Surprises in sea anemone genome

[bob b]

Bob since I am a fallible human I may make comments that are either in part or totally without substance. If my response does not need one from you then you can just skip it. Or you can point out how they lack substance. Instead of making unsupported claims as you usually do.

Think about the logic of putting me on ignore. If I do post a response that lacks substance you will not see it. And you also cannot offer your insight to keep me on track. Also if my response does have substance you will not know.

I honestly believe that your committment to being convincing about your interpretation of Genesis overshadows your commitment to truth and integrity in natural philosophy. I think this is a major stumbling block in having effective communication with you. Should I overlook this issue that I feel is crucial? If you would like me to explain more I will. If you do not want me to explain then let's just leave it at that.

Let's just leave it at that. This thread has been derailed with enough garbage as it is. And I would appreciate it if you would stop attacking my committment to truth and integrity.

 

[The Barbarian]

I gather bob's lack of response to a proposed test of his beliefs means he's cut and run yet again. :yawn:

 

[bob b]

I thought you knew, since you used the terms yourself. But major groups, the way Gould used it, meant "above family." "Abundant" means a lot of them.

Does this mean you now have worked up the courage to test your beliefs? Great. Two major groups, which are said to have a last common ancestor. Name as many of these as you like, and we'll see if Gould is right or you are right.

You seem to have changed your mind about "major groups", since in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions thread you said it meant "above species.

And "abundant" could simply mean "sufficient", which of course would be subjective.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem to have changed your mind about "major groups", since in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions thread you said it meant "above species.

Actually, I posted "species" later, after I discovered that Gould drew the line there. Use whichever one you think would be most advantageous to you.

And "abundant" could simply mean "sufficient", which of course would be subjective.

Well, we can test that idea, but you keep tucking tail and running every time I ask you to defend your beliefs.

Are you going to do so now? Give me a half-dozen examples where there should be transitionals between major groups and we'll see. Here's the kicker; I know there are some that haven't yet been found. But my guess is that you don't know what they are.

If you're afraid to to this, I can post the major groups for which we do have transitionals. Remember, if you are right, there aren't any at all.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

He brings up "the argument from impefection" quite frequently in his magazine articles. He usually throws in a "Why would God do that?" as well. The article with the quoted passages was originally from Discover Magazine 1981. The book is a collection of articles previously published in various popular science type magazines. Gould stated that many of the chapters in the book came from his regular monthly article in Natural History Magazine.

The issue wasn't whether Gould believed imperfect "design" pointed towards evolution but whether he said that creationists believe in an "as is" creation with regard to fundamental structure and function. I imagine he did believe this, but did he specifically state it? Why do you find this so troubling, anyways. It does represent the vast majority of creationists, who believe in only minor changes the "flood". Are you saying that you don't believe that? How much change are you willing to swallow, and where is the line drawn between evolution and your pet theory?