News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

In order to understand this lie, one needs to understand a bit about how its authors thought. They knew the general public wasn't too keen on philosophy, and most wouldn't be aware of the Dialectic FormulaThere are older versions, as wiki attests. But they employed the more modern kind. Of course no thesis can truly be reconciled with its antithesis.

Some may have noticed that NeoDarwinism is called "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis"In order to form a synthesis, one takes a thesis and battles it against its antithesis. In this case, Darwinism vs. Genetics. By labeling the product a synthesis, the evolutionists are saying the two are antithetical. It's an inside joke: the uneducated peasants won't figure it out - ha ha ha!
[i]Evolution: The Modern Synthesis[/i]", by Julian Huxley, was the vehicle for an odd mixture of ideas. Here's wiki's summary:In forming this compromise, some elements had to be removed from Darwinism, and some had to be removed from Genetics.

Please note my use of the term "compromise". It is more accurate than "synthesis". For a genuine synthesis is the result of a prolonged war between concepts - it is not the result of a treaty negotiated in order to maintain peace. They didn't even follow Hegel's formula correctly.

I expect some will be surprised to find that Genetics was the antithesis of Darwinism. Today evolutionists try to make them synonymous, and they've probably had some success sowing confusion. Studying the 5 points of the treaty would be helpful. Try to see what Darwinism lost in the compromise and what Genetics lost.

Does every anti-evolution post here have to have the word "lie" in it? This is getting a bit tiresome. What's wrong with something like "neo-Darwinism," so people can see what this thread is actually about?

Scientists agreed that evolution had happened, but they were not agreed on exactly how. What's more, there were other branches of science that had developed independently of evolution, and they needed to take it into consideration. This is actually good science and it still happens today. If a theory fits the evidence well and has been tested successfully, then other ideas need to be adjusted in light of that. No scientist should ever be 100% certain that they are right, or be unwilling to alter their ideas when new evidence comes to light.

Yes, some ideas were left behind because the general agreement was that they were probably wrong. I've already said that there's a possible case for resurrecting Lamarckism. I also think that maybe natural selection and genetic determinism have more of a central role in neo-Darwinism than they should. Neo-Darwinism isn't completely agreed upon by everyone. Gould was not well pleased that Dawkins, a fervent neo-Darwinist, wanted to push the idea of punctuated equilibrium into a corner and more or less forget about it.

This is science in action. Evolution is not in dispute here, but scientists aren't always in agreement about its mechanisms. Do you see anything that was "left behind" that you think should not have been? Please make sure you give evidence as to why it should play a significant role in evolutionist ideas, when it was originally decided that it didn't fit.



Yes, especially since nothing you have said or linked to here gives any evidence for this. Please explain.



I don't see any huge problems, though if you do it would be helpful if you could elucidate.

By the way, you know that there are geneticists and molecular biologists on EvC, who are in a better position to discuss this with you. There is a dedicated area of that forum for these kinds of subjects. Why didn't you propose this topic there, if you're really interested in learning about it, or posing questions to people who have the actual knowledge at their fingertips?

Is that really how come they were left behind? Could it not be that some parts of a thesis and its antithesis must be omitted in the formation of a synthesis?
Indeed, prior to the synthesis, it wasn't dead. It was very much alive & kicking.

A little review may be in order.

Huxley accepted natural selection as a possibility, but not as firmly established. He and Darwin accepted Lamarckism as a possibility, but not firmly established. Their followers accepted both to one extent or another, many without reservation. The experiments involving chopping off rats' tails were considered by them to be attacking a straw man version of Larmarckism.

Genetics began to come into focus & said only traits present in ancestors could be inherited. Without new traits, nothing can evolve. This was quite a blow, but in its infancy, genetics wasn't prepared to explain everything just yet. In the USSR, Mendelian genetics was strongly opposed. Trofim Lysenko spearheaded the opposition, and there's quite a lot of story there. More on Lysenko
And more - this includes a couple of early genetics' problems
Still more

There has been a lot of evolutionist antihistory published about Lysenko. They give Michurin a pass. Lysenko subscribed to his doctrines, but Michurin wasn't into Stalinist X Club activities. This old link that doesn't work for me now used to have some transparent antihistory.

