3 Problems with Evolution Theory (Darwinism)

That was a good one . . . well worth repeating.

Why didn't you analyze the example I showed and not be so condescending. I didn't say a thing about God, or religion at all. Wallace clearly shows a flaw in the natural selection process. However, as always, you react with insulting and derogatory reply that just shows your lack of knowledge about anything that you can't look up on your instant expert google.

"Contributions to the theory of Natural selection" 1870 4th ed

"Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection" 1889 1st ed

I studied both in detail.

You're hilarious. Parados replied by referring to two specific statements that you made, and he didn't disagree with them, he just basically said "so what?" Now you accuse him of insults, alleging that that's customary, although you don't know him; and you accuse him of being condescending. There is no basis in his reply for those accusations, and what's more, he was responding to a post in which you made snotty and insulting remarks to me because i pointed out to the author of this thread that he doesn't know how natural selection works.

You're one rude bitch, and agree with Parados' suspicion that you are religiously motivated.

Actually, it was this guy.

From Wikipedia:

I directly responded to your statement. It isn't condescending to point out your statement is based on a false assumption. The only way for your statement to have any validity is to assume that the environment never changes. That doesn't happen in the real world. If you feel the environment in one particular spot on earth has never changed in a billion years, feel free to point it out. I will be happy to look at your evidence.



(Now I will be snotty and condescending because you started it.)
You really think it makes you well versed in modern evolution theory if you have studied works from the late 19th century and ignored all the science in the 150 years since then?

I knew it was Collins.(I was only trying a little humor ) You should read deeper about his own views. He argues mightily with the YECs, OECs an the IDers. Hes more like Ken Miller in his views. I dont think scientists who profess religion proves anything but to explain their own admitted worldviews. Im not certain that Collins, like Miller, believes in a "directed evolution" when they confess for a fully transcendent "operationally separate" deity(sorta like the Catholic Church of today)
His biologos movement has morphed several times away from his own worldviews since he left as founder and director in 2007 and seems to be becoming preaching for a "directed intelligence.

Im not sure that Collins would be very happy with that.

I don't know much about Collins' theology, only used his term 'language of God' in the course of conversation, but I do like his ideas behind that phrase. I don't posit it as evidence but it is worth noting that actual renowned scientists can come to a belief in God. He's no Mary Baker Eddy, even jokingly.

It's not PC to knock a talented but crippled man but I don't go with Collins' endorsement of Hawking. It isn't that Hawking is an atheist per se, but in the way which he arrive at it. I find nothing to admire there.

no, my point re: Collins is that youre beliefs are more alignd with science than ID, Collins takes issue with ID and, as such, hes not so much endorsed by the ID"mainstream"

Im not sure where youre coming from now. You seem to skip all over the checkerboard.

Not my bother though, Carry on.

BTW Many times the use if phrases are done more for the audience than to profess ones beliefs. Thesistic evolution "biologos" of Collins, does away with a meddling "tinkerer' . He recognized that many(or most) evolutionary changes were rpid results or adaptive responses to environmental,(edaphic/chemo-atmospheric) or populational changes. Hes said that he doesnt believe a god is as insecure as to require giving "lessons" in how its in charge of all things.
So dwelling on phrases by authorities as some kind of underpinning of your personal beliefs is cute but always fraught woth danger when you study what the authority was saying. Sorta like Einstein saying that "God does not play dice...", Or Jefferson pointing out "natures god..."

I do reserve the right to pick from the menu a la carte. There is an underlying logic or pattern to those choices however. That goes against the grain of religions too. They want you to buy the whole package.

Again, you are avoiding the question and I think everyone knows why. Wallace presented an argument in his long work called colorization that outside natural selection, and the effects of genetics, some species change as a form of self protection. No one has challenged it to this date-that I am aware of. Dr Alice Roberts, using her chimps, did another study in a similar vein, and hinted to the flora and fatwa as being influences that Wallace never explored.
None of these works are on the internet and that forces you out of your comfort zone of-instant expert-by endlessly searching the internet until you find someones work to plagiarize and try to present your self as one of all knowledge when you are not. If you were you would recognized Wallace's work-perhaps the second or third most influential work on evolution in the history of man-and known about the controversy that still surrounds it today. Perhaps, you might know about Wallace's connection to the Titanic? Or, if you had any real knowledge of evolution, you would know about the court challenges between Wallace and Darwin that are still unsettled today. Last, but not least, you would know the role Christianity played towards the end of Wallace's life, and how it affected his standing in the scientific community.
I will gladly purchase all these works for you.

there are almost no substantive disagreements between Darwin nd Wallace except fopr the issue of adaptation by environmental pressures v "competition".
Most all of Wallaces really great iseas such as hybridization control and biogeography were ideas that were lwft pretty much undone.
Darwin supported Wallace and eventually got the UK to provide Wallace with a pension (he was successful ).
Darwin also rovides a detailed mechanism whereas Wallqce's work is mostly ADHD smatterings of potentilly great stuff that is te subject of study today.

I do think that Wallace was much loonier than Darwin though.

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

You can't make up sh*t as funny as these jokers produce on their own.

Flora issues her fatwa.

Agreed, however the issue of convergence was never discussed by either man-as far as I can tell. Environmental pressures-such as climate or competition such as habitat they never discussed as far as I can tell. It's difficult at best to judge their writing from the mid 1800's in today's terms-which is the point I was making-perhaps, they both were somewhat loony.

At the very end of the tour in Philadelphia is a large display that points to the oddities of convergence. It shows a full sized reptile- ichthyosaur-a full sized mammal-Dolphin and a full sized fish-a shark. Hard as it is to believe that these totally unrelated creatures if they are together in the same space-at the same time-for long enough they begin to resemble each other. This is outside the boundaries of natural selection, genetics and, of course, evolution. These are facts no longer in dispute and I was wondering how both Darwin and Wallace would have handled this subject that was more or less blasphemy at the time.

Giganotosaurus is the very first display you see and I guarantee you will never forget it.

So much of any discussion about prehistoric predictors always reminds me of The little Big Horn. No matter who wrote it, where it came from or who said it-it's always different. Benteen was drunk-Reno chickened out-Custer was drunk-Benteen hated Custer and left him out to dry-Reno was drunk and failed to advance the battle line-Custer had a boil on his ass and could not ride-They were all drunk and it never happened-Reno turned around and started shooting at Custer-somebody hacked off Custer's arm-Reno and Benteen decided they were now a Confederate Calvary and hung Custer for Richmond.

Even if you visit the site it;s different.