Denial of Evolution VI.

[leopold]

What you set out to argue, clearly and explicitly, was that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" (as you called the process) . . .

uh, wrong.
macroevolution was mention specifically in the article.
it was NOT my choice of words.

. . . did not account for the emergence of different "kinds" of organism.

yes, that's basically what the article alludes to.

You claimed support for that assertion from the many scientists at this one conference.

that's what the article suggested.

That's called denial of evolution, for short, around here.

it all came from the article in question, published in a respected source.

 

[billvon]

What you set out to argue, clearly and explicitly, was that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" (as you called the process) did not account for the emergence of different "kinds" of organism.

uh, wrong.
macroevolution was mention specifically in the article.
it was NOT my choice of words.

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.

 

[spidergoat]

yes, could be.



yes, i know.



I'm not a fan of the huffington post, but i thought this article was really well done.
i hope you all choose to read it; it's interesting.
read the WHOLE thing, too...don't skim, pls.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepa...-qualia-the-mystery-of-reality_b_2118820.html

EWwwww, you got Chopra all over this thread. Disgusting. And sticky.

 

[wegs]

EWwwww, you got Chopra all over this thread. Disgusting. And sticky.

Lol @ "sticky"

You are too silly.

 

[leopold]

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.

wrong again.
macroevolution and microevolution were both used in the article, and yes i do agree with the scientists conclusions.

 

[Grumpy]

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

 

[Trippy]

wrong again.
macroevolution and microevolution were both used in the article, and yes i do agree with the scientists conclusions.

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.

 

[iceaura]

macroevolution and microevolution were both used in the article, and yes i do agree with the scientists conclusions

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?

 

[leopold]

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.

i understood his post perfectly.

 

[leopold]

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.

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.

 

[rpenner]

i understood his post perfectly.

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.

 

[billvon]

macroevolution and microevolution were both used in the article, and yes i do agree with the scientists conclusions.

OK, I take that back. You are not backing down and you haven't learned anything.

 

[iceaura]

i see.
so, this article can use them but i cannot?
uh, huh.

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.

 

[billvon]

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.

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."

 

[Trippy]

i understood his post perfectly.

I see no evidence to support this assertion.

 

[Trippy]

i'm also keeping in mind the article posted by RAV doesn't come from jstor but from keepandshare.

Are you accusing Rav of altering the article??

 

[leopold]

That is an extremely dubious claim when you have not understood the 1980 news article,

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".

you have not understood the scientific papers of those that attended the 1980 conference, . . .

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.

you misunderstand scientific thinking to the point of depending on only one account of the 1980 conference,

i acknowledge no other account than what is published in science in regards to this article.

you cannot explain why the 1980 conference had no change on the status of evolution anytime in the past thirty years,

no, i can't explain this.

you cannot write a thesis on what your position is,

i do not need a thesis, i presented the article for argument.

and you invent conspiracy theories of people changing historical documents when reality doesn't match your expectations.

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).

 

[Aqueous Id]

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?

 

[Trippy]

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.

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.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

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 conference. 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, criticising the authors reports.

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.