Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinists? and other names for "evos"
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 61 of 72 (163808)
11-29-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jeafl
11-28-2004 9:59 PM


I am afraid your illogical claims are off topic. Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:59 PM jeafl has not replied

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


Message 62 of 72 (163817)
11-29-2004 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jeafl
11-27-2004 8:50 PM


Personally I don't find anything basically wrong with the term Darwinist,although I appreciate the point that it suggests some affiliation to the person rather than their theory, but I do have a problem with the usual corollary assumption that there has been no new work done or significant changes in evolutionary biology since Darwin's work was published, not to mention the frequent usage of arguments which are at least as old as Darwin's work, the argument from design being mostly what I'm thinking of here.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jeafl, posted 11-27-2004 8:50 PM jeafl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by zephyr, posted 11-29-2004 7:10 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 63 of 72 (163824)
11-29-2004 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Wounded King
11-29-2004 5:45 AM


Ditto that. It connotes a cult of personality and a static devotion to an original concept. While Darwin took a huge leap forward in the understanding of natural history, he was part of a collective movement that preceded him and continues long after him.
How would creationists feel if people went around calling them all Hovindites?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2004 5:45 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-29-2004 8:26 AM zephyr has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 72 (163829)
11-29-2004 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jeafl
11-28-2004 9:34 PM


I'd like to reply to this, because you have made some serious errors, but it is off topic.
Perhaps you can join one of the existing threads discussing punk eek, or propose a new punk eek topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:34 PM jeafl has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4426 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 65 of 72 (163841)
11-29-2004 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by zephyr
11-29-2004 7:10 AM


ROFLMAO
I'm going to call every creationist who refers to scientists as Darwinists or evolutionists a Hovindite now.
{edited to change admin ID}
This message has been edited by AdminIRH, 11-29-2004 08:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by zephyr, posted 11-29-2004 7:10 AM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by happy_atheist, posted 11-29-2004 9:02 AM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 67 by Coragyps, posted 11-29-2004 9:11 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4904 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 66 of 72 (163848)
11-29-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by IrishRockhound
11-29-2004 8:26 AM


IrishRockhound writes:
I'm going to call every creationist who refers to scientists as Darwinists or evolutionists a Hovindite now.
I don't know about other people here, but if I was forced to be dogmatically associated with a particular person Darwin would be several billion places further up the list than Hovind! I really don't envy the rational creationists on this board having to put up with that man in their camp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-29-2004 8:26 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 67 of 72 (163850)
11-29-2004 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by IrishRockhound
11-29-2004 8:26 AM


Yeah, I guess Hamite is already taken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-29-2004 8:26 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 68 of 72 (163860)
11-29-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by jeafl
11-28-2004 9:49 PM


Re: SofF
I have never met a professional Evolutionist i.e. an academician who was merely an "advocate for evolution" and not a full-fledged "dogmatic believer in evolution". I haven’t met many amateur Evolutionists who fall in the former category either.
Really? Fascinating. I, on the other hand, have met and worked with both professional field and theoretical evolutionary biologists, and conversed with a fair selection of "amateurs" both live and on the net. In additiion, I read extensively in both the professional and open-published literature. I'll freely admit I've seen a lot of occasionally quite acrimonious debate among this crew over the details of evolution. In fact, I've engaged in some myself (an argument over the long-term ecological stability of the Cerro Kum concession, and another over the ultimate causes of the Posoltega lahar spring to mind). In my own field, there continues to be an often nasty argument between the advocates of Wilson vs Brown vs Whittaker concerning ecological equilibrium (I'm a dynamic disequilibrium-ist myself). The point being that IF your contention that we all adhere dogmatically to a "belief in evolution" is true, then there shouldn't be any argument at all, n'est-ce pas? Every single piece of evidence or bit of theory someone presents is argued over, fought over, dissected, and - sometimes - grudgingly accepted. Doesn't sound very dogmatic, to me.
Even if you choose to not to persue a career in biology following on your degree, I would urge you to attend at least one symposium where a controversial paper is presented, for entertainment value if nothing else. I'd be surprised if you can come away from one of those still considering "evolutionists" to be dogmatic...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:49 PM jeafl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2004 10:40 AM Quetzal has replied

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


Message 69 of 72 (163871)
11-29-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Quetzal
11-29-2004 10:11 AM


Open v professional
I know this is slightly off topic but
I read extensively in both the professional and open-published literature.
seems to be making a distinction which is rapidly becoming redundant, perhaps proffesional and amateur would be a better pairing since there is so much professional peer reviewed material being released as open-access now.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-29-2004 10:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Quetzal, posted 11-29-2004 10:11 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Quetzal, posted 11-29-2004 3:55 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 70 of 72 (163961)
11-29-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Wounded King
11-29-2004 10:40 AM


Re: Open v professional
You're probably right. I was trying to draw a (perhaps unecessary) distinction between the peer-reviewed literature such as Nature or Conservation Biology, collections of essays and other scientific writings, such as Wilson's (ed) "Biodiversity" and "Biodiversity II" or Mayr's "Evolution and the Diversity of Life", and more "popular" writing such as Dawkins' books, etc. Maybe there isn't a need.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2004 10:40 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 11-30-2004 4:45 AM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 71 of 72 (164052)
11-30-2004 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Quetzal
11-29-2004 3:55 PM


Re: Open v professional
No, there is certainly value in that distinction, but it isn't the distinction suggested to my mind by professional Vs. open-published, open published to me suggests things like PLOS orBiomed Central or Arxiv. The distinction you seem to be drawing is between peer-reviewed and popular science.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Quetzal, posted 11-29-2004 3:55 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 11-30-2004 5:34 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6465 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 72 of 72 (164062)
11-30-2004 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Wounded King
11-30-2004 4:45 AM


Re: Open v professional
I can second this...I just recently published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, the open access evolution journal of BMC. The submission process, peer review, revisions etc. was identical to non-open access journals where I have previously published. The only differences are that 1) I had to pay to publish (my institute did at least) 2) it went waaaaaay faster than any other publishing experience I have ever had 3) as soon as the paper was accepted, the non-revised version was available for anyone to read as a pdf file.
But peer review etc was no different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 11-30-2004 4:45 AM Wounded King 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