For the alternative theorists:

[leopold]

It's more a matter of trust, of confidence ... of faith.

i would say that everything that you don't have firsthand knowledge of has a measure trust, confidence, and faith.

In a way, that's what this thread seems to be about. It's kind of an exhortation for Sciforums lay readership to have more faith.

yes, i DOES seem that way.

But it isn't just Sciforums. There's a very real and very important problem underlying all this:

What should laypeople's attitude be towards science, what can it be, in an age when science has become so technical, so institutionalized and so esoteric that it's virtually impenetrable to people who haven't spent the better part of ten years studying it in universities?

it doesn't need to be that way.
there are people that can take the technical and present it in a way a layperson can understand it.

I don't think that historical tendency is healthy at all, but I don't really know what can be done about it.

it isn't.
you seen what happened to the "diversion" thread trippy created.
one poster went so far as to call "science", one of the most respected science sources around, a "pop sci" rag.
the rest of the thread was basically a "diversion" that never answered any questions.

 

[paddoboy]

i would say that everything that you don't have firsthand knowledge of has a measure trust, confidence, and faith.

yes, i DOES seem that way.

it doesn't need to be that way.
there are people that can take the technical and present it in a way a layperson can understand it.

it isn't.
you seen what happened to the "diversion" thread trippy created.
one poster went so far as to call "science", one of the most respected science sources around, a "pop sci" rag.
the rest of the thread was basically a "diversion" that never answered any questions.

I'm actually in agreement with most of that except for the last sentence.
The diversion thread served its purpose quite admirably.

 

[leopold]

I don't believe that evolution, at least evolution in the interesting biological sense, is directly observed.

it hasn't been.
the fossil record doen't support it and no lab results has proved it.

It's inferred on the basis of evidence.

the ONLY observed evidence that supports evolution is that species adapt, that's it.

Personally, I'm quite confident that our ideas of biological evolution are correct as to the big picture.

then answer me this:
why did arrowsmith contact all these other websites about the alleged misquote instead of going straight to the horses mouth ("science") and getting to the bottom of it?

 

[paddoboy]

then answer me this:
why did arrowsmith contact all these other websites about the alleged misquote instead of going straight to the horses mouth ("science") and getting to the bottom of it?

I would not have a clue!
But it does not invalidate the reality of Evolution, and does not invalidate the FACT, that obviously, at its most fundamental level, life arose/evolved from non life.

 

[Trippy]

the rest of the thread was basically a "diversion" that never answered any questions.

Nope - it got the PM's published, which was its stated purpose. I'd call that Op Success.

 

[Trippy]

then answer me this:
why did arrowsmith contact all these other websites about the alleged misquote instead of going straight to the horses mouth ("science") and getting to the bottom of it?

Because it was the other websites that were promulgating the misrepresentation of Lewin's words (which were themselves either heard wrong or attributued to the wrong person).

 

[leopold]

I would not have a clue!

yes you do.
but then again, judging by your "one track mind" attitude in this thread, you probably don't.
don't be scared paddoboy, it's okay to think for yourself.
don't let your ego get the best of you.

i hate to say this because it will draw the fire from a great many people but:
i'm beginning to believe we are dealing with an atheist agenda here.
i had a site bookmarked that went into how various "science organisation" actively squash dissenting evolutionary evidence.
alas the bookmark has quit working, as have a number of my bookmarks concerning this topic.

 

[leopold]

Because it was the other websites that were promulgating the misrepresentation of Lewin's words (which were themselves either heard wrong or attributued to the wrong person).

without input from "science" this is nothing more than an assumption trippy.

 

[paddoboy]

i hate to say this because it will draw the fire from a great many people but:
i'm beginning to believe we are dealing with an atheist agenda here.
.

Therein lies your problem......You have already admitted you are a "God supporter" and then to somehow see this as an Atheist type agenda, confirms the agenda that you are burdened with.

This is about observational evidence that confirms evolution.
This is also about the overwhelming supported certainty, that life had to have evolved/arisen from non life.
This thread is also about how those that have an alternative hypothesis should conduct themselves, and abide with the logic of the scientific method and peer review.

You have absolutely nothing disputing the first two points, and you fail to align with the third point.

 

[paddoboy]

A tip for you leopold, and the other supporters of alternative religious and pseudo quackery ideas.....

The process of scientific discipline and enquiry is aligned to a set of ever improving models evolved by the scientific community to describe repeatable observations and repeatable experimental results on the whole.

A scientific theory, when continually supported by observational evidence, over many many years, becomes near certain, and is sometimes taken as FACT.
There is nothing abnormal about that...It is natural scientific wisdom by the vast majority of scientists.

The most powerful thing about this approach is that if the day comes when, say, a set of repeatable findings are discovered where the apple does not fall from the tree, all scientists have to do is rework their model. Unlike religion, for example, no absolute truth has been broken.

 

[leopold]

Therein lies your problem......You have already admitted you are a "God supporter" and then to somehow see this as an Atheist type agenda, confirms the agenda that you are burdened with.

yes, i have already admitted to trippy that this was a bad choice of words on my part, something he failed to mention.

This is about observational evidence that confirms evolution.

evolution, as an account for lifes diversity?
there is none.
the only real evidence in this regard is the fossil record and the fossil record doesn't support it either.

