenia’s body plans.
He talks about J.Y Chen’s discovery of Maotianshan Shale which has even greater variety of Cambrian body plans.
He argues if Stromatolite mats can be preserved why can’t the ‘small’ fossils of cambrian ancestors? He (based on Chen and other paleontologists views) also questions the absence of hard body parts in Precambrian period, which could give raise to the specimens with exoskeletons found in the Cambrian period.
You should be aware that he point out what paleontologists think- his book is based using their views- not his own views. There are 16 chapters which talks of various facets of evolution.
In my opinion you should read the book. There is no ID or MD talk in the book until chapter 17. You can ignore that chapter if you are so inclined, but there is no doubt that evolution theory has holes big enough to drive a truck through.
You are living under a rock. Head over to the Internet or UD to see news links describing Darwinists hooliganisms.
Like who? Evolutionary biologist Dr. Nick Matzke has published papers on the Cambrian. He read the book and did a rather thorough takedown of it. Dr. Donald Prothro is one of the world’s most renowned experts on Cambrian and Precambrian biota. He read Meyer’s book and gave detailed reasons why it’s a piece of crap.
Tell me why I should reject their professional analysis over Meyer’s amateur ignorance. Better yet, go ahead and give me Meyer’s explanation for all the pre- and post- Cambrian events I outlined in my 3+ billion year timeline above. I guarantee you won’t because you can’t. Those are huge holes in Meyer’s stupidity that he left gaping.
He only raises doubts among ignorant laymen who are gullible enough to swallow his BS. He has raised not a single doubt among professional paleontologists, biologists, or geneticists. You’re his target audience Bubby, not the professional scientific community. He’s a religious propagandist pure and simple and he counts on uneducated types like you to blindly follow his politically motivated crap.
For the record – that would be the UD that has repeatedly deleted comments, heavily censored and/or outright banned almost every last scientifically literate pro-science poster there in the last five years. That includes a good number of the science professionals posting here including this blog’s owner.
UD is a certainly wonderful source for honest unbiased reporting. 😀
Okay, now you’ve backpedalled from “terrorists” to mere “hooliganisms” but you still have not directly admitted you were wrong to use the unwarranted term “terrorists”.
Please don’t post further until you can bring yourself to apologize for your misbehavior in using the word “terrorists” to apply to us.
Your christianity will be exposed as a total sham if you don’t feel sorry for your un-christlike meanness in characterizing people.
He questions evolution which is a stop gap theory. Until abiogenesis, evolution of consciousness and evolution of self awareness is sorted out, Darwin’s evolution-which derives from abiogenesis, can’t be promoted as the truth, so not accepting evolution theory is, in fact, the consequence of being educated.
Iam not sure, but isn’t he the poster at UD who is the laughing stock of UD?
I am sure you are not naïve to believe that those whose livelihood depends on supporting evolution will oppose it.
Of course there is a barrier to macro evolution, Thorton.
It is called the biosphere. Ever heard of it? You know the one that is fully developed and mature, where every niche has been filled by living organisms?
Yeah, that one. See, macro-evolution has no work left to do. So nature shut down the program. It is dormant.
That is why we only observe traits oscillating in tandem with oscillating environmental conditions. It would take a humongous natural catastrophe to trigger the restart of macro-evolution.
You have unwittingly provided the huge amount of evidence that supports the observation of macro-evolution in history for the simple reason that the biosphere was undergoing development.
The dichotomy between macro and micro evolution could not be clearer. It is only a figment of your darwinian imagination that there is an unbroken continuity of evolution from past to present.
Sorry but the theory of evolution doesn’t depend on either abiogenesis or the development of consciousness for its veracity. There is 150+ years of other positive evidence to support the theory. Didn’t your embarrassment over “micro-evolution” teach you anything?
Where is Meyer’s or your explanation for that 3+ billion year timeline of life on Earth I posted above? That’s an awful lot of macro-evolution you need to account for.
Dr. Matzke does indeed toy with the children at UD much the same way a pro baseball player toys with the kids at a little league fun camp. I’m sure you’re impressed when Cordova and Arrington and all the other scientifically illiterate mouth-breathers at UD hurl insults in lieu of rebutting Dr. Matzke’s points.
LOL! so for the past 520 million years macro-evolution has been going great guns, filling all those ecological niches after the five major and dozens of other minor mass extinctions. But now suddenly the process doesn’t work because we haven’t had a 10km asteroid strike in the last decade.
You Creationists and your “make it up as you go” mentality really crack me up!
I guess you are not familiar with the workings of science, coldcoffee. Pretty much all of scientific theories are “stop-gap theories.” Take the standard model of particle physics. It postulates the existence of the Higgs field, which is responsible for the generation of mass for many elementary particles, but it does not explain the origin of the Higgs field. It did not even predict the mass of the Higgs boson, so experimentalists had to search for it all over the energy scale. Does this men that we cannot trust the standard model until we figure out where the Higgs field comes from?
The same goes about pretty much any field of science. Atomic physics relies on the existence of electrons and atomic nuclei but does not explain their origin. Nuclear physics relies on the existence of protons and nuclei and so on. Your contention applies equally well to all these theories as well, doesn’t it? That’s absurd.
Equating creationism to ‘Child abuse’ and ridiculing faith of theists is far more offending than saying people who terrorize anti-evolutionists as terrorists. Terrorism derives from the French word terrorisme which in turn derives from the Latin verb terreō meaning “I frighten” ,and Darwinists are threating administrators, forcing publishers to stop publishing seminar papers and conference proceedings, they are expelling anti-evolution scientists- what would you call them?
Having said that ,I have no issue in apologizing. I apologize for calling Darwinists who are terrorizing a ‘terrorist’ ( I hope you are not one of them)
thorton,
“It’s hard for us paleontologists to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably….Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer.” (Dr. Mark Menamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of The Emergence of Animals)
“Darwin’s Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building rather than dismissive polarization—bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialogue—and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.” (Dr. George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and author of Regenesis)
“Meyer writes beautifully. He marshals complex information as well as any writer I’ve read….a wonderful, most compelling read.” (Dean Koontz, New York Times bestselling author)
“Darwin’s Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in more than forty years of studying the Cambrian explosion.” (Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research)
“Meyer demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level….An excellent book and a must read.” (Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia and technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center)
“Darwin’s Doubt is an intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life…. No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged and discussed.” (Dr. Scott Turner, professor of biology at the State University of New York and author of The Tinkerer’s Accomplice)
Still waiting for Meyer’s or your explanation for that 3+ billion year timeline of life on Earth I posted above.
You still have an awful lot of macro-evolution you need to account for.
Poor Thorton…his bluster is all he’s got left when caught out on simple logic.
Oscillating traits are prima facie evidence for the lack of need of macro-evolution.
Of course, Thorton can’t point to any organism in transition. He’ll tell you that all organisms are in transition. Or maybe that it simply takes too long for transitions to happen that it is unobservable.
Either way, he doesn’t need to provide no stinkin’ level of detail.
There’s no barrier cuz he says so!!!
Bravo, Thorton!
Nah, just laughing at your Creationist simpleton logic:
“macro-evolution never happened because we haven’t seen it in the last three weeks” 😀 😀 😀
Feel free to explain the patterns of mass extinctions and re-diversification observed in the fossil record over the last 520 million years. Meyer can’t. Coldcoffee can’t.
Thorton speak for….’shit, those damn creationistsists are onto our Ponze scheme’.
Poor Thorton, he’s not even aware of his own Freudian slip….he’s once again put macro-evolution in the past tense….precisely what I have asserted….macro-evolution is in the past.
Jeez, Thorton. Thanks yet again for unwitting confirming what I have been saying.
You are on a roll!
(yes, the bold and italics below are mine, not Thorton’s)
“macro-evolution never happened because we haven’t seen it in the last three weeks”
Then you agree macro-evolution is indeed responsible for the patterns we observe in the fossil record over the last 520 million years. You agree that in all that time there there was no barrier that stopped micro-evolutionary changes from accumulating into macro-evolutionary ones.
Congratulations, you’re now officially an evolutionist.
NIce try, Thorton.
Micro-evolution has never been observed or been demonstrated to be the mechanism by which early life developed.
Scientists are now actively in the hunt for a more suitable candidate to the simplistic notion of small incremental change as the driver of macro-evolution.
For obvious reasons of course.
Matzke’s tantalizing hints will forever remain frozen in darwinian time.
You’re the guy who just agreed macro-evolution happened, Mr. Evolutionist.
Of course micro-evolution has been observed. Even Creationists agree on that one.
Really? Which scientists? Do tell us more about the investigation.
What reasons would those be since you just told us macro-evolution happened in the past. You’re making it up as you go again, aren’t you. Tsk tsk.
What a revolting sham! You should be ashamed of yourself. You “apologize” for calling “Darwinists who are terrorizing” terrorists. But you’re immediately calling them “terrorizing”, so you’re still doing exactly the same thing you’re supposedly apologizing for! You suck at apologies. Your god, it it existed, would be furious at you for the impression you spread of how revolting its believers must behave.
Nope. Lying to children about creationism being factual is child abuse. It’s correct to call it what it really is, and we know it’s abuse that really does happen. Saying people who terrorize anti-evolutionists [are] terrorists is a falsehood, because there are NOT any people anywhere who “terrorize anti-evolutionists”. Never happens. And trying to equate the truth about religious child abuse with the rightwing propaganda about”Darwinists terrorizing” is another kind of falsehood.
No they’re not. That’s just more rightwing dominionist propaganda. Darwinists have never threatened administrators.
No they’re not. That’s just more rightwing dominionist propaganda. Darwinists have never forced publishers to stop publishing. There was one famous occasion where a science journal retracted a creationist article by S. Meyer which had been approved by a solo editor. He disobeyed the journal’s policy on peer review and conspired with Meyer to sneak the article into the journal. But there were no threats nor force by Darwinists; the publishers were embarrassed and angry at the misconduct of their own editor which is why they retracted it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the creationists made a whole movie called “Expelled” about it, and the creationists did not tell the truth at any moment in the entire movie. It was a big lie from start to finish. You should stop believing all the lies you’re told by the Discover Institute and their fellows.
Call who? Scientists? “Darwinists”? Evolutionary biologists? Well, on the whole I’d call them intelligent, hardworking and caring people who are telling the truth in the face of unapologetic visciousness from sham-christians like you.
But wait….since you agree there is such a thing as macro-evolution, contrary to what die hard evolutionists believe, then well I’ll just say …
Welcome aboard macro-evolution / micro-evolution dichotomy accepting Creationist!
Hmmm, Thorton the Creationist. Never thought I’D see the day! Amen.
Thorton, you quote miner, you. Cleverness is not your strength. What was the part of that sentence you just chopped off that make a world of difference??!!; you know…
” Micro-evolution has never been observed or been demonstrated to be the mechanism by which early life developed.
Poor Thorton, ever the argumentative one. Digging deep into your bag of tricks now.
Ha, another pseudo-clever attempt to farm out your googling homework.
Nah. Thorton, do your own googlin’.
LOL wut? Since when do “die hard evolutionists” say there’s no macro-evolution?? You’re just inanely blithering now.
I didn’t quote mine anything. You said macro-evolution happened in the past. Here are your exact words
Steve the Evolutionist: “Poor Thorton, he’s not even aware of his own Freudian slip….he’s once again put macro-evolution in the past tense….precisely what I have asserted….macro-evolution is in the past.”
I’ll accept your admission that you were just making up stuff again.
But I am curious – what scientific evidence finally convinced you that macro-evolution happened in the past? I’ll also note that if you accept macro-evolution you must also accept that there were transitional forms between the macro-evolved groups.
Amazing. Steve the Evolutionist now accepts both macro-evolution and transitional fossils. Who woulda thunk it?