Re: The Reasonable Minority

On Dec 28, 3:57 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:48:39 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Dec 28, 8:25 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:36 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 28, 6:45 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 28, 11:33 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 28, 5:08 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 27, 10:36 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 27, 1:28 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:00 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:10 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 27, 12:55 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 25, 7:05 pm, er...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

For instance, why are _you_ a science hater?  What argument can you
make that that is what Jesus desires of you?

Eric Root- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How does not accepting the tired dogma of a failing theory

In what way is evolutionary theory failing?

make me a
science hater when I have studied many of the discliplines, read
extensively,

How many books on evolutionary biology written by evolutionary
biologists have you read?
Your posts are full of the sort of systematic misinformation
propagated through creationist sources, which suggests that your
reading is very one-sided to say the least.

worked in directly and indirectly related fields,

Which fields are those? There is nothing in your posts to suggest that
you have ever worked in any field related to evolutionary biology.

continue to study the history of science as a retiree.

So which books on the history of science have you read? Your posts
suggest that you rely largely on creationist sources for information,
and that you are rather ignorant of most of the history of science.

What I dislike
is censorship, dogma, ridicule, and dishonestly directed at people
simply because they have alternative ideas, compete for the minds of
the broad community, and have a world view that is abhorrent to yours.

Can you provide any instances in which any creationist has submitted
any research findings for publication in any scientific or academic
journal which has been subjected to cencorship, ridicule or
accusations of dishonesty?

I want science to succeed in its endeavors (well maybe we could stop
throwing money down the rathole of abiogenesis research)

Why?

even under
the evo paradigm.

The "evo paradigm" is what underpins the development of our knowledge
of genetics which has already proved itself to be of enormous
practical benefit to mankind. Why do you want to stop research in that
area?

Gee and I thought Mendel was a priest that didn't know Darwin from a
mushroom?

Then you thought wrong. Mendel read Darwin's book "Origin of Species"
in translation. It is the combination of Darwin's theory of evolution
by natural selection, Mendel's discovery of genes, and the discovery
that mutations occur which is the "modern synthesis", which underpins
evolutionary theory.

You keep making statements which demonstrate little except that you
are relying on creationist sources for information, and keep being
exposed as rather ignorant of the subject of evolution for the simple
reason that creationist sources are ignorant and illinformed at best,
and systematically dishonest at worst.

Why not check out the reliability of creationist sources by learning
more about evolutionary theory? Surely you have nothing to lose by
educating yourself?

RF

But this country can afford to let alternative adeas
germinate, new concepts mature, compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Quite so.
On the other hand, why should it accept ideas which were rejected as
unfruitful in the development of science when they are being pushed by
people with a religious and political agenda?

We'll figure out what works, makes sense, is contributory without the
abuse, attacks, cynicism, censorship just fine. Americans are a lot
smarter than the elitists think.

As a European, I'd say that their religiosity and ignorance of science
is making them a laughing stock.

RF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lets see Mendel did his work in 1856-1860 and Darwin published first
in 1859.http://mendel.imp.ac.at/mendeljsp/biography/biography.jsp

To quote you "I thought Mendel was a priest that didn't know Darwin
from a mushroom?"

Mendel *did* know about Darwin. You were wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/1/l_061_01.html

Mendel's work helped answer these questions; unfortunately, Darwin was
unaware of Mendel's work during his lifetime.

Quite so, which is a great pity. It would have filled in a large gap
in his theory of which he was painfully aware.

http://tomclegg.net/mendel

Bishop, B. E. (1996). "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to
Darwin," Journal of Heredity 87: 205-213.

Callender, L. A. (1988). "Gregor Mendel: an opponent of descent with
modification," History of Science 26: 41-75.

Gregor Mendel's 1866 paper on plant hybridization formed the basis for
the modern study of genetics, which was used in the 1940s in support
of Darwin's theory of evolution. Mendel himself was interested in the
question of evolution, but ironically his experiments were done in
support of the theory of special creation.

Even if this were the case (and this sounds like revisionism to me),
it doesn't change the fact that his discoveries in genetics are an
important element of modern evolutionary theory.

