pz

Awww, let him have his victory lap. It's silly, but he looks kind of cute with that vacuous grin as he triumphantly pronounces me stupid.

And I don't mind at all, because I happen to know the right answer.

Doubting Didymus

I can not decipher exactly what 'linear' evolution even means, in the sense that some people are using it. Once everyone decides on a definition, we might get somewhere. I suspect that pz and the other biologists in some of DNA's quotes are simply using 'linear evolution' in completely different ways, therein the confusion.

pz is saying that it is impossible to draw a line on the historical course of an organisms evolution, and then say that evolution was 'heading' in that direction. In this sense, it is true that no biologist says this (anymore, though they once would have). 'Serial or paralell linear evolution' as juxtaposed with 'elimination of functional redundancy' appears to refer to something quite different.

scigirl

Why are ID arguments almost always about semantics?

"He said this She said that, Darwin said this Dawkins said that."

Who gives a crap? Isn't it more important to look at what the data says? Call me crazy, but a few biologists who anthropomorphize evolution don't make an ID argument true.

scigirl

pz

Because that's all the IDists have got? Right. What we've got here is a few people who can't grasp the basic concepts, so instead they juggle the words around until they get something they think they understand, and then they jump all over that.

DNAunion

DNAunion: Doesn’t say much for your intellectual prowess.

DNAunion: Uhm, once he confirmed multiple times that he meant exactly what he said – his words should be taken completely literally – then it DOES mean that he was saying (3).

Go back and look at his actual words - there is no IN GENERAL in there; there is no ALL in there.

Geez, let me try to explain this to the people who become stupid when discussing this. Nic, Rufus Atticus, you guys paying attention?

Suppose I said, “Children don’t ever commit murder”, and then confirmed multiple times that my words were precise. Now what does someone have to do to show me to be wrong? Does he/she have to show that ALL murders are committed by children? Not at all. Does he/she have to show that IN GENERAL murders are committed by children? Nope. All that person would have to do is to show one example of a child committing murder: that’s it.

My expanatory statement – exactly as stated – is stupid. It’s a universal statement that is easily refuted with a single counterexample.

Same goes for pz’s silly statement about biologists and evolution. He’s refuted. And he can’t claim that it is because he didn’t mean exactly what his words state because he confirmed multiple times that his statement was precisely worded and that it did not need to be interpreted in any context.

In case you Nic and Rufus Atticus couldn’t follow that, I’ll explain in a manner that any two-year old could understand (maybe I’ve been talking over you guys’ heads). Ready?

PZ is wrong. I am right. PZ loses. I win.

DNAunion: Wrong. Why do people around here like Nic and Rufus Atticus turn stupid on this issue? Surely they aren't that dumb?! I mean, why do they insist on adding stuff to pz’s statement when pz himself has confirmed that his statement should be taken completely literally?

Now, Dufus, ... I mean Rufus ... show us in pz’s statement where he said “THE PROCESS of evolution”. You can’t. PZ didn’t say what you want him to have said. Show me where he says "IN GENERAL" - what? You can't? Show me wher he says "ALL" or "ALWAYS - what? You can't? Exactly.

Since those qualifiers are not in pz's statement, and since he has stated his statement is precise, then insisting on adding those qualifiers is illegitimate.

But hey, you weren't smart enough to understand all of this the first time, so I guess you’ll try to “counter” me again.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

Principia

Yawn...

Doubting Didymus

How can someone say so much about nothing?

Nic Tamzek

Didymus gets it, why can't DNAunion?

DNAunion doesn't seem to get that "literal" doesn't mean "whatever DNAunion thinks the words mean". Neither "evolution" nor "direct" have one single sole exclusive literal meaning. Ergo, there are multiple literal meanings. Ergo, further clarification is needed if there is disagreement over what someone meant. PZ has provided the clarification, but DNAunion has simply closed his eyes and covered his ears and repeats himself over and over.

He has, however, effectively distracted us all from the comprehensive defeat of ID back on page 1....

nic

Albion

Truly, I think a lot of the problem is that creationists and scientists think in different ways. I mean, there was an article in New Scientist about speeded-up evolution and the author mentioned something about plants having figured out a way to do this, and this creationist is insisting that therefore there must be some sort of designing intelligence involved because "figure out" just shows that blind chance blah blah can't have been responsible. Needless to say, the article didn't say that at all. It wasn't using "figure out" to suggest that the plants (or anybody else) sat there and thought about it.

Doubting Didymus

Hear that? I get it!

Actually I don't. What is 'serial/paralell direct evolution'?