Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 173 (131962)
08-09-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DarkStar
08-09-2004 3:06 AM


My first reaction upon seeing your Darwin quote was, "I bet Darwin wasn't talking about evolution." Turns out I was right, and then Crash uncovers that he wasn't measuring his "speculations" against modern scientific practice, but against Baconian standards.
After all this time, I still don't understand the Creationist fascination with quotes, and I especially don't understand their unquestioning acceptance as genuine and accurate any quote by a famous evolutionist disavowing his own science.
Hey, DarkStar, get a load of this quote:
When design theorists refer to a "designer" or "designing intelligence," and thus avoid explicitly referring to God, they are merely engaged in a rhetorical ploy.
   -William Dembski, famous Creationist, in The Design Revolution
Anyone can play this silly game. What you want to do is get rid of your silly Fred Williams avatar, stop quote mining, and start discussing actual issues.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DarkStar, posted 08-09-2004 3:06 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 4:25 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 65 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 7:40 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 173 (133171)
08-12-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by DarkStar
08-11-2004 10:40 PM


DarkStar writes:
Not only is evolution a medieval belief, it is an ancient one.
Evolution is generally thought of as a modern theory, though the idea of life changing over time can be traced to around 600 B.C.
A particular school of Greek philosophy developed a theory of atomics as well as an evolutionary theory, both of which can be closely compared to our modern day theories.
http://library.thinkquest.org/18757/historyofevolution.htm
There are at least a couple major problems with this argument. First, the Medieval period didn't begin until at least 500 AD. One of the reasons this period is also referred to as the Dark Ages is because it wasn't informed by ancient Greek learning. There was no theory of evolution in the Medieval period. It wasn't until the Enlightenment, around 1500 AD, that Greek learning was rediscovered.
The second major problem is that the Greeks didn't have a theory of evolution. What your passage is probably referring to is Aristotle's Chain of Being, but he believed in the fixity of species.
I have never understood how the two, origins of life and origins of species, can be separated.
The problem of transitions is not unique to biology. When do hills become mountains? When do harbors become seas? When do boys become men? There's rarely a clear line of demarcation.
For abiogenesis and evolution the question is when does non-life become life? The answer is, "We don't know." Since we don't know the details of the process of how life arose, we can't examine the transitional stages and make a judgment, because we have no idea what those transitional stages were.
We also separate abiogenesis and evolution because the modern synthetic theory of evolution (meaning the synthesis in the 1920's between evolution and genetics) is based upon DNA, and though we can't know for sure, it's generally believed the first life did not use DNA. Certainly it was much more chemical than biological.
There's also a class of Creationist who believes God created the first life, but then evolution produced the sequence of species that came after. This view requires a separation of the origin of life, a divine work, from the origin of species, a natural process.
That simply is not true. Darwins own little piece of the pie may date back to that point but to claim that Darwin suddenly came up with this idea out of the blue, and that nothing that he claimed had ever been claimed before is to simply attempt to rewrite history.
The concept of evolution is not attributed to Darwin. Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, embraced the concept, as did Lamarck. Darwin's unique contribution were the concepts of natural selection and descent with modification.
Now when I speak so negatively about the theory of evolution, it must be understood that I am only referring to the myth of macroevolution and not the well established fact of microevolution.
Once again you've encountered the issues of transitions and boundaries. How does an organism's genome "know" when it has experienced as much microevolution as is permitted, so that it is unable to evolve any further from the central core "kind"?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by DarkStar, posted 08-11-2004 10:40 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 9:40 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 68 of 173 (134161)
08-15-2004 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by DarkStar
08-15-2004 7:40 PM


