Date: September 14, 2018 08:27PM
Now that I have calmed down a bit, let's look at your statements:
"My arguments were all concise, logical, and well-formed.
Your assertion is demonstrably false."
COMMENT: No they weren't. They were merely unsupported statements demonstrating your false understanding of biology and evolution. An argument involves premises (facts) and conclusions that follow therefrom. Bare statements saying that I (and cited academic experts) are wrong, is not an argument.
Nice appeal to authority fallacy.
Hint: having credentials does not make someone right.
COMMENT: True, but when facts, arguments and pure logic fail, one has to resort to authority. I have no other vehicle to show readers that you have no idea what you are talking about. (I have long since given up on convincing you.)
I'll bet you real money those people found faults in the book. As I myself mentioned, it makes some good points. It also has flaws. What I found most interesting was that you latched onto the flawed parts, and didn't mention any of the other points. I wonder why...?"
COMMENT: O.K. Let's have some cited authority for the flaws? These are your imagined flaws. No doubt biologists disagree with Shapiro on some points, but his entire thesis, "modern evolutionary theory," is based upon the theme that evolutionary biology has moved far beyond Darwinism; and specifically Neo-Darwinism. On that point, I doubt any of them would disagree. But, let's have a quote!
> "Professor Shapiro's offering is the best book on
> basic modern biology I have ever seen. As far as
> I can tell, the book is a game changer."
Good for him.
It's an interesting opinion, not a fact. And I'll bet that reviewer found some faults in the book as well.
COMMENT: Right. Merely the opinion of Carl Woese, a microbiologists and biophysicist. So, let's forget him, and instead subscribe to your opinion--even though you have not articulated any argument or cited any authority suggesting that he is wrong in his view.
> So, say whatever you want. You have no
Because you say so? Because you offered fallacy to back you up? "These famous smart people liked his book" doesn't refute a single one of my points.
COMMENT: It is not that I said so. The conclusion is based upon your own demonstration. Your response to my post, and the opinions of experts I cited, speaks volumes on this issue.
Here, I'll post a direct chance for you to rebut me, Henry:
Let's start by dismissing the most ridiculous part of your assumption about Darwin: that he claimed ONLY random mutations were what natural selection acted on. Since Darwin didn't know about DNA or genetics, that's easily dismissed out of hand.
Now here's your chance to refute...find anything in Darwin's writings, or anything from a "Darwinist" scientist in the past 100 years, that states "random mutations are the only thing natural selection has to operate on."
Go right ahead. We'll wait.
COMMENT: First, everyone knows, that "Darwinism" does not just mean the views of Darwin himself. It represents a theory that was cast in the twentieth century into Neo-Darwinism, which includes genetics. Newsflash! Remember, Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," that was Neo-Darwinism. Second, virtually every biologist that was educated or professionally active in the 70s, 80s, or 90s, was a Neo-Darwinist. That was the dominant understanding of evolution at the time, which is why it persists today and is resistant to change.
For quotes, see above.
You have been roundly refuted. But, will you change your views? No. You are as stubborn in your false scientific beliefs and understandings as the most ardent Mormon apologist.
When you can't find any such thing (and you won't), you can come back and admit your claim that "classical Darwinism" was based on the premise was false.
COMMENT: See above. This is just embarrassing.
(by the way, to look for what you won't find, you'll have to step over literally thousands of quotes in the same time period from biologists and other scientists pointing out other things natural selection operates on, studies in population genetics that were "mainstream Darwinism" that contradict your claim, and thousands of other refutations of your premise. Try not to ignore them, ok?)
COMMENT: Again, no quotes, no citations, just empty rhetoric. Darwinism, in its original and modern forms, was a biological theory explaining how biological organisms evolve. That is the issue here, not how "natural selection" might be applied in other contexts.