Bells
Staff member
So you trust Science magazine who published a story about the survey, but you do not trust the university who actually conducted the survey, released the results, whereupon Science then printed a story about it?
Denial of Evolution V
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
So you trust Science magazine who published a story about the survey, but you do not trust the university who actually conducted the survey, released the results, whereupon Science then printed a story about it?
in the essence of life coming from life yes.
i do not accept accumulating small gradual changes for the complete explanation of lifes diversity because the fossil record apparently doesn't support it.
let's just say i have more faith in "science".
i consider it more culpable.
It seems it would be more accurate to say you will accept anything that supports your preconcieved belief and you will reject anything that refutes it.
The technical term for that mode of thinking is referred to as goofy.
Neither do I, but that doesnt mean you have to reject evolution. Symbiosis can explain the gaps in the fossil record, no need to put anything divine in the gap.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
You don't seem to understand the process of fossilization. What do you think the probability is of any organism's dead body being left undisturbed for a million years, while a very slow stream of water flows through it and replaces the organic molecules with minerals without changing its shape?
Most dead organisms are consumed, either by scavengers like hyenas and myriad species of insects, or by detritivores like worms and mushrooms. Their organic molecules are recycled into new living things. If this didn't happen, eventually there wouldn't be enough food to support a new generation of life.
The bodies that escape this fate then face being stepped on, squashed by falling rocks and trees, having plants grow up through them, or simply being swept into a body of water in which all the macro- and microorganisms will slowly eat every last molecule.
If you believe in miracles, it's a miracle that we have any fossils at all!
Do you wonder why there's only one Petrified Forest, and it's in Arizona, one of the driest places on the planet? All of the rest of the dead trees were squashed into peat, coal or petroleum. Until mushrooms appeared and they simply shoved their roots into their fallen carcasses, spit out some lignase (the enzyme that digests wood, which no other organism has), and digested the wood as it softened. This is why we're running out of petroleum: They ain't makin' any more of the stuff. The mushrooms got it all.
Bells
Staff member
You have more faith in "Science", who are reporting on a study and who can interpret the results as they so choose, than you do over the actual raw data found in the study and the actual report from the study itself?
Wow.. You see, most people (who aren't creationists) prefer to view the actual raw data and the actual studies. Personally, I would trust the actual report and the raw data over what and how the media reports on it any day.
Hmm. We have many lines of fossils showing gradual changes from land animals to whales, from early apes to humans, from paleothere to horse, from dinosaurs to birds etc. I guess you could always claim that it's not gradual enough for you (i.e. "there are only 9 transitional fossils from land animal to whale; it's not gradual enough!") but that's a position bound to fail as more transitional fossils are discovered.
Apparently you are wrong. As you always are. As has been explained to you countless times.
Here is an excerpt from the Science article that you so love to misinterpret and quote mine from:
The very article that you rely on so desperately for your evolution denialism unequivocally states that the fossil record does display evidence of gradual changes. This has been pointed out to you many times, but you choose to ignore everything you are told and blindly re-state your position. This is why I call you a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest troll, and I’ll quite confidently make the call that everyone who is familiar with you and your trolling agrees with me.
@leopold
These are the actual words of your source investigators, in another paper they published concerning the same study you cited:
I think it's pretty clear that your source does not support an anti-evolution argument.
These are the actual words of your source investigators, in another paper they published concerning the same study you cited:
Of teachers surveyed, 17% did not cover human evolution at all in their biology class, while a majority of teachers (60%) spent between one and five hours of class time on it.
When we asked whether an excellent biology course could exist without mentioning Darwin or evolutionary theory at all, 13% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that such a course could exist.
Three different survey questions all suggest that between 12% and 16% of the nation's biology teachers are creationist in orientation.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124When we asked whether an excellent biology course could exist without mentioning Darwin or evolutionary theory at all, 13% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that such a course could exist.
Three different survey questions all suggest that between 12% and 16% of the nation's biology teachers are creationist in orientation.
I think it's pretty clear that your source does not support an anti-evolution argument.
Once we get past the arguments that these are the organisms drowned in the Great Flood, we're left with the remaining deniers who want to treat the fossil record as the standard against which all relevant science must be calibrated, subject to their opinion that it's a Xerox of whatever life forms were present in a given period. Of course they tend to deny that dating is sufficiently accurate to establish true age of specimens, and even that scientists conspire to conflate the ages.
This point you're making probably falls on deaf ears among denialists who are bogged down in simpler ideas by their own hyperbole. But it's so clear that some miniscule fraction of (mostly) hard parts had to be preserved long enough to fossilize. If denialists would simply open their eyes to the reality of the fossilization process they would probably stop demanding that the fossil record needs to account for every moment and every species in natural history.
You are a liar.
Sorbonne made a comment about fossils confirming evolution via natural selection.
You suggested that Gould thought otherwise and that...
The explicit implication is that Gould thinks that the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. This is wrong.
When it was pointed out to you that:
....you replied with:
....indicating that you didn’t even understand what Gould was talking about in the first place. Hence, you were banned for trolling.
It was further explained to you by multiple people in another thread what Gould thinks with respect to the ToE and the mechanisms that drive it (viz punctuated equilibrium).
Despite all that, you simply re-stated your faulty assumptions:
Your weasel words “as i was taught in school” don’t rescue your statement. Nothing that Gould has said and nothing in that Science article question the validity of the ToE. The only debated points revolve around the relative contribution of different mechanisms.
You then immediately said:
....which is blatantly and demonstrably wrong. Gould contends that his proposed mechanism of punctuated equilibrium supports the existing fossil record better than other mechanisms. Or to put it another way, the fossil record supports Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium.
You then wrapped it all up by blindly quoting Gould out-of-context again:
At that point I banned you again for trolling.
Oh, I’ve got more smooth moves for you, to be sure. Your next ban will be one month, and the next after that will be permanent as per Sciforums policy. And you can bet I’ll apply them for the very next instance of evolution trolling that I see from you. Smooth enough for you?
how does symbiosis account for the apparent lack of transitional fossils?
i have never heard this in relation to evolution.
explain the mechanism to me.
exactly.
that's why i mentioned it. . . twice.
that's also the reason i will only accept material from the original source.
"science" published the stats, and they are the ones that has access to the raw data, AND it's a respected peer reviewed journal.
talk about "weasel words"
goulds qoute DOES NOT support "small gradual changes" in regards to lifes diversity.
he noticed that, and said so.
i was banned for saying he did.
to hell with the rest of your post.
i don't even like reading your shit.
Bells
Staff member
The original report and raw data is from PSU, which you earlier discounted when you claimed you only trusted "science" who wrote a story about PSU's study.
Therefore, you do not respect the 'raw data' or the actual report because if you did, you would not discount the actual report itself and the raw data because it's not from Science who wrote a story about it.
PSU is THE original source. Not "science".
I'll put it into some perspective for you. I often have to refer to case law in my line of work. If I employed your means of argument in court, I would not refer to the actual cases themselves, but media reports on said cases.
What you have been doing is discounting the actual and original source and instead, referring to a general media outlet like "science" and trying to pass it off as the original source. The original source that "science" used is the PSU study (which you earlier discounted).
i never said i discounted it.
quite simply bells the study was from penn state, submitted to "science"
i will trust the viewpoint of "science" over that of penn state.
the study AS SUBMITTED could be completely erroneous.
no, i will not trust penn states opinion in this matter, sorry.
I gave you the original source with the relevant facts:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.0060124
They don't support your contention.
No, that's not true. Go to your cite, find the photo of the student with a microscope, and below the caption is a link to the 2008 edition of Science Daily. Follow the link, and in the opening paragraph you will read:
But in a new essay in PLoS Biology, political scientist Michael Berkman and his colleagues show that despite these many legal victories, a surprising number of public high school biology teachers still include creationism or intelligent design in their curriculum.
The original material was published in PLoS Biology, the source I cited above.
Nevertheless, all of this running around is moot. Your cite, Science Daily, clearly states:
Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.
Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said.
Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said.
Your own cite therefore does not support your contention.
- Status