quote:I don't know where he got the idea that I am not an evolutionist. Just because I have, like many others, rejected Darwinian foolishness does not make me a bible thumping fundamentalist
No, but your inabiliuty to update your set-in-stone ideology indoicates that you abandoned reson and science long ago. I didn't say, of course, that you are not an evolutionist, but it is clear from your incoherent, error-riddled, insubstantial blabberings that you do not - and apparently never did - understand evolution in the first place (lest you wouldnot need to rely upon caricatures all the time) or have abandoned what the evidence indicates in favor of a silly reliance upon the personal beliefs of a handful of (long dead)eccentrics (some of whom actually espouse views counter to yours).
The salty-version of "evolution" relies far more on "chance" (not to mention bizarre extrapolation and NO actual experimentation)than does actual evolution, so I am still a bit confused as to why salty is aghast at the concept of randomness.
And, of course, the fact that your ramblings only seem able to be "published" in a clearinghouse for fringe pseudoscience (Rivista) and an online anti-evolution organization (ISCID) doesn't speak highly of its scientific content.
I didn't say, of course, that you are not an evolutionist, but it is clear from your incoherent, error-riddled, insubstantial blabberings that you do not - and apparently never did - understand evolution in the first place (lest you wouldnot need to rely upon caricatures all the time) or have abandoned what the evidence indicates in favor of a silly reliance upon the personal beliefs of a handful of (long dead)eccentrics (some of whom actually espouse views counter to yours).
Hi Percy, While you may take issue with Scott's tone he brings up several good points highly relevant to the new stated topic of the thread. Controversial ideas (even blatantly wrong ones) get published in main stream journals (i.e. those with a broader readership than those working in their subfields) and in books all the time. Look at the controversy over whether Napolean Chagnon and James V. Neel intentionally subjected the Yanomamo to measles (I think) to test a eugenics theory...this was a whacky idea not supported by the facts yet it was all over the place..but it had an air of plausibility that could not immediately be explained away i.e. Chagnon did some really questionable things during his studies of the Yanomamo culture that are documented, they did get sick just as these guys started poking around, the some iterations of the vaccine they distributed had been known to be dangerous etc. etc.
If stuff like this makes it to prime time, why would salty's work be limited to opinion pieces in a journal that I would never have heard of even if looking for it if Scott had not posted the reference i.e. fringe journal? One possibility, salty's ideas have so little merit that regular journals would not consider the work i.e. editor reads it and says this is not of sufficient quality...this is the most likely explanation and happens to all of us in science. A second possibility is that salty is really bad at promoting his ideas, there is evidence for this in abundance here at EvC. This would also hinder his ability to communicate his work.
In any case I think there is a bit of both. Salty does not communicate well and there are basic molecular biological as well as logical flaws in what he writes. He explicitly states his agenda is "against Darwinists and atheists" rather than a scientific investigation of a biological phenomenon and thus he will be relegated to the fringe as opposed to someone who actually can challenge a theory based on the merits of his theoretical or experimental analysis...
In fact Riv. Biol. is in principle soley a commentary journal directed mostly to an Italian audience...
Founded in 1919, RIVISTA DI BIOLOGIA / BIOLOGY FORUM is one of the oldest biological journals in the world. It published articles by many prestigious Italian and international authors (such as E. Giglio-Tos, D. Rosa, J. Eccles, B. Goodwin, G. Webster, R. Thom, F. Varela, A. Lima-de-Faria). It publishes researches in the fields of Theoretical Biology, in its broadest sense. It aims at going beyond specializations, discussing, before a multidisciplinary audience, biological subjects of general interest. Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum publishes researches in all fields of biology (such as Evolutionary Biology, Developmental Biology, Genetics, Biophysics, Biomathematics, History of Biology etc.), provided they are of general theoretical interest.
Articles are in English, with an Italian summary. A news section (mainly in Italian) publishes book reviews, brief news and readers' letters (letters, either in English or in Italian, may be sent to
according to the journal..articles are generally invited though they do accept other submissions....
It is not clear to me from the instructions that the articles are peer reviewed but rather edited for language..
Language revision. When requested by authors, editors or referees, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum may have papers revised by English-speaking translators. Revision costs will be charged to the authors.
I would hesitate to define the journal as purely fringe as they do deal with rather normal discussions of biological importance..from the latest issue
Gian Luigi Mariottini and Luigi Pane Ecology of Planktonic Heterotrophic Flagellates. A Review Abstract
Sergio Pennazio Photosynthesis: A Short History of Some Modern Experimental Approaches Abstract
...a better term for this journal would be extremely obscure. Otherwise, it seems like an Italian version of New Scientist or something equivalent...I cannot say 100% for certain as my attempts to read abstracts lead me to dead links.
I would consider a more fringe journal to be something that might have "UFO's and their effects on intelligent designed polymerization of DNA chains by I.P. Freely and I.M. Clueless" or "Biblical Flood Modelling: Passing gas in the bathtub as a theoretical framework for proving the Flood" as a standard type of article.
quote:The history of the human female inferiority ideas in evolutionary biology.
Northwest State College, 22-600 State Rt 34, Archbold, Ohio 43502, USA.
This is a minor quibble, but I live in NW Ohio and certainly had never heard of "Northwest State College." So I looked it up, and it's actually "Northwest State Community College." I just think it makes the author look dishonest when he leaves a word out of the title of his institution. After all, with the word "state" in the title and the omission of the word "community," it makes it sound as if he's employed at a more prestigious institution than he is.
Just my .02.
[This message has been edited by bulldog98, 08-22-2003]
good catch bulldog...that is more than just a quibble...if I put my institution in a published article as Cornell University as opposed to Cornell College that is more than just a misrepresentation, it is outright fraud..regardless of the relative prestige of either institution...it is giving a fake address...one can only hope it was an editorial error.
Are any other known creationists falsely claiming that they are from institutions with which they have no association...and are any journals or book publishers for that matter letting them get away with it?
While lurking at the Infidels board, I noticed a post that mentioned a poster that used to be active here, JA Davison, and I remembered lurking here as well, and this particular thread came to my mind.
"Prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe, molecular biologist Richard Sternberg from the Smithsonian Institute, and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum."
The list being the most recent "list of scientists that disagree with Darwinism"...
quote:That Darwinism is a theory in crisis is also clear. Over 60 biologists, some with specialties in evolutionary biology, have signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the theory, and they have been joined by over 200 other scientists nationally. Forty scientists in Texas are now on record within this group. I will submit these lists to the board. These scientists represent a wide spectrum of backgrounds and—yes, widely religious views in their private lives. It is dishonest to dismiss them as “creationists”. Among them are evolutionary biologists. One signer is the editor of a peer-reviewed biology journal in Europe.
Anyone concerned about the 'crisis' demonstrated by these hundreds of dissenters from the dogma of Darwinism should take a quick glance at the membership directory of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. They list 241,946 biologists.
------------------ I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall
Unfortunately, this particular page focuses on their "degrees", as opposed to their employment. Of course, a number of them claim degrees from nonexistant schools or schools which they don't actually have a degree from. One even claimed a degree from the University of Physical Science, a "university" which turned out to merely be a registered trademark.
Don't most of them have degrees from Patriot University?
A lot of them have degrees from registered trademarks or "universities" that are a mailbox somewhere. Some do have actual degrees though the vast majority are not in biology i.e. engineering, chemistry. Behe is a biochemist, Safarti is a chemist, and Salty was a biology professor of development if his early publications are any indication.
In any case, it is interesting that they all associate with groups that attempt to mis-represent both their credentials and their places of employment...at the same time claiming evolutionary biologists are liars...