I hope there's a good reason for backing up the discussion to reply to posts from page 1 of this thread.
DarkStar writes:
This gives the impression that both you and crash have read the full text of the letter in question. If so, would one of you please provide a link to the site where said letter may be found. Until I have had the opportunity to read the letter in full, I must accept that Darwin was indeed referring to his own ideas concerning evolution as being beyond the bounds of true science.
Asgara posted this link in Message 57, but it doesn't seem to be the right letter as it doesn't contain your quote:
I poked around a bit on the Internet and found numerous site's with the quote, mostly Creationist, but not a single link to the orginal letter. Maybe Asgara can dig it out.
But just what are you trying to prove? That Darwin didn't think his ideas were scientific? Darwin's comments in that letter are in the context of Baconian science, a limited definition which emphasizes experimentation. By the standard's of Darwin's day and of today, his work was excellent science. Do you really think Darwin disparaged his own life's work?
I remain intensely curious about the Creationist credulity when it comes to evolutionary scientists disavowing evolution. If even scientists don't accept evolution and say so publicly in their writings, then why is evolution as firmly ensconced in the halls of science as ever? For some reason I don't understand, it is very rare to see a Creationist say to himself, "Hmmm, this webpage quotes evolutionists saying evolution is wrong or flawed. Does it make really sense that evolutionary scientists would be saying these things?"
But what does it matter what Darwin thought of his work. Today we consider his work scientific, and we've built upon his initial ideas of natural selection and descent with modification, combining them with genetic theory to form the modern synthetic theory of evolution. Even if it were a known fact that Darwin believed evolution unscientific, today we would simply say he was wrong to think so.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 7:40 PM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 08-15-2004 8:18 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 75 of 173 (134192)
08-15-2004 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DarkStar
08-15-2004 9:40 PM


DarkStar writes:
There are at least a couple of major problems with your argument. You offer no support for your contention that there was no theory of evolution in the Medieval period...
I don't think you'll find any theories of evolution in Europe during the Dark Ages. The church, so dominant in Medieval life, was resistant to anything that contradicted accepted church doctrine. I don't know why you're pushing this point, because it was originally Nasa who made this "Medieval belief" claim in Message 22:
Nasa writes:
Evolution is a Medieval belief!
It was once believed flies arose from rotting flesh. Frogs from wet mud. Mice from wheat.
As Pink Sasquatch pointed out in his reply in Message 28, what Nasa is describing is spontaneous generation, not evolution. Spontaneous generation definitely *was* a Medieval belief.
...and you seem to have concluded that only the Greeks would have a recorded history of evolutionary thinking.
I mentioned only the Greeks because your Answers In Genesis quote mentioned only the Greeks. I definitely don't believe as you describe me here that the Greeks recorded a "history of evolutionary thinking." I don't think the speculations of the Greek philosophers mentioned by Answers In Genesis come close to approximating Darwin's theory, and none enter into the realm of evidence-based argument.
Though the theory of evolution was not as widely taught as it is today, many tribes and cultures continued to hold to a belief in evolution before, during, and after the Medieval period.
You follow this with lengthy excerpts from Answers In Genesis to support the claim that the concept of evolution preexisted Darwin, but it wasn't necessary to do this because I already know the concept of evolution didn't originate with Darwin, and I told you that in my previous message. I cited Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck as examples of prominent scientists who accepted evolution before Darwin.
What *did* originate with Darwin were the combining of the concepts of natural selection and descent with modification into a theoretical explanation for the origin of new species, and his book provided a wealth of support in the form of evidence gathered during his years of research as a naturalist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 9:40 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 08-15-2004 11:05 PM Percy has replied
 Message 83 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 11:49 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 79 of 173 (134204)
08-15-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
08-15-2004 11:05 PM


Percy, would you say that Darwin's contribution was the synthesis of methodology, where he offered the best (at least so far) explaination of the mechanisms involved?
I guess I see Darwin as being the first to propose mechanisms that satisfactorily explained how evolution happened. In that sense I guess they were the best, but stating it that way minimizes how poor the previously offered explanations were, such as Lamarck's idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Another critical contribution of Darwin's that hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread is his understanding of the importance of variation within a population.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 08-15-2004 11:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 08-15-2004 11:36 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 90 of 173 (134388)
08-16-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by DarkStar
08-15-2004 11:11 PM


