• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: the Facts.

Dinwar said:
Well, the justification for throwing out all the data is that we don't know that the other data wasn't tainted. And once someone's declared a fraud, the burden of proof shifts to the people arguing that THIS data is good, even though THAT data was bad. Avoiding all their data gets around that problem. Because science bows to data, obtaining new data should lead to the same conclusion if the fraud was correct--it just takes a long time.
Click to expand...
I believe I have seen pretty much the same images as Haeckel's but as photographs. Why do these data not put the matter at rest?
 
steenkh said:
I believe I have seen pretty much the same images as Haeckel's but as photographs. Why do these data not put the matter at rest?
Click to expand...

Because IDers are retarded and for some reason think that bringing them up puts points on the board against the ToE.

Remember, we're dealing with nutcases here, not reasonable people. If we were to just COMPLETELY start over, erase Darwin, Haeckel, and all of it. All data from up to 1990 why not, and start completely over, the data would just be rediscovered ANYWAYS and the ToE would be rediscovered because it just is there. To deny evolution is to deny the data that exists.
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
I believe I have seen pretty much the same images as Haeckel's but as photographs. Why do these data not put the matter at rest?
Click to expand...
In recent years it has--developmental biology has started to make serious contributions to evolutionary theory. The problem is, the first hurdle the field had to overcome was demonstrating that this data was actually valid--they not only had to prove that there was something to discuss, but that they weren't the liars and frauds people assumed those who advocated such arguments to be. Again, science DOES eventually lay such arguments to rest, and is doing so now with developmental biology--but it takes a while.

Lowpro said:
I guess I hate that it takes that long...I can pretty much do it instantly, I don't know why everyone else cannot.
Click to expand...
The problem here isn't individual researchers, but the field as a whole. Again, Gould outlines this in his book on the topic. Short version is, pretty much everyone knew that there were evolutionary implications for developmental biology, but no one wanted to say anything for fear that the everyone else would consider the research tainted by Haeckel's fraud. It took some pretty substantial names, and VERY good, well-documented, and thorough research, to convince everyone that this was a valid topic.
 
Dinwar said:
The problem here isn't individual researchers, but the field as a whole. Again, Gould outlines this in his book on the topic. Short version is, pretty much everyone knew that there were evolutionary implications for developmental biology, but no one wanted to say anything for fear that the everyone else would consider the research tainted by Haeckel's fraud. It took some pretty substantial names, and VERY good, well-documented, and thorough research, to convince everyone that this was a valid topic.
Click to expand...

Yea, it's just stupid. I am not one for being delicate towards sensative subjects, for any side being evolution or intelligent design, or special creation. The data is data, and always pristine. If Behe were to release a new paper I'd judge it without his previous failings (though I'd keep them in consideration only to make good use of my time) as any scientist would, or at least should. Scrutiny is just part of the job, but pariahism*? Not so much...

*This is in relation to science, not what you do that's not scientific. Being a pariah because you actually are lying (Behe) with the data to promote a pet theory is fine, but that doesn't make your DATA "tainted" if I saw a paper with Behe's name I'd just bring up why it sucks, and it sucks because it never investigates, only postulates (referring to Irreducible Complexity)
 
Last edited:
Lowpro said:
If Behe were to release a new paper I'd judge it without his previous failings (though I'd keep them in consideration only to make good use of my time) as any scientist would, or at least should.
Click to expand...
Problem is, there are a LOT of papers coming out. We have to evaluate which ones we want to read, and ignoring known frauds is a good metric. You lose some data, but science is inherently conservative, and tossing out good data temporarily to eliminate bad data is a pretty common tactic. We do it all the time--for example, when we decide to not publish an experiment, or when a paper is rejected. This is just another extension of that mentality.
 
No. Adaptations can be thought of as the individual components of evolution--what we call evolution is a series of adaptations.

What you have to differentiate between are adaptations and aclimation. Humans that live on high mountains, for example, aclimate to the higher altitude; however, this doesn't represent an adaptation because it's reversable in an individual and, far as I know, not passed from parent to offspring. Something like larger lungs, or a different shape to the hemoglobin, would be an adaptation.
 
"Adaptatoin" implies an improvement the organism's fitness. Some evolution (and I say "some" because it's different for each taxa) doesn't imporve fitness--it's neutral or even negative. Sexual selection, for examle, does all kinds of weird things.
 
Dinwar said:
"Adaptatoin" implies an improvement the organism's fitness. Some evolution (and I say "some" because it's different for each taxa) doesn't imporve fitness--it's neutral or even negative. Sexual selection, for examle, does all kinds of weird things.
Click to expand...

Like what might happen if humans continue wearing shoes for the next 1000 years.
 
Dinwar said:
No. Adaptations can be thought of as the individual components of evolution--what we call evolution is a series of adaptations.
Click to expand...

If it is genetic then it is evolution, throw another word into the mix doesn't change that.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
If it is genetic then it is evolution, throw another word into the mix doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
Adaptations are a subset of evolution, and it's useful to pull them out sometimes.

h.g.Whiz said:
Like what might happen if humans continue wearing shoes for the next 1000 years.
Click to expand...
No way to know. We don't know what such a change will do, if anything.
 
Why would that be a negative trait? Obviously shoes exist--it's behavioral adaptation, rather than physiological adaptation, but it's adaptation none the less (one word: elephantitus). I'm not one to hold the view that the "natural" state of things is superior. In evolution whatever works, works.
 
Dinwar said:
Why would that be a negative trait? Obviously shoes exist--it's behavioral adaptation, rather than physiological adaptation, but it's adaptation none the less (one word: elephantitus). I'm not one to hold the view that the "natural" state of things is superior. In evolution whatever works, works.
Click to expand...

I guess your right, I don't the view that the "natural" state of things is superior either, which reminds me of a certain novel in which one of the characters foolishly complains that mankind should go back to the "natural" state of things.
 
Dinwar said:
Adaptations are a subset of evolution, and it's useful to pull them out sometimes.
Click to expand...

Always remember, there are people that love to use words not for education but for misinformation.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom