| više

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/natures_microevolutionary_gems037031.html
Incompetent Evolution theorists (like PZ Meyers) continue to express their ignorance of science as they have been reduced to name-calling after their Evolutionary Gems Packet was public discredited as a mishmash of antiquated and disconnected literary piece of revisionist contradiction.
All Four Episodes will be heard within this audio presentation. Casey Luskin examines Nature Magazine's "15 Evolutionary Gems" packet, which he describes as "an evangelism packet for those wishing to spread the good news about Darwinism." The packet purported to show "just what is the evidence for evolution by natural selection," but Luskin looks at these jewels and finds that they're just paste. Listen in to this first installment on Stickleback fish.

When a widely touted prediction of evolution falls apart, evolutionists often rewrite history, soften the "prediction," and claim that the harder prediction was never made in the first place. They also attack those who talk about the failure of this prediction as being ignorant of the true claims of evolution. This is known as moving the goalposts.
In this case, my critics cannot escape history. We're left with the following points:
# This post has provided clear documentation that leading evolutionary biologists argued that the known ranges of tetrapods and lobe-finned fishes led them to "predict" that a fossil like Tiktaalik would be found in a particular stratigraphic location in the fossil record. When that alleged transitional form was found in that location, they touted it as a confirmed prediction of evolutionary science.
# Some evolutionary scientists apparently didn't realize that many leading Darwin lobbyists had argued that Tiktaalik was found in "rocks of just the right age" and thus confirmed a "specific prediction" of neo-Darwinism, that made Tiktaalik "direct transitional."
# When a Darwin-critic who realizes the rhetorical importance Darwin-lobbyists have placed on Tiktaalik's place in the fossil record points out that this prediction is challenged by new data, Darwin's defenders respond by (1) claiming no one made that prediction in the first place, and (2) levying various amounts of name-calling and allegations of ignorance against the critic.
# The reality is that just like me, evolutionary biologists understand evolutionary theory perfectly well. But they often use slippery definitions of terms to push their theory harder than the evidence allows, and then fall back to weaker arguments when the data contradicts their "prediction." This is a rhetorical strategy. Sadly, those who are willing to call them on it are subjected to ridicule and name-calling.
# My approach is to not respond in kind, to not return name-calling with name-calling, and to continue to just talk about the evidence.

Nauka | Soba za učitelje | Kultura | JESUS REVOLUTION RADIO | United States | 15 Evolutionary Gems | Evolution | science | Tiktaalik | predictions | Homology | Moving the goal Posts | biology | tetrapods | ostification | body size | PZ Meyers | stratigraphic | evidence | Education | Narrative Gloss | Macroevolution | Microevolution | Vertebrate Skeleton | Phillip Skell