Daecon Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Which parts are your text and which parts are other people's text that you're quoting? How do you expect anyone to answer you if they don't know what YOU are saying?
swansont Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Seems to me that Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory has no (scientific) theoretical opponents. None. Never has had. I addressed this in post 18. You were asked to clarify what you meant by "Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory" because evolutionary theory has undergone significant changes and additions over the years.
CDarwin Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Seems to me that Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory has no (scientific) theoretical opponents. None. Never has had. Yes, yes it has. That's been abundantly pointed out, but you just move the goal-posts and demand "modern" theoretical opponents. Well, in the sense that "modern" = "supported by the latest evidence," you're quite correct. There are no "modern" theoretical alternatives to common descent involving natural selection (which is the meat of Darwin's theory and what I'm taking to be what you mean by "Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory"). But that's not common descent's fault.
Phi for All Posted April 20, 2008 Posted April 20, 2008 Seems to me that Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory has no (scientific) theoretical opponents. None. Never has had. remainder of repeated OP snipped Vexer, since you're just repeating your OP verbatim (which means you either learned nothing or heard nothing you wanted to listen to) and no one is interested in another three pages of you not listening or learning, this thread is closed.
Recommended Posts