|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
I consistently use the terms 'clone' and 'clonal' in the very same sense they are used in the literature I cited. Really? The very first line from the introductory post states: There is a myth about clonal reproduction that says the clones are all the same. Where in the literature you cited is the indication that all clones are the same? I employed the term exactly as my sources did. You said I employed different meanings, but you cannot even begin to demonstrate such a difference in anything I posted. How cheesy! It is you who introduced the "popular meaning for clone" to the discussion for the very first time. It's a tad late for any attempts to reverse-confuse the readership. If they have read this far, it's a pretty safe bet they understand. Your first sentence introduced the idea that all clones are the same. I addressed the existence of the myth, yes indeed. I then proceeded to debunk it. Perhaps you should specify what you mean by "popular meaning", since you're claiming it differs from the use in the links I presented. Or are you just bluffing & wasting time? I asked you if you agree to a statement that is perfectly consistent with your contention, and you refused. You have access to the evidence; you can evaluate it. What then prevents you from agreeing with my statement? I agree that clonal reproduction doesn't always result in identical individuals. I don't agree that biologists have claimed that it does. Could you show me where they have claimed this? Why should I bother? If you agree that the idea is false, why are you so bent on seeing "biologists" support it? Is this a trick to get me to call someone a "biologist" who has no business being labeled as such? Life is designed to adapt. If you can live with that, and the loss of claims that the results of such built-in adaptive mechanisms represent evolution of novelties, then please do so. Additionally, this seems to have nothing to do with whether all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor or not. So? Why not let it go? What harm is done if people learn a fact or two? I think those who can have connected the dots, and I don't think I have any outstanding obligation regarding those who cannot. If you're so unfamiliar with the claims of your fellow evolutionists that you haven't heard any of these lines, great! You don't really need to learn how to employ these defective "arguments", at least in my opinion. Where's the up-side to presenting them?
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