He worked in the tradition
of Kölreuter and Gärtner, studying Linnaeus's theory that hybrids
played a role in evolution. Specifically, his experiments were
designed to expose an essential difference between hybrids and
species.

WIkipedia is the least relaiuble source on the internet and you need
to expand your reading list.

I have read rather a lot about the subject of evolution and
evolutionary theory.

You're out of your league.

Oh, please! I just choked on my coffee. I'm a vertebrate
palaeontologist, have published several papers in the field and am
currently studying part-time for a PhD. Do you think that I could do
that without a thorough background knowledge of evolutionary theory?

Yeah completely brainwashed

So anyone who has actually *studied* the subject is "brainwashed".

You evidently think that the only way to learn about a subject is from
people who don't know anything about it. Do you not see the flaws in
that approach?

I have posted a link to my web site in which I analyse several
creationist sources, and identify misrepresentation, distortion and
outright falsehoods. When I refer to falsehoods, I don't mean that
evidence is interpreted in a way with which I disagree, but statements
which can be demonstrated by reference to evidence that they are
simply not true.

In case you missed it, here it is again:http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php

Are you prepared to address fact that creationist sources can be
demonstrated to be riddled with falsehoods?

RF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Paleontology...heh bone cleaner eh... what will this do to assist the
human condition..anywhere anyplace anytime...is it to late to do
something useful?

I'm working in collaboration with an anatomist working at a local
teaching hospital. Some of the statistical techniques I have developed
to analyse the morphology and biomechanics of plesiosaur necks may
have useful applications in understanding the morphology and
biomechanics of the human spine, which may have some impact on the way
in which we treat injuries.

However, even if this were not the case, I think that many people find
that gaining a better understanding of the history of our own planet
and the amazing organisms which once inhabited it *is* worthwhile.
There is a value in knowledge for its own sake.

Not everyone shares your view that the only values worth considering
are the purely financial.

Incidentally, don't you think it rather hypocritical of you to lambast
"evos" for resorting to invective and insult rather than addressing
the issues, then do exactly that?

RF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you work with chiropraters as well??   Whip lash lawyers maybe?

Do you have problems with reading comprehension?

Evidently.

By the way, if you won't learn from people who have actually *studied*
a subject, who do you think you *can* learn from?

RF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would and have read both sides of the fossil record literature and
what one interprets depends on their going in position/worldview/
predisposition.

I see plenty of extinct separate kinds, tons of fully formed group
representatives, exploding groups, zero unarguable transitions, zero
gradualism, and quite a few "unchanged for eons and still extant"
examples.

I see huge unfilled gaps between major groups and totally isolated
organisms from the cambrian linked to NADA and no ancestory remotely
as complex in the earlier formations.

Yes lots of weird organisms have lived......plenty of them isolated
and apart.

In reality most fossils are transitionals.

--
Bob.

Oh yes that argument about since every genome is slightly different in
content and expression and such thus everything alive or dead is
transitional.

When a word or phrase can have a countably infinite number of
meanings ...as in NS,etc. I'm sure transitional can be made to fit any
scenario that arises...including a buried milkbone dog biscuit.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... suggest that you rely largely on creationist sources for information, ... and that you are rather ignorant of most of the history of science. ... It is the combination of Darwin's theory of evolution ... more about evolutionary theory? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... suggest that you rely largely on creationist sources for information, ... and that you are rather ignorant of most of the history of science. ... It is the combination of Darwin's theory of evolution ... more about evolutionary theory? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... suggest that you rely largely on creationist sources for information, ... and that you are rather ignorant of most of the history of science. ... It is the combination of Darwin's theory of evolution ... more about evolutionary theory? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... suggest that you rely largely on creationist sources for information, ... and that you are rather ignorant of most of the history of science. ... It is the combination of Darwin's theory of evolution ... more about evolutionary theory? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... suggest that you rely largely on creationist sources for information, ... and that you are rather ignorant of most of the history of science. ... It is the combination of Darwin's theory of evolution ... more about evolutionary theory? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading