Replies

Slander does not become you, especially when the article is posted and Freepers can read his words for themselves and see how unfairly you mischaracterize him.

Rana's article makes a mountain of the molehill of the Collard and Woods study. Rana's artful quote,

Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry…”

will be interpreted by the rabidly anti-E readers of Reasons.org as evidence that evolutionists themselves do not believe in common descent. I do not slander in noting what is there to be seen.

Rana's own words are indefensible. Saying that the study " ... calls into question the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm," means that it raises questions of whether evolution has happened at all.

That's just silly. The study is far too limited in scope for anyone to make such a broad-brush claim. The study restricts itself to questions of the reliability of cranial and dental morphology as cladistic tools in primate studies. That won't bring home the anti-E bacon.

Failure to establish clear lines of descent is almost a given in paleontology. Science can postulate a likely-looking line of descent and is always doing so. However, more data coming along (say, the discovery of a contemporary of one fossil species in a series, where the new species obviously fits the overall trend better) will have science revising the tree to the cackles of the yahoos for whom any "change of story" is proof that gran'pappy weren't no goddam monkey.
There are other inputs to the question of descent. For instance, while we can't be sure that the line of human descent goes through Australopithecus afarensis, it's virtually a cinch that it does go through Homo erectus. (Do you know why, without my having to shoot it into your brain? There are non-morphological data to be considered, and obvious points of logic.)

Your own brandishing of Rana as a "Get-out-of-checkmate free" card--OK, something of the sort was inevitable--and your screaming words "DISPROVEN" and "PROOF" shows that your bar remains infinitely high for drawing inferences any real scientist will make in a heartbeat. (Else he wouldn't be a scientist. A real scientist is inquisitive.)

Rana's artful quote, Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry…”
will be interpreted by the rabidly anti-E readers of Reasons.org as evidence that evolutionists themselves do not believe in common descent.

Your are just plain wrong about that. I am a reader of reasons.org, and I understood Rana's meaning. The researchers still accept evolution, but drawing conclusions about evolution based on this line of evidence lacks veracity. Just who is "rabid", the calm, reasoned readers of reasons.org, or yourself? Who is hurling the most accusations, the most insults, the most invective, the most mockery? Are any of those things the basis for a rational argument? Take a good hard look, at yourself for once rather than the things you presume about the mental state of others whom you have never met.

Rana's own words are indefensible. Saying that the study " ... calls into question the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm," means that it raises questions of whether evolution has happened at all.

Yes it does, for him. He is not claiming that that is the position of the cited researchers. It is not the whole of the argument against evolution, but it does constitute a part of it.

your bar remains infinitely high for drawing inferences any real scientist will make in a heartbeat. (Else he wouldn't be a scientist. A real scientist is inquisitive.)

YOU are not inqusitive when it comes to the naturalist paradigm. You act the part of the high priest of naturalism, snarling insults and abuse at any who would question your dogma. In this one, I am Galileo, questioning the paradigm, you are the church of a faith that needs no god.

As for your other post, where you find the same quote was used out of context in another website, how dare you try to pin that on me. That was not the person or organization I was quoting. I will be responsible for the stuff I post, I need not defend the works of every person that claims to be a creationist. Are you to be held responsible for the quotes of every evolutionist, even the ones you don't quote? Have a care, some of the worst mass-murderers in human history were committed Darwinists.