You have no “standards”!
Reasons for rejecting your sources include:
-
That they have no expertise whatsoever in the topic they are discussing – examples include Fazale Rana on Biology and History of Science (more on this below), or your Youtube apologist ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ on Quantum Physics. Related to this would be your citation of a paper on ORCH-OR from a journal whose stated area of expertise is the unrelated field of Translational Medicine (meaning that the journal has no expertise whatsoever in peer-reviewing the paper).
-
Sources that are blatantly partisan – it is a complete waste of time to be citing the advocacy of ORCH-OR’s two main partisans as ‘evidence’ that the theory has widespread acceptance in the scientific community.
-
But the biggest reason is that you cite sources that simply do not support your claims, and in fact, not infrequently on a closer reading directly contradict them – this was the case with your source Brigandt (2009) above. This also leads many in these threads to question whether you have actually read your sources.
These reasons for rejection are not idiosyncratic. If you were trying to convince some science educator to include your theory in some science curriculum or textbook, you would not find them any more permissive – likely you would find them far far stricter.
You have been (repeatedly) told that these are bad sources, you have been (repeatedly) told why they are bad sources, yet you still continue to provide bad sources. The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that @Meerkat_SK5 cannot learn from their mistakes, and so that their theory therefore will not improve.
Let me stop you right there!
As I have already pointed out to you, Fazale Rana has no expertise whatsoever relevant to Evolutionary Biology or the History of Science.
Therefore, when you say “Fuz Rana”, I will immediately substitute “an apologist with no expertise relevant to Evolutionary Biology or the History of Science”.
I will just allow [an apologist with no expertise relevant to Evolutionary Biology or the History of Science] defend himself here:
Why should I care what such a non-expert says in their defense?
Add to that, Creationist apologists have a long history of claiming safely long-dead scientists (who are therefore in no position to complain or sue over misrepresentations of them) as proto-design-advocates (or perhaps crypto-proto-design-advocates). This renders a further such claim highly suspicious, particularly lacking any confirmations from a genuine expert in History of Science.
Further adding to my disinterest I, as I suspect do a number of other skeptics, view apologists as those whose vocation is that of stating bad arguments with perfect confidence – which renders me skeptical of anything they say.
On this basis I will therefore state that:
Any further invocation of Fazale Rana, outside his genuine areas of expertise in “chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry” and “the biophysics of cell membranes”, will be read as simply an admission from @Meerkat_SK5 that (i) they still don’t know a good source from a bad one, and (ii) that they still cannot learn from their mistakes.
ROFLMAO100
The reason that you know sweet Fanny Adams about these subjects is because you insist on basing your understanding on inexpert apologists like Fazale Rana and ‘Inspiring Philosophy’.
[Addendum] Added to this, Richard Owen was such a complex, idiosyncratic and ambiguous figure in 19th century science, that I would expect even a trained and skilled Historian of Science to have difficulty encapsulating him. I would not trust a rank amateur like Rana with this task. The Wikipedia article on Owen has this to say about him:
Owen’s detailed memoirs and descriptions require laborious attention in reading, on account of their complex terminology and ambiguous modes of expression. The fact that very little of his terminology has found universal favour causes them to be more generally neglected than they otherwise would be.
-
When you are quoting somebody else you need to indicate it by putting it in quote-marks, using the forum’s quotation mark-up, etc.
-
That Owen’s conception was “strongly theistic” does not mean that he was a design advocate. Many strong critics of the Intelligent Design Movement are strong theists.
-
Given his lack of expertise in the subject under consideration, and my previously made point about Creationist apologsts’ tendency to make false claims that long-dead scientists were proto-design-advocates, what he “goes on” about has no credibility whatsoever.
-
Even if his claim was credible, it is completely irrelevant to my point, which is about whether ‘Evolution/Biology with design substituted for descent’ would be coherent – an issue that Rana fails to rebut – in fact he admits without dispute that the scientific consensus is that “the only coherent model that accounts for these features—they claim—is biological evolution.” Nothing he says thereafter in any way argues that ‘Evolution/Biology with design substituted for descent’ would be coherent – he simply (inexpertly) claims that Owen advocated for design, without making any attempt to demonstrate whether that would render Evolution/Biology incoherent or not.
I will conclude by stating that you last reponse has made no progress in addressing the issues I have raised, and that my point has still not been addressed:
Evolution is, in Charles Darwin’s own words, “descent with modification”. Take common descent out of the theory and it is rendered incoherent. Descent is what everything else hangs off of, like a clothes-hanger or coat-track – without descent, biology is just a disorganised pile of facts lying on the ground.
Therefore any attempt to teach some version of ‘evolution’ with the claim that common descent was merely some sort of ‘optional extra’ would simply confuse students.
(See how easy it is to clearly indicate that something is a quote?)