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
    uh, wrong.
    macroevolution was mention specifically in the article.
    it was NOT my choice of words.
    yes, that's basically what the article alludes to.
    that's what the article suggested.
    it all came from the article in question, published in a respected source.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,597
    Your own words:

    "no, the scientists were right in their conclusions, there are gaps in the record (possibly explained), and the process of microevolution cannot be extrapolated to macroevolution."

    This was not a quote from the article. These were your own words, stating that you agree with the scientists, and that the process of microevolution cannot be extrapolated to macroevolution.

    If you are backing down from that - good! Something learned.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Lol @ "sticky"

    You are too silly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    wrong again.
    macroevolution and microevolution were both used in the article, and yes i do agree with the scientists conclusions.
     
  9. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    wegs

    Er...discussing Chopra's, er...rhetoric in scientific circles is considered a faux pas. Nothing he has ever said, on any subject, can be considered scientifically valid(or even remotely congruent to reality)and even most philosophers consider him, er...eccentric at best(and a charlaton at worst). He is my least favorite, er...pundit, highly overrated and not worthy of the respect he is shown. I think he is the worst of the "New Age" drivel of the last couple of decades, and though I'm sure he is a wonderful party guest, witty and entertaining, I would love to take a filet knife to his spiritual psycobabble(in a polite way, of course). He reminds me of the swamis of his native India, false spirituality in the name of fleecing the flock(something Deepak has gotten very rich doing, by the way). What Peggy Noonan is to political punditry, Chopra is to spiritual punditry, vapid word salad ponderously presented as deep thought. But otherwise I'm sure he is a wonderful person.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Did you read Billvon's post before you replied? Or did you just react to keywords in it?

    The post isn't that long. Perhaps you should go back and re-read it, make sure you understand it and try replying again? Preferably with something coherrent.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You used the words on your own, to make your own assertions and arguments. As you used them, right here, the use constituted a denial of Darwinian evolution's role in the origin of the species - hence its labeling on this forum.

    This assertion of yours was not a "conclusion" of the scientists at the conference you referenced second hand via unreliable journalism, or any other bona fide scientists at any other conference I know of. But that is not relevant anyway, since the poster on this thread making the arguments and assertions and so forth is you. When those scientists show up here and deny evolution as you have, their threads will be labeled as this one is. Deal?
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i understood his post perfectly.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i see.
    so, this article can use them but i cannot?
    uh, huh.

    i'm also keeping in mind the article posted by RAV doesn't come from jstor but from keepandshare.
     
  14. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    That is an extremely dubious claim when you have not understood the 1980 news article, you have not understood the scientific papers of those that attended the 1980 conference, you misunderstand scientific thinking to the point of depending on only one account of the 1980 conference, you cannot explain why the 1980 conference had no change on the status of evolution anytime in the past thirty years, you cannot write a thesis on what your position is, and you invent conspiracy theories of people changing historical documents when reality doesn't match your expectations.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,597
    OK, I take that back. You are not backing down and you haven't learned anything.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Nobody is saying you can't use them. I use them myself. Use them how and for what, is the matter at hand.

    I'm just pointing out that you used them to deny Darwinian evolutionary theory. That's more or less what the article used them for, as well, a bit less obviously, and like you it attempted to palm off that usage on an invented authority of "scientists" by consensus coming to "conclusions" at a conference, but your use of them is nobody's responsibility but your own. No article, conference, or media event in general, forces you to post denials of Darwinian evolutionary theory on this forum if you don't want to.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,597
    Agreed. But they do allow people who want to deny evolution to hide behind a facade of respectability. "Look, I'm not denying evolution - it's these really, really smart people who are doing it! I don't have to defend anything I am saying because these smart people are saying something that I think is similar."
     
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I see no evidence to support this assertion.
     
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Are you accusing Rav of altering the article??
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i understand what it says.
    i understand it was published in a respected source by a prolific science writer, among his works "bones of contention".
    a transcript of the conference was never presented so i can't say what all the evidence available was.
    it isn't even mentioned directly on what the conclusion was based on although it HAS to be the fossil record.
    i acknowledge no other account than what is published in science in regards to this article.
    no, i can't explain this.
    i do not need a thesis, i presented the article for argument.
    i mentioned a fact when i said the article RAV posted doesn't come from jstor, it doesn't come directly from the servers at NAS (or whoever it is).
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    leopold,

    Two questions:

    (1) Is there any reason to doubt the content of the Lewin article? Wasn't this cleared up long ago?

    (2) How do you reconcile your characterizations of what was said against the illustration on the next page of that same article?
     
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    So then, what you're saying is that you have never done any research for yourself into what was actually discussed at the conference or what papers were actualy presented at the conferece.

    In addition to that you choose to ignore or disregard the letters published by the same journal, addressing the news editorial you have been relying on, *written by other participants of the same conference, criticising the authors reporting.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2013
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Isn't it time that we stopped taking Leopold seriously? He has no concept of what science and scholarship are actually about. He just randomly finds interesting little snippets that seem to validate his own fairytales, and presents them as though he has actually performed some research.

    This is not even quaternary research: pulling stuff out of Wikipedia, which at least has a 95% probability of being correct. Especially the articles I wrote.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page