Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>According to the Webster's Dictionary I cited, "macroevolution" has been
>in use since "1939". That's over 60 years. More than enough time to
>develop a "standardized terminology". The problem is that evolutionary
>theory so depends on shifting definitions to survive, that evolutionists
>cannot resolve these definitions among themselves. The upshot is that
>each evolutionist has his set of private definitions and they think they are
>communicating, when really it is a `Tower of Babble'!
When the Christian god is recognized as the designer, there will
be plenty of standardization.
>>>CL>Your loyalty to Darwinian gradualism ...
>
>>SJ>Maybe Susan realises that it is only "Darwinian gradualism"
>>>which can (in theory at least) reliably craft complex designs?
>CL>Even irreducibly complex ones?
>
>Darwinism simply denies there is such a thing as "irreducibly complex"
>designs. They have to, because as Darwin said, Darwinian evolution
>theory would then have "absolutely broken down"!
Take your pick, either Darwinism or ID is wrong. If Darwinism is wrong,
any argument based up it is flawed. Unless you allow that a designer
may have set up a Darwinian world.
>>SJ>It will be found that Cliff himself, despite all his symbiosis
>>>`hand-waving', falls back on "Darwinian gradualism" when he
>>>has to explain which symbiotic mergers, out of his imaginary
>>>"astronomical" numbers of them, actually survived.
>
>CL>No, that is due to natural selection; this is not a gradual mechanism
>>of evolution, gradualism is not involved.
>
>As Gould says, "natural selection" does not have to be gradual in the "2 :
>...changing...by fine or often imperceptible degrees" sense, but it does have
>to be gradual in the "1 : proceeding by steps or degrees" sense Cliff's
>"`astronomical' numbers of them" which actually survived" shows it is still
>Darwinism at crucial points.
Natural selection doesn't have to be anything. The mechanism providing
the choices, and the nature of the choices, is completely irrelevant.
I don't see why my postulation of an astronomical number of unsuccessful
macromutations is Darwinian. Macromutations are not Darwinian at all.
And when I wave my hand, think about the segments in those digits.
Separate bones are discontinuities. How do you gradually evolve a
discontinuity? Soft tissues can merge or separate gradually; but
hard parts are either fused or articulate; there is no middle ground.
>>SJ>It is interesting to see how evolutionists use the fear of helping
>>>creationists to try to keep each other in line.
>
>CL>After all this time, anti-creationism still seems to be the major interest
>>of some evolutionists.
>
>Seeing it was *Cliff* himself who warned Susan, it seems therefore that
>"anti-creationism still seems to be the major interest of" *all*
>"evolutionists"!
Just trying to get her to take an interest in the 21st Century rather than
the 19th. Trying to keep her from wasting her life helping creationists
sharpen their arguments, when she could eliminate them by laughing
at them or ignoring them. I was being anti-anti-creationistic (which
does not reduce to being creationistic).
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 25 2000 - 03:48:24 EDT