This is also about the overwhelming supported certainty, that life had to have evolved/arisen from non life.

yes, it DOES seem to appear that way doesn't it, but, there is no support for evolution outside adaptation.

This thread is also about how those that have an alternative hypothesis should conduct themselves, and abide with the logic of the scientific method and peer review.

the discussion now seems to be evolution.

You have absolutely nothing disputing the first two points,. . .

i bet a lot of people here just love you don't they.

. . . and you fail to align with the third point.

i've given 4 alternatives, you called them "excuses".

 

[paddoboy]

evolution, as an account for lifes diversity?
there is none.
the only real evidence in this regard is the fossil record and the fossil record doesn't support it either.

Most reputable scientists and those directly involved in that discipline disagree with you.

i've given 4 alternatives, you called them "excuses".

Yes.

 

[Trippy]

without input from "science" this is nothing more than an assumption trippy.

This is meaningless as a response to my post.

I said "Maybe Arrowsmith addressed the other websites, rather than speaking to Science directly because the other websites were misrepresenting Lewins words, which were in turn a misrepresentation of Ayala's words."

Your reply to that is "Without input from science this is nothing more than an assumption."

On the one hand, you asked for supposition and I gave it to you.

On the other hand, why would Science care enough about a handful of websites pushing creationist propaganda to offer an opinion on anything?

 

[Trippy]

the only real evidence in this regard is the fossil record and the fossil record doesn't support it either.

The biggest thing lacking in relation to the fossil record is your understanding of it.

Let me ask you something:

You understand that fossils are classified according to morphology right?
Fossils with different characteristics are presumed to be different species, we do not, however, know if closely related species that co-existed were capable of interbreeding, which is the definition of a species in biology.

To put this in perspective, an alien paleontologist a million years from now with no prior knowledge of Earth might classify a chihuahuah and a grey wolf as being distinct, but closely related species even though we know, questions of practicallity aside, that they are technicaly capable of interbreeding.

This is why a recent fossil find - I forget where it is, was so important - because it indicated that what were previously believed to be two co-existent, but distinct and seperate species. A relatively recent fossil find suggests they may have been the same species of hominid, however, the differences we observed may have been due to sexual dimorphism.

The fossil record is not only incomplete, it's unclear, and some of what you're complaining about may simply be 'artifacts' in the data.

 

[leopold]

On the other hand, why would Science care enough about a handful of websites pushing creationist propaganda to offer an opinion on anything?

because it is a respected source.
these "other websites" are apparently saying one of "science"s reporters outright cooked a qoute, in other words outright lied.
"science" would have been profuse in its apologies to ayala if lewin did such a thing.
the ayala quote isn't even needed.
oh wait, lewin cooked the entire piece.
sorry.
be honest trippy, doesn't this bother you at all?

 

[leopold]

The biggest thing lacking in relation to the fossil record is your understanding of it.

Let me ask you something:

You understand that fossils are classified according to morphology right?
Fossils with different characteristics are presumed to be different species, we do not, however, know if closely related species that co-existed were capable of interbreeding, which is the definition of a species in biology.

To put this in perspective, an alien paleontologist a million years from now with no prior knowledge of Earth might classify a chihuahuah and a grey wolf as being distinct, but closely related species even though we know, questions of practicallity aside, that they are technicaly capable of interbreeding.

This is why a recent fossil find - I forget where it is, was so important - because it indicated that what were previously believed to be two co-existent, but distinct and seperate species. A relatively recent fossil find suggests they may have been the same species of hominid, however, the differences we observed may have been due to sexual dimorphism.

The fossil record is not only incomplete, it's unclear, and some of what you're complaining about may simply be 'artifacts' in the data.

i understand what was published in "science" about it.

 

[leopold]

i am not saying evolution is false.
i am definitely not saying evolution has been proven false.
i AM saying evolution is based on ASSUMPTIONS.
yes, the mechanism seems sound, reasonable and logical.
the EXPLANATIONS seems to fit.
the proof however is almost totally lacking.

i'm quite positive you have taken statistics.

 

[leopold]

you know, the only REAL reason we don't get to the bottom of this is because of this "creationist" BS.
if evolution is indeed proved false creationists will have a field day, SEE! SEE! I TOLD YOU SO, without ever considering the other possibilities.

the only thing i know is that the concept of god as creator . . . i don't buy it.

god help me, but a computer simulation?
with the "people" on the other side laughing their asses off.

 

[Trippy]

because it is a respected source.
these "other websites" are apparently saying one of "science"s reporters outright cooked a qoute, in other words outright lied.

No, the only thing they have said is that Lewin may have misattributed the quote to Ayala. That's not the same thing as lying.

Or do you think that Lewin had a creationist agenda?

"science" would have been profuse in its apologies to ayala if lewin did such a thing.
the ayala quote isn't even needed.

Sure, if anybody other than you was accusing Lewin of outright lying - something that I'm fairly sure has been explained to you before.

oh wait, lewin cooked the entire piece.
sorry.

Again, the only person saying that is you.

be honest trippy, doesn't this bother you at all?

No, actually, it doesn't, because I don't regard it in the same light as you and because I have actually studied paleontology.

 

[Trippy]

i understand what was published in "science" about it.

Then you understand nothing about it. Do you even understand what I said to you in the post you're replying to you, and how it might be significant?