Niles Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria (Page 16)

MJ59: I know... I started coming into the forums to see if I could have a discussion or 2 about things which interested me and maybe learn something new...what I got was heaps of denigration from the 2 archangels because I dared to have a differing opinion....was a bit of an eye opener I tell you

MJ59: But I toughed it out

AchillesSinatra: Well, yes. It's a pity that what might be a stimulating forum where we could all learn from each other is dominated/spammed/ruined by a couple of brainwashed numbskulls.

MJ59: And yet they maintain that we are the brainwashed ones

AchillesSinatra: The North Koreans say that too.

But they, at least, have a good excuse: they are denied access (even though they may not know it) to much information.

Our own pair of clowns can claim no such mitigating circumstances. They're just pig ignorant.

MJ59: What really irks me is they make statements such as "No intelligent, rational, logical person would believe as you do" and they honestly don't seem to think that they are being incredibly insulting

AchillesSinatra: and sometimes they even spell it right.

MJ59: I sometimes feel like replying "well ony a f*ckwit would believe genesis if they'd actually read it"... But I'm too polite

MJ59: Don't start me on BS and his mangled English....

AchillesSinatra: Anyone interested in the relationship between micro and macro-evolution, if indeed there is any relationship at all, might enjoy the following article.

https://apologetyka.com/ptkr/groups/ptkrmember/spor/folder.2005-11-15.0080748368/Lewin



Points to note:

1. If you are able to distill what "THE Theory" is out of all this, you're a better man than I am.

2. Does it sound to you like "The Theory" (whatever the hell that is supposed to be) "fits all the facts? -- as kittybobo and other members never tire of reminding us?

3. Kittybobo tells us (Blackshoes' thread, p360): "and evolutionary theory is not having any issues with the evidence". Do you agree?

4. Is it not the case, rather, that time and time again throughout this conference we see one side claiming "My theory fits the facts/evidence; yours doesn't", and the other camp (or camps) saying exactly the same thing?

AchillesSinatra: Cladistics, or cladism, is a school of biological taxonomy which, as far as I can discern, tries to maintain a strict separation between classification and evolutionary theory.

Their point being, I suppose, the taxonomy of chemical elements (say) has remained immutable through some rather drastic changes in physical and chemical theory about atoms.

Why should we taxonomists be held slave to the vicissitudes of theoretical upheaval? Why can't biological taxonomy be like the periodic table of the elements?

Another motivation for their stance appears to be--like myself--they consider evolutionary theory to be anything but stable: here today, gone tomorrow kinda thing.

So much for "The Theory" fitting all the facts and having "no issues with the evidence" (see Kittybobo, head of the Ministry of Propaganda)



"In contrast [to pheneticists], the transformed cladists have real doubts about the content of the underlying theory, and hold the revolutionary view that evolutionary theory is in a mess. For example, arguments over the tempo and mode of evolution have not been resolved, and rather than coming down in favor of punctuationism or gradualism, transformed cladists feel that theories of processes are underdetermined by patterns."

-- N. R. Scott-Ram, "Transformed Cladistics, Taxonomy and Evolution", p140

AchillesSinatra: All I'm trying to do is be a sensible middle path between the outrageous claims of the scientistic Ministry of Propaganda and the equally retarded claims of the Creationist numbskulls.

MJ59: "The Truth™"
Ask Jesus, or Blackshoes