puppydog85 wrote:I am quite aware of the history of theory of evolution. I stated that I was not well read in "Darwinian" evolution. Obviously, meaning that I know that something other than Darwin exists in evolutionary thought. It seems that we agree that Darwin was wrong.
NOt quite so fast.
Darwin was not entirely correct, but he was far from entirely wrong, either. Life does change over time, a lot of what he put forward helped us understand greatly how live on Earth came to be, but he was not correct in all his details, in fact got some things we would call pretty big wrong. So have most famous scientists, by-the-way. We remember them for what they got correct, not their errors.
puppydog85 wrote:As to my little rant about punctuated equilibrium. Well, as I understand it you are saying that there is proof in the fossil/gene record for this? As I understood it there was no such proof.
This is the kind of trap statement that a lot of young earthers will throw out. The problem is you have not defined what you call "punctuated equilibrium"... and, just as our definitions of Darwin differ, its quite likely that what science actually considered punctuated equilibrium or how it plays into evolution are not what you believe.
puppydog85 wrote:
No, I do not get my information from Y.E. people. I mostly listen to debates for information on evolutionary thought. I will say though that I largely eschew evidential discussions about this. Most physical evidence can and will be molded by one's underlying presuppositions. It is in that area that I usually engage. But I thought it would be fun to take a break and try this out.
Nope few things are more readily proven than that evolution, chand over time happens. If you refer to specific lines of descent, then there is debate. However, its not so broad that the "physical evidence can and will be molded". That is, in fact what science is about.. getting around our biases. We START with ideas that originate from various sources, including religion, but it only becomes proof when it follows specific rules and guidelines to avoid bias. Science evidence must be able to be seen by all (by all with the training to use the equipment, follow the methodology, etc.)
puppydog85 wrote:Comic Boy, I thought this whole discussion is to discuss whether a comparable theory has been advanced. Not to dismiss it out of hand.
If you have a comparable theory, present it. So far, none has been. Folks like to claim there are other theories. They are all disproven, rely heavily upon either distortions, taking claims out of context, faulty data or plain outright lies. The "king" is the Institute for Creation Research.
