Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 184 (8025 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2014 2:00 AM
171 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Tempe 12ft Chicken (5 members, 166 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Post Volume:
Total: 724,107 Year: 9,948/28,606 Month: 1,638/2,455 Week: 356/592 Day: 1/127 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Author Topic:   Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)
ramoss
Member
Posts: 2722
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


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 responded

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

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1182 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 302 of 346 (471655)
06-17-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Alasdair
06-17-2008 4:58 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
The dating appears forged. Perhaps that's too strong a word. I prefer descriptions lile rampant overstated speculation, but the point is that the data was manipulated to try to bring it in line with evo assumptions, and that's really what this thread is about, not quibbling over whether something should be called a "lie" or "hoax" or "forged" or just overstated, though some things are hoaxes.

The main point is that data is consistently interpreted in a manner to try to fit in with evo theory, causing a severe lack of objectivity in how to just look at the data for itself. Imo, this a major flaw in evo science and these are some examples of it. Some examples are worse than others, of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 4:58 PM Alasdair has not yet responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 4530
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 303 of 346 (471657)
06-17-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Alasdair
06-17-2008 4:58 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
That isn't a forged fossil though. How is scientists arguing over the age of the skull a hoax, a fraud, or dishonest?

Why do you think the skull was reconstructed improperly?

Where does the dishonesty/fraud come into play here?

The issue has become clear: there aren't five forged fossils. All folks can do after Piltdown and Archaeoraptor is pick on generally old, and generally minor, issues -- issues, not forgeries.

The claim over improper reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 involves the angle of the face; if I remember correctly it is attached only at the nasals so there is leeway in the angle, and the original reconstruction was not supported by subsequent analysis.

In other words, science straightened out an error. This has been dishonestly magnified by creationists into a huge blow to the theory of evolution.

(If you got no data supporting your case you gotta do something to keep all of the creationists' disbelief in the theory of evolution going.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 4:58 PM Alasdair has not yet responded

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 304 of 346 (471659)
06-17-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by grandfather raven
06-17-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
I did it GF! Welcome to the fray!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by grandfather raven, posted 06-17-2008 5:09 PM grandfather raven has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by bluegenes, posted 06-17-2008 5:54 PM Dont Be a Flea has responded

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 2033 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 305 of 346 (471661)
06-17-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
The problem is, DbaF, these fossil findings had nothing to do with "proving" evolution, and were never presented as such.

The vast majority of evolutionary theory's evidence has nothing to do with fossils.

It is not dishonest to take the theory of evolution and what we know when interpreting the fossils that we find. When something doesn't fit, you need to investigate further - and they did, leading to the scientists having an argument. That's just using the body of scientific knowledge to help you interpret the evidence presented.

Also, what missing link?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
Explained at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 5:09 PM Dont Be a Flea has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 5:20 PM Alasdair has not yet responded
 Message 308 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 5:33 PM Alasdair has responded
 Message 313 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 5:45 PM Alasdair has not yet responded
 Message 317 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 5:59 PM Alasdair has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1182 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 306 of 346 (471663)
06-17-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by ramoss
06-17-2008 5:12 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
ramoss, evo speculations are passed on as essentially facts all the time. There never was any solid reason for these mistakes. They were overstating the evidence and their case, and this is a real problem in the history of evo science. It becomes difficult, imo, for the data to be viewed objectively for what it is because evos are always trying to make it more than it is and exaggerate their case.

That goes for their logic as well. For example, evos will take something like the peppered-moth story, which wasn't even a factual example as the moths hardly ever rest on trees, and then present it as evidence or as an observation of evolution. In reality, natural selection is not debated, but merely showing natural selection does not show evolution. It was used to bolster a case in a deceptive manner since in reality, besides being bogus science, it really doesn't show anything substantive. Just because natural selection or evolution defined as heritable change happens doesn't mean that evolution as defined by universal common descent via gradualistic means (small changes accumulating) has been shown. They are 2 different things and suggesting since one is observed that the other concept of evolution has been observed is a fallacy, at best, and a deception or delusion at worst.

I think that's what this thread is getting at. We have a long history of absurd overstatements and downright frauds like Haeckel's data, and illogic being passed off as genuine, sound, objective scientific opinion on the facts, and it just isn't so.

Why is that?

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2008 5:12 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2008 5:36 PM randman has responded
 Message 310 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 5:37 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1182 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 307 of 346 (471664)
06-17-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Alasdair
06-17-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
The problem is, DbaF, these fossil findings had nothing to do with "proving" evolution, and were never presented as such.

Open any textbook or any textbook when I went to school and you can see your statement is wrong. Fossil findings are routinely listed as evidence for the theory of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 5:18 PM Alasdair has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2008 5:39 PM randman has responded

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 308 of 346 (471668)
06-17-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Alasdair
06-17-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
It is not dishonest to take the theory of evolution and what we know when interpreting the fossils that we find. When something doesn't fit, you need to investigate further - and they did, leading to the scientists having an argument. That's just using the body of scientific knowledge to help you interpret the evidence presented.

So, in other words, potassium-argon and C-14 dating methods are only accurate and accepted, when the fit the evolutionary mold? WHAT!? Sounds more like when evidence is contrary to Darwinian Evolution, regardless of how accurate it is, it is discarded as not “right”.

This is the type of rationalization that makes me question everything about evolution.

Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : This is post number 69. How Bill and Ted of me!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 5:18 PM Alasdair has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 5:49 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 2722
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


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 responded

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

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 310 of 346 (471671)
06-17-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by randman
06-17-2008 5:19 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
I think that's what this thread is getting at. We have a long history of absurd overstatements and downright frauds like Haeckel's data, and illogic being passed off as genuine, sound, objective scientific opinion on the facts, and it just isn't so.

That is EXACTLY what this thread is getting at!

Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 5:19 PM randman has not yet responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 2722
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


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 responded

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

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1182 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 312 of 346 (471674)
06-17-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by ramoss
06-17-2008 5:39 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
I have noted you do seem to have tunnel vision, and can't read context very well.

Since you guys say the same old crap to everyone that disagrees with you, it's hard to take such comments seriously.

Let's move on to something constructive. Exactly which claim are you referring to, the fact that fossils are used in textbooks as evidence for evolution, or are you talking about peppered moths? Just want to be clear what your stance is, and then we can look at textbooks perhaps.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2008 5:39 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by grandfather raven, posted 06-17-2008 5:50 PM randman has responded

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 313 of 346 (471676)
06-17-2008 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Alasdair
06-17-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
The problem is, DbaF, these fossil findings had nothing to do with "proving" evolution, and were never presented as such.

Hey there Alasdair and ramoss, thought I would post up the very first thing when you google search "evidence of evolution". Enjoy.

How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Number 1. of course in interesting. :-)

Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : I had to add ramoss!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 5:18 PM Alasdair has not yet responded

Alasdair
Member (Idle past 2033 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 314 of 346 (471677)
06-17-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 5:33 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
DbaF, you misinterpreted what the scientists were arguing about.

The original dates do not in any way, shape, or form not match up with the theory of evolution.

What they didn't match up with was the exact details of man's recent evolutionary history.

None of the findings fail to match evolutionary theory as a whole. What you have found are scientists arguing about the details of evolutionary theory, not whether or not it occurred.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 5:33 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

  
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 315 of 346 (471678)
06-17-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by randman
06-17-2008 5:42 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
quote:
Exactly which claim are you referring to, the fact that fossils are used in textbooks as evidence for evolution, or are you talking about peppered moths?

no, it was DbaFlea's claim that the fossils HE listed WERE, and ARE STILL, being used as SPECIFIC evidence for evolution. this has been debunked repeatedly over these 4 pages, yet keeps getting repeated. (which re-raises the question, "why the lies, frauds, and hoaxes?")

nobody has said "no fossils anywhere are ever used as general evidence that evolution happened". that's a straw-man of your own construction

Edited by grandfather raven, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 5:42 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 6:18 PM grandfather raven has responded

RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014