Denial of Evolution VI.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Jun 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I wonder if he's referring to this post from Denial of Evolution V
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    By the way, Leopold has previously made his views on Ayala's retraction correction perfectly clear

     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Deja vu
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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.
     
  8. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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".
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Yeah, i meant correction. Spent too much time today justifying assumptions in a peer review. Brain turned to jelly, and i was rushed.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Presuming any have, which has not been shown, one obvious motive would be the money to be made from gullible fundies.
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    let it be known that NOTHING has been presented from the editorial staff of science in the form of corrections, errata, or retractions regarding the article in question.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
     
  13. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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).
     
  14. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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.
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    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.
     
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    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.
     
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Evolution describes the process by which a clade branches. It occurs at the fork, not across the tips.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    speaking of chrysalis, i assume that the life span of the monarch butterfly has been tore apart to try to get a handle on all of this.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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.
     
  21. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    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.
     
  22. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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.
     
  23. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    What a charming day you've had!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page