Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
Last edited:
What we have instead is a decision by Science to publish 5 letters from the following people:
Douglas Futuyma (biologist), Richard Lewontin (evolutionary biologist, geneticist), Gregory Christian Mayer (evolutionary biologist, zoologist), Jon Seger & J. William Stubblefield (Jon is an evolutionary ecologist, but I'm not sure about Bill. However these two have collaborated a lot so he obviously works in a related area), Alan Templeton (geneticist), L. Val Giddings (geneticist, evolutionary biologist), Hampton Carson (geneticist, zoologist), Joseph E. Armstrong (biologist), Boyce Drummond (biologist, ecologist) and finally Everett C. Olson (zoologist, paleontologist, geologist).
These letters collectively detail just how seriously flawed Lewin's coverage of the proceedings was.
Further, Francis Ayala has stated that Lewin misquoted him. Even Gould has pointed out that PE features imperceptibly gradual change from one generation to the next.
I'm sorry, but it's case closed. This was a cold hard fact before, and doubly so after our efforts here. In fact we've done our job so well that I feel confident in saying that you'll never be able to get away with this bullshit ever again. In other words, this is almost certainly the last thread in which you get to be this particular sort of moron, so enjoy it.
Heh. It wasn't a retraction as in, "yeah I did say that, but I was wrong" but a correction, as in "actually, that's not what I said. In fact it's in opposition to the content of the paper I was presenting from. Here, take a look".
an interesting observation spidergoat.
is there a barrier?
as far as i know science has been unable to change, say, a rat into a dog or a fruitfly into something other than a fruitfly.
and you can't tell me that science hasn't pressed hard for such answers.
It wasn't my intention to correct you since I figured you were just characterizing it the same way leopold did because you were quoting him. It was my intention to correct him, since contrary to his previous claims it's obvious that he's still reading my posts (and hilarious that he's unable to directly respond).
It doesn't matter since the body of work produced by the scientific community itself, along with the statements of those who helped produce it, constitute the greatest authority we could have.
Fair enough then. I agree with you that it is more a correction than a retraction. And yes, you're right (now that I have the opportunity to go back and look at context), I was characterizing it the way it had been characterized in the thread I linked to.
Like I said. I spent my afternoon researching nitrogen mass loading in raw human waste in order to better justify a single assumption I made in calculating nitrogen mass loading rates from septic tanks. My director, who is peer reviewing my report thought the figure I used was high and the paper was pseudoscience (or bordering on it). I remember thinking about that at the time, and coming to the conclusion that yes, while it was at the high end, it was in the range of a bunch of other guidelines, so I didn't worry too much about it. Unfortunately it's probably the one number that has to be right, has to be robust, and has to be defensible because there is a lot hinging on it.
I had the misfortune of stiumbling across a powerpoint presentation on the topic that included a series of photos of a freshly collected specimen of human faecal material (so fresh it was still in the potty) followed by a series of three or four slides of what I believe may have been the same specimen in various stages of drying.
FML. What is seen can not be unseen. Brain -> Jelly.
Fossil evidence infers falsely based on a technicality. If I made a design with popcorn, so all kernels touch in a continuous fashion, and then allow this design to remain for the birds, animals, bugs and rain for a several months, what would be left is analogous to fossil data. The once continuous design would now look like it had been discontinuous. Based on the remaining data, you cannot infer continuous, even if it began that way. The hard data would say discontinuous. It is all based on legal technicality.
To prove this right or wrong, we could look at human fossils where the data is continuous to see if it also says discontinuous.
To prove this right or wrong, we could look at human fossils where the data is continuous to see if it also says discontinuous.
Evolution describes the process by which a clade branches. It occurs at the fork, not across the tips.
and that's another thing.
what demonstrated evidence is there that says a species "forks"?
i realize it's logical to assume it does but what if it's some kind of chrysalis phenomenon?
darwins finches?
doesn't apply because they are all finches.
the stated article alludes to the lack of data but i supposed lewin lied about that too.
excluding the science article, can anyone post anything about where lewin was caught red handed lying about a serious topic such as this?
yes indeed, lewin, an evolutionist, that writes books on evolution decides to undermine evolution by lying in a respected journal.
get real.
yes indeed, lewin, an evolutionist, that writes books on evolution decides to undermine evolution by lying in a respected journal.
get real.
I don't think it was a case where "lewin was caught red handed lying" so much as Lewin was simply wrong.
BTW:Lewin was wrong leopold.
No-one is saying Lewin lied you doofus. At most they are saying that he wasn't qualified to be an arbiter, misunderstood a few things, misquoted somebody, and had some bias.
But again, it doesn't even matter what we say or don't say about Lewin as the experts themselves have already cleared this mess up.
But again, it doesn't even matter what we say or don't say about Lewin as the experts themselves have already cleared this mess up.
What a charming day you've had!
- Status