Denial of Evolution VI.

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    4,304
    Just one lie after another from leopold.


     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Nor am I certain either, which is why I described them as "probable facts". But I still don't understand why you ask a question to which you say you already knew the answer. Or is the suggestion that Wikipaedia is likely to be wrong? If so, there are plenty of other references that a quick Google search of "extinction event" throws up, to allow you to corroborate it for yourself. Anyway, never mind, its a minor quibble: you've asked and I've done my best to answer.

    To your second point, leaving between 4 and 30% of species in existence provides an adequate starting point for further speciation to occur. It is wrong to represent this as a situation whereby "life was by and large unable to survive on Earth".

    Please note that Evolution hasn't had to "occur" any set number of times. That's not how it works. It goes on all the time (though not necessarily at a uniform speed, as the parallel discussion over punctuated equilibrium indicates). If most species are wiped out, then those that survive can gradually fill the empty ecological niches, as adaptation allows them to do so. The intriguing thing about these extinctions is that it allows one to see how it could be that there are dramatic changes, at certain points in the fossil record, in the dominant types of organism. The slate is largely wiped clean and new forms can emerge with little competition from the old ones.

    But all this is pretty obvious, isn't it? I mean, unless one has special reasons for actively wanting to disbelieve it?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Then, Leopold, can YOU please kindly do us all the service of making the comparison and proving your point, so that we can all see?

    Because, you see, all we have to go on is the version before us now. Which seems fairly uncontroversial, to say the least.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i can't because i do not have the original manuscript.
    the only original part i have are the quotes i copy/pasted and they do not match the the same quotes in manuscript rav provided.
    i suppose there is nothing controversial about that either.

    i would comment on a few things from the above manuscript but as soon as i do i'll be accused of quote mining.
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Well since nothing you've said about the article matches anything the article says, I'd say we simply don't believe you.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Did you get those "unmatching" quotes from a creationist website by any chance?
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    no, they came from the issue stored at jstor.

    edit:
    apparently the issue cannot be bought which probably explains why the link quit working.
    somebody must've hacked the issue from jstor somehow.
     
  12. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Which is more likely, that the pdf has been hacked and seamlessly edited without showing any sign of it, or that leopold is lying?
     
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Why do you doubt it?

    What does "how many times did evolution occur" mean to you?
     
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    If I were a hacker that would be my first target of opportunity

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    first of all it has been clearly established in this very thread that i didn't know about the text until 2 years ago.
    haven't you been following along?
    second, can you point me to the posts or comments i've made that leads you to believe i'm a creationist?
     
  17. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    leopold

    Not really. Given the quality and type of your arguments it's hard to know what, of all that you say, we should take seriously.

    You are using the same false evidence and spurious arguments, making the same claims and displaying the same misunderstandings. Scientists are good at recognizing and classifying things despite the fact that they are not clearly labelled(IE if it walks like a duck...).

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    maybe creationists aren't the idiots you think they are.
    just sayin'.
    i did indeed get the link from a creationist site.
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I did say it was speculation on my part. You have done very little to dispel such speculation, as Grumpy points out.

    But if, as you say, you have only been aware of the report of this conference for 2 years, it is all the more peculiar that you have chosen a 30 year old event to make such a big deal out of, when so much in evolutionary science has moved on since.

    Whilst you are not of course obliged to reveal whether you are a creationist or not, or why you have chose to do this highly peculiar thing, you must recognise that not offering any explanation is going to affect your credibility, as - from other comments in this thread - it is in fact doing.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i'll consider that as a compliment.
    what is there to misunderstand?
    our current understanding is wrong. period.
    current in this context is what is being taught to our students.
    i would say scientists are good about making, and testing, assumptions about things.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Ahhh....I wonder....Leopold, does "ID" mean anything to you?
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    personal identification.
    ID and EGO.
    intelligent design.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    OK. In your opinion, is Intelligent Design creationism, or science?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page