It seems to me evos are allowed to advance arguments, but to respond to those arguments is off-topic. On the ancienct bacteria thread, the argument by evos involved rejecting the evidence based on concluding the standards for acceptance had not been met. So the idea of scientific standards was part of the evo argument.
However, I was banned for responding to that argument. Specifically, I mentioned Pakicetus as an example where one fossil find was heralded before the find was "replicated." So demanding the find of identitical bacteria, of "replicating the original experiment", was a tad hypocritical. I was not so much attacking the poster but the evo community's standards that appear a little hypocritical to me.
Finds that favor mainstream evolutionary theory are frequently heralded, often to the point that errors are taken as fact and find their way into the literature and textbooks as accepted lore, so much so that sometimes it is hard to correct the earlier errors. But something comes up that disagrees with mainstream evo models, and the reaction is quite different. So we have a pattern of dismissiveness towards data that disagrees with ToE, and acceptance and promotion of often highly overstated data.
On the thread in question, the surrounding facts and conclusions to Vreeland's study have been replicated, and ancient bacteria have been found before. The evo argument seems to be that you guys can make a claim, that standards are not met, but then insist discussing the basis of that claim is off-topic.
In general, evos continually make comments on the Bible, creationism, or even demand that I put forward a theory on threads all the time. Imo, all of these comments are off-topic, but routinely allowed. I prefer to try to objectively look at the data, not trying to fit the data into any one theory and so do not try to argue a theory, but to look at the data. Imo, always trying to argue the theory is a serious problem as it colors perception and acceptance of data, as we see with evo reluctance to accept Vreeland's data since it affects basic evo assumptions.
So in my arguments, I will bring up other areas on how data is and was treated because the standards for data and whether the data is accepted or rejected is an important component in genuine science. When the evo argument consists of rejecting uncomfortable data, as is the case with Vreeland's find, I think bringing up evo treatement of data and standards is on-topic and relevant. If Percy or another mod disagreed, they could have just said that line of discussion was off-topic, but the rush to ban was uncalled for as there appeared no sense of grasping the relevance of why I brought up the initial reaction to Pakicetus.
I will give another common example to help illustrate this. One argument frequently put forward by evos here is more or less if ToE is so wrong, then why do thousands of scientists and most scientists accept it?
The answer in part is that they have accepted overstated, false, misleading, and unsubstantiated data and logic, and so it becomes hard to correct this false data and logic, and a good example is how it took so long for the evo community to come to grips with Haeckel's forged drawings and wrong conclusions.
Now, some may say, well, bringing up Haeckel on a thread is off-topic? OK, but then quit allowing the evo argument. If evos can ask in debate why is it that most biologists accept mainstream evo models, then shouldn't I be allowed to answer?
If the answer is off-topic, fine, but so is the question then.
The problems here are that evo arguments are allowed to advance in which the answer to those arguments are considered off-topic by some admins.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
