Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists are wrong all the time, and that’s fantastic
Hotair.com ^ | 2-27-15

Posted on 02/28/2015 10:28:40 AM PST by DeweyCA

When a researcher gets proved wrong, that means the scientific method is working. Scientists make progress by re-doing each other’s experiments—replicating them to see if they can get the same result. More often than not, they can’t. “Failure to reproduce is a good thing,” says Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch. “It happens a lot more than we know about.” That could be because the research was outright fraudulent, like Wakefield’s. But there are plenty of other ways to get a bum result—as the Public Libary of Science’s new collection of negative results, launched this week, will highlight in excruciating detail.

You might have a particularly loosey-goosey postdoc doing your pipetting. You might have picked a weird patient population that shows a one-time spike in drug efficacy. Or you might have just gotten a weird statistical fluke. No matter how an experiment got screwed up, “negative results can be extremely exciting and useful—sometimes even more useful than positive results,” says John Ioannidis, a biologist at Stanford who published a now-famous paper suggesting that most scientific studies are wrong.

The problem with science isn’t that scientists can be wrong: It’s that when they’re proven wrong, it’s way too hard for people to find out.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: science; sciencetrust; scientists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: DeweyCA

I had trouble with this one after:

“Public ‘Libary’ of Science’s”

I mean REALLY?!?!?!?!?

Just hoping it was a typeO on the writer’s part.


21 posted on 02/28/2015 1:11:48 PM PST by Conan the Librarian (The Best in Life is to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and the Dewey Decimal System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Global Warming and Darwinism are not sciences, they are astrologies with different zodiac schemes.

Global Warming and Darwinism are deceptive because they hijack solid scientific results and fold them in to their own heresy. Increased CO2 in a lab experiment increases temperatures but not in the intractable feedback loops of Earth. Natural Selection is an observable event but does not imply evolution of new species.


22 posted on 02/28/2015 1:20:54 PM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“I see plenty of parallels between Global Warming and Darwinism.”

Then what you see is a totally false mirage serving a fantasy belief, because the two topics have nothing substantial to do with each other.

“Global Warming” is a non-scientific and political movement pretending to be based upon science which is in reality based upon invented and false evidence pretending to be the result of the scientific method while it actually is not a valid application of the scientific method.

“Darwinism” from Wikipedia for example says: “Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Robert Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin’s theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been used by creationists to refer to the origin of life, and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work.”

In other words, you are demonstrating an abysmal ignorance of the topic you seek to criticize and denounce by equating it with the unrelated “Global Warming” topic; because “Darwinism” was a proposed theory based upon actual evidence resulting from the use of the scientific method, revised by supplementary biological evidence and biological theories, and generally superseded by a larger and more extensive body of evidence resulting from observations using the scientific method over a period of more than 155 years. As the Wikipedia article comments, you have adopted a non-evidentiary assumption and faith-based belief central to what is generally referred to as “Creationist” dogma rejecting the results of the scientific method.

“Neither can be proved wrong.”

Such a statement cannot be further from the Truth. “Darwinism” is a 155 year old proposed theory whose body of many conclusions have been tested by the scientific theory in detail. Many of the detailed conclusions which have been proven to be invalid (wrong) in part or in whole have been superseded and supplemented by later theories and results produced by the use of the scientific method. “Darwinism” is a theory which can be and often has been “proved wrong” in some of its conclusions and not in other of its conclusions. By making a false statement about the obsoleted theory as a pejorative against the current, more comprehensive, and more accurate evolutionary theory or theories, you are engaging in the logical fallacy known as the Strawman Argument.

“There’s always SOMETHING which allows the believer to hang on to their faith.”

You are taking your own faith-based behavior and falsely attributing the same kind of behavior to people who are making observations which are not based upon faith.

“Now, one might say Idea #1 is a lot better science than Idea #2 — but conversing with the two sets of believers is precisely the same experience.”

Your statement demonstrates how you fail to understand the definition of science and are ignorant about how “science” works. Belief and believers are one thing, and experience and experimenters are something totally different.

“It’s all insults, all emotion, all “you just don’t understand/you reject science/I know the facts”.

Again, such a pejorative statement is another case where you falsely attribute your own behavior to people who are not engaging in your own emotional behavior.

“For me, Darwinism is not scientifically superior to Global Warming.”

Given your obvious ignorance about what does and does not constitute science and the scientific method, it is not surprising to see you fail to recognize or acknowledge the differences between the two topics.

“They are religious cults and they refuse to be disproven by any evidence.”

Your statement is a self-serving illusory fantasy. “Global Warming” is not science in the first place, because it is actually a political philosophy, not a theology, and pseudo-science falsely pretending to be science. “Darwinism” is generally an incomplete and obsolescent description of observed natural history, and it is not a theology. “Darwinism” is not to be confused with the incorrect behavior of people who falsely engage in pseudoscience in the name of science.


23 posted on 02/28/2015 1:26:35 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The folks who worship Evolution has observed adaptation -- bacteria which remains bacteria, but which develops a resistance to antibiotics. An impressive genetic change, which we might label as natural selection. Still, it's merely adaptation.

The miracle which is required for Evolution, but which has not been seen, is the idea that Life began in the seas, then eventually came out on land, and then a land animal went back into the sea and eventually became a Blue Whale.

That's not the same as bacteria which remains bacteria, but which develops a resistance to antibiotics. It's many orders of magnitude more astounding.

I don't have enough faith to believe in it, and you are nowhere near close to proving that it happened.

I say it's a lot like Global Warming.

24 posted on 02/28/2015 1:34:37 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (The dog days are over /The dog days are done/Can you hear the horses? /'Cause here they come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“Natural Selection is an observable event but does not imply evolution of new species.”

That is a false statement. “Natural Selection” does clearly imply the evolution of biological organisms, but there is a difference between implying an event and demonstrating a scientific proof of an event. What you are implying in your own statement is the difference between correlation and causation. Your argument is a logical fallacy, because “Natural Selection” is now known to be not the only natural process responsible for the evolution of biological organisms. Also, it appears from your statement that you do not have a correct understanding of what does and does not constitute a biological species.


25 posted on 02/28/2015 1:34:40 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

You will note that I said ‘species’. Organisms that evolve through natural selection are not ‘new’. They are variants of the same species made prevalent by selective forces.

Humans did not descend or evolve from Apes. Evolutionists claim ***mutations*** (not natural selection) ‘caused’ such ape to human evolution. That is entirely in the realm of speculation. The maximum likelihood estimates of such mutations are completely speculative and based on ‘wanting’ to prove, in fact groping for a fit to a flawed theory.

Evolution of species adopted natural selection as an explanatory tool and in time hijacked it as the causal force to explain all things descending from a primordial soup.

Correlation does not imply causation. But the reverse is certainly true. And evolutionary ‘science’ (actually astrology) utilizes statistics as its method of inferring things. Evolutionary astrology uses statistical correlations and writes from these correlations certain fictions of causation that fit its preordained narrative.

Evolution is not science. It is not even close. But it deceives by hijacking a narrative of the forces of Natural Selection to its domain of publication.


26 posted on 02/28/2015 1:56:46 PM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“The folks who worship Evolution has observed adaptation — bacteria which remains bacteria, but which develops a resistance to antibiotics.”

That is a false statement based upon an incorrect understanding of the biological science relating to how bacteria and antibiotics function. The evolution of biological populations is based upon changes in the genomes of the individual biological organisms in the assorted populations. Any one genome in any one individual member of the population incorporates genetic coding instructions for adapting to its environment and perhaps altering copies of its own genome. Evolution is the result of the accumulation of changes in the genome. The evolutionary change/s between your own genome and the genomes of your children through sexual reproduction are typically small and too small to constitute a significant change in the genome and physical characteristics in comparison to the whole population. Extraordinary events which make significant changes in the genome between two generations or millions of generations is when you can witness enough accumulation of changes on the genome and the physical characteristics of an individual organism to be recognized as what is arbitrarily designated as another biological species, genus, family, and order.

Observation of a natural process in present time does not constitute the “worship” of an object in a theology, so your comparison of the recognition of a natural phenomenon to the worship of an object in a religion or theology is invalid and a false pejorative.

“An impressive genetic change, which we might label as natural selection. Still, it’s merely adaptation.”

Again, you statement makes false conclusions based upon confused and false understandings of the differences between “genetic change”, “adaptation”, and “natural selection”. Some forms of adaptation by a biological organism have nothing whatsoever to do with changes in the genome or evolution, while other forms of adaptation are based upon changes in the genome and evolutionary changes between generations of a population of biological organisms. So, basing your conclusions upon such a confusion of mistaken definitions relating to the adaptation of a population of biological organisms is certain to result in a false conclusion.

“The miracle which is required for Evolution, but which has not been seen, is the idea that Life began in the seas, then eventually came out on land, and then a land animal went back into the sea and eventually became a Blue Whale.”

That statement is simply an emotional appeal based upon a false representation of the definition of evolution and theory of evolution. Current evolutionary theory acknowledges ignorance of where the parent self-replicating genome originated, in outer space or on the Earth. as for the Blue Whale, see how Humans have adapted with evolutionary changes to develop the mental and physical faculties necessary to invent SCUBA technologies utilized for amphibious activities in the seas.

“That’s not the same as bacteria which remains bacteria, but which develops a resistance to antibiotics. It’s many orders of magnitude more astounding.”

Again, you are confusing the difference between the biochemical adaptation capabilities already provided for within a single genome expression, the adaptation capabilities resulting from the minor and ordinary changes between a single generation in the population, and the accumulated changes in the genome after very large number of generations and associated extraordinary changes in the genome. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics results from all types of adaptation, those that are inherent in a single genome and those which result from accumulated changes in a small or vastly larger number of generations of successive genomes.

“I don’t have enough faith to believe in it, and you are nowhere near close to proving that it happened.”

Faith has nothing to do with the “observation” of the evolutionary mechanism and evolutionary process of a biological organisms’ genome.

“I say it’s a lot like Global Warming.”

What you say is a false conclusion, because “Global Warming” is political science pretending to be science through the use of falsified date and pseudo-scientific studies.


27 posted on 02/28/2015 2:36:27 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“You will note that I said ‘species’. Organisms that evolve through natural selection are not ‘new’. They are variants of the same species made prevalent by selective forces.”

You obviously do not understand what “species” are and are not. You act as if a “species” is a distinctly separate group of biological organisms, whereas in the real world a “species” is an arbitrary grouping of biological organisms for purposes of organizing the nomenclature and other information for similar biological organisms with apparent genetic relationships and behavior characteristics. Whether or not a population arises which can be designated a news natural or unnatural species is dependent upon the extent and types of changes which have accumulated on the successive generations of the genomes in the population/s. So, this concept of a distinct and unvarying species of biological organism is be definition of the meaning of the word “species” and invalid and false concept.

“Humans did not descend or evolve from Apes.”

That is the logical fallacy known as the Strawman Argument, because evolutionary theory does not say Homo sapiens sapien descended from the “apes”. on the contrary, evolutionary theory says the scientific evidence indicates Humans and Apes have a common ancestor, just as evolutionary theory says all vertebrates have a common ancestor, who by the way also were not Apes.

“Evolutionists claim ***mutations*** (not natural selection) ‘caused’ such ape to human evolution.”

Again, you obviously do not understand the definitions of the terminology you are using, and you have once more used the entirely fallacious “ape to human evolution” strawman argument. If you cannot get such simple facts correctly understood, it is no wonder you cannot begin to fathom the science in its simplest details. The characteristics of a biological organism is determined by its genome. When the genome is changed, the inherent properties of the individual organism is changed in some way as well. When enough changes of the genome have occurred to have a significant effect upon the population of a group of related biological organisms, the successor population of these new organisms may be recognized by biologists as a separate group with a separate species nomenclature.

“That is entirely in the realm of speculation. The maximum likelihood estimates of such mutations are completely speculative and based on ‘wanting’ to prove, in fact groping for a fit to a flawed theory.”

That is a completely false statement, as demonstrated by the hybridization of plants in our own garden to produce cultivars with substantially different genomes.

“Evolution of species adopted natural selection as an explanatory tool and in time hijacked it as the causal force to explain all things descending from a primordial soup.”

Again you are using a strawman argument against the 155 year old hypothesis which has subsequently been replaced with 155 years of scientific experience with physics, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, genome mapping, and paleontology.

“Correlation does not imply causation. But the reverse is certainly true. And evolutionary ‘science’ (actually astrology) utilizes statistics as its method of inferring things.”

Your statement uses the word “astrology” as a pejorative in a strawman argument to smear evolutionary theory, which is much like using astrology to falsely smear astronomical theory as if astronomical theory was also pseudo-science. Obviously, the Earth is now known beyond a shadow of a doubt to orbit around the Solar System’s common barycenter located within the radius of the Sun. Likewise, the 155 year old theory you are misusing to criticize current evolutionary theory constitutes a false argument because evolutionary theory, old or new, is not solely dependent upon statistics to produce valid observational results.

“Evolutionary astrology uses statistical correlations and writes from these correlations certain fictions of causation that fit its preordained narrative.”

Such a statement is a false defamation and a half truth used to invent a false conclusion to fit your own pejorative and “preordained narrative.”

“Evolution is not science. It is not even close.”

You have demonstrated that you do not even know the meaning of “Evolution” and its related terminology, so it is no wonder you are too ignorant of the subject to recognize what is and is not science.

“But it deceives by hijacking a narrative of the forces of Natural Selection to its domain of publication.”

You do not even understand what “Natural Selection is and is not, because you have totally misused the terminology. Therefore, your comments about the subject must be rejected as a collections of irrelevant and non-scientific fantasies.


28 posted on 02/28/2015 3:35:25 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Non-scientist Al Gore is enraged at this article.

29 posted on 02/28/2015 3:43:44 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Your long-winded comments all seem to boil down to:

"You are not using terminology correctly. Therefore Evolution is solid science."

I ain't buying anything you say. Just as I say that Global Warming and Evolution are very similar, I will also note that Evolutionists seems to engage in a great deal of semantic obfuscation -- just like Marxists. People who REALLY have a handle on truth can express themselves simply and concisely. Marxists cannot do this. They talk about politics and just use a hodge-podge of made-up vocabulary and sum it up by saying: "Scientific Socialism has once again been proved to be true."

I see you doing exactly the same thing. You prove absolutely nothing, but you spend an inordinate amount of time critiquing the vocabulary used by others. If we all just talked correctly, we would understand how solid the science of Evolution really is.

I think it's a fraud.

30 posted on 02/28/2015 6:35:39 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (The dog days are over /The dog days are done/Can you hear the horses? /'Cause here they come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: ClearCase_guy

Definitions

You have outlined the main trouble point with Evolution as science. They are not rigorously enforced and once they are put into a pool of meaning they lose the ability to be discussed using rationality...and rationalism and rational analysis are central to the epistemology of any scientific theory.

Is Evolution a series of observations or a theory? Natural Selection is a Theory of Evolution. So is evolving a Theory of Evolution? What is a species...and I have seen many significantly different definitions of what a species may be..how do you go from a DNA based explanation of a ToE to the fossil record with no DNA?

These are just a few of the “problems” ToE tends to hang people up on. When our understanding of DNA is sufficient, I expect most of my skepticism of the “science” of Evolution will be undone, logically and rationally. But definitions are at the heart of rationalism, so there you go!

Terminology is too important to have major disagreements.

WWRWPD

What Would Right Wing Professor Do?

DK


32 posted on 02/28/2015 9:38:53 PM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight

Bookmark


33 posted on 02/28/2015 10:34:45 PM PST by publius911 (If you like Obamacare, You'll LOVE ObamaWeb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“Your long-winded comments all seem to boil down to:
‘You are not using terminology correctly. Therefore Evolution is solid science.’”

In other words, you will find fault with the comments regardless of their being short or long, right or wrong, so long as those comments disagree with your faith in your own argument. It is unfortunate for you and your argument that you willfully choose to make illogical and irrational comments. For example, your latest statement is yet another logical fallacy known as the unwarranted assumption fallacy. Wikipedia describes this logical fallacy as:

“Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context.”

The false assumption in your statement is where you falsely assume using terminology correctly or incorrectly must determine whether or not “Evolution [meaning evolutionary theory] is solid science.”

First, evolutionary theory as it is known today must certainly remain partially incorrect and unproven like all true science. Only an omnipotent being could ever have the capacity to be 100 percent correct in any scientific theory. Your implied assumption evolutionary theory must be virtually 100 percent “proven” and unchanging in its conclusions (the Nirvana logical fallacy) is non-scientific, so it betrays your woeful ignorance of what constitutes science.

Second, any rational person knows the misuse of the scientific terminology by you or another person has no determinative power over whether or not “Evolution” [meaning evolutionary theory] is generally correct. In fact, if all of Humanity were to become extinct tomorrow, such evolutionary theory would be just as correct or incorrect as the day when there were no longer any humans around to use the terminology correctly or incorrectly.

Accordingly, your comment is rejected for being yet another rather extreme and laughably obvious logical fallacy.

“I ain’t buying anything you say.”

I did not ask or expect you to “buy anything” I say. If you choose to spout illogical and irrational comments and making accusations in Post 16 alleging insulting comments to the people who dispute your false statements and conclusions, don’t whine when they defend themselves against your false accusations. One of my good friends had the courtesy to vigorously debate evolutionary theory and its relationship to religion, and he subsequently was ordained as a minister while acknowledging the faults in his arguments without rancor and with humility. I do not see why honest and rational people cannot also do so with respect for each other and respect for the body of scientific evidence. I believe you could do so too, if you would have the courtesy to inform yourself and refrain from making statements which are such obviously outlandish logical fallacies.

“Just as I say that Global Warming and Evolution are very similar, I will also note that Evolutionists seems to engage in a great deal of semantic obfuscation — just like Marxists.”

There you go with the smear tactic. First, you falsely assume because you choose to indulge in false faith that “Global Warming and Evolution are very similar” in direct contradiction to the vast wealth of evidence showing the exact opposite. Furthermore, you disregard the obvious fact you are the person who is asserting your own personal faith is all the evidence you need as proof of your false proposition. This tactic of yours is a wealth of logical fallacies ranging from Wikipedia’s description of the “Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent” to the “Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.” Perhaps you should consider how your own behavior was described by your own earlier comment, “They are religious cults and they refuse to be disproven by any evidence.” Your own comment well describes yourself and your own behavior.

“People who REALLY have a handle on truth can express themselves simply and concisely.”

Yet you continue to fail in doing so quite spectacularly with an array of comments that are shown here to be false, irrational, and logical fallacies. As for the Truth, you your statement, “Humans did not descend or evolve from Apes,” falsely attempted to assume evolutionary theory claimed Humans descended from Apes, when in fact evolutionary theory does not make such a claim. On the contrary, evolutionary theory proposes that humans and Apes have a common ancestor that was certainly not an Ape. Yet here you are throwing around accusations of being a Marxist for having the temerity to note your false statements, false conclusions, attempts to defame persons who discuss evolution, or otherwise disagree with your personal faith in your own falsehoods. If you want to garner some respect for your beliefs, you might try apologizing for your false remarks about your false Apes remark and your false accusation of Marxism.

“Marxists cannot do this. They talk about politics and just use a hodge-podge of made-up vocabulary and sum it up by saying: ‘Scientific Socialism has once again been proved to be true.’”

What can I say but to note that is just that much more abusive commentary that serves as a better description of your own conduct than that of the people you choose to abuse. You were given an opportunity to have a rational discussion of the evidence, and your response was to make sarcastic remarks about being long-winded and continue on with abusively false accusations of associations with the Marxists. Missing from your comments is anything substantive from scientific observations to support your claims of faith.

“I see you doing exactly the same thing. You prove absolutely nothing, but you spend an inordinate amount of time critiquing the vocabulary used by others.”

On the contrary, I gave you the courtesy of pointing out where you have misused the terminology needed for you to understand the scientific principals under discussion. Rather than correct your mistakes and make yourself informed enough to communicate with each other rationally, you chose to be abusive and entirely uncooperative. No one can have a rational conversation with you so long as you willfully choose to misuse such basic facts of natural history as the huge differences between the Apes you commented about and the proposed evolutionary common ancestor of Apes and Humans. So far, it appears you have no idea what that difference is and are even less motivated to make yourself informed of that difference. How then are we supposed to have any further fruitful discussions further along when the role of biochemistry and genetics in evolutionary theory becomes the immediate topic of discussion?

“If we all just talked correctly, we would understand how solid the science of Evolution really is.”

More sarcasm from you absent any evidentiary substance.

“I think it’s a fraud.”

At this point why should anyone care what you think given the way in which you abusively assert falsehoods such as your comments about the Apes without any apologies for your all too obvious errors?


34 posted on 03/01/2015 3:15:21 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX; Hostage
Fairly minor point, but you are confusing Hostage and myself. I never said anything at all about Apes.

