Evolutionary events are, as Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, “unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.” And so evolution is an idea with more theorizing than hard facts. It is more of a narrative than a theory. Here is a typical example: Read more
8 Replies to “Here’s a Typical Example of Evolutionary Story-Telling”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The organisms which leave the most offspring always leave the most offspring. This has been repeatedly proven. It’s the most basic fact of evolution.
Umm. That is the abstract of the article–a summary of what the paper proposes. These are fleshed out, with evidences, in the body of the paper.
As a published author, Dr. Hunter knows this. Why the deception?
And these are proposals. If the author went to far, Dr. Hunter would accuse his of dogmatism.
REC, are you saying that the abstract merely proposes a story and that Dr. Hunter should have read the entire article to get the full story?
Mung….the abstract is a proposal, and the paper supports it–with hundreds of references and original analysis.
So, yes. And so should you. It is free.
Evolution is a fish story. But we knew that.
REC you claim:
Now REC you wouldn’t be picking up Matzke’s bad habits of literature bluffing would you?, The fact of the matter is that no one has ever observered, or ever changed, one type of bacteria into another type of bacteria, much less has someone changed any archaea into eukarya:
Behe surveys 4 decades of lab work here:
Behe’s survey included Lenski’s infamous Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE). The results, if you are a “Origin of Species” thumping Darwinist, are disappointing to put it mildly.
Moreover REC, besides the failure of Darwinists to demonstrate the feasibility of neo-Darwinian processes in the laboratory, it turns out that bacteria also demostrate long term stasis in the fossil record:
Thus REC, where is the actual empircal evidence that any single celled organism can change into another??
This is exactly what Dr. Hunter (and Dr. Behe) are talking about. Darwinists imagine all sorts of unsubstatiated stories for how one organism can change into another with never one shred of actual empirical evidence to support the feasibility of the ‘just so’ story!
REC:
Presumably, REC, the abstract represents the conclusions the author felt could be supported by all those references and original analysis you refer to. The abstract is a summary, not a proposal for research. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the abstract is some kind of original hypothesis that is then scrutinized in the paper itself? So the abstract is, as it typically is, essentially a summary or the conclusion that can be drawn from all that hard work and research.
And Dr. Hunter is simply pointing out how embarrassingly empty those conclusions, findings, results, whatever you want to call them are. Lots of waffle words, handwaving, maybe’s, what-if’s, etc. This is one of the key differences between real bench science and so much of what falls under the heading of evolutionary research.
You mean I read the whole article for nothing when I could have just read the abstract?