Posted on 02/26/2005 4:45:01 PM PST by DannyTN
See #360 (before and after, also)
But even if so, it in no way absolves the so-called scientific community. Regardless, it exposed the predisposed bias and mindset of the science field. The scientific community found much doubt about the PM find and it was largely ignored for 40 years until modern forensics were used by SCIENTISTS to put to rest the doubt. You are full of the BS from the creationists' websites and short on the facts.
I'm outta here.
But even if so, it in no way absolves the so-called scientific community. Regardless, it exposed the predisposed bias and mindset of the science field.
The scientific community found much doubt about the PM find and it was largely ignored for 40 years until modern forensics were used by SCIENTISTS to put to rest the doubt. You are full of the BS from the creationists' websites and short on the facts.
That science "eventually" self corrects when enough evidence is brought to bear, does not excuse the predisposed bias.
Gee, really?
Cryptic reproductive isolation in the Drosophila simulans species complexGametic incompatibilities between races of Drosophila melanogaster
Adaptive evolution drives divergence of a hybrid inviability gene between two species of Drosophila
Early events in speciation: polymorphism for hybrid male sterility in Drosophila
A test of the chromosomal rearrangement model of speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura
Association of Misexpression with Sterility in Hybrids of Drosophila simulansand D. mauritiana
The Genetics of Speciation by Reinforcement
And that was exactly my point in my previous posts.
But this is not a shortcoming of evolution as many creationists seem to think, but exactly what we should expect if evolution is true.
Tabanidae and Drosophilidae are still dangling on the "fly branch" no matter what happens to them (even if they lose their ability to fly).
Similarly, if Drosophila melanogaster splits into different species over several thousands or even millions of generations they may get new names but they still evolved from Drosophila melanogaster and that's why they will "still be fruit flies". In other words, "Drosophila melanogaster" is going to become the next higher category.
So what we consider to be a genus, family, order, etc. today, was also just a species in the past. </quick&dirty>
Because of this tree-like structure of evolution you will also never see that fruit flies evolve into bees. You may get fruit flies with bee-like behaviour (convergent evolution) but they'll never become the same species again because they are on different branches which diverged a long time ago.
A good example of this are whales and whale-sharks: they may share many characteristics and more or less the same ecological niche but they will still remain two distinct species.
I am glad you now realize that science and evolution march toward truth, unlike the creationists that are full of BS and NEVER march anywhere.
Ah, thanks for the links ;)
One of these days, maybe the light in your head will go off and you will realize that the creationists are feeding you BS!
--------------------------------------------------------
There is a certain vagueness about some of the critical events. Dawson contacted Woodward about the first two skull fragments which were supposedly found by workman "some years prior". Exactly when is unknown. Similarly, the discovery of Piltdown II is shrouded in mystery. Supposedly Dawson and an anonymous friend make the discovery 1915; however the friend and the location of the find are unknown.
The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.
It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.
This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries.
In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying
"I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it." Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud.
Having said that, however, there is a fundamental difference between the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry and the "historical" sciences like evolution theory, anthropology, archeology and Egyptology. The historical sciences suggest history based on quantizations of the evidence. There is often much contention (especially in archeology) - so IMHO, it would be helpful to have the post-publication debate as part of the "record".
Fruit flies can breed with fruit flies . . .Gee, really?
Yes, really. As per your links: (did you read them?)
Now, being as how it was a data dump, you can forgive me for not reading them all closely (albeit I did scan them).
It seems that point of these studies is that hybrids tend to be sterile. No sugar Sherlock. The links say interbreeding does occur, to spell it out.
Great points.
The problem of peer review cuts both ways. It may occasionally deny publication to an Einstein, but no one wants to be the one that makes that decision. No journal would want to be judged foolish by history.
There are, of course, numerous outlets for people who can't get published. Not to mention, if you have a really good idea, submit it, and get rejected, you have a record of your submission if your idea later becomes accepted.
Having been both reviewer and reviewee many times, I would say that your characterization if the process is incorrect.
And we keep getting them for sources from the creationists postings ...
Teilhard de Chardin was in a position to know that Piltdown was a hoax, and he never mentioned Piltdown in his writing. That's pretty odd if he believed it was genuine.
I keep waiting for one of them to win the Nobel. Ideas are cheap. Reputations dear.
Science doesn't always march towards the truth. It often marches away from the truth. And it's usually a long uphill battle to change it's direction.
That battle my in fact be harder now due to the peer review process.
Your points are good - but nevertheless, the wheels of progress grind at the discretion of the reviewers. If Einstein had been backburnered (and surely he would have been) - then certainly he would have eventually been recognized. But in those passing years, all that dialogue among his peers would not necessarily have happened and where would science be today?
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.