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

To: betty boop
Ichneumon provided a well-researched refutation of one of Coulter's claims.
338 posted on 08/18/2006 2:07:55 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]


To: Dimensio; Ichneumon; Coyoteman; hosepipe; b_sharp; King Prout; VadeRetro; Alamo-Girl
A. From Mark Perakh:
But contrary to Mr. Berlinski’s rhetoric, any scandal related to Nilsson and Pelger’s paper occurred only in Mr. Berlinski’s imagination. Nilsson and Pelger estimate the time necessary for the development of an eye, a calculation that entails certain assumptions but which is viewed by many scientists as sufficiently sound. (According to the Science Citation Index, Nilsson and Pelger’s article has been positively referenced in at least 25 peer-reviewed scientific publications.)….

B. [Coulter] also says, where are the fossils of the evolutionary misfits, the ones that were not fit to survive?

[To which I. Responds:] Extinct, of course. Seen any dinosaurs running around recently? Not many Archaeopteryx in the trees, either.

Hi, Dimensio! Re: A above, looks to me like an ad-hominem foodfight on all sides. We don’t find many physicists disputing with each other like this. Also may I suggest that just because an article has been positively referenced in at least 25 peer-reviewed scientific publications does not necessarily mean the underlying research is “true” for a certain fact. It just means that the people who cite the research happen to agree with it.

Furthermore — this may come as surprise — I have reason to believe that if a paper is submitted to, say, Journal of Theoretical Biology, and its author suggests even indirectly or inadvertently that there is anything purposeful about natural phenomena at all, that paper will most likely be rejected. For it violates a dearly-held dogma of a highly influential editor (name withheld). The “beauty” of orthodoxy — any kind of orthodoxy — is that it allows one to quickly identify “friend” or “foe.” The unorthodox then may be suppressed, to the great applause of the rest of the orthodox community….

Which is just to say that there seem to be problems of epistemological rigor in orthodox neo-Darwinism. FWIW

However, Charles Darwin cannot be blamed for this.

Re: B above: Just because evolutionary misfits did not survive doesn’t mean they did not leave fossils. Where are they?

Anyhoot, I haven’t read what Ann had to say about evolution theory. I bought the book, and had started reading it, but didn’t get that far before I left the book behind at the doctor’s office. When I realized that, and went back to retrieve the book, it was gone, scarfed by someone. I hope that person enjoyed the book. :^)

I mean to buy another copy. But haven’t done so as yet.

Thanks for writing, Dimensio, and for the suggestion to go look up Ichneumon. (Hope he doesn’t mind I pinged him to this. He has made it very clear in the past that I am not to bother him anymore.)

386 posted on 08/19/2006 7:51:48 AM PDT by betty boop (Character is destiny. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies ]

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