International Scientific Conference Deems Evolution A "Hoax"

why dont you "address it" I think Ive given it what it deserved. Im not nearly as smug as you, my hypotheses must be testable yours dont.

were lamarck's ideas testable for the Dawn of organisms with "hard parts" ( a time originally named by Gould an Eldredge as "The Cambrian Explosion"), perhaps epigenetics rather than some simplistic religious based guess would explain much about that which we observe in the fossil record. If we really must believe that 60 + million years is an EXPLOSION. When Gould coined the term hardly a tenth of the pre-Ediacaran fossil assemblage was even guessed to exist.

Ive never heard this fallacy. Is it something that is much in use?

A very rare plant has been discovered growing in a ‘ghost’ pond in Norfolk. Apparently restoration work disturbed seeds buried for centuries.

I can’t post links but it’s on the BBC website under the headline Surprise discovery of rare plant at Norfolk ‘ghost pond.’

read the article. Itd be neat if they could find ancient seed of grains like eincorn from back when it was all Doggerland.

Well you never know.

just for dna evolution research.

How did they trip over all the seed with a bulldozer. Were they required to do a "pre-mitigation" archeological dig ??

Over hre we have Fed and State requirements to research possible human habitation in planned large scale developments where public funds are involved.

I don’t know, but I’d imagine with something like that it would be a couple of blokes with shovels. A bulldozer seems a bit too much for a pond.

Article here: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55104153

shovel would be used only if the guys wanted to be paid by the hour

I believe you. Let me translate:

Your Scotsman is a Scientist. And in your world, No TRUE Scotsman would ever even suggest the possibility of a designer/'god'.
Therefore, If he does, he can’t be a real Scotsman.

you dont have to actually LEARN anything to be a Scotdman so Im still not "getting yer point"

I’m not surprised.

The fact that a scientist is or is not a Scotsman (or has religious beliefs) has nothing to do with the validity of his scientific theories of 'design'. Your counter argument to his theory is always 'His theory is wrong because he has religious beliefs' (or belongs to John Birch society etc.).

The point is that you don’t believe a real Scientist can believe there is design in Nature. That is simple bigotry.

Try attacking the theory instead of the man.

You sound like someone who has never been to Scotland.

no, its concentrated learning.

They should rename this site Non Sequitur.Org

when I attack a Creationist, its always based upon specific and carefully focused points of science, not whether someone is religious only.

When you argu for ID your biggest argument has always been
"Life is too complicated to have arisen via evolution."

That , to me, does NOT constitute a scientific argument, you seem to feelthat it does.

SO, Ive asked for some evidence and I get the same circular reasoning.

Very recently, Weve been visibly living within a "mini biological epoch" where the population dynamics of many species of mammals has come splat up against endosymbiosis of microorganisms and th result (if left unchecked) could possibly redefine the makeup of all mammals on earth.

I find it amazing that were even still having the discussions about "design" hen e see this evolving pandemic.

Lynn Margulis had been way ahead of her time when she proposed the theory of endosymbioses by lateral gene tranfer and exchange of genomes at the micro level.

I'll give you some of your own logic.

Go read up on what Margulis believed about AIDS. Crazy batshit stuff.
Now, should I ignore her scientific work because she was a delusional or thought her other theories explained things that they don’t? From your POV, I should, but I don’t.
Oh, what about her being a climate change denier? THAT really ought to hack you off.

@Brian: Do you see how pointless it is?

Sometimes scientists leave the planet but to try to impugn her great works is sounding churlish, besides ignorant). Einstein made similar comments about Quantum theory, Darwin thought that heritable traits disappeared after a few generations unless maximized via "malthusian densities", Newton believed in ether.

so what??
You seem to feel that scientists can also only be scientists i f they are always Right??

(You seem to be employing your own version of the scotsmans fallacy eh?

Margulis preceded Wose , Maynard Smith, jeoung and even Doudna. She suffered the "batshit crazy" (or some other name), from smaller minds whose own science pathways were "never in doubt".

I was a climate denier in my mid career. Its pnly in the last 5 or 6 years that Ive actually been able to understan the data and whats happening. Theres no dishonor in holding beliefs and then hanging them.

My own path had been as an Anti-Lamarkian (until genomics intervened)

Did you even read what I said?

Happy trails farmer.