Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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)
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 53 of 346 (469332)
06-05-2008 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by molbiogirl
06-05-2008 3:15 AM


Scientists fudge data. And get away with it.
I know your right here but I think Percy's point is still valid in the end. The only research in which this can happen and people get away with it in the long term is research so insignificant and peripheral that no one will ever replicate the experiment or in any way test the system in a way which would reveal the data to be inconsistent.
This doesn't mean that intentional fraud will be the conclusion in such cases but it does mean that fradulent data will have little significant impact in the long term.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 06-05-2008 3:15 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by molbiogirl, posted 06-05-2008 4:33 AM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 173 of 346 (470412)
06-11-2008 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by randman
06-11-2008 1:57 AM


Re: The evolution side has admitted that Haeckel's efforts were a blotch
No, but I do think it should create doubt, not on evo theory per se but on the scientific community of evos in regard to the evidence for evolution. In other words, the whole affair says something about how facts and evidence are used in regard to evolution by evos.
Or by textbook writers perhaps? Why not show us something in the primary literature from the last 30 years which uses Haeckel's embryological series as evidence for something.
Textbooks are notoriously slow at being updated and revised. That said there was still no reason to use Haeckel's series in the first place other than sheer laziness.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 1:57 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by BeagleBob, posted 06-11-2008 11:27 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 176 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 1:03 PM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 188 of 346 (470735)
06-12-2008 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by randman
06-11-2008 1:03 PM


Re: The evolution side has admitted that Haeckel's efforts were a blotch
What about them? Neither of them constitute the use of Haeckel's embryological drawings as evidence in the scientific literature. Richardson stating that they are evidence is not the same thing at all, especially not when it was part of a review specifically on Haeckel's embryos.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 1:03 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 2:09 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 252 of 346 (471525)
06-17-2008 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 9:47 AM


Inorganic to organic? Sorted
but even under the most controlled experiments, they could not reproduce organic material from inorganic.
Yes, they could. I think you are confusing organic material with organic life. Did you mean that they couldn't produce rudimentary living organisms or a full complement of organic material that might be needed for living organisms?
To claim that they could not produce organic compounds from inorganic elements is simply to deny the well documented results of the experiments.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. I'm not sure why you think experimental controls would make the creation of anything more likely, all controls tend to do is show you if your results are the products of experimental artifacts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 9:47 AM Dont Be a Flea has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 10:52 AM Wounded King has replied
 Message 260 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 11:19 AM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 256 of 346 (471535)
06-17-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 10:52 AM


Re: Inorganic to organic? Sorted
Your reply bears no relevance to anything from my post. Do you still claim that there are no experiments showing organic material being generated from inorganic material?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 10:52 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 264 of 346 (471545)
06-17-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 11:19 AM


Re: Inorganic to organic? Sorted
Scientist were trying numerous experiments to make “living” organic material from “non-living” inorganic material in a man-made, controlled environment.
I find it hard believe that is really what any of those experiments were trying to do. Can you provide any actual examples of this?
PZ myers blogged recently about what I think must be the same documentary and I don't see how you can be describing the same things.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 11:19 AM Dont Be a Flea 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