Evolution study tightens human-chimp connection

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 23 January 2006 | Staff

[TheBrotherhood]

LOL!

Typical coward behavior. They got F this and F that before they run away with their tail between their legs.

You're dismissed too, pal.

[VadeRetro]

That was an "F minus" actually.

[Virginia-American]

I am much more skeptical than you when it comes to this stuff

So I gathered.

Data that doesn't point towards the target result is open to be revised, rejected, fudged or ignored

That's always a possibility, and it has occasionally happened in science.

But once you're caught, you're out. No more fun in the labs, no more grants, looking forward to work you aren't trained for...

That's a pretty stiff penalty, and there really don't appear to be that many willing to risk it. (It will be interesting to follow the career of the Korean cloner).

Keep in mind, I'm talking faked results, not honest error.

It's much more forgiving in a lot of other fields: preaching, lawyering, being Marion Barry (I'm in DC), anyplace really where you can get by on BS sometimes.

This most certainly went on with the EPA study of 2nd hand smoke. I'm sure Global Warming is another

EPA scientists don't typically have the penalty facing them like real scientists do. They have lifetime employment, like any other civil servant, and they don't have to publish or perish.

There is evidence of global warming, both here and on Mars. This seems to make the cause the Sun rather than fossil fuels. The computerized models aren't impressive to me.

Innate homosexuality another. It's a long list. How about Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some combination of recessive genes was associated with a higher percentage of homosexuality; but I agree that the "gay gene" is a bunch of hooey. ADD is over-diagnosed by public school teachers, but it does exist.

Academia has its share of liars, grandstanders, and phonies.

True everywhere. But my gut feel is that scientists, as a whole, value honesty more than most people do. It makes their work much easier to trust their colleagues, and they get mad wasting time trying to reproduce fraudulent results.

I think that's part of the reason the Evo side gets so enraged by the constant stream of lies, (including quote mining) from the creos.

Evidently that sort of behavior is common and accepted in the circles that a lot of creationists/IDers inhabit.

[StACase]

ADD is over-diagnosed by public school teachers, but it does exist.

ADD is over-diagnosed by public school teachers, but it does exist.

Diagnosed the public school teachers with no further comment than that. Shouldn't doctors be the ones to diagnose medical conditions? Maybe that's the implied point you were making. Anyway, thanks again for the reply. Yes I remain skeptical. I'm skeptical of everything that smacks of political correctness. I read on another thread that "Homophobia" is being pushed as a "Mental Disorder" My point is that there doesn't seem to be any end to it. And, as they say, "You can't make this stuff up!"

[RunningWolf]

//You and Bro-hood are claiming "historical fact."//

Actually I am not claiming more or less "historical fact" for Darwin's reacantion. I am saying your charges against Brotherhood are wrong here.

Lets be clear, the real historical fact here is that Dariwn went to the grave without any public statements written or or spoken on whether he returned to his faith and recanted his theory or not (I think I did read that he regretted his theory was made to a religion).

Also no one on your side has really addressed adequately that a person may not reveal in his heart even to close members of his family. Or maybe he wanted to but never saw the opening where he could. What I am trying to illustrate is you need to exclude many probable scenarios to conclude absolutely this never happened with Lady Hope.

You have one person (Lady Hope) that says she witnessed this in her presence and then you have some other people who were not there that say otherwise.

Look we are talking a private citizen in the late 1800's. That there is not a record of every persons movements and visits is absence of evidence not otherwise. I am not saying for certain it happened I am saying your side cant be as certain that it did not.

Really I don't have the dog in whether this event happened, it would not change much here I doubt.

I have not tried to make historical fact into a fluid definition of reality as shadow accuses from the side. Indeed I have only tried to get the standard of historical fact applied equally to both sides of this.

Now you want to talk about fluid? I'll tell you what is fluid the way your side chooses to take an analogy literally or not at your convenience, but if I hand it back that way, now I am insert pejorative. I mean you have people on your side that rejected my accounts that the Civil War happened.

On a side note;
Now Brotherhood pay no mind to all of their charges against you if you do not meet all their demands as they want them met. Among other things, they have several posters who are notorious for just bolting from a thread without ever answering your counter challenges. Somehow the other evos never notice /lol 25% sarc>

Wolf

[VadeRetro]

Lets be clear, the real historical fact here is that Dariwn went to the grave without any public statements written or or spoken on whether he returned to his faith and recanted his theory or not (I think I did read that he regretted his theory was made to a religion).

So saying that his deathbed recantation is a "historical fact" is wrong, right? And we shouldn't have had this endless Dummy Dance of not admitting same, right?

Also no one on your side has really addressed adequately that a person may not reveal in his heart even to close members of his family.

Enough. You go lost because you want to go lost.

[longshadow]

missing warpcore count-up clock: 117h 00m 00s

[RunningWolf]

//So saying that his deathbed recantation is a "historical fact" is wrong, right?//

Maybe it is wrong I don't know, but I cant see where he is a bald faced liar for believing this since we have Lady Hope's account it happened.

If I use the logic of your own side, then it has as much weight historical fact as not. It has as much weight historical fact as the assertion that it never happened, indeed maybe more. Why? we have one witness Lady Hope.

I mean CG and D and the others here sceaming liar liar at Lady Hope does not make her one now does it? It is as I said at the start here, at the core it all hinges upon making Lady Hope a liar in the minds of 'the jury'.

I was coming to this more in the abstract rather than trying get some victory or upper hand or disqualify anyone on any grounds. And believe it or not that is where I would be most of the time.

//Enough. You go lost because you want to go lost//

I don't know what that means.

Wolf

[Virginia-American]

Shouldn't doctors be the ones to diagnose medical conditions? Maybe that's the implied point you were making.

Exactly

[hail to the chief]

If I use the logic of your own side, then it has as much weight historical fact as not.

Not at all. To call something a historical fact, you need more evidence than one person's saying that something happened.

[VadeRetro]

warpcorebreach has apparently realized belatedly that there are some lies you really can't slide past just by playing infinitely dumb in standard creationist fashion.

[Skywalk]

You seem to have a very low opinion of the value of the lives of those who disagree with you on this issue.

So much for spirituality.

[Skywalk]

"Yes, suffering and death certainly bring people (hopefully) into line."

You sound like a Nazi or Communist. Not a Christian.

[highball]

Did you post "it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not"?

That's absurd on its face.

Your friend claimed something was a "historical fact." When pressed, he took a quote out of context, twisting it to appeat to support his baseless claim.

Interestingly, not one creationist has come forward to decry this lying. You have come forward to defend it. That tells us all we need to know.

[highball]

The quote was taken from a long article and I quoted the pertinent part, not the entire article. But there are no modifications to the quote - it's verbatim as I found it. Did you expect me to quote the entire article? If I quote a paragraph or part therof from a book, by your logic it's an edited quote since I did not quote the entire book.

You took a quote out of context to twist its meaning.

The article was debunking Lady Hope's story. Your post made it appear that it was supporting the story.

I don't expect you to quote anything in its entirety. But I also don't expect you to think you can get away with changing the meaning by what you choose to leave out.

It's dishonest. And it is editing, for that reason.

[VadeRetro]

That overreaching warpcorebreach
Could get away with all sins.
But he tripped up,
That silly pup,
In simulating dolphins.

[VadeRetro]

warpcorebreach hasn't posted since deciding to reveal that he is one Lambert Dolphin, creationist writer, and getting challenged on said claim.

That was on 24 Jan, 2006. Funny.