Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 141 of 346 (469765)
06-07-2008 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dont Be a Flea
06-07-2008 12:14 AM


Well, if you don't want to be called ignorant, at least learn about what you are opposing, and give valid arguments against what it really is, rather than a creationist stereotype that has nothing to do with what the TOE says at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-07-2008 12:14 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 210 of 346 (470964)
06-13-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by randman
06-11-2008 4:54 PM


Re: btw.....why didn't they know?
Hum. I wonder why you didn't read the paragraph of the paper you studied
Didn't you see
quote:
Haeckel’s ideas soon came in for strong criticism. His
drawings are also highly inaccurate, exaggerating the
similarities among embryos, while failing to show the
differences
THat is the paper you linked to that you seemed to think proved your point, yet, if you read the paper, it says the exact opposite
of your claim. That is YOUR source paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 4:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 5:25 PM ramoss has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 223 of 346 (471103)
06-14-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by randman
06-13-2008 5:25 PM


Re: btw.....why didn't they know?
Doh.. didn't you read it. Are you that blind that you can not understand what is being said?
It is not the diagram that matters. Yes,the old diagrams were exaggerated, yes, the main idea the diagrams were drawn were falsified within the lifetime of the person who drew them, but a very valid principle remains. Embryology DOES indeed provide evidence for evolution. It is the embryos that do, not the diagram. Richardson was pointing out that even the concept that the drawings were meant to represent were incorrect, the various stages an embryo goes through do indeed constitutes evidence for evolution. The data isn't falsified, since the data is the embryos themselves. You are mixing up the map from the territory. The drawings are not the embryo.
The specific errors that were included in the drawing were pointed out, but that does not mean that all the features of the embryo were false, just exaggerated.
The question remains why you misrepresent what is provided. You claim that they said the drawings are the data, while they do not. WHy are you misrpresenting them? Curious minds want to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 5:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by randman, posted 06-14-2008 3:49 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 227 of 346 (471110)
06-14-2008 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by randman
06-14-2008 3:46 PM


Re: Haeckels Folly
However,
One thing have not pointed out in Von Baer's paper is the conclusion where he said that this points to an intelligent designer. He said seperatly that he considers it evidence, but did he state that in the article, and did he back up that opinion with hard facts, and point things out that are hard fact that makes that statement testable?
Scientists can have religious beliefs too, and sometimes it corrosponds to something similar to what they are working on.
A lot of cosmologists have turned into Hindus because of the perceived
similarities between some cosmology theories and Hindu myths. That does not mean Hinduism is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by randman, posted 06-14-2008 3:46 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by randman, posted 06-14-2008 3:59 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 289 of 346 (471627)
06-17-2008 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 11:09 AM


Re: Flea bitten
How is quoting biblical quotes in science class, and trying to equate evolution and planned parent hood to nazism a new theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 11:09 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 291 of 346 (471634)
06-17-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 3:57 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
That is perfectly fine. But are you using accurate information to 'question' evolution is the concern. When it was pointed out to you that the source you used about the Nebraska man was inaccurate, and misrepresented things, you ignored that, and merely repeated the incorrect information.
If you are going to be questioning evolution, don't you think you should at least be using accurate information, and addressing what evolution actually says, rather than a straw man attack on an 85 year old error that was never really accepted by the scientific community to begin with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 3:57 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 294 of 346 (471641)
06-17-2008 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by randman
06-17-2008 4:30 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
No, it was not used in the scopes trial at all. As a matter of fact, the original scientist who initially made the incorrect identification was having strong doubts about it, and was no longer discussing it in papers by the time the scopes trial happened. He originally identified it in 1922 as hominid, but by the scopes trial (july 1925), was already having second thoughts.
In 1924, this footnote appeared in the book "Human Origins" by George Maccardy
quote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."
That shows that Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community. One person's mistake that is not accepted does not make either a good lie , fraud or hoax. On the other hand, creationist
use of the Nebraska man has shown much dishonesty in the representation of it, including such web sights 'Answers in Genesis' to this very day. The fact they have to jump on one honest mistake (which never was accepted by the scientific community) and blow it out of proportion and misrepresent it says a lot about the strength of their case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 4:30 PM randman has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 297 of 346 (471644)
06-17-2008 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 4:52 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
Rampant over speculation,for something the mistake of one person that never was accepted?? Surely you jest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 4:52 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 301 of 346 (471654)
06-17-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by randman
06-17-2008 4:55 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
That sounds like a like of hokey misrepresentation of the facts to me.
It, actually is a good way that scientists will take further information and reevaluate their initial impression. The fact that when a full jawbone was discovered they changed their mind shows the strength of being able to admit you are wrong. It does look that Yayhah is greatly overstating the case, and misrepresenting on the impact the scientific reevaluation had on the TOE (absolutely none).
It also points out the similarities between hominids and other great apes. This shows it is it not a lie, a fraud or a hoax. An error that was reevaluated with further information , yes, but it had very little impact if any on the TOE.
Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 4:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 5:19 PM ramoss has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 309 of 346 (471670)
06-17-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by randman
06-17-2008 5:19 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
Overstatements?? That sounds like a real real big overstatement to me.
It sounds like you are trying to blow things out of proportion.
As for the peppered moth, yes, they pinned a moth to the tree to show the contrast. OF course, it is very difficult to get moths to stand still for a photography session. Experiment after experment has shown the peppered moth conclusions to be totally correct. To say other wise is incorrect.
Here is a little article about it. from Talk origins.
quote:
1. Although the experiments were not perfect, they were not fatally flawed. Even though Kettlewell released his moths in daylight when a night release would have been more true to nature, he used the same procedure in areas that differed only in the amount of industrial pollution, showing conclusively that industrial pollution was a factor responsible for the difference in predation between color varieties. Similar arguments can be made for all other experiments. Although no experiment is perfect (nor can be), even imperfect experiments can give supporting or disconfirming evidence. In the case of peppered moths, many experiments have been done, and they all support the traditional story (Grant 1999).
2. Even without the experiments, the peppered moth story would be well established. Peppered moth melanism has both risen and fallen with pollution levels, and they have done so in many sites on two continents (Cook 2003; Grant 1999).
3. The peppered moth story is consistent with many other experiments and observations of crypsis and coloration in other species. For example, bird predation maintains the colorations of Heliconius cydno, which has different coloration in different regions, in both regions mimicking a noxious Heliconius species (Kapan 2001). Natural selection acting on the peppered moth would be the parsimonious hypothesis even if there were no evidence to support it.
4. The peppered moth story is not simple. The full story as it is known today fills thousands of pages of journal articles. Familiarity with the literature and with the moths in the field is needed to evaluate all the articles. But the research and the debates over its implications have all been done in the open. Charges of fraud and misconduct stem from neglect and misrepresentation of the research by the people making the charges (Grant 2000). Of those familiar with the literature, none doubt that bird predation is of primary importance in the changing frequencies of melanism in peppered moths (Majerus 1999).
In teaching any subject to beginners, simplifying complex topics is proper. The peppered moth story is a valuable tool for helping students understand how nature really works. Teachers would be right to omit the complexities from the story if they judged that their students were not yet ready for that higher level of learning (Rudge 2000).
Now, if you use this supposed example again, I will know you are using
'willful ignorance' because of a religious prejudice against science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 5:19 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 6:08 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 311 of 346 (471673)
06-17-2008 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by randman
06-17-2008 5:20 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
When I went to school, it wasn't. I have yet to see any textbook that makes the claim you said it made.
Give me a direct example.. show me the book, and page number.. then i can look at your claim in context. I have noted you do seem to have tunnel vision, and can't read context very well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 5:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 5:42 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 338 of 346 (471722)
06-17-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 6:41 PM


Re: Misleading Flea, with a misleading O.P.!!
Please provide evidence it was used in the scopes trial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 6:41 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by grandfather raven, posted 06-17-2008 8:05 PM ramoss has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024