Scientists 'see new species born'

BBC News Online science editor ^ | 2004 June | By Dr David Whitehouse

[furball4paws]

He reads "Science Journals"?

[js1138]

It needed cleaning anyway. Don't forget the Pine-Sol.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You're such a man. /sarc"

You're not. I back up what I say and don't run away like a scared little child when someone disagrees with me. :)


BTW, I thought you don't post on these threads? :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"He reads "Science Journals"?"

Not bloody likely.

[furball4paws]

That's b_sharp's job.

[balrog666]

Crying-baby-Creationist placemarker.

[furball4paws]

Are you maroon? A new ethnicity is born.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Are you maroon? A new ethnicity is born."

He's speaking Bugs Bunny.

[furball4paws]

When you take unexcused absences you pay the price. After you get back you'll have to stand in line and wait.

[js1138]

Too old to wait. You don't want to be in line ahead of me.

[furball4paws]

I won't be in line. I have my eye on a heated toilet seat and a new color scheme - very spiffy. Then there is the indirect lighting for reading the newest evil literature. And I am considering a pasta wallpaper.

[furball4paws]

Frightened, I would say. A candidate for my experimental therapt endocrinotomy.

[nicmarlo]

I didn't back up what? The reason why I don't post my ideas on these threads? To restate: "I have my own ideas but, just like everyone else, since no one was around, it's all theories/speculation." That is and was my opinion; there's nothing to back up.

As to why I don't post my specific ideas on these threads, you have already proven my point (and, backed them up with your own behavior): You are representative of the numerous obnoxious posters on these threads. The condescending remarks are not even limited to those who express their ideas, you direct nasty comments to those who won't state their specific ideas.

No scholarly person would define debating as belittling, demeaning others, arguing for the sake of arguing, and/or name-calling. As there are very, very few who attempt to do otherwise, and keep it to some kind of intelligent high ground, it's nothing more than an exercise in futility. Generally, the mob mentality takes over in these threads. Unfortunately, your posts are the general rule rather than the exception.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I didn't back up what? "

Your argument. You said, ""No I doubt. I don't believe the crap I read in Science Journals, they won't print what scientists report who don't go along with their one way evolution ideas.". I asked you what it was that these scientists were not allowed to print; what the problems with evolution were. Then came the whining from you.

""I have my own ideas but, just like everyone else, since no one was around, it's all theories/speculation." That is and was my opinion; there's nothing to back up."

I agree; it is just your opinion and there is nothing to back it up.

"As to why I don't post my specific ideas on these threads, you have already proven my point (and, backed them up with your own behavior): You are representative of the numerous obnoxious posters on these threads. The condescending remarks are not even limited to those who express their ideas, you direct nasty comments to those who won't state their specific ideas."

Nonsense. You DID post your ideas here, but weren't man enough to defend them. I did not got heated until YOU got all pissy about having to back up what you said. If you don't want to back up your statements, keep them to yourself.

"No scholarly person would define debating as belittling, demeaning others, arguing for the sake of arguing, and/or name-calling."

Neither would I. I made clear arguments for my position. You couldn't and tried to run off with your marbles and go home.

"You are representative of the numerous obnoxious posters on these threads. "

You mean the people who actually have the nerve to question your comments.

"The condescending remarks are not even limited to those who express their ideas, you direct nasty comments to those who won't state their specific ideas."

Well, crybaby, you DID express your specific ideas, so stop whining. If you lack the courage of your convictions, is that my fault?

[furball4paws]

Now look. You scared him away. He would have been infinitely more interesting under a microscope coverslip.

[restornu]

C'mon you guys, focus... What do you think of this evolutionary stuff? Seriously.

Well if witnessing the modern Democrate is any indication...

I would have to yes there are such things as shapeshifters!:)

[nicmarlo]

I was pinged here by a friend and asked a specific question: What do you think of this evolutionary stuff?

To which question I gave a specific answer:

I have my own ideas but, just like everyone else, since no one was around, it's all theories/speculation. Credible science includes the scientific method---the ability for anybody to reproduce the "test" and have the same effect. And that's not possible with much of these theories or speculations.

You post a snarky comment to me right off the bat, assuming that I am stupid and believe that theories and speculation are one and the same, even though I later used the word “or” between “theories” and “speculation”, which any educated person would understand the writer is showing an automatic designation of those words as separate ideas:

“A scientific theory is not *speculation*. I am sure you have already been told this already. There is no hierarchy from theory to *law*. Theory is the last step.

Though you quote and comment on my second sentence:

"Credible science includes the scientific method---the ability for anybody to reproduce the "test" and have the same effect."

you leave out my final sentence:

And that's not possible with much of these theories or speculations.

The word “and” is important, as it is goes back to the previous sentence. It is completing a thought contained in the previous sentence. The word “and” is a conjunction. In that sentence, the word “much” is used, and it is also important, as it QUALIFIES theories or speculations, placing a number on them, as in MUCH (not all, not none, but much).

And, finally, you post yet more snarky comments:

That assumes you are not talking about an historical science. Evolution IS tested though, every time a fossil is exhumed and every time two genomes are compared. Natural selection is tested all the time in the lab, with repeatable results. Common descent is tested and affirmed with tests on ERV's in humans and other primates. You need to brush up on your science education.

I didn’t state any specific "idea" when I mentioned the Scientific Method, only that credible science must use the scientific method. I stated that MUCH of the theories/speculation cannot be proven using the scientific method. And that is how science operates: it’s a theory until/unless something can be scientifically proven using the scientific method.

All scientists are not in consensus on all things evolution and it is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise.

I did not come to this thread to state anything other than a direct response to my friend, who initially asked my thoughts. You have been rude and obnoxious from your FIRST post; and that is also disingenous for you to begin to claim otherwise.

[LiteKeeper]

This is not evolution - it is speciation. The fly didn't become a butterfly, it became a new species of fly. Not a big deal. It has been going on since the beginning of time. This is how and why there are variations of the created kinds.

[restornu]

YOU ALL ARE EVEN OBNOXIOUS TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO STATE THEIR OPINIONS.

Now, knock it off.

FOTFLMHO

what he don't realized that he is talking to shark and snakes and yellow stuff and paranoid ghost, fuzzy bugs etc!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" You post a snarky comment to me right off the bat, assuming that I am stupid and believe that theories and speculation are one and the same, even though I later used the word “or” between “theories” and “speculation”, which any educated person would understand the writer is showing an automatic designation of those words as separate ideas"

You lumped theories with speculation. It's a common creationist mistake. Scientific theories are nothing like speculation. Your lawyerly attempt to back out of it is not convincing.

" And, finally, you post yet more snarky comments:"

Then only thing snarky in your list was my questioning your science education. The rest were dry statements of fact. Which you have ignored.

" I didn’t state any specific "idea" when I mentioned the Scientific Method, only that credible science must use the scientific method. I stated that MUCH of the theories/speculation cannot be proven using the scientific method"

The last sentence is not an idea? Horse manure. BTW, you just lumped theory with speculation again.

" All scientists are not in consensus on all things evolution and it is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise."

It's disingenuous of you to say I made any such claim.

"You have been rude and obnoxious from your FIRST post; and that is also disingenous for you to begin to claim otherwise."

Nonsense. The one thing in my first post to you that was in any way snarky was when I said, "You need to brush up on your science education." If that is too rough for your tender ego, than I suggest you refrain from making specific statements here you refuse to back up.