But, boy, you sure type a lot. And you say so little.

--CCg

35 posted on 03/01/2015 4:56:25 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (The dog days are over /The dog days are done/Can you hear the horses? /'Cause here they come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“Fairly minor point, but you are confusing Hostage and myself. I never said anything at all about Apes.”

I already responded to Hostage about his Apes comment in Post 28, and then you jumped in to criticize my response to Hostage using the your Post 30 to say:

“I see you doing exactly the same thing. You prove absolutely nothing, but you spend an inordinate amount of time critiquing the vocabulary used by others. If we all just talked correctly, we would understand how solid the science of Evolution really is.”

Are you now asking us to believe you were not referring to Hostage’s “Apes” comment when you wrote: “critiquing the vocabulary used by others....”?


36 posted on 03/01/2015 5:26:52 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Quoting you, in a comment you addressed to me:

No one can have a rational conversation with you so long as you willfully choose to misuse such basic facts of natural history as the huge differences between the Apes you commented about and the proposed evolutionary common ancestor of Apes and Humans.

You clearly cite "the Apes you commented about". And you are not man enough to admit that Hostage commented on Apes and I commented on vocabulary. For you, a comment about "vocabulary" is the same thing as a comment about "apes".

For me, this sort of muddled thinking from you, using words in a very sloppy way to obfuscate your own points and then declare something along the lines of "I'm right; you're wrong" really sums you up nicely. It's pretty common among Evolutionists, which was my original point. It's just a political word game to press an agenda and has less to do with science than many assume.

I'm done.

37 posted on 03/01/2015 5:55:44 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (The dog days are over /The dog days are done/Can you hear the horses? /'Cause here they come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

LOL, Hostage made the comment about the Apes, I commented about Hostage’s comment about the Apes, you chimed in with your comment about the vocabulary, which was about the Apes; and now you want to pretend your comment about my criticism of Hostage’s Apes vocabulary did not involve you misusing the vocabulary concerning the Apes which Hostage and I were discussing when you chimed in.... Yeah, right...we’re really going to believe that one. Then you have the gall to complain about “semantic obfuscation” and “just use a hodge-podge of made-up vocabulary....”

Now, I’ll restate the question for you. Do you or do you not mean to claim “Evolution” (meaning present day evolutionary theory) is wrong because it claims Humans are descended from Apes, as Hostage was commenting?


38 posted on 03/01/2015 6:45:57 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." --Richard Feynman
39 posted on 03/01/2015 7:12:44 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
In post 23 you spent time defining Darwinism for me. And you spent a little time defining “science” for me. As well as the “scientific method”.

In post 25 you spent some time defining “natural selection” for me.

In post 27 you explained “evolution of biological populations” to me. You also went into a little detail on “genetic change”, “adaptation”, and (again) “natural selection”. You were also at pains to distinguish between “biochemical adaptation capabilities” and “the accumulated changes in the genome”.

Now post 28 was addressed to Hostage. In that post, you defined “species”, and you made a general statement against Hostage, you claimed: “you obviously do not understand the definitions of the terminology you are using”. And further you you say to Hostage “you do not even know the meaning of “Evolution” and its related terminology”. And you finish comment 28 (to Hostage) by saying “You do not even understand what “Natural Selection is and is not, because you have totally misused the terminology”.

Now although your comment at 28 was addressed to Hostage, I did reply to your comment 28 and I said “you spend an inordinate amount of time critiquing the vocabulary”.

That's really the central thing I've been saying to you over a entire series of posts. Look above and try to make the claim that you haven't been critiquing a whole array of terminology.

Since then you have been hammering ME because “the huge differences between the Apes you commented about” and “your comment about the vocabulary, which was about the Apes” and you demand that I take a position one way or other on the claim “Humans are descended from Apes”.

For me, the word “A-P-E” is not terribly important. I think Evolution is bad science from start to finish.

All I’m saying is that you haven’t been discussing science or evolution – you just focus on terminology and claim that your understanding is at a higher level than others. Which is what Marxists do. For me, Evolution is really just politics, not science. It's like Marx's "scientific socialism" and it's like "global warming". Politics -- not science.

40 posted on 03/01/2015 7:44:38 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (The dog days are over /The dog days are done/Can you hear the horses? /'Cause here they come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson