Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why do evolutionists feel frustrated? (uniformitarianism)

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Gluadys: I try to be diligent although it doesn t help when you clutter up your posts with a lot of irrelevant stuff before getting to the point. Charles P:
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 4 8:31 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Gluadys: I try to be diligent although it doesn't help when you clutter up
      your posts with a lot of irrelevant stuff before getting to the point.

      Charles P: These discussions should not be about you and me. Other people
      reading our messages might appreciate "irrelevant stuff" and "long
      narratives" before getting to the point.

      Gluadys: So what is it you are disagreeing with in D R Lindburg's
      explanation of natural selection? And what is the relationship, as you see
      it, of DNA information to natural selection?

      Charles P: I am asking D R Lindberg, I am asking you, and everyone else to
      come up with a list of undisputed facts of The Theory of Evolution. It
      seems to me that different people have a different understanding about what
      is on the list and what is not on the list.

      Charles P: http://www.bfro.net/ The Bigfoot mystery has something in
      common with The Theory of Evolution. There are believers and there are
      non-believers. Both sides have ideas that are dominated by powerful
      emotions. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization has a list of
      undisputed facts. The Theory of Evolution does not have a list of
      undisputed facts.

      Charles P: Why don't we all work together to built the Origins Talk list
      of undisputed facts so that all of us can agree that "it is written".
      Please excuse my "irrelevant stuff", but here is an example of how such a
      list might be useful.

      Charles P: I don't believe in Bigfoot, but if someone presents evidence
      that (1) it looks like a duck and (2) it walks like a duck, then I can be
      certain that it is not a Bigfoot. The list of undisputed facts helps me to
      reach that decision.

      Charles P: I do believe in natural selection. However, because there is
      no list of undisputed facts of The Theory of Evolution, both D R Lindberg
      and you seemed to think that I was disputing natural selection. Natural
      selection should be number one on the list so that we don't have to keep
      discussing the same old ideas over and over.

      Charles P: I am not sure that believers in The Theory of Evolution can
      agree to the same list. In my opinion, there is not enough agreement among
      evolutionists to agree to such a list. The only consensus likely to come
      from this idea is that there is no consensus among evolutionists as to what
      the "overwhelming evidence" is for The Theory of Evolution.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... I see. You do not intend to answer the actual question, and go off on a tangent instead. ... You specifically told him your version of evolution AND
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 5 7:34 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
        >

        >
        > Gluadys: So what is it you are disagreeing with in D R Lindburg's
        > explanation of natural selection? And what is the relationship, as you see
        > it, of DNA information to natural selection?
        >
        > Charles P: I am asking D R Lindberg, I am asking you, and everyone else to
        > come up with a list of undisputed facts of The Theory of Evolution. It
        > seems to me that different people have a different understanding about what
        > is on the list and what is not on the list.
        >


        I see. You do not intend to answer the actual question, and go off on a tangent instead.






        >
        > Charles P: I do believe in natural selection. However, because there is
        > no list of undisputed facts of The Theory of Evolution, both D R Lindberg
        > and you seemed to think that I was disputing natural selection.
        >

        You specifically told him "your version of evolution AND NATURAL SELECTION is false."

        Since natural selection was the topic and you specifically named it as false, what else would any reasonable person think?

        I am glad to see you have altered your public position on natural selection.





        >
        > Charles P: I am not sure that believers in The Theory of Evolution can
        > agree to the same list. In my opinion, there is not enough agreement among
        > evolutionists to agree to such a list. The only consensus likely to come
        > from this idea is that there is no consensus among evolutionists as to what
        > the "overwhelming evidence" is for The Theory of Evolution.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >

        Ok, let's try another. Information passed from one generation to another is carried on molecules of DNA.

        Would you agree this is another undisputed fact?




        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
        >
        > Gluadys: My recent reading (On the Origin of Phyla by James W. Valentine)
        > has led to an understanding that seems to resolve this conundrum. Let's
        > clarify one basic misunderstanding first. According to the theory of
        > evolution (which includes the theory of common descent) ALL species are
        > related to all other species via a family-tree like pattern of descent from
        > nearer and more remote common ancestors.
        >
        > Charles P: Amazon shows a copyright date of 2006 for your book.
        >

        Yes. A fairly recent book as books of this nature go. It contains much of the updating of the theory of evolution you have been asking for.




        >
        > Charles P: I suggest that we get over these old discussions and move ahead
        > to a list of undisputed facts for The Theory of Evolution. Homology is not
        > an undisputed fact for The Theory of Evolution.
        >


        It is among scientists. But my post was not about homology anyway.


        Interesting that you pass over the main point in total silence.

        Do you agree that common inheritance of the distal-less gene could explain why both birds and bats (and the now extinct pterodactyls) have wings without a direct ancestor-descendant relationship between them or common ancestor who had wings? (In other words their wings are NOT homologous.)

        The same sort of explanation could also apply to other examples of convergent evolution.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.