Basically, they claim Lysenko "had evolution banned" & he was some sort of anti-Darwinian Lamarckist. I've seen claims he rejected natural selection, etc. He was a man of his times. Others were unprepared to abandon Lamarck, but they don't get smeared (and trust me, Lysenko doesn't need a smear campaign - the truth's ugly enough).

As a litmus-test precaution, I've taken the time to track down some of Lysenko's own words.
I've been reading quite a bit. Lysenko's equation for evolution was Lamarck plus Darwin minus Malthus. It is not terribly unlike that of one LindaLou, and to my knowledge nobody says LindaLou "isn't an evolutionist".

More Lysenko in his own words and a science blogger's evaluation of what he claimed.

For "balance" (& kicks) here's some present-day communist fanboys' take on Lysenko.

Finally, for Lysenkoholics, here are some heavy reading links on peripheral topics:
Heavy Link 1 Heavy Link 2

Perhaps when one accounts for the setting, one can understand how western genetic researchers were conned into accepting the compromise. Bear in mind, many of them were evolutionists, hoping things would all somehow sort out. The old rats' tail-lopping demonstrations were dusted off, and everyone could "play nice", right?

Yep. That's just how they were thinking, I expect.

This is enough for now. Oh, and it's absolutely correct that Darwinism lost Lamarck in the synthesis, along with all other similar speculations. Lost all of them in treaty element #1.

I guess there's no pleasing some folks.

Help me with something momentarily if you would CTD.. I am struggling with an item In order to follow the suspicious agenda money trail.

My question is, can you name one or two major, they have to be major, items/areas where Dawrin's research unarguably contibutes to current biological research/genetic research? Not theories, solid science, facts, items that without which (valid) modern biological sciences would truly fail.

Linda keeps mentioning ontogeny, hope I spelled that right, but I don't buy ontogeny and absorbed whale limbs as conclusive evidence of evolution of any sort. A caterpillar becomes a butterfly and yet there is no hint of wings or even the butterfly itself within the caterpillar, the butterfly is not an evolved caterpillar. Hidden parts, absorbed parts, meaningless as evidence of evolution to me. Simply parts of a process.

Phylogeny, the tree of life item, I do believe that is phylogeny, correct me if I am wrong... utter nonsense. I view the idea more as a secular explanation/replacement of the biblical 'tree of life' to an ignorant 5th grader, loudly bespeaking Huxley's influence. Not sure that is darwinian anyway but it gets mentioned enough. It is definitely Huxley's 'replacement' theology though his name may not be on it directly.

So much of Darwin's work, research, is not original but simply notes, details and observations, but without an exhaustive review of biological sciences who is and whats between 1870-1930 or so I am a bit lost. Two really really important items, is all I need, that prove darwin's reputation is worth the gold ascribed to it by people like Linda and Linear. One item... eh not so sure, surely there are many more scientists and researchers who have contributed more.

anyway it is late but if I don't ask now while the questions are there I will forget by tomorrow afternoon.

Because as usual the only thing I can find that keeps sticking it's head up is racism and eugenics as to why so many people jumped on the darwinian band wagon as the Civil Biology textbook testifies. I would like to see some real truly important beneficial scientific contributions if you know of any. Not items darwin noted or wrote about that were already known, that does not count as his own.

I'm not sure I understand the gist of your last post -- do you think that by discussing neo-Darwinism, you have shown evolution to be a lie? The solid basis here is that all of these scientists agree that evolution occurred. The debate has been about how.



If you are claiming (yet another) conspiracy here, then you need to give some evidence for it. No one claims that neo-Darwinism was ever 100% correct, and it has its critics today, but these are mainly people who reject the heavy emphasis on genetic determinism. A relatively recent branch of science, called epigenetics, has moved beyond this. It is the standpoint from which Bruce Lipton wrote his book, as it is his particular field of expertise.