DarkStar writes:
Science seems to agree with me as evidenced by the thousands of quotes by scientists that support my view while condemning yours.
So in your view, science agrees with you that macroevolution is a myth, and you're just trying to convince a few stubborn holdouts here at EvC Forum to accept the scientific viewpoint. But what happens when you measure this perspective against the real world? Can you go to the library and find books by evolutionists who don't accept macroevolution? No, you can't. Can you go to natural history museums and find displays consistent with the view that macroevolution doesn't happen? No, you can't. Can you find descriptions in the popular press about the increasing numbers of scientists who are discarding the possibility of macroevolution? No, you can't.
Thus, your quotes are painting a picture that is contradicted by what is going on in the real world. On this basis alone they should be considered suspect, but there's the additional evidence of the many quotes that have already been tracked down and been found false or misleading, not only here and at other discussion boards, but also in the easier-to-search TalkOrigins archive.
It would be a very interesting exercise, were someone here willing to take it on, to track down those quotes whose original context can be found and examine the truth of the many quotes of this nature from Creationist websites, but to what end? You can claim all you like that scientists now reject macroevolution, but for some reason the only place where they can be found uttering words to this effect is at Creationist websites. In all other venues they are as supportive of macroevolution as ever.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by DarkStar, posted 08-15-2004 11:11 PM DarkStar has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 95 of 173 (135221)
08-19-2004 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by DarkStar
08-18-2004 9:16 PM


Re: one good turn deserves another...
Hi, DarkStar!
Since just like Fred you're so fond of fairytales, I thought I'd post this copy of Message 11 from a couple years ago. Enjoy!
--Percy

Randy writes:
So Fred again says that evolution is a fairy tale. Hmm. What are some things we might find in fairy tales?
Fairytales often have talking animals like perhaps a talking snake? Does evolution say that a snake could talk? Or is that a claim from Biblical literalists like Fred?
How about Sons of God mating with daughters of men to produce giants in the earth? Is that a claim of science or is it found in the Bible? Sounds like a fairytale to me.
How about a person changing into something like stone or maybe a pillar of salt? I don’t remember reading about this happening in a science textbook but you find similar themes in many fairytales.
How about people living to great ages? Does evolution say that people used to live 6 or even 9 hundred years or is that fairy tale found somewhere else?
How about someone surviving in the belly of a whale or was it a great fish? I remember seeing something like that in some Disney movie on a fairytale and reading about Jonah in the Bible but I don’t think you’ll find it in a biology text.
How about someone stopping the sun? I don't think any science text says that such a thing could happen but it could happen in a fairytale.
How about representatives of all the animals on earth going to one place two by two to get on a boat for a yearlong ride with a 600 year old man and his family and then repopulating the entire earth? That sure sounds like a fairy tale to me.
So just try to keep straight who is really pushing the fairytales around here.
Of course Fred knows full well that evolution could be falsified. He just can't deal with the facts that evolution has not been falsified and is continually strengthened by new research while young earth creationism has been falsified for about 200 years. What makes it worse for him and other YECs is that the original falsifiers of the young earth myth started out sharing it. However, they were honest scientists and realized that their data didn't fit their myth. YECs have taken a big step backwards in deciding to accept the myth and reject the data.
You can look at a thread on another part of the board to see some of Fred's nonsense about the fossil record being trounced. I am surprised he keeps bringing this up since the fossil record so clearly falsifies the flood myth.
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Information -->http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information< !--UE-->
and you can look at the section on dating and ask some questions if you want to see Fred's claims about dating refuted.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by DarkStar, posted 08-18-2004 9:16 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by DarkStar, posted 08-19-2004 9:34 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 120 of 173 (135618)
08-20-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by DarkStar
08-19-2004 9:34 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Hi DarkStar!
Leaving aside the inaccuracies for the moment, how can you equate a list of things science rejects, such as Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, with a list of things that Creationists embrace, such as talking snakes, people turning into pillars of salt, and the sun stopping in the sky?
Reviewing your list now...
You remember, stories like the piltdown man, (that was a good one)...
Someone definitely committed fraud in this case. As has already been explained in detail, some suspected fraud from the beginning, and scientists proved it a fraud in the 1950's when the fossils finally became available for detailed study after the death of Woodward.
...and the nebraska man, (almost busted a gut laughing about that one).
With all the information you've been provided, you still think this is an example of scientific fraud?
And lets not forget about Lucy...
Lucy is a genuine Australopithicus afarensis skeleton.
Then there is my personal favorite, the infamous peppered moths. That one just goes to show that the macroevolution myth believers have a wonderful imagination. Too bad they have such a disdain for true science.
The peppered moth is not an example of macroevolution. It's an example of the influence of environmental changes on allele frequency within a species.
Of course we can never forget the one about the skull that was found in Spain in 1984. It was touted as the oldest known example of man found so far in Eurasia. Unfortunately for the macroevolution myth believing spinmasters, this skull was actually shown to be that of a young donkey. Shades of Pinnochio!
You're referring to Orce Man, identified by a single skull fragment. A couple Internet articles give a year of discovery of 1982, so you might have the year wrong. Anyway, even after all these years there is still no scientific consensus about Orce Man. As one article I read states, normally this much attention wouldn't be given an ambiguous fragment, but in this case it might be the earliest hominid found in Europe. Anyway, there's no fraud here.
Oh, and let's not leave out the beautiful story that was propagated in 1983 where an American anthropologist claimed to have found the collarbone of a prehistoric man, an amazing discovery to be sure, especially when one considers that it actually turned out to be nothing more than the rib bone of a dolphin.
I could find no non-Creationist information on this one. The Creationist accounts say that Dr. Noel Boaz mistakenly identified a dolphin rib as a human collarbone, and the mistake was brought to public attention by Tim White, a paleontologist at UC Berkeley.
No scientist today accepts Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man or Boaz's dolphin bone. Scientists *do* overwhelmingly accept Lucy, and you've raised no points here that would cast doubt on her authenticity. The Peppered Moth experiments had flaws that probably mean that predation can not be considered as positively identified as the cause of the color changes, but the correlation of color changes with environmental changes is not in doubt. And Orce Man is still in dispute, with some scientists believing it hominid and some not.
What we have here is a record of scientists analyzing and following the evidence. The hominid fossil record is extremely extensive and very genuine. While scientists can understandably disagree about the species of a single skull fragment, there are simply far too many hominid remains that are much more extensive, in some cases fairly complete skeletons, to cast any doubt that they are hominids. Scientists also disagree about how to organize these fossil remains into species, and how these species fall on the human ancestral tree.
Summarizing, the point of the message I quoted was that Creationists accept as true many things for which there is no evidence, which violate common sense or known laws of physics, and which have a fairytale-like nature. You responded as if to trying to prove that scientists do the same, but clearly that is not the case.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by DarkStar, posted 08-19-2004 9:34 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by DarkStar, posted 08-20-2004 10:38 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 123 of 173 (135765)
08-20-2004 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by DarkStar
08-19-2004 10:13 PM


Re: Last warning!
DarkStar writes:
I have attempted to get this thread back on track, which is supposed to be a discussion about why so many evolution scientists make so many condemnatory statements concerning the theory of evolution, and yet seemingly still support the theory.
The explanation has already been provided for you. It's the same explanation about why your video shows scientists saying things that are not reflected in anything they write, and why you cannot find these scientists saying the things you claim anywhere but on your video.
People do not decide to become practicing scientists in fields they believe are bunk. They especially don't write papers that conflict with their personally held beliefs. Atheists don't become priests, and Creationists don't become practicing paleontologists. There does not exist a large community of scientists issuing derogatory comments about their own science.
It is very common for religious people to seek a church with a message that speaks to them and resonates within them. Religious communities are receptive to revelatory forms of communication such as sermons and passages from the Bible. Contrivers of the alleged quotes of scientists are preying upon this susceptibility. Sometimes the quotes are fictional, other times they are accurate but out of context. Even arch anti-Creationist Stephen Jay Gould has been quoted by Creationists as being anti-evolution.
If I told you the Pope said, "Martin Luther was right," you'd be certain right away that something was fishy, not because you're Catholic, but simply because this is just something the leader of the Catholic church would never say. So even if you yourself are convinced evolution isn't scientific, why don't you think it's pretty fishy when someone claims Darwin didn't think it was scientific?
The mystery here isn't why so many supporters of evolution condemn it. The mystery is why you believe something so ridiculous.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 08-20-2004 05:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by DarkStar, posted 08-19-2004 10:13 PM DarkStar has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 134 of 173 (135912)
08-21-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by DarkStar
08-20-2004 10:38 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Hi DarkStar,
Did you miss Message 123?
I don't really claim that honest scientists supported what were obvious frauds, only that many laypeople and some disingenuous scientists were very quick to jump on any bandwagon that seemed to support the myth of macroevolution.
Your main assertion in this thread is that even scientists don't accept macroevolution, and that they actually say so. So far you haven't been able to substantiate a single quote, or even attempted to explain why scientists toil for years in specialties they think are bogus, or even why quotes, mere "sound bites" most of them, should serve as a substitute for a scientist's body of technical work as an indicator of their views. Loudmouth encouraged you to propose a quote whose original context was available, Adminnemooseus encouraged you to take Loudmouth up on this, and you ignored both.
In a true debate, both sides are expected to maintain their positions. Even if one side draws a clearly weak position to defend, it must martial and manage its resources as best it can. But there is no requirement here that you maintain your position. That you've been reduced to endlessly repeating assertions you've been unable to support and cut-n-pasting from Creationist websites as you bounce from one supposed fraud to another tells everyone that, to use a war analogy, you've been out of ammo for quite some time and have been reduced to throwing rocks from your foxhole.
I think you should adopt a position that makes sense. Or at least offer a rationale for your position so we can talk about it, instead of ignoring the posts asking about your rationale. If you're not willing to do that, at least stay on topic by finding a quote of a scientist saying that macroevolution is a myth, because macroevolution as a myth is not the topic of this thread, yet you repeat it at every opportunity.
Here's an example, to stick with the war analogy, of you throwing rocks at tanks:
Percy writes:
The Peppered Moth experiments had flaws that probably mean that predation can not be considered as positively identified as the cause of the color changes, but the correlation of color changes with environmental changes is not in doubt.
DarkStar writes:
However, the peppered moth was an obvious attempt at deception.
You're not responding to my argument, you're just repeating your original assertion. From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.
Moving on...
and as for lucy.....
One must be careful not to claim this is necessarily the end of the 1470 saga...
What does skull 1470 have to do with Lucy?
What Did Johanson Really Find?
As far as we can tell, the bones that Johanson actually found indicate that Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct ape. It is the bones that he didn’t find (feet bones and an undistorted pelvis) that have human characteristics.
Furthermore, by his own reckoning, he found bones that span more than one million years with very little variation in them. He found positive evidence that Australopithecus afarensis shows virtually no sign of evolution in a million years.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm
You can classify Australopithicus afarensis as an ape if you prefer, but it still has characteristics unique to humans and not to apes, such as bipedality and upright stance. The significance of Lucy isn't what you call her, but the characteristics she shares with us and not with apes. You've already been provided photographs of skeletons, and here's a couple more images. This one compares a reconstruction of Lucy to a modern female. The original Lucy skeleton is on the the left, the reconstruction is in the middle, and a modern human female skeleton is on the right:
Here's a drawing comparing Lucy from the pelvis down with a chimpanzee:
You don't have to accept that Lucy is a human predecessor, but the similarities and differences from Homo sapiens and chimpanzee are undeniable. This is the definition of an intermediate.
I will however, agree with you about what christians believe when it comes to the various stories in the bible. The bible is full of stories that violate natural laws, but I guess if you are going to believe in a god that made those natural laws then it is no stretch to believe that this same god can control and manipulate those laws as he wills. I would gather that he can do whatever the hell he feels like doing with the laws that he made, I mean, after all, he is god, right? Who is going to argue with him?
I agree with you. But when a person operates in this way he is practicing religion, not science. Creationists somehow think they can practice religion and call it science.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 08-21-2004 10:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by DarkStar, posted 08-20-2004 10:38 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by DarkStar, posted 08-23-2004 12:24 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 140 of 173 (136302)
08-23-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by DarkStar
08-23-2004 12:24 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
DarkStar writes:
percy writes:
Did you miss Re: Last warning! (Message 123)?
No, did you miss the original intent of this thread? If so, let me remind you and anyone else who has either forgotten or was unaware.
I suggest you go back and read Message 123, because not only is it on topic, it directly addresses the questions you raise further on in your post.
percy writes:
Your main assertion in this thread is that even scientists don't accept macroevolution, and that they actually say so.
No, actually my assertion in this thread is not an assertion at all,...
If you don't want the myth of macroevolution misperceived as your main emphasis in this thread, then I suggest you stop repeating it in each and every message.
...but rather it is a quest to find and understand the truth to the question"Why do so many scientists supporting the theory of evolution make so many seemingly condemnatory statements regarding Darwinian evolutionary theory?"
Message 123 directly addresses this issue. It was maybe the fifth message from me addressing this issue, and I haven't seen an answer yet. These posts pointed out the fundamental contradiction in believing that people enter fields of study they think are without foundation. They also called attention to the unlikelihood of scientists denigrating their own science, and pointed out that if scientists actually rejected macroevolution then the Creationist battle is already won and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
In my very first post, http://< !--UB EvC Forum: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 -->http://EvC Forum: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 -->EvC Forum: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1< !--UE--> I stated
In the pages that follow, we should attempt to address these issues regarding true science vs. myth, expand on the positions of both the evolution and creation scientists, and bring to light as much data as is necessary to provide everyone with the most up to date information available from all sides, while acknowledging all viewpoints.
Yet instead doing any investigation you once again merely issue a a list of quotes. As I've been saying, the more significant issue is why you're allowing these quotes to lead you to believe that evolutionary scientists don't accept evolution.
This is but a very small sampling of the thousands of quotes from which we could choose. Are they all taken out of context, giving the reader a false understanding of what was actually said? Are they mere fabrications, designed to confuse and give misdirection to the reader? Are creationists waging a smear campaign that makes politicians seem docile? Or do the men and women who utter these words mean exactly what they say?
The quotes are intended to give you a false picture. Once again I ask you to think about this. Does it really make sense to you that people would enter fields they think are bogus and remain in those fields all their lives? Does it really make sense to you that with all these scientists rejecting evolution, evolutionary theory remains as firmly ensconced in the halls of science as ever?
The purpose of this thread is to investigate these things in an honest and open-minded manner.
And asserting that macroevolution is a myth in every post is your honest and open-minded approach?
I take it by that statement that you deny that there was any attempt at deception. Perhaps you could then explain to me why individuals would take staged photos of said moths, dead ones at that, attached to tree trunks knowing full well that said moths did not normally rest on tree trunks.
The original peppered moth experiments were performed by Kettlewell. The results of his experiments, that bird predation is the selection factor causing the color changes, have not stood the test of time. But Kettlewell fully believed his findings, and he never staged any photos, so there was no scientific fraud or deception. I think you must be talking about pictures appearing in textbooks and popular science magazine articles illustrating the principle of natural selection using the peppered moth example of bird predation that has been called into question. You might want to read my review of a book about this: Book Review: Of Moths and Men.
percy writes:
I agree with you. But when a person operates in this way he is practicing religion, not science. Creationists somehow think they can practice religion and call it science.
Now this is where I find the macroevolutionists argument most disingenuous.
And once again we're back to your main theme, macroevolution. It might work better to just focus on quotes in this thread, and if you really want to discuss the myth of macroevolution to open a new thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by DarkStar, posted 08-23-2004 12:24 AM DarkStar has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 141 of 173 (136374)
08-23-2004 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by DarkStar
08-23-2004 12:24 AM


Examining DarkStar's Quotes
In this post I examine the quotes DarkStar provided in Message 135. I'll put each one in one of these categories:
  1. Quote is accurate but misleading
  2. Quote is false, scientist did not say this
  3. Quote is actually by a Creationist
  4. Quoted scientist is not an evolutionist
  5. Quote is legitimate and in context
  6. Information unavailable
  7. Quote is not by a scientist
  8. Quote is not anti-evolution

  1. Quote is accurate but misleading
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anythingor at least they are not science."
George G. Simpson
Geogre G. Simpon was a scientist and evolutionist, and I think all scientists would agree with this statement. So why is it here? Because Creationists know this will be interpreted as "events that weren't observed taking place at the time they happened can't be established scientifically."

  1. Quote is actually by a Creationist
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."
Michael Denton
Michael Denton is a Creationist. He wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

  1. Quote is accurate but misleading
As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?
Charles Darwin
Darwin wrote this, but his question is intended rhetorically because he explains in the following paragraphs about the rarity of fossilization and the likelihood that the record will always be spotty. Nonetheless, he expresses optimism that many missing details will be filled in by future fossil finds, which is precisely what happens.

  1. Quote is accurate but misleading
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."
P. Lemoine
The quote is from a 1950's copy of the Encyclopedie Francaise. Paul Lemoine was famous French scientist who served as the director of the French National Centre of Scientific Research and was at one time director of the Natural History Museum in Paris. He was a geologist, not a biologist, who accepted that evolution had occurred but rejected the explanations advanced by the theory of evolution. The quote is misleading because, though a scientist, evolution is not his field. You can find more about his quote at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html.

  1. Information unavailable
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it.
During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity.....
Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."
G. Salet
I can find no information about G. Salet.

  1. Quote is accurate but misleading
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."
Steven Jay Gould
Stephen (not Steven) Jay Gould has complained loud and often about Creationist misquotes. In this case, the original writing goes on to argue that it is gradualism that should be discarded, not evolution (see Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes). He was, of course, arguing for his theory of punctuated equilibrium.

  1. Information unavailable
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."
Dr. Fleischman
One can imagine a scientist not accepting the evidence for evolution, but to not even be aware of the evidence is hard to believe. Mentioned only at Creationist websites and nowhere else, Dr. Albert Fleischman is supposedly a professor of zoology at Erlengen in Germany. I could find no confirming information.

  1. Quote is actually by a Creationist
  1. Quote is not by a scientist
The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate.James Perloff
James Perloff is a Creationist author, not an evolutionary scientist.

  1. Quote is not anti-evolution
I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields.David M. Raup
David M. Raup is a professor of geophysical science at the University of Chicago. I didn't attempt a check of the authenticity because I think most people on both sides would agree with it. I could use an army of consultants just to help me check this list of quotes.

  1. Quoted is actually by a Creationist
  1. Quote is not by a scientist
  1. Quote is not anti-evolution
No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution.Tom Bethell
Tom Bethell is a Creationist at the Discovery Institute, but the quote (somewhat inaccurate since when a single-celled organism divides, which is the parent?) doesn't seem anti-evolution.

  1. Quote is not by a scientist
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."Austin Clark
Austin Clark was a curator, not a scientist, at the Smithsonian in the first half of the 20th century.

  1. Quote is accurate but misleading
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."W.R. Thompson
Written a half century ago, this is from the introduction to the 1956 edition of The Origin of Species, and it combines sentences commenting on different topics. The full context for the first sentence:
"I admire, as all biologists must, the immense scientific labours of Charles Darwin and his lifelong, single-hearted devotion to his theory of evolution. I agree that although, as he himself readily admitted, he did not invent the doctrine of organic evolution, or even the idea of natural selection, his arguments, and especially the arguments in The Origin of Species, convinced the world that he had discovered the true explanation of biological diversity, and had shown how the intricate adaptations of living things develop by a simple, inevitable process which even the most simple minded and unlearned can understand. But I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial."
The full context for the second sentence:
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel and in the shifty, devious and histrionic argumentation of T. H. Huxley...
"To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion [Thompson]."
It can now be seen that Thompson was not accusing Darwin of causing a decline of scientific integrity. If you look around the Internet for more of Thompson's introduction you'll actually find more scathing characterizations saying that Origins provided only speculations and not evidence, and that the situation is much unchanged today (that would be 50 years ago, of course).
It doesn't make sense that a staunch anti-evolutionist would be recruited to write an introduction to Origins, but I wasn't able to find out anything much about W. R. Thompson. Some websites say he was a Canadian entomologist.

  1. Quote is accurate but misleading
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."H. Lipson
This quote was actually preceded by a critical qualifier. Here's the full context from Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous":
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
He is merely projecting what it would mean were life not a result of matter, radiation and natural forces. Clearly this passage was misunderstood by many, because he was forced to make clear he supports evolution in a later issue:
Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record.
- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.

I'm just plum out of time and will have to stop here. This is why the Forum Guidelines requires you offer your own arguments rather than cut-n-paste. People can cut-n-paste arguments far faster than someone else can type in counter-arguments from scratch. The score at this point:
  1. Quote is accurate but misleading: 6
  2. Quote is false, scientist did not say this: 0
  3. Quote is actually by a Creationist: 2
  4. Quoted scientist is not an evolutionist: 0
  5. Quote is legitimate and in context: 0
  6. Information unavailable: 2
  7. Quote is not by a scientist: 3
  8. Quote is not anti-evolution: 2
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by DarkStar, posted 08-23-2004 12:24 AM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by NosyNed, posted 08-23-2004 8:27 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 145 of 173 (136512)
08-24-2004 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by DBlevins
08-24-2004 1:07 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
Hi, DBlevins!
Thanks for the link to the analysis of Kettlewell's research. It focuses on an area I never found too problematic. I remember Hooper focused on the dates and the capture rates to raise suspicions that perhaps the data had been manipulated, but I never put very much stock in that.
For me, the biggest problem raised by Hooper is the same one Creationists focus on: there is no established link between bird predation and melanism. The moths frequent the tree canopy, not barked tree trunks. While few evolutionists doubt the link between polution and melanism, and most still accept it as the best example of natural selection in the wild, my understanding is that bird predation as a selection factor is still only a hypothesis, and that with the exception of a small British community, scientists now understood that Kettlewell's work failed to settle this.
Creationists, of course, miss this subtle distinction, and believe that since moths don't light on tree trunks that natural selection wasn't at work, and they're also far too ready to accept charges of fraud.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by DBlevins, posted 08-24-2004 1:07 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 11:03 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 147 of 173 (136542)
08-24-2004 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
08-24-2004 11:03 AM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
The proposed hypothesis is that melanism provides camouflage for moths resting on dark tree trunks, thereby protecting them from bird predation. If moths don't actually rest on tree trunks then the hypothesis falls apart. As I said in my review of Hopper's book, it doesn't mean that bird predation isn't responsible, but this hasn't yet been established in any objective manner. If it *is* bird predation, then how color is a factor is no longer clear.
We also shouldn't assume that birds perceive moths the same way we do. Perhaps the color change isn't apparent to birds and other factors are responsible. Just a random thought.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 11:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 12:42 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 149 of 173 (136561)
08-24-2004 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by PaulK
08-24-2004 12:42 PM


Re: One good fraud deserves another.....
I don't think a link between bird predation and melanism has been established. Evolutionists are paying the price for claiming something had been established that wasn't.
But being wrong is not the same thing as committing fraud, and I agree with you about the personal attacks. Unfortunately, the Creationist side is usually confused on this issue, concluding that staged photographs for purposes of illustration in textbooks means not only fraud but also that there's no such thing as natural selection. And some are like DarkStar, confusing it with macroevolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 12:42 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 1:41 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024