Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2018 11:43 AM
187 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,378 Year: 19,201/29,783 Month: 1,146/2,043 Week: 191/507 Day: 19/83 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 16 of 43 (73943)
12-17-2003 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
12-16-2003 11:54 PM


Re: Which void?
Thank you for your explanation of the larger picture and the smaller picture within, however we are debating ONE solitary issue here.

Did Milton present and use the quote in question out of context ?

Could I get a yes or a no to the following question : Pilbeam's adjective of "meagre" was said to describe the fossil void ?

If yes then which fossil void ? Milton's entire point is to evidence his contention that the transitional evidence is virtually non-existent.

Why can't Pilbeams quote be an honest assessment of the missing link evidence at the time of the quote ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 11:54 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 12-18-2003 12:43 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 17 of 43 (73952)
12-17-2003 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by zephyr
12-17-2003 2:33 PM


I am impressed and stricken with laughter in your ability to paste and cut. I get your point but I truly fail to see how I have done what you are claiming.

Tell you what IF you can IN YOUR OWN WORDS explain my argument in context without cut/paste and then prove how I am in error I will straight out admit defeat and officially withdraw this evidence as some evidence against evolution.

What do you say ?

And NosyNed if you read this then the same applies to you.

And if Zhimbo reads this then the same applies to you.

Just remember my conditions stated above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by zephyr, posted 12-17-2003 2:33 PM zephyr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Traz, posted 12-17-2003 11:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Zhimbo, posted 12-18-2003 5:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
Traz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 43 (73961)
12-17-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
12-17-2003 11:31 PM


quote:
Tell you what IF you can IN YOUR OWN WORDS explain my argument in context without cut/paste and then prove how I am in error I will straight out admit defeat and officially withdraw this evidence as some evidence against evolution.

All right. As far as I can tell, you are arguing the following: When David Pilbeam said there were not enough fossils between eight and four million years ago to reconstruct the path of hominid evolution during that period, that means hominids did not evolve from primates.

You are wrong because eight to four million years ago is not the entire history of hominid evolution; because we also have genetic evidence to go on; and finally because even if humans did not evolve from primates (and you would become famous for proving this, my friend!), you would still have to show that we did not evolve from anything else either.

This has been explained to you already, though, and better at that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-17-2003 11:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 01-15-2004 5:49 PM Traz has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8819
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 19 of 43 (73971)
12-18-2003 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cold Foreign Object
12-17-2003 11:20 PM


Which void?
Could I get a yes or a no to the following question : Pilbeam's adjective of "meagre" was said to describe the fossil void ?

If yes then which fossil void ? Milton's entire point is to evidence his contention that the transitional evidence is virtually non-existent.

I'm not going to go back to reading the original material. Maybe we can do that a bit later.

I do think that the word meagre was intended to apply to a fossil void in the intial raise of the homonid or pre-homonid forms. That is there is a shortage of details at around the time we separated from the line leading to our nearest existing relatives.

However the quote is being "mined" to suggest that there is such a shortage of fossils covering the entire path from clearly non-human but erect homonids to us that the conclusion that we are connected to them is higly suspect or false. This is not true.

You state:

Milton's entire point is to evidence his contention that the transitional evidence is virtually non-existent.

If that is the case then Milton's contention is wrong. Just plain wrong.

Why can't Pilbeams quote be an honest assessment of the missing link evidence at the time of the quote ?

Ah, now this is a little different. The phrase "at the time of..." makes a difference. I don't know what evidence was available "at the time of" the quote. I assume by this you mean that things have changed. At this time the assessment is no longer valid.

Now we have moved the argument from where we started. We started using Milton's quote in support of a lack of transitionals period, full stop.

Now we seem to have decided that there might be transitionals today but not at the time he lifted the quote. Is that where we are now?

(btw while I don't know about things "at the time of" the quote I suspect that the contention of Milton's was still wrong. We'll see about that level of detail in a bit)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-17-2003 11:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 20 of 43 (74154)
12-18-2003 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
12-17-2003 11:31 PM


quote:

I will straight out admit defeat and officially withdraw this evidence as some evidence against evolution.

Yes, yes, I know that's a misleading quotation. Not really my point. I'm just curious what the word "evidence" is supposed to refer to?

Are you implying the the Pilbeam quote is evidence?

Wow.

Other than the fact, that, once again, the quote iss about the details of hominoid evolution, not whether apes and humans had a common ancestor or whether evolution occurs(is this point really so hard to understand?), it's not evidence.

It's somebody opinion. There's a difference. Even if the quote meant what Milton seems to be implying, it still wouldn't be evidence.

If you want to talk about evidence, then talk about the evidence, not someone's cute, secondhand joke about the evidence.

And, finally, once again: If Milton is quoting Pilbeam's opinion, shouldn't it actually reflect Pilbeam's opinion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-17-2003 11:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-19-2003 9:28 PM Zhimbo has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 21 of 43 (74373)
12-19-2003 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Zhimbo
12-18-2003 5:54 PM


Round and round we go.

Can I take a minute here and put everything in chronological order.

Way back in another topic I posted the Leakey/Pilbeam quote as evidence against the claim that the missing link has been found and established the ToE to now be a fact. Actually that was Milton's contention of which I agree with.

Milton/I are saying that the Leakey /Pilbeam quote to be an honest assessment of the amount of evidence that exists in the area called the "fossil void" by Leakey.

Milton/I are saying the Pilbeam quote becomes evidence that there is a meagre amount of total evidence proving the missing link.

I acknowledge that Pilbeam obviously believes that evolution is a fact, however his quote says what it means that there isn't enough evidence to go on and claim victory.

You disagree, and decided to create a topic for debate.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that Pilbeam was not referring to missing link evidence but something else.

I say he was referring to what Leakey called the fossil void and I and Milton say the fossil void in question is the crucial transitional/missing link evidence.

Pilbeam believes evolution to be a fact and the only controversies are minor and theoretical in areas of HOW it happens. I do not question or dispute that. But how does that negate what I believe to be his honest assessment of the fossil void evidence which he described as "meagre".

If you want to claim that he was not referring to the fossil void I am claiming then explain and prove from the text we are using.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Zhimbo, posted 12-18-2003 5:54 PM Zhimbo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 12-19-2003 10:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 29 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-10-2004 6:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8819
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 22 of 43 (74380)
12-19-2003 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
12-19-2003 9:28 PM


Links and Voids
Milton/I are saying the Pilbeam quote becomes evidence that there is a meagre amount of total evidence proving the missing link.

There is a serious misunderstanding between us buried in this sentence. What is this "the" missing link?

A "link" implies two things being joined in some way? What do you think are those two things? Why is it just one link? How many links do you think there are? If more than one, what other things are being joined?

I say he was referring to what Leakey called the fossil void and I and Milton say the fossil void in question is the crucial transitional/missing link evidence.

What fossil void is in question? Could you explain that a bit more?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-19-2003 9:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-20-2003 12:20 AM NosyNed has responded
 Message 31 by traste, posted 02-09-2009 1:07 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 23 of 43 (74395)
12-20-2003 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NosyNed
12-19-2003 10:39 PM


Re: Links and Voids
Yes, the fossil void AKA transitional fossils/bones between ape and upright man.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 12-19-2003 10:39 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 12-20-2003 12:25 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 25 by M82A1, posted 12-20-2003 11:07 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8819
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 43 (74396)
12-20-2003 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object
12-20-2003 12:20 AM


Links and Voids
Uh, there was more than one question in that post. Could you finish up?

Also, "upright man" is what exactly? And "ape" in this context? (note it can't be a chimpanzee ok? )

------------------
Common sense isn't

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-20-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-20-2003 12:20 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
M82A1
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 43 (74421)
12-20-2003 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object
12-20-2003 12:20 AM


Re: Links and Voids
WILLOWTREE writes:

Yes, the fossil void AKA transitional fossils/bones between ape and upright man.

Every fossil is a transitional species because evolution never stops.

------------------
"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-20-2003 12:20 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3015 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 43 (78707)
01-15-2004 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Traz
12-17-2003 11:51 PM


It it possible that Vrba's "pulse" notion has confused the issue of MAMMAL diversification IN AFRICA with primate lineage biogeography. I rarely discuss this topic for that currently "modern" reason. Gould is happy enough to still ask if anyone has any ideas what a dino brain might NOT be and there being little traffic on this there is also less on the new mammal movie at the SMITHSONIAN or the primate "in the audience."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Traz, posted 12-17-2003 11:51 PM Traz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 01-15-2004 6:29 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8819
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 27 of 43 (78714)
01-15-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brad McFall
01-15-2004 5:49 PM


Which reminds me, WillowTree there are still questions here for you.


Common sense isn't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 01-15-2004 5:49 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-25-2004 8:18 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 1798 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 28 of 43 (95998)
03-30-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Cold Foreign Object
12-14-2003 5:27 PM


Theories and Facts
quote:
The first overall context is Milton's CLAIM that there isn't enough hard evidence in existence to remove ToE out of the theory category and into established fact. Part of the basis of this claim is his belief that contrary to popular opinion there is a paucity of transitional bones proving that mankind evolved from an ape/common ancestor. In fact, Milton says the glass case at Kensington is still empty.

Just a reminder. Neo-Darwinian Evolution is not "just" a theory. In science a theory is a generally accepoted best explanation to a problem. Theory has a far stronger meaning in science than in common useage.

Theories do not "grow up" to become facts: they remain provisional, like everything in science including facts.

However, both the fact of evolution and the theory explaining it are amongst the most securely established in science.


For Whigs admit no force but argument.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-14-2003 5:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
SweeneyTodd
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 43 (99127)
04-10-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
12-19-2003 9:28 PM


Quoting Quotes
Willowtree wrote:

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milton/I are saying that the Leakey /Pilbeam quote to be an honest assessment of the amount of evidence that exists in the area called the "fossil void" by Leakey.
-------------------------------------------------------------

So are assessments are honest as long as you agree with them? If someone else's assessment (opinion) is contrary to this one, do you think they are automatically lying?

And I don't know why you keep referring to "claiming victory", as though that is a goal of any of this. Its about understanding and knowledge and science, not about claiming victory.

And yes, you/Milton do seem to be twisting the quote to meet you desired end.

ST


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-19-2003 9:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 30 of 43 (110510)
05-25-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
01-15-2004 6:29 PM


I lost track of this topic when the Forum was reorganized.

What questions remain ?

I thought I won this debate until this moment when I ran into it here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 01-15-2004 6:29 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018