I'm not sure about the case for resurrection of some of the ideas you've presented here though.

First, Lamarckism. I think it needs to be understood that this idea preceded the field of genetics. People weren't sure at that time how characteristics were inherited. We know now that DNA is a large factor. There has also been little science done in this field, and most of it is highly dubious, as in the case of Kammerer that one of your links described. At the moment I think it's a possibility that some acquired characteristics could be inherited, but I'd also like to see proper experiments done on this. I'm more intrigued by Sheldrake's morphic fields idea, which says that morphic fields carry the memory of a species and that they also change and grow as members of the species acquire important information and experiences. He's done several investigations into this and it seems that there "might be something to it." Lamarckism might be a factor in Sheldrake's ideas, but his ideas are not pure Lamarckism, and they also propose a mechanism which could work independently of genes (morphic fields).

I'm not sure why you seem to be making a case for Lysenko either. It's difficult if not impossible to separate the truth from the propaganda. Like your science blogger said, he was right about some things, but they turned out to be minor ideas that didn't work on a grand scale. He was responsible for crop failure and starvation in the USSR and in China.

Another of your links seems to be confused about what a species is. I'm not aware of one arbitrary definition, but most scientists would accept that if two organisms that reproduce sexually, are unable to mate with each other in natural conditions, you've got separate species. One of my favourite illustrations of this is the phenomenon of ring species, numerous examples of which are known to exist.



Not the case. I'm tentative about Lamarckism in some forms. I've never said I don't agree with Malthus. Human populations do have the potential to become unsustainably large, and this can happen in nature too. I just don't think that that's the one and only way that evolution has worked -- constant competition for scarce resources. It seems to me that species can reach an equilibrium with their environment and not chage for a long time so long as they remain adapted to the conditions. I also think that if part of the population becomes isolated from the rest, genetic drift will eventually result in new species, because of random mutations and differing environmental factors.



I don't think you've given evidence that anyone was "conned." The prevailing philosophies of science were products of their societies. As your science blogger stated, the former-USSR is more accepting now of the idea of competition, whereas Western society is more accepting of the idea of cooperation. I don't think either polarity is 100% correct. I think both can be true.

Their claims of application for evolutionism are invariably applications of genetics & other legit biology - same types of research which work just fine (usually much better) without baseless presuppositions.

Where they do make money is in medical & psychiatric fields. But your use of the term "unarguably contributes" cancels things out there as well.

Bottom line: many of them are honestly confused & think genetics = evolutionism. Much has been discovered & implemented, but none of it ever depended upon the blind faith of the researchers in the validity of circular arguments & pseudoscience.

Lysenko had some temporary results that were amazing. Some of his plants were wildly successful during their first year, but then they'd revert right back where they started. The genes he denied could exist kept coming back to haunt him. And genes aren't the only thing the commies denied could exist...
Talkdeceptions says "biogenetic law" doesn't support evolutionism - then they turn right around and list it in their "evidence for evolution".

It's just another variation on homology: see these things look alike! They must be related! Anyone you know related to a mannequin? Doesn't matter a lick how much things look alike. There are flies that look just like bees, but the evolutionist says other bees are more closely related than the fly that's the spittin' image. They don't even buy their own argument, except when it suits them.

I'll tell you something more. It doesn't even matter how much things actually are alike. Both the telephone and the radio were invented almost simultaneously by different inventors. There have been others as well. Being alike doesn't mean things share a common source. Only history can identify sources. Fantasy can never accomplish this.
More rubbish. "Nested hierarchy" is the modern evospeak term. Talkdeceptions freely admits any group of objects can be arranged in a "nested hierarchy". I've seen it done - it's easy.

Then they turn right around & claim that when just anybody does this with just anything, it's subjective, but when they do it, it's objective & scientific. They say it's objective because when evolutionists do it, they all arrange things the same way.

