Denial of Evolution VI.

Status
Not open for further replies.
leopold said:
it's been edited.
a comparison of the quotes you referenced earlier will prove it.
Click to expand...

Just one lie after another from leopold.


The outcome of all this was the proposal of a hierarchy of processes and constraints linking possible genotypes
with actual phenotypes: instructions encoded in the genetic library are filtered through a net of developmental constraints,
giving rise to a set of possible phenotypes; it is at this stage that natural selection works, limiting the surviving
phenotypes to those with suitable adaptive features.
Click to expand...
 
Stanley said:
Of course I am aware of at least what a Wikipedia page would state. I am not 100% certain that extinction events have occurred.

If they did occur then how many times did evolution occur given that in all these instances life was by and large unable to survive on Earth.
Click to expand...

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?
 
leopold said:
it's been edited.
a comparison of the quotes you referenced earlier will prove it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
exchemist said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Well since nothing you've said about the article matches anything the article says, I'd say we simply don't believe you.
 
billvon said:
Did you get those "unmatching" quotes from a creationist website by any chance?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Which is more likely, that the pdf has been hacked and seamlessly edited without showing any sign of it, or that leopold is lying?
 
Stanley said:
Of course I am aware of at least what a Wikipedia page would state. I am not 100% certain that extinction events have occurred.
Click to expand...
Why do you doubt it?

If they did occur then how many times did evolution occur given that in all these instances life was by and large unable to survive on Earth.
Click to expand...
What does "how many times did evolution occur" mean to you?
 
AlexG said:
Which is more likely, that the pdf has been hacked and seamlessly edited without showing any sign of it, or that leopold is lying?[/QUOTE

Actually, though it is pure speculation on my part, my hypothesis would be that Leopold got the idea 30 years ago, probably from creationist circles, that this conference somehow blew the theory of "macro" evolution out of the water and he has clung to it ever since without bothering to follow subsequent developments. He's somehow convinced himself over those 30 years that the report of the conference said what he felt it ought to have said. I've sometimes done a similar thing myself - it's just a sign of the imperfection of human memory, I think. Nowadays I have to be damned careful to re-check what I think I have known for years, as sometimes I find my memory has got twisted in some way and I risk making a fool of myself.

It seems to me the big lesson for creationists out of this is that science, unlike religious texts, moves on. It does not matter a damn whether you can find a text, somewhere, that seems to cast doubt on something. What matters is what has happened since and what the state of the art is today. Science is a live thing, not dependent on dusty scripts from history.
Click to expand...
 
exchemist said:
Actually, though it is pure speculation on my part, my hypothesis would be that Leopold got the idea 30 years ago, probably from creationist circles, . . .
Click to expand...
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?
 
leopold

first of all it has been clearly established in this very thread that i didn't know about the text until 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

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.

second, can you point me to the posts or comments i've made that leads you to believe i'm a creationist?
Click to expand...

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:cool:
 
leopold said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grumpy said:
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.
Click to expand...
i'll consider that as a compliment.
You are using the same false evidence and spurious arguments, making the same claims and displaying the same misunderstandings.
Click to expand...
what is there to misunderstand?
our current understanding is wrong. period.
current in this context is what is being taught to our students.
Scientists are good at recognizing and classifying things despite the fact that they are not clearly labelled(IE if it walks like a duck...).
Click to expand...
i would say scientists are good about making, and testing, assumptions about things.
 
leopold said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ahhh....I wonder....Leopold, does "ID" mean anything to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top