miles, you are the one starting trouble here and are arguing semantics or basically just nonsense. Did you listen to any of these talks at all? have you read a single book David Wolfe has written to understand what he is saying or heard him speak about evolution? Have you ever actually read about Hugo de Vries prior to today or actually ever taken any other proponents of creationist theories like DW has and tried to not prove them wrong through what you 'know'..and thus accept them as possible ideas with an open mind? It sounds like you have not
When someone says they don't believe in what is labeled scientifically as a theory (after all) do you automatically assume they are wrong? it sounds like you do. Eventually I'll recap all the debates and so far it isn't the most uplifting information as could be expected from the point of view of what might be considered 'our' perspective on diets. This does not make them right or conversely us right for being anti them capiche? but nonetheless in a similar way its important to acknowledge what amounts to the experimental design of most theories around diet or larger concepts as sometimes being totally competing things who differences can often be crucial..particularly for health. No theory about 'how things are' will ever guarantee success on the individual, this already points to some of the problems of universaliztion within this very subject in trying to group how ALL THINGS operate which is absurd really.
what I said to CK is 100% correct. One can NOT believe in any aspect of evolution as defined by Darwin, and still believe species have shifted and changed since the begining of time. I presented problems with both some mainstream misinterpretations with evolution as well as hardcore problems with the theory itself.
The theory of evolution itself actually needs to already have some assumption that beings MUST HAVE evolved in order to make any sense at all. In other words it uses what it already assumes to be to actually prove what it is..which is why no matter how much proof of it actually happening (which is very little or none) it can never be considered real science. If that sounds crazy to you, you havn't actually thought about it critically, which isn't surprising because of the precise problem above, that anything that counters such a theory which really is more of a hypothesis is dismissed without actually questioning the very construction and motivation of the theory..and so on.
your new comment is bollocks of course, as you guys say over there. My link definitely proves that while 'mutations' might be found in evolution or like CK points out with 'punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradualism', that THE Mutation Theory is considered to be a different way of thinking about this process which DEFEATS Darwin's theory if it is to be accepted. What I said is it is a more acceptable theory in terms of possibly articulating what not a single person on planet earth understands at all (including as I say: myself) or can illustrate in their own terms without such assumptions never-mind could possibly know for certain.
WTF? I don't think you understand that the theory of evolution is not completely limited to Darwin's ideas. You speak of this "mutation theory" as if it is exclusive, and it is not. You have to understand that Darwin was NOT aware of the existence of genetic information when he wrote Origin of Species. It seems mutationism places an emphasis on random errors due to mistranslation of DNA, and yes this does happen. Genetic information is not copied 100% accurately. Even a mistranslation of a single base pair can completely change the phenotypic expression of a gene.
"the mutationists saw evolution as a two-step process of the chance occurrence of a mutation"
"The mutationists denied that selection is creative, and they gave mutation a certain measure of control over the course of evolution."
(from wikipedia, not the most reliable but I'm using this to make a point)
I do not disagree with these statements at ALL. Individuals of a species can build up varying degrees of neutral mutation caused by random errors of DNA translation that do not affect survival
in their current environment. When the environment changes, some of these neutral mutations can then provide survival advantages causing their frequency to increase. In this respect, mutation
IS A DRIVING FORCE IN EVOLUTION. Natural selection works on the variation CAUSED BY THE MUTATIONS to change the gene pool of the species. This is why genetic diversity is very important.
I also do not think you understand what theory in science actually means. People say "OH WELL, it's just a theory so it's probably full of bullshit."
In science there are varying degrees of certainly when defining a concept
Least to most certain
Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law
Hypothesis would have the certainly equal to the amount of certainty a common person would attribute to the word theory.
Hypothesis becomes a theory when a HUGE amount of data exists to support a model for explaining an idea. Science is NOT supposed to be pretentious (although sometimes can be and I understand this), and this is why they don't call it "The fact of evolution."
It is not called the "Law of Evolution" (although I wish they did so misinformed creationists would stop using this as a point) because it only refers to universal
constants, mathematical concepts (many exist in chemistry and physics i.e gas law/laws of motion etc)
"One can NOT believe in any aspect of evolution as defined by Darwin, and still believe species have shifted and changed since the begining of time."
ANY aspect? So I imagine species changed because wizards used their magic wands to change the species or the flying spaghetti monster created the universe and put the species on Earth in their current form.
I also would refrain from giving much credibility to David Wolfe. He comes off as a bloody charlatan trying hard to sell obscure superfoods/herbs that humans haven't really even eaten during our evolutionary history, saying that somehow they will somehow save us from diseases of civilization. He is also similar to Daniel Cousens in the respect that he uses some sort of strange new age spirituality nonsense to explain which diet is appropriate for human beings.
From what I'm reading, it seems like you are arguing with yourself.