But they don't. No 2 evo-trees are the same. They've got 4 or 5 different ways of branching "human evolution" alone
It got a lot of atheists motivated to get out & investigate things. Many of their conclusions were wrong, but a lot of data was collected. Shoot - most of their discoveries support the truth, but they manage to miss it.

I'll keep trying, but I don't really expect to come up with much. If you look at any of their claims just ask: "would a non-Darwinian biologist have been unable to find this?"

You're soooo close! The question is how they agreed!

Unless you're an Hegelian, the very term "modern evolutionary synthesis" is tantamount to confessing that it's untrue. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis process cannot actually work.

On the other hand, if you were an Hegelian, you would have already understood that genetics was the antithesis of Darwinism. What? Are you going to convert just so you can argue?

I'm sleepy. Should be back Monday or Tuesday - weekend's unclear.

SoSick, I'm not sure why you have addressed a question about evolution, genetics and general biology to CTD. I think LinearAQ knows more about these things than anyone else here at the moment. There's also the internet to browse, and Talkorigins to look at for specific questions like these. If you ever wanted to join EvC, then you could ask the scientists themselves.

Evolution and genetics complement each other. One field does not stand alone without the other. Here is a page which should help answer your some of questions: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 4: The Molecular Sequence Evidence

And CTD, you've been asked more than once to back up your assertions with evidence. I see none here.


You've been shown a lot of evidence for evolution here. Repeating inaccuracies like this does not make them come true.


Same as above. Repeated assertions, no evidence, even though you have been shown how the evidence for evolution is not circular. Repetition of a falsehood does not turn it into a truth.

Show me an example of a scientist who is confused and who clearly thinks that genetics=evolution.


We have discussed Haeckel and oncology in another thread. I explained to you, very basically, how hox genes work. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Repeatedly claiming that evolutionists still believe Haeckel's ideas won't turn a falsehood into a truth. SoSick, you might want to look at that thread in answer to some of your questions; it is called "Recap Frauds" (more creative names).


No it isn't, and if you think that all homology means is that things look alike, you need to look up homology.

You think scientists are pretty stupid, don't you? You didn't answer my question about why you won't discuss this topic with them on EvC. Why don't you go there and tell them how stupid their science is?


Evidence?


We also can look to genetics. And it also fits with the larger body of evidence. You might be interested to read my reply to Bex in the "More Biblical Evidence" thread, which covers this.


This is news to me, and I've been reading about nested heirarchies. Please explain why you think this is a lie in terms of evolution.


Please present evidence for these assertions.

I can assert anything I want to as well. The law of gravity is wrong. It's true because I say so. If you have a vested interest in believing this then you will accept it unquestioningly and thank me for saying it. But it doesn't make a lick of sense because there's a pretty huge body of evidence to the contrary that we'd both be ignoring.


Please substantiate these vague assertions.

You are sure? 100% positive? I guess all this time and I cannot name one item either... I am well aware of implications of suppositions in medicine and psycholgy/psychiatry but those suppositions are being based on philosophies of social darwinism rather than scientific fact.

All this time and all of your posts Linda, and not a single shred of real evidence, something a person could hold in their hand or observe without argument and say, look there it is! That is the problem with your 'evidence'. it is not substantial evidence.

I am well aware also of the fact that like Lysenko, whoever how many more, there were plenty of other scientists contemporary with Darwin whose work in actuality seems to deserve more acclaim than darwin's and that exactly is the problem too. I assume that studies which showed ...Some of his plants were wildly successful during their first year, but then they'd revert right back where they started. The genes he denied could exist kept coming back to haunt him... then, were buried because that is a widely known and well proven fact within biology by now concerning mutations and adaptations of all sorts, but it doesn't help darwin's theory of evolution. The Huxley connection working again.

If you read the Argyll papers in the Huxley files you get a very clear understanding of the situation. Argyll called Darwinsim 'scientific terror' and that does appear to be where it led. It's also extremely difficult to overlook the fact that the only things Darwin's children and grandchildren became known for were their contributions in eugenics.

I should restate the view that the only thing that keeps sticking it's head up is racism and eugenics.

That should read, hubris, racism and eugenics.

ok then, later.

If you can say this after the posts that RAZD, LinearAQ and I have put here, then I'm not sure what kind of criteria you are using. As long as there are people who want to deny that the evidence exists then there will be arguments. What would you like to have in your hands that would cause you not to argue?


Did you click on all the links that CTD gave about him? He denied the existence of genes, he practised a disproved form of Lamarckism, his science is questionable at best because of the heavy propaganda surrounding it, and he was responsible for policies in the USSR and in China which caused crop failure and starvation. He saw that planting wheat very close together could initially encourage growth, but the growth could not be sustained because of the limited nutrients in the soil for so many plants. The USSR disseminated fake pictures of wheat planted so thickly that children could stand on top of it (supported by a table underneath, that is). I'm not sure what kind of criteria you are using to decide that his work deserves more acclaim than Darwin's; perhaps you can explain?

Please Linda, neither any of RAZD's posts, Linears or your own have thus far provided anything factual beyond contemporary contentious opinion and philosophies of the worst sort directed toward creationists or anti-evolution proponents as though they are ignorant morons without a brain to think.

Lysenko is just an example used for the sake of convience Linda. No one is trying to make him an idol. Though his own bespeak the ideas of the day.



and they call it science. any common farmer could have told you that 2000 years ago. but I do start my own garden the same way, it's generally the rule for any gardener, seed and pluck.

maybe they should have all gone to school for agriculture instead.

anyway, nonsense science is the theme. What I would to like to have in my hands that would cause me not to argue (though I realize you are used to dealing with 7 year olds and not adults so that may prove easier said by you than done by myself), is simply, hard unarguable evidence that the theories you laud as science are true. Unarguable hard evidence, beginning with Darwin's theory of evolution since that is the basic premise which is still taught in schools today.

I really to do hate to start in the middle and have to work half way around and then back upside down again. if you can start at the most recognized source, Darwin, and work forward that would be great.

My work is much easier than yours you see. I have many original writings by the lauded authors themselves to work with in which I am able to find unarguable hard evidence, not of science, but of hubris, rasicm, and eugenics proclaiming itself as science and the contemporaries of the day raising their arms in horror of it. then of course I have 150 years of history to give this hubris, rasicm, and eugenics proclaiming itself as science a valid working timeline within actual applications.

If you could provide the same in contrast, that would help unconfuse your position greatly.

There is always contention about a theory, though you will find very little among scientists regarding whether or not evolution actually happened. RAZD started out here by defining terms in a way that I think he hoped would defuse some of the antagonism towards the ToE and show that it need not be threatening to a theist. I think it's worth having a look at what he said in the threads he started here.

The ToE, like most theories, is based on observation. It fits what we see. And the knowledge across different branches of science also validates it, though as we've seen there's always disagreement about the hows.



I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. If you're unsure of what the ToE actually says, then RAZD has given some good definitions here. It basically describes how organisms have changed over time. I don't think that the occurrence of this change can be in doubt unless you have an alternative explanation for the sorting of the fossil record.

I suppose if I had to boil it down to the three most convincing pieces of evidence I see for myself, I would say:

-- the sorting of the fossil record
-- nested hierarchies, or specific patterns in the variation of species that we can observe both in existing and extinct species
-- genetic relationships between species, which also shows a specific pattern.

I gave Bex a longer list in the "More Biblical Evidence" thread and I think it made a lot of work for both of us. You might, however, check out what we both have said there.

If you don't think these three things that I've listed here are strong evidence for evolution (especially when considered as a group and as only part of the whole existing body of evidence), can you please explain why?

What's missing from the treaty? Anything important, anything vital? Mutations aren't mentioned. What kind of evolution can occur under this treaty?I maintain he was an evolutionist and a Darwinist. He is often faulted for not being aware of things discovered after his time. I make the case that history should be reported accurately. It's not like he's going to be vindicated or his deeds will be covered up by accurate reporting.

I begin to think that you neither know nor care what Malthus & Darwin said. You likely don't care what the modern synthesis says either. You're prepared to jump to NeoLamarckists, and I wonder if you care what they say. What's next, Oprah? If all you're looking for is someone who disputes the Bible and other sources of history, there's a lifetime supply of wrong ideas out there.

Maybe I underestimated your Hegelianism after all... Not that I expect you to care what he said either.

I guess that is the rub.

and considering that only a small minority of the population even knew about the 'science' and made the decsion to teach their philosophies to the rest as science... double rub.

rub rub a dub dub. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/babybath.gif" alt="" />

what fossil record?

I'm not sure why you care to whom SoSick addresses questions.Lol
Now that's a little funny, but far more sickening then funny.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/looney.gif" alt="" />
Still hasn't grasped the whole antithesis thing, I see.
Not nice. I answered questions honestly. Am I a mind reader? Do I know which answers will be understood and which won't? SoSick hasn't expressed difficulties with the answers, so what's the problem?
If by "this", you refer to your previous sentence, I fully agree.
On the contrary, it was I who listed the things that could potentially be used in non-circular tests. A big help you were! I don't recall you nominating any evidence for any of the three boxes.
Why? It's not like you'd care.
First of all, the definition you linked to includes any similarity. "Looks alike" is a similarity. So are "sounds alike" and "smells alike".

But even so, your straw man is inexcusable. I clearly stated "I'll tell you something more. It doesn't even matter how much things actually are alike. Both the telephone and the radio were invented almost simultaneously by different inventors. There have been others as well. Being alike doesn't mean things share a common source. Only history can identify sources. Fantasy can never accomplish this."

That's out-of-context quoting at its worst. And all anyone has to do is scroll up the page. At EvC I'd likely be suspended (at least warned & insulted) for calling you on it. Wonder what Russ'll say if you whine to him...

I have already explained twice why I no longer participate on EvC. Why do you pretend otherwise. And what makes you think EvC's evolutionists are "scientists"?

Are you blind? I mentioned the bees and the flies that look just like them. Scroll up if you doubt this.
Talkdeceptions, of course. Note the very title is a lie. There's no "prediction". They had trees drawn up before Darwin even, so it's tad late to predict them. And it saysFamiliar?

Since when are you interested in history?

admittedly it was my thought also.

sigh.

Found a little more.I followed up & found similar news here, here, here, and even here. <4 links there.

Edit: The last one's fun. They show a proposed a new non-tree tree.

So homology is not always a predictor of relatedness between species. We have known that since bats were removed from their classification as birds. Now, genetics gives insight into relatedness that could not be seen through homology. There may even have been more than one common ancestor for the tree of life and those common ancestors interbred.

Were you expecting that science is not supposed to learn anything or find out they were wrong about something?

So, how do these revelations from these websites knock evolution off its position as the most well supported theory on how life on this planet developed? Please give details in your explanation because I'm not good at gaining understanding from your usual vague and confusing statements.

More importantly, how do these "new" revelations provide support for your God-did-it-in-7-days theory, or the God-designed-it theory? I read the websites and the research they quoted, yet found no supportive evidence for 7-day-creation 6000 years ago. In fact there was no evidence at all that support the existence of God at work in forming life.

Looks like you learned from the 'Recap Frauds' thread. You create your own strawman & then say it's wrong.

The specific point I was demonstrating was that talkdeceptions claim of "objectivity" in the trees is invalid. Until this is acknowledged, I don't think we need to divert the discussion.Abandoning Darwin already?

LinearAq wrote:


I'm posting LinearAq's question again since it has gone unanswered. This is something I'd really like to see responded to. The problem I've seen thus far with the "Creationist" side of the argument is that it does little more than attempt to find fault with evolution without one shread of evidence to support their own claims. Imagine if I said "Well you can't exactly prove 100% how the Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids therefore we can only conclude that aliens came from outer space and helped mankind to build them, there is absolutely no other alternative." By the same argument I could conclude anything I wanted to believe.

A potential fault in an argument, theory, etc., does not make the opposite true.

So would one be incorrect to conclude that you're posting this because you also would like to divert attention from the subjectivity of the trees?

I haven't yet seen any acknowledgment that the "objective" tree claim is false.

CTD wrote:



Hi CTD. I think "one" would be very much incorrect in making the conclusion you allude to, yes. You see, I'm not trying to divert attention from "the subjectivity of trees" -- nor much of anything else -- because I wasn't discussing that in the first place. Other posters may be but that's not why I've posted. I only had one question (which I happened to quote from LinearAq since he asked it before me) and, as of yet, it still stands.

I would greatly appreciate your taking the time out from other points in the discussion to answer. Thank you kindly.

Blessed be.

What strawman? Are you saying that bats were never classified as birds? That's not a strawman. It is a statement of fact and bats aren't avian, so they were reclassified.

Assuming that is actually your point THIS time, you need to show that changing the trees in the light of new information is subjectivity. Until you show that logical connection instead of just claiming it, your argument falls flat on its face.

You say that changing the evolutionary trees based on new information is subjective.

From dictionary.com:


I don't see any of those definitions applying to the changing of the evolutionary trees based on new information. Rather than ignoring this discussion, perhaps you can explain your point of view and how it relates to the real definition of subjective.

How is that abandoning Darwin? Just because some parts of his theory is shown to have some errors then you think we should throw the whole thing away? Baby with the bathwater?

I guess that you would abandon Christianity (assuming you are a Christian) if you were shown an error in the Bible, because if one part is not literally true then the whole thing must be wrong. That may be the way you think but that's not the way the real world works.

Nobody thus far has argued that homology is "always a predictor of relatedness between species."

It is well-known that evolutionists apply homology very selectively. They even invented "parallel evolution" as an excuse to do so. In order to obfuscate, they also call it "convergent evolution".
I have demonstrated that the trees do not agree, and the advocates of different trees aren't close to agreement. The non-tree tree doesn't even have a common ancestor, so traditional Darwinists will have to make a major concession if it's to be widely adopted.

The "objective" tree myth relies upon all tree makers having the same information and interpreting it the same way. Clearly this isn't going to happen. It never has.

What have you submitted as evidence in support of "objective" trees?
I say the trees don't match. Talk deceptions is arguing for the existence of "objective" trees. Better to quibble with them over definitions. But they don't seem to be here...
This works, I notice.
And this too.
Oh, I think this is the best match yet!

Your use of the plural "trees" indicates agreement that more than one tree was involved. Maybe you should try to find a consensus among yourself before arguing too much.

Perhaps I hadn't considered ignoring this discussion. Should I?

No more single common ancestor? That's been part of the religion for quite some time. It's also used to distinguish the "true believers" from ID.
What baby. And that's not bathwater - it really needs to be flushed.

I choose not to divert off topic to wild speculations.

Yet you are saying that Darwin's and the early evolution taxonomists' errant method of using only homology to classify animals in an evolutionary tree somehow makes the theory of evolution that much more invalid.

Seeing that bats fly and birds fly, then realizing they couldn't be closely related, evolutionists concluded that there must be more than one pathway in the evolution of flying animals. Using evidence to come to a conclusion is not "inventing".
Can you provide an example where homology was used "selectively" in opposition to the evidence.


You declare the entire concept of evolution is invalid based on differing conclusions by scientists on how the species are interrelated? Are these evolutionary trees concurrent and have they been published in refereed scientific journals?

Should I patently declare that Christianity is invalid because of differing opinions among Christians as to the doctrines required by the Bible? It would be the same thing that you are doing to the theory of evolution.


Objective means that it can be demonstrated to more than one person. Contention over how the trees look is not reason to say that species are unrelated. Even AIG claims that species are interrelated because they couldn't figure out how to fit all the currently existing species on the ark. So they used the word "kind" in the bible to make up their own sort of superevolution that happened after the ark landed.

I don't have to worry about consensus. I will wait for new evidence to help with the relatedness problem. Some trees will fail to match the evidence and some will continue....maybe only one will result.

It's a better option than your use of snide remarks and implied insults.

Even if there is more than one common ancestor shown, how does that abandon all of Darwin's theory. As I said below.

You have yet to provide sufficient evidence to declare the chemical composition of that water.

You're right, sorry. We'll just stick with your on topic wild speculations.

Could I get an answer to this one please? Thanks.

Are you confusing me with someone else? I don't think I've said anything close to that.
You left out one part. "Seeing that bats and birds fly, realizing they couldn't be closely related, and assuming they had evolved, evolutionists concluded etc." That'd be more like it.

Perhaps later.

No. I said anything can be arranged in a tree. Talkdeceptions agrees. They then claim evotrees are "objective" because they all match. I say they don't match, and I've presented evidence.

If you think this leads to the conclusion that "the entire concept of evolution is invalid", you're getting a little ahead of what I've said regarding the trees. Or maybe evolutionism requires these trees to match & I'm missing it. Either way, they don't match. Talkdeceptions is wrong. They're not objective.

I don't know. How often do refereed scientific journals publish trees?

It isn't the same thing. By the definition of "objective" given by evolutionists themselves, the trees must match. They don't. They never have. The "objective tree" is a myth and a lie. It has never been true. If evolutionism needs this lie in order to survive, fine with me - let them both die.

That's a new definiton & one that won't work in your favor. All trees are then equally objective & Talkdeceptions argument fails, for there is no tree composed of any type of object that cannot be shown to several persons.

Make up your mind. Earlier you made out that it threatened the "entire concept of evolution".

If there is more than one tree, what are you arguing about? Why are you defending the "there's only one tree" lie? Loyalty to talkdeceptions?

Can I get an answer to this one please? Thanks.

Hi CTD. I know I've asked already and I don't want to nag but would you mind terribly answering this one when you have the time? I'd like to see both sides of the argument laid out clearly for me to understand.

Thanks so much.

I don't "mind terribly" when people try to change subjects. I fully expect it. Now if you don't "mind terribly", I decline to play. We're already far enough off-topic to suit my taste.

CTD wrote:


I undestand. I apologize for the derail.

I'll ask it in a new and separate post so that this thread stays on target. I know your refusal to reply to my question is only for the purpose of mainting discussion board integrity and I appreciate that fact.

http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Evolution-Against-Creationism lists the following advice:This should make it plain to anyone that genetics was indeed the antithesis to Darwinism. That it still is... well, one'd need to see though this smokescreen. Can't count on that in every case, unfortunately.

Now it appears the first sentence of the above quotation alleges something which is not clearly true. According to the neoLamarckist Paul-Pierre Grassè,(Cut & pasted from http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html )

So how can bacteria have been stable for a billion years if they're mutating & evolving so much? Smells like another bait & switch to me. "Mutating = evolving", or something along those lines.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, I found a little more on Häckel. <img src="http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/c/c8/Haeckel.jpg/180px-Haeckel.jpg">
From http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

I keep forgetting to post this:

There's yet another problem with their application of Hegel. After thesis and antithesis battle it out with each other, when the dust finally settles and one obtains the illogical synthesis, it ain't over.

Hegel cleverly observed (well, actually Hegel stole the spiel, but he's credited in most books) - it was observed that the synthesis is itself a _________________ . Did you get it? The synthesis is a thesis. One has to start all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat. You have to take the new thesis and its antithesis, and back to war you go!

Now when are evolutionists going to start promoting the antithesis of their "modern synthesis"? It needs to be promoted so they can fight the next round in the never-ending war that is Hegelian